Honour and combat.

2007-11-30 06:17:33

#1

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7103|NT, like Mick Dundee

Right, something Sarrk just said, possibly in jest, has got me thinking a little...

He stated that I should have fun with my guns and remember that I have no honour. Is modern combat without honour?

Has honour ever actually shown it's face in combat?

I would argue yes. Honour is a human concept, and as such, is applicable to the human condition even in an environment of modern, chaotic combat. Particularly hoping for imput from the members of the forums who have done a tour of duty or two, or just spent time serving in an armed force.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2007-11-30 06:25:50

#2

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6980|Texas - Bigger than France

Morality and war = one side is just, the other is infidel.

Of course the other argument is war is insanity...

...I'm not a veteran, but my Uncle was a dentist in the Navy.

2007-11-30 06:25:52

#3

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6885|Chicago, IL

yes, today's soldiers are far braver than those from past centuries.

back then, you had a single line fairly simple to attack or defend, and your attacker would need to be basically within arms length to inflict damage.

Today, an assailant can be well over a kilometer away and still blow you to pieces, and yet soldiers in the last century have boldly faced machine gunners, armored vehicles, land mines, and near-indestructible aircraft to fight for their beliefs. If anything I'd say that the soldiers today are more honorable than ever before

(And for Sarrk, keep in mind that the ultimate goal of sword bearing armies was usually to sack peasant villages, It doesn't take much honor to put on 100 pounds of impenetrable armor and go killing unarmed villagers)

2007-11-30 06:31:12

#4

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7111|Colorado

You took some good gaming advice & turned it into some sort of philosophical question. Go play BF2.

2007-11-30 06:33:53

#5

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7103|NT, like Mick Dundee

TrollmeaT wrote:
You took some good gaming advice & turned it into some sort of philosophical question. Go play BF2.

The advice was in reference to the fact that I plan on joining the Australian Army, something which Sarrk can't see the sense in.

It's taken me a few years and a few knocks to the head to come to the conclusion that I have to spend some time in the Army. Almost an undefinable feeling of pull. Which is funny considering how much my father is against it and how well he taught me to dissemble propaganda.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2007-11-30 07:59:18

#6

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7082

I dont see honor in making somebody elses mother cry.

2007-11-30 08:11:26

#7

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7082

Pug wrote:
Of course the other argument is war is insanity...

I would also add confusion and chaos to that.

2007-11-30 08:42:24

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7039|132 and Bush

/thread

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-11-30 08:44:39

#9

syndicat111: Member; +39|7117|UK

War is Hell. Honour is irrelevant.

2007-11-30 08:46:37

#10

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7111|Colorado

Sorry I thought you were talking about the game, I don't know if the service will teach you honour or not but it will whip you into shape & prepare you for your future. good luck.

2007-11-30 08:51:20

#11

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6883|The Land of Scott Walker

Kmarion wrote:
http://i1.tinypic.com/6owg6sz.jpg

/thread

QFT

2007-11-30 08:52:45

#12

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6437|...

there is, but if you are in combat you should forget your moral standards and kill the enemy by any means nessecary (exceptions ofc killing civilians to achieve this or drastically 'change' the landscape :p)

inane little opines

2007-11-30 09:36:08

#13

PureFodder: Member; +225|6724

Didn't people think that honour in combat died the day the crossbow was invented?

2007-11-30 12:20:40

#14

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6885|Chicago, IL

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j88/polpost/TheDifference.jpg

some sides have honor, but not all...

2007-11-30 12:32:16

#15

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|7069|Washington, DC

I've never served, but honor has shown itself before in war. Often, it's the people doing the fighting who are more honorable than the politicians who send them to war.

The Christmas ceasefire in World War I. These people who had been shooting at these other people dropped their guns and sang Christmas carols and supposedly even played soccer games. Sure, the other side could have said "to hell with it" and fired their cannons at the other guy. But they didn't.

Or the War of 1812. The British and the Americans fought viciously. But at sea, when one ship sunk the other, the victorious ship's crew would almost always bring the other ship's crew on board. One British crew that lost a naval battle remarked how well they had been treated by the Americans on their voyage to the US.

So yes, there can be honor in war.

2007-11-30 13:24:04

#16

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6849|'Murka

There is undoubtedly honor in war.

When one man puts himself in harm's way to rescue his comrade...honor.

When troops put themselves at greater risk to reduce civilian casualties...honor.

When medics care for an enemy who is more gravely wounded than their own comrades...honor.

