But don't we need to make soldiers `brave' by making them have faith that if they die in battle, they go strait to paradise?

So we need chaplains to keep any doubt away from the soldiers.

Believing that nothing bad can happen to you no matter what, isn't that the definition of bravery?

If you don't have young men willing to die for a cause they don't understand, how can we wage war?

 While I do agree that there should be some form of religious resource for those religiously inclined folk, I do not believe it should be the current Chaplains. They are paid a ridiculous amount, as it is one of the most easily promotable officer routes. They should have the role of a common priest, there for religious guidance and seen as only that. They should not be the go to for any type of therapy or comfort for the soldier, nor considered as the "official" resource for such help. They should be paid at enlisted rates, “Clerics are to foster simplicity of life and are to refrain from all things that have a semblance of vanity”, and have no need for officer entitlements or privilege. 

I know, but there sure would be a lot fewer wars if people risked their lives for rational reasons rather than heaven.

So this medal of honor winner, was he brave, stupid or suicidal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/18/60minutes/main20107640.shtml

Seems like a pretty fine line, maybe he just wanted a beer with Obama.

And why would anyone that is really brave accept a medal? I mean it's supposed to be a selfless act, so why all the social approval for being a hero? Seems like a real hero wouldn't need the approval of anyone to do what is 'right'?

So the military tries to eliminate a person's natural self defenses and natural desire for self preservation. When need for social approval becomes stronger than the need for self preservation, then you have a 'brave' soldier. Seems like bravery is another BS concept designed to control people and deny them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The very things they are supposed to be fighting to protect.

If the people we are fighting are really evil, why not nuke them or at least take them out with drones/robots? Because war is as George Carlin said "a lot of dick waving".

 You are arguing with very twisted words. The army does not take away natural self defense nor the desire for self preservation. The best way to defend and preserve yourself and the man next to you is to take the fight to the enemy and work in cohesion. Bravery is a very real concept, one that has been around in many forms. It has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with finishing the mission, no matter the obstacle. Whether this mission is to capture a village, or be the only atheist in a highschool who speaks out against the school's prayer at graduation in the face of threats and harm. In Iraq, we have given many the very things you speak of denying. Were there errors? Of course, but there is a general positive effect in much of the area. No one is fighting this war for "heaven", or at least the ones that make the decisions. Of course he will accept the medal, he is not only accepting it for himself but all those that fought alongside him. Recognition for doing whats right in the face of grave consequences should always be rewarded. George Carlin had no experience of war (he was in the Air Force and did not complete his enlistment or see action), nor do you. Why not nuke them is a very naive concept, and has no regard for human life or the goals in the war. We are there to free people from the worst of religious nonsense coupled with a terrible tribal/cultural atmosphere that is a nest for terrorism and some of the worst human atrocities committed in our day. 

EXC has some... interesting ideas on the nature of humanity.
Welcome!, by the way.

They would if they could, this is another reason why robots are eventually going to replace all soldiers, they won't have this problem.

Winning wars in the modern world is more about deception, perception and technology. This sending men into battle is more about chest thumping than winning any war.

If a cause is rational, why do we need bravery and honor? They're just types of social approval. If someone believes in their cause, why do they care if anyone else thinks they are brave or a coward? Why does the army need medals if their causes are always so rational? I risk my life on the freeway to go to work because I want to live, I don't need a medal to make me go. Why do soldiers and officers need all these uniforms and medals? Isn't it just dick waving?

Nuking worked pretty good on Japan, they haven't bothered the USA again.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Hiroshima

Actually, I think they should just take out a few of the terrorists and political/religious leaders that are creating the problems. There is no reason to send in an army it can all be done with technology, spies and special forces. This send in the troops is just a lot of macho BS.

A suicidal army isn't a very useful one, so I can't believe that any training would occur that would potentially damage the survival instincts of soldiers.
Winning wars has always depended most on intel. Nothing else is half as useful as knowing where the enemy is and what he/she is doing.
Bravery and cowardice don't work quite the same way with military as it does with small town rednecks. Yes, they have the same basic values, but running from a high school fistfight is hardly comparable to running in a war. If you take off in a war then you endanger your fellow soldiers, and potentially your country. Better that you shoot yourself in the foot by "accident" for a free trip home. Since the stakes are so large, and humans are largely inclined to a reward based system, some kind of reward for exceptional devotion to duty is practically necessary to promote morale, which is always on a hair trigger with people who are constantly risking their lives for an often faceless administration.

