William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[carl]

You're dealing in extremes here. (Besides, every soldier who can fight 'the enemy' also has the capacity to fight against who truly takes his freedom instead of doing as ordered).

Yes, the difference between civilian and military is extreme. That is the point. And yes every soldier can rebel against authority, that is why every army I've ever read of tries to nip that in the bud by killing those of their own who desert or disobey when things get hard enough.

You're mistaken if you think I couldn't find similar in the realm of civilian work.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ernobyl-12245/

Check the same thing for all the policemen and firemen who went into the twin towers on 9-11 and didn't come out. They went in on their own. They could have quit on the spot if they wanted to and not gone in. My point wasn't at all about the bravery that many people exhibit very often. My point was about people who want to run away can be forced to stay in the military and while civilians can mostly scoot.

Ever read about who fought the fires in German cities 1944/45? Hint: not only soldiers. In fact, few if any soldiers. Do you have an idea about what it's like fighting a firestorm? Or what it's like staying in the control centre bunker of a coal powerplant during an air raid? Again, civilians. And yes, they would not have improved their odds of survival if they had said "####, I'm outta here".

Yeah, I did read about them, in Bomber by Len Deighton. That was a really good book. Very brave people. But were they drafted and forced to stay in those jobs if they didn't want to? I don't know.

What's next? A claim that these civilians were exceptions?
Well, let me count the Banzai charges of the U.S.Air Force during the Iraq occupation then so I can establish the ratio of "Banzai!" to airmen...
Oh, wait. "Civilians" were the only ones who blew themselves up in that conflict. Many airmen were enjoying air conditioning meanwhile.

You lost me.

You argue for special status of military personnel based on extremes which rarely ever affect them, but which affect a few civilians as well.
Your case is incoherent because military personnel isn't that special. Some soldiers developed a certain class conceit about their trade, though.

I am arguing that the military is fundamentally different from the civilian world. My case is quite solid in that respect.

Besides, most incidences of such class conceit are not about soldiers supposedly accepting greater risks. Most of what examples I saw were snobbier than that: They were pretending a superior morality.
There was usually a huge influence by right wing attitudes sniffable - particularly conceit about "moochers", "liberals", and the like.

The idea of military personnel being special or superior to the general population is more an authoritarian-leaning political attitude almost always found in military forces staging a coup d'tat than it is a justifiable assertion.

I don't know what this is about or who it is directed to.