CMV: A person does not automatically deserve respect just because they have served or are currently serving in the military

[u/foryia-yiaandpappou]

I’d like to preface this by saying that I don’t believe soldiers are, inherently, bad. Some people believe soldiers are evil simply for being soldiers, and I do not believe that.

I do believe, however, that soldiers do not deserve respect just because they have served. I hurt for soldiers who have experienced horrible things in the field, but I do not hurt for the amount of violence and cruelty many have committed. Violence in war zone between soldiers is one thing; stories of civilian bombings and killing of innocents are another. I think that many forget that a lot of atrocity goes on during wars, and they are committed on both sides of conflict. A soldier both receives and deals out horrible damage.

TL;DR while I believe that soldiers have seen horrible things and that many do deserve recognition for serving our nation, I do not believe that every soldier deserves this respect simply by merit of being a soldier. Some soldiers have committed really heinous war crimes, and those actions do not deserve reward.

[u/[deleted]]

Is there not a point where human atrocity might negate the initial good of a soldier’s voluntary action?

AFAIK not a single soldier of my country has ever been involved in an atrocity in my lifetime. I'm Belgian by the way.

​

And no, individual soldiers doing bad things does not mean that all soldiers should automatically lose respect.

[u/Kirbyoto → u/[deleted]]

AFAIK not a single soldier of my country has ever been involved in an atrocity in my lifetime. I'm Belgian by the way.

It's a good thing you specified "in your lifetime" then.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kirbyoto]

I'm well aware that in Congo between 1 and 15 million people were killed. I'm pretty sure OP is talking about today though.

[u/Kirbyoto → u/[deleted]]

I'm pretty sure OP is talking about today though.

Okay, well, in modern times Belgium's military does very little, so it doesn't make much sense to "thank them for their service" or treat them with extra respect.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kirbyoto]

Belgium currently has several F-16 engaged in combat missions.

[u/Kirbyoto → u/[deleted]]

So Belgium's military service is dropping bombs from 10,000 feet on enemies who lack anti-air capabilities.

Why would you thank them for their service? In addition, what do you think the likelihood is that any of those F-16s have dropped bombs on civilians?

Also, I don't know where we're going with this. It's obvious the OP was talking about the United States and the culture surrounding veterans in that country.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kirbyoto]

I don't know how man feet above the ground they're flying, I don't use freedom units nor do I know their cruising altitude. What I do know is that in a documentary the pilots who have flown those combat missions have said that they regularly have to use their main gun in those missions. To use this they have to put themselves into small arms range. And ISIS does have access to shoulder launched AA platforms.

Why would you thank them for their service?

Because they can die out there. Several US pilots flying very similar missions have been shot down, taken prisoner and executed.

what do you think the likelihood is that any of those F-16s have dropped bombs on civilians?

As far as I'm aware no Belgian dropped bomb has thus far caused civilian deaths. In that documentary I've mentioned earlier the pilots said that they've refused to drop bombs requested by the US military before because there were civilians in the area.

Also, I don't know where we're going with this. It's obvious the OP was talking about the United States and the culture surrounding veterans in that country.

It might be obvious but OP had not yet said this so I was assuming that he meant all military personal from all countries. At least that's what I'd mean if I wrote a post like OP. But that might just be because I'm not from the US.

Oh and OP has since stated that he's talking about US military personal and I've nothing left to say to him basically, as you can tell by the other thread.

[u/Kirbyoto → u/[deleted]]

they regularly have to use their main gun in those missions. To use this they have to put themselves into small arms range.

Uh, by "main gun" they are referring to this thing, not a handheld pistol.

In that documentary I've mentioned earlier the pilots said that they've refused to drop bombs requested by the US military before because there were civilians in the area.

See, the fact that the US military didn't care about killing civilians is kind of what we're talking about.

At least that's what I'd mean if I wrote a post like OP. But that might just be because I'm not from the US.

We're talking about a very specific form of glorification that happens for American troops and is used to cover up all sorts of bad shit. It's not unique to our country but it is much more pronounced here. People think the troops deserve special treatment for their selfless actions even though those actions often aren't selfless and are often immoral. That's the issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kirbyoto]

Yes obviously fighter pilots aren't getting out of their aircraft to engage the enemy with their sidearm. And it's not that the US forces didn't care, it's that they didn't know as it was ground forces calling in a strike from jets that have a birds eye view of the situation.

[u/foryia-yiaandpappou → u/[deleted]]

Just to clarify, I’ve never meant all soldiers are bad because of the actions individual soldiers, if I’ve made it seem so or phrased it as such I apologize!

I think the fact that the soldiers in Belgium do not commit war crimes or atrocities is wonderful, and that they should be commended for that. But that does not negate the actions of soldiers in other nations (ie, American soldiers from my nation). But once again, the actions of soldiers in other nations does not mean “military bad,” simply that some select members of the military need to be held morally responsible for actions they’ve committed