I don't think they have to kill everyone, just the ones causing the problems. But the US military ends up killing a lot of civilians because we don't want to put our soldiers at risk. Why? Bad PR at home if the body count gets to high and the enemy is still killing us after all these years.

To break the moral and will of the enemy, we'd have to kill their fighters and not expose our soldiers to combat. But "keeping me safe" or "fighting for me, so I don't have to" is not what this war or any war is all about it's more about sex, power and a right of passage for young males. Kind of like a football game in front of the cheerleaders, only the stakes are higher.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism/dp/1933771577

http://fora.tv/2009/03/24/Ask_a_Scientist_Sex_and_War

For technical or political reasons?

Wars have been going on (especially in that part of the world) for a very long time. What makes this war different? Isn't it just a constant cycle of war and rebuilding? Don't we have the same cancer, namely irrationality in our society? Is the root cause of war and poverty ever addressed?

Of course they care about what others think. Humans are social animals so we care about the approval of others. All this patting soldiers on the back is part of how war is waged. They do their duty because if feels good.

"The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." The Hurt Locker.

What the US should do is lay down some ground rules for these countries over there such as no forced religion, subjugation of women, war lords, etc... Then go after the leaders of groups that  violate these rules, not the naive young underlings.

This won't happen because the powerful of the world are a kind of click that look out for each other. War is about young men dieing and old men get rich and powerful. No one's going to listen to me, so the world goes on with it's wars that never end.

I don't think nukes will be an option until WMDs are used on US soil, then the gloves will come off.

More people die on our highways than from terrorists. As tragic at the 3000 that died on 9/11, that's only a couple weeks of carnage on our highways. So why spend all this blood and treasure? Isn't that what Al Queda wanted, us to go into a war of attrition?

And why aren't people that go to work and pay taxes considered 'heros'? I think the country would go to hell a lot quicker if they stopped what they're doing than if the military stopped what they're doing? The military keeps telling my they need to keep taking taxes from me so they can fight for me, I'm OK with them stopping already.

EXC, clearly you have not heard of Desmond Doss.  He was a seventh day adventist who signed on for WW2.  When he refused to even touch a gun, his commanders tried to section 8 him but he insisted in serving in any way that they could use him, so they made him a medic.

For the rest of his time, he would run into battle to pull wounded soldiers back to safety.  In his final battle, a group of marines had to scale a cliff only to find several Japanese machine gun nests.  Doss then spent the next six hours pulling men and lowering them down the cliff with a rope.  He was under fire the whole time and the after combat report found that he had personally saved 150 men.  He actually refused to admit to that number so his Medal of Honor citation lists the official number as 75 men.

I read the book by Jon Kraukauer about him, I don't remember reading that. He did become pretty consternated about all the macho Rambo stuff in the army(what got him killed) and the reasons for being there especially Iraq. 

 Everything you are saying reeks of an individual with no comprehension of history or having ever dealt with a foreigner who is very unlike you. We tried the blow everything away kill count philosophy in Vietnam, and it did not turn out so well. We learned that it is okay if locals kill locals in the most horrendous ways and in extravagant numbers, but if a foreigner comes in and destroys with no immediate sign of reconstruction/benefit to the population; you have an angry nest of support on your hand that just tripled your enemy and gave them many bases of support. It takes men on the ground, individuals that locals can get used to seeing not only fighting the enemy, but also helping local power grids and water distribution come into the modern era to win the "war" and accomplish the only goals that matter. "Robots, nukes, and bombs" as you state, just leads to us fighting an entire people instead of a faction we are forcing to the fringe. These people have known nothing but a theocracy of the harshest manner, and must be handheld and baby-stepped into the modern world. Even in Baghdad, there are constant reportings of IED locations and insurgent gatherings, because as it turns out, the people LIKE these new modern improvements in their life and know what the insurgents promise (a return to the old way). Drop the narrow minded view of how horrible the war is and understand that, in an indirect manner, this is the very movement that many "militant atheists", as the media likes to call them, have wanted. We are a secular nation, stepping in to rid a people of a theocracy of the worst sorts and instill a more secular, open-minded democracy and culture. Already, there are many areas in Iraq where all religious houses find themselves with a medium of security, that showing your flesh as a female does not lead to death (there are even women wearing jeans in some upper class areas of Baghdad), and education is not lead by an Imam based in mysticism, but actual science and logic! Yes, these men killed and died for your right to say anything you want about them, and while they might not have all been good people they were surely for a good cause. 

