What's humorous to me, aside from the misspellings, is playing the 'intellectual' card with absolutely no sense of 'humer'.

Winning a war does not mean you are right but only that you are the last one standing.

The best way to end a war is to lose it.

In war one death is a tragedy a million is a statistic.

In wars the good of one is the evil of another no matter on which side your are.

In wars you need blind soldiers or none would agree to be witness of its atrocities.

On the battlefield, the soldier's individual beliefs don't matter. Your job is to stay alive, protect your group, and stop those guys who are shooting at you.
The decision to operate on cultural beliefs rests many paygrades above the people carrying guns. A few years back I was walking through a minefield in Columbia. I was there because I was ordered to be there. Those mines don't care who my God is, and the mines would have no problem sending me to him. A week later I was standing in a trench with a borrowed AK47 waiting for an attack. Whoever came over that hill would walk into a wall of lead, be they Catholics, Communists, Maoists, or Mercs. My AK47 was loaded with equal opportunity rounds.
My war was the "War on Drugs", so nobody accused us of being anti-anything as far as religious beliefs are concerned. Still, it was Richard Nixon who started the war, according to his belief that America should not be snorting coke at the Disco. Decide for yourself if his decision was based on religious or cultural beliefs.
I believe we should legalize it and tax it. I haven't gotten around to trying drugs, so it seems my belief is that YOU should be taxed (if you are some sort of drug fiend. If you aren't a fiend, go about your business).

Brian
U.S. Army retired

Murphy's Law of Combat - Anything you do in combat can get you killed, including doing nothing.

No I am not a drug fiend. I was captain in the Royal Marine Commandos with two tours of duty in Northeren Ireland. I was not asking about policy issues, nor was I making comments about war. I was asking about the nature of the warrior in his death.

There is a difference between a warrior and a soldier. They can be same and different at the same time.

A warrior can be a soldier and a soldier can be a warrior. The big difference is, that a soldier is not automatically a warrior.

Warrior- there is something about heroic and self-interest of being someone who is victorious over his enemy through his tactic and strategy. Actually one can be a warrior without ever killing a single person.

Soldier (who isn't a warrior) - is basically a paid proffesional who does things for money and does as he has been told.

So there is a step upward to become a warrior, although you do not have to be necessarly a professional soldier.

For a good understanding, read Illiad (Troy) from Homeros.

Thank you for that I certainly appreciate your insights into the differences in ideals. If a warrior in his death believes that his death is honourable, then it may follow that what he has done is "good" And the victor over the warrior would also determine that his victory is "good". It is the nature of warriors to be honourable, no matter their belief systems, or do you think that it is because of their belief systems that they become warriors and thereby honourable?

Thank you for that I certainly appreciate your insights into the differences in ideals. If a warrior in his death believes that his death is honourable, then it may follow that what he has done is "good" And the victor over the warrior would also determine that his victory is "good". It is the nature of warriors to be honourable, no matter their belief systems, or do you think that it is because of their belief systems that they become warriors and thereby honourable?

As history has always been written. Be seeing you Prisoner.

Perhaps you guys are overthinking this one.

A job is a job and nothing more. Soldiering is a job. Just as any other occupation that provides for you and your families. The agrandizements that everyone is trying to connotate in direct correlation to those that fight and kill are reserved for the dead and those that seek a historical rationalization for killings, whether strategic or enmasse.

You welcome, but regarding if the cause is "good" or "bad" it doesn't matter as much. Just as I said, in the Trojan war, according to the legend, the half-god Achilles is actually not on the "good side" since the counquering Greeks want to take over Troy as a new province of Hellas.

Both, Hector (the defender of Troy) and Achilles are warriors who aren't fighing as common soldiers, but 2 "giants", because of them has legendary heroic acts and shine beyond the traditional soldier.

So for your question, I think a "hero" can be fighting for all the wrong causes and still be a hero. A modern time hero would be like the German Erich von Richthofen (The Red Baron) in WWI who shot down so many planes and had such a style in flying that he became a legend. Was it a good thing that he killed many other pilots? No..not if you were fighting against him. Even if you look at WWII, Rommel, the general of the german Africa Corps, is also could be conidered as a "warrior" in many means, and so is Audy Murphy.

I think "hero" and "warrior" go hand in hand. A hero can be a warrior, but a warrior needs to earn "hero" status.

But there is also an honor, that makes a warrior. It doesn't matter which side he fights on, his way of fighting is commendable and noble and matches himself against an equal or exceeding strength of opponent and wins without using dirty tricks.

In my experience, you have to decide that you are already dead before you enter the danger zone.
If you spend your time worried about your own personal survival, you are no good to yourself or those around you (ref Murphy's Law of Combat).
If you happen to survive, great. But fighting without having accepted your death is nearly impossible - you can't concentrate on the mission.
It doesn't just apply to the warrior mentality of combat. Accepting death applies to the warrior mentality of life too. My friends are busy having a midlife crisis because they are unable to accept their certain mortality. I've already been through that, so I'm blessed with calm and acceptance, even though immortality has it's instinctive appeal.