I believe this statement is typical of people who have never experienced the hardship of actual combat. (I have not either for the record, I also voted no) That statement seems to be derived from those who have studied warfare and speak of the best interests of the state. I know this from what I have read and experienced in training, and from my friends who have been in combat. If a soldier is desensitized, that doesnt mean he will kill anyone who crosses his iron sights or has no ethics. For this polls purpose it means he kills the enemy or witnesses the act being done without pshycological effects on himself. Can these be separate?
Re: Should a soldier be desensitised to killing?(Score: 1) by AslakH on Mon May 05, 2008 2:27 am (User Info | Send a Message)
This is false.
A good soldier does his job, and that almost always means destroying your enemy. I also did not see a link with SS-men and killing machines. Oh yes, they were efficient killers. But can it be the commies/socialistmassmurderers and Amis were nothing more than crappy conscripts and young boys fresh out of Highschool?
Soldiers should NOT be tainted by the "ethical" principles of killing. I do not think you understand the necessity of war. Without war, you would not be the free man you are today. And pansies do NOT get you to freedom! Leve strid! (I know there's no end to this discussion)
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!