Pathetic.

Feel free to move to Switzerland.  They don't seem to engage in a lot of wars.

Or would you rather sit there and bitch?  Yeah.  I think you're going to just sit there and bitch.  A pacifist with no balls.

Oh wait a minute.  You can join Westboro Baptist Church for their soldier funeral protests.

I was being facetious about using nukes. But you must admit they worked pretty well on Japan, they surrendered right away and haven't bothered us since. The reason was because after Nagasaki, the Emperor new he was next.

We never tried to take out Ho Chi Min. He died in his home from old age. I don't believe we ever targeted any leaders. Just kill young soldiers with lots of colateral damage. But that's war it not about winning, it about DWing. If it was about winning you'd take out the leaders of the enemy, if that doesn't work nuke 'em if they're so damn evil.

Sounds like you're talking about policing. In the case of Iraq, they have oil to buy a police force, so why are we there? In the case of Afganistan it may just be unpolicable.

So why are we taking out the 16 year old that is just following orders. Why not take out the Imam that is telling people to kill. If the only boots on the ground were spies or snipers, this could be done. What does bringing an army do except try to intimidate the population?

We did attempt to assassinate high ranking individuals in Vietnam, it was labeled the Pheonix program. As it turned out, most of these individuals were also the main coordinators of not only the resistance in the area, but also control of most of the more mundane parts of leadership such as running the local areas; and their deaths caused more harm and outcry from the local population because it left a vacuum and lead to breakdowns in local government.

We DO target and kill influential individuals in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but usually after we already have a contingency plan in place to take over once they are gone so that the public is assured quality of life and an overall leadership in their absence.

You can't just kill the influence, you have to show the locals WHY they need to change and modernize, not just force it upon them or you will never win them over. These  aren't, for the most part, educated rational individuals. They don't understand modern concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion/free will. They must be spoon fed and taught this, while slowly removing the old, malignant influence.

A rapid change just causes shock, and leads to the people rebelling against the idea of change. In Iraq, this has worked well as I have previously stated, and many fundamental changes can be seen throughout.

A sniper kills, but a patrol tells the people that we are here to stabilize, not just kill. The locals need to see our presence and understand that we aren't just here to kill off the enemy and take off just to let another theocracy form or their allegiance will never switch, for purely self-preservation reasons.

I don't understand why you keep using the Japan example, that was fighting against a government with the people's support; not a fringe faction that has been driven to living in hills and living off rural ignorance. In a historical context, this war actually has one of the lowest collateral damage and friendly casualties of any true engagement (especially for as long as these wars have continued) and is probably the most humane forms of war ever fought. 

(mod edit: paragraphs, free of charge! )

I think there has to be some position between no army and reacting after an invasion and a super army with a government that feels it has to invade countries for no reason so the soldiers can have something to do. The latter is closer to what we currently have.

 I apologize for letting this topic get so derailed. While discussing the war, this thread is still very relative. ( I am trying to do paragraphs, it might not turn out well but had a friend show me how to add tons of spaces to simulate paragraphs.)

Currently, while deployed, a soldier's only real access to any professional help or therapy on hand is currently the chaplain. I feel this is quite erroneous considering what is seen and done not only during combat, but the extreme separation from loved ones and the normalcy of life. These same chaplains also conduct christian prayers, while voluntarily attended for the mot part, right in front of our local translators and even visiting tribal leaders/officials. I feel this just gives the enemy a basis for their accusations that we are a christian invading force, and that there is a religious connection to the war effort. While a soldier can be referred and sent back to a green zone for professional help, they are first recommended and only have the chaplain on hand at their actual locations, and I feel this sets a horrible precedence as them being an official representative for counseling and therapy, and does a grave disservice to the men and women doing and seeing things that most would not volunteer to do.

