Like those people that stopped the bombers at Glasgow airport?FEOS wrote:
Absolutely. There can be honor in serving your country outside of the military, as well.
Depends if you have a sense of patriotism I would imagine, else it may just be a career or a means to defend your family and their future, honour though...Flecco wrote:
Follow up thread to the previous one about honour in modern combat. Here it is...
Could it be said that there is honour in serving your country via being a part of it's military?
Exactly. Service in or out of the military by being a productive citizen of your country is an honourable way of life.FEOS wrote:
Absolutely. There can be honor in serving your country outside of the military, as well.
That's just a bit cynical.apollo_fi wrote:
There is honour in wasting x number of months/years in service of your country, especially if there was a way out but you didn't take it.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I thought that what stopped the bombers were bollards in front of the terminal doors. Were bystanders involved in taking these guys down as well?Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
Like those people that stopped the bombers at Glasgow airport?FEOS wrote:
Absolutely. There can be honor in serving your country outside of the military, as well.
I definitely could've spent the time more productively. We have conscription, though, so there were not that many options.FEOS wrote:
That's just a bit cynical.apollo_fi wrote:
There is honour in wasting x number of months/years in service of your country, especially if there was a way out but you didn't take it.
If you served and you consider it a waste...then you didn't spend your time productively or you shouldn't have been there to begin with.
Currently.Flecco wrote:
Australia = all volunteer Army.
Umm... Brb, not sure if it's still in the constitution.apollo_fi wrote:
Currently.Flecco wrote:
Australia = all volunteer Army.
You've had conscription and will have conscription again, should your country engage in any major conflict.
Last edited by Flecco (2007-12-06 05:08:29)
Last edited by Braddock (2007-12-06 09:53:11)
Kaosdad wrote:
If you serve honorably, yes.
This would not be honorable service. Bad attitude , too.apollo_fi wrote:
I definitely could've spent the time more productively. We have conscription, though, so there were not that many options.FEOS wrote:
That's just a bit cynical.apollo_fi wrote:
There is honor in wasting x number of months/years in service of your country, especially if there was a way out but you didn't take it.
If you served and you consider it a waste...then you didn't spend your time productively or you shouldn't have been there to begin with.
That's applying a fairly broad brush on individual acts.Braddock wrote:
Depends what you're country's military is doing. Is there honour in attempting to wipe out the Jews? Honour is subjective and based on an individuals sense of right and wrong ...if you served in WW1 and helped defeat the Nazis and protect your own country I'd say there is a great amount of honour in that. If, on the other hand, your fighting in the Middle East because your government have some sort of hidden agenda I wouldn't say there is much honour there. You can still fight bravely and courageously but I don't think the term honourably would apply.
Last edited by FEOS (2007-12-06 10:37:27)
(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Kaosdad wrote:
If you serve honorably, yes.This would not be honorable service. Bad attitude , too.apollo_fi wrote:
I definitely could've spent the time more productively. We have conscription, though, so there were not that many options.FEOS wrote:
That's just a bit cynical.
If you served and you consider it a waste...then you didn't spend your time productively or you shouldn't have been there to begin with.
"If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will change." _Dr. W. Dyer
I think we're actually saying the same thing. My argument is that honour is subjective and subject to the sense of right and wrong of each soldier. For example if you drop bombs on a village to take out a strategic target and kill a few dozen civilians in the process that would not be honourable in my book, it would be terrorism. If you risk your life to protect a child in a crossfire or ambush situation that would be honourable.FEOS wrote:
That's applying a fairly broad brush on individual acts.Braddock wrote:
Depends what you're country's military is doing. Is there honour in attempting to wipe out the Jews? Honour is subjective and based on an individuals sense of right and wrong ...if you served in WW1 and helped defeat the Nazis and protect your own country I'd say there is a great amount of honour in that. If, on the other hand, your fighting in the Middle East because your government have some sort of hidden agenda I wouldn't say there is much honour there. You can still fight bravely and courageously but I don't think the term honourably would apply.
For example, not every German soldier in WW2 was involved in trying to exterminate the Jews. Not even every SS soldier. So, are you saying that because some of their colleagues acted dishonorably that they are incapable of acting honorably?
Whether a war begins "honorably" or not has nothing to do with whether those fighting it behave honorably in their actions. The converse applies, as well.
Bottomline: Government agendas don't determine whether someone behaves honorably...their individual actions do.
One historical note: WW1 wasn't the Nazis...that was WW2.