Military Quotes

Mar 2016
1,182
Australia
#54
I was a soldier for 28 years. I don't consider anything I ever did too be wrong or evil. There is no higher calling than defending one's country. I know the USA isn't perfect, but it's still the best country on the planet. I was proud too serve it. Let's put it like this, had you rather be taken prisoner by Hadji or the US Army?
Some people make a big deal about how the US was wantonly massacring Iraqis and Afghans. I spent a year in both countries, and never killed a single civilian who wasn't trying to kill us. Ditto for everyone in my battalion, and even the Army rumor mill: I never heard even a remotely credible rumor about US forces murdering locals, aside from a few rare and high profile incidents in the news.

I did, however, see people get punished for not being considerate to the local population. Or damaging the property of locals.

The idea of a murderous US military is largely a left-wing fantasy. Maybe in 1888 in the Old West, but the reason My Lai was a big deal was because it was so *uncommon*.

I will also note that the Afghans had stories abound about how badly the Russians treated them in the 80s. Whereas we were building wells, the Soviets were poisoning them.

Why was I in Afghanistan? Because the Taliban openly supported Al Qaeda. And they made the Madhi of Khartoum look like Abraham Lincoln.

Why was I in Iraq? Because I was ordered to be there, but I do recall several Iraqis thanking us for showing up. Anti-War Americans (I was against the war too, until I got there) may not have wanted us there but they weren't the ones who lived daily under Saddam's tyranny. I'd urge anyone against the Iraq war to consider how they'd feel about the US invasion if Uday and Qusay raped and murdered *your* daughter. Or if you were Kurdish in the early 90s and watched your family get gassed. Or a fuckton of other literal crimes against humanity committed by that regime. WMD's be damned, you don't need the CIA to tell you how vile that regime was.
I'm certainly not arguing that engaging in any kind of war is inherently wrong and immoral. I do not think this at all. I have family that fought in World War II and Vietnam and believe they were brave and honourable and deserve respect. I even take the unpopular (here in urban Australia) view that Vietnam was justified on the US's part. But my point in regards to Saladin specifically is that his wars were not defensive in the slightest, nor for any moral reason like defending people from persecution or wrongdoing. He engaged in a dozen aggressive wars of conquest for two reasons: he wanted to conquer land for his own personal glory and the glory of God, and he hated Christians and wanted them gone. Now, I don't mean to get into a religious debate here, but I don't think these reasons are morally justified, even though I am strongly against judging historical figures by modern morality. If people criticise the First Crusade for being an aggressive war of conquest against a religion they hated, then they should criticize Saladin for the exact same things. Ironically the only morally justifiable military leader in the Third Crusade was Richard, because he was specifically defending a city under siege from being wiped out, and wanted to protect the people living there.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,707
Sydney
#55
I'm not so sure that Saladin hated Christian , he grew up among them , in hunting party and reception ,
there is story saying that he had been , addoubed , made a Knight
the lady of Kerak castle was very taken by his courtesy while he was battering her walls down
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,550
#57
I pity his soldiers. Who needs enemies when your commanding officer has this mentality.
It's not entirely alien from Ferdinand Foch's "The will to conquer is the first condition of victory."

Which is from his pre-WWI days as one of the leading ideologues of the French "School of the Attack".

So there were some sharp lessons learned, and the quote that tends to instead sum-up WWI is Pétain's "Remember gentlemen, fire kills".

The Japanese army didn't directly fight in WWI, and so lacked the hands-on experience of that particular mess. It has been observed that the Japanese army in WWI consistently underestimated the necessity of sheer fire-power.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,707
Sydney
#59
a play on word from the mutineers on the name of three of the most offensive spirited generals

"Foch nous a faucher ,
Nivelle nous a niveller
Magin nous a manger "

( Foch scythed us down
Nivelle leveled us to the ground
Magin ate us whole )

the mutinies occurred after the worst stubborn assault on German lines , it persisted for days
each new wave of attackers being mowed down on the bodies of the preceding attacks
and again ...and again
Magin was a proponent of using colonial black troops for shock attack
the Senegalese and Ivorian went in with a will ,their bravery achieved nothing beside a carpet of corps
 
Jul 2014
1,602
world
#60
I know that the canard of lions being led by idiots in regards to world war tactics is disputed but above mentioned generals surely tried their best being the biggest of idiots. Did the soldiers take revenge on the senior staff after the war ?
 

Similar History Discussions