I was a Marine Corps wife for 11 years. 

I agree with your points.  The chaplains are often not trained in diplomacy, in psychology, in counseling, and so on.  They are only trained in religion and only in the dogma their religion supports for the most part.  There are a few who do have some additional secular training in therapy and counseling or in theology from a historical or scholarly view.  But not many and far from all.

I would guess someone is making a claim that having a chaplain pray before a meeting shows that we are good people, too.  But I am guessing that doesn't work when the other group is Islamic.  Better to have an Iman chaplain - they exist - do a proper Islamic prayer or invocation or whatever is most appropriate.

This is not intended as a defense of chaplains, but I have always been pragmatic.  When you have no authority or right to appeal, the chaplain can intervene in your behalf.  I have used this technique.  When my ex husband had not called or written for 3 months when he was overseas, I contacted the chaplain, who contacted his CO, who stood over him while he make a phone call to me to let me know he was okay.  (We divorced soon after.)  The ex husband was not happy about this, and I figured if he was injured or dead, someone would notify me.  But I was seriously concerned.  And it was the chaplain who pulled the strings.

The chaplain is the family's way of circumventing the chain of command.  The family has no rights.  I would guess those families who are most successful coping with the stress of military life are those who can and will pull the strings necessary to keep their family together.  The chaplain can intervene on the family's behalf.  And the way the military is set up, no one else can.  It sucks that the chaplain is the family's only resource, and I agree it would be nice if there were secular alternatives.

No it isn't voluntary, it a job, a career choice. Other than a few people like Pat Tillman, they wouldn't join with out pay and benefits. And paying taxes to support it certainly is not voluntary. Maybe if wars were only fought and paid for by volunteers, we wouldn't be so anxious to get into wars that don't actually threaten us.

No you're making stuff up. Since Mexico and Canada ain't much of a threat, we have an army to invade foriegn countries. The treat we have now is terrorists with WMD that use stealth and technology because that is what works. While the US is still waving our dicks around in the middle east.

But we're not using the army in our own country. But if I was in this situation, what good does getting myself killed as a 'hero' do. You win wars by living to fight another day. As Patton said the goal of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. I would only risk my life it it meant victory.

How can an organization be in charge of anything if we take out all the leaders? The problem is we can kill tons of 16 year old boys indoctrinated with jihad and given a gun, there will always be more to take their place. It you keep taking out the war lords and Imams preaching jihad, eventually they stop.

You don't seem to get that war is young men dieing and old men talking, that's why it never ends.

If I was to start an armed organization to stop paying taxes, Uncle Sam would have no problem finding me and taking me out. But they don't want to take out the leaders of the Taliban and their religion becauce the powerful of the world are a clique that watch out for each other.

So how many people would join the military without pay or benefits? Is everyone that has a paid job and is not a slave, a volunteer? Since you're redefining the meaning of words, how do we now describe the differece between a volunteer fireman and an paid professional one?

I said 'coward' because getting myself killed does no good. Here you can read about our fine 'brave' soldiers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/afghan-thrill-kill-us-soldier-pleads-guilty/story?id=14583062

How was WWI isolationism? it was like Iraq, going in with bad intelligence. In WWII, we were competing with the Japanese for commodites in the far east, and then used the navy to cut off their oil supplies, hardly isolationsism. Then declared war on Germany and Italy when they never attacked.

I'm not an isolationist, but send in people that use science and reason to win war not some pimpleface kid that thinks he's a man for killing something.

But we never took out anyone important, so we lost. It was our 19 year olds killing their 15 year olds and visa versa. Everyone else like Johnson, MacNamera, Westmoreland and Ho Chi Minh and Chairman Mao die of old age. This is war.

You don't get the distintion. People become leaders because of the perks(power, money, sex). If you make the only perk being killed, no more leaders, no more enemy. You kill all the poor 16 year olds indoctrinated with religon and nationalism, you solve the problem this year. But then next year the 15 y.o become 16 and they don't really have a choice.

So they need to take out religious leaders, but just like the USA. You can get away with any crime if you protray yourself as a holyman.

And did you ever go after anyone of significance? All the fighting done by underlings indoctrinated with politics and religion.

Nice try Mr. Strawman.