When insurgents strap a bomb to a kid with Down Syndrome and sending him into a cafe to kill innocent civilians...not so much.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-11-30 13:37:30

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7039|132 and Bush

Are there dishonorable acts? You betcha.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-11-30 14:15:55

#18

PureFodder: Member; +225|6724

FEOS wrote:
There is undoubtedly honor in war.

When one man puts himself in harm's way to rescue his comrade...honor.

When troops put themselves at greater risk to reduce civilian casualties...honor.

When medics care for an enemy who is more gravely wounded than their own comrades...honor.

When insurgents strap a bomb to a kid with Down Syndrome and sending him into a cafe to kill innocent civilians...not so much.

When you hear stories of people throwing themselves onto a grenade to save their fellow soldiers.....

2007-11-30 14:33:40

#19

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6931|Connecticut

It is important to understand your opponent is also fighting for a cause they beleive in with equal passion. Because there is always a winner in a fight, there is never a fair one so respect those you have fought and killed.

Malloy must go

2007-11-30 15:05:10

#20

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6980|Texas - Bigger than France

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Pug wrote:
Of course the other argument is war is insanity...
I would also add confusion and chaos to that.

Absolutely, one could argue political strategy, military strategy & training = nothing.

In fact I would say as someone is tested by those limits, this is where the individual morality within each soldier comes to the surface.

Curious - were you "morally flexible" before this thread? Or is it a coincidence related to something else?

2007-11-30 15:24:29

#21

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6849|'Murka

deeznutz1245 wrote:
It is important to understand your opponent is also fighting for a cause they beleive in with equal passion. Because there is always a winner in a fight, there is never a fair one so respect those you have fought and killed.

Certainly there are some that deserve respect. But there are also some who deserve nothing but contempt...and for whom death cannot come swiftly or violently enough.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-11-30 15:33:35

#22

=DB4D=Slight: Member; +8|6623

Yes, there is, even in modern war. Cpl Bryan Budd VC, 3rd Battalion, The Parachure Regt. British Army. KIA 20th August 2005, Op Herrick, Afganistan. Just one of many example, and I bet our cousins over the pond have a few examples too, don't you chaps?

2007-11-30 15:52:26

#23

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6931|N. Ireland

S.Lythberg wrote:
yes, today's soldiers are far braver than those from past centuries.

Past century soldiers were hand to hand combat, literally, "he will stab you in the neck 5 times" rather than a bullet from a distance. I know which I'd rather take. I think past century soldiers were equally brave, if not more through what they had to go through.

Modern day technology allows us to kill people from over a mile away, single handedly with a weapon. Sure it takes bravery, but not as much as going up to someone and stabbing them, knowing that they (and possibly you) will die a bloody death.

All soldiers have the guts, that's why they are still soldiers. Every fighter has guts. But whether or not today's have more than past centuries, I'm leaning to the latter. Yes, people risk their lives for their country and suffer torture and the likes - and in an aspect that is more brave, but for "standard war".. I'm not so sure.

Last edited by kylef (2007-11-30 15:55:06)

2007-11-30 16:09:56

#24

c14u53w172: Member; +31|6436|tomania

S.Lythberg wrote:
yes, today's soldiers are far braver than those from past centuries.

back then, you had a single line fairly simple to attack or defend, and your attacker would need to be basically within arms length to inflict damage.

Today, an assailant can be well over a kilometer away and still blow you to pieces, and yet soldiers in the last century have boldly faced machine gunners, armored vehicles, land mines, and near-indestructible aircraft to fight for their beliefs. If anything I'd say that the soldiers today are more honorable than ever before

(And for Sarrk, keep in mind that the ultimate goal of sword bearing armies was usually to sack peasant villages, It doesn't take much honor to put on 100 pounds of impenetrable armor and go killing unarmed villagers)

one cannot say if soldiers nowadays or soldiers from past centuries were the braver ones. but one can say that butchering an opponent with some kind of hacking device is definitely crueler than shooting someone at a range of 100 meters. i think it takes more guts to kill an enemy who is 50 centimeters away from you with a sword or a spear. and sword bearing armies also fought against other armies on the battlefield, sieged and conquered cities etc.

2007-11-30 16:16:41

#25

c14u53w172: Member; +31|6436|tomania

Kmarion wrote:
http://i1.tinypic.com/6owg6sz.jpg

/thread

you invaded iraq to help little children (that were wounded by your armed forces)?!

BF2S Forums Honour and combat.

TrollmeaT wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Pug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer