Indeed, at my interview for joining the army, I was asked how I felt about killing a child or teenage boy. I honestly had no answer.

Yea, I've been there. That's the time for the Winston Churchil quote.

It might also be different in countries where (at the time!) military service isn't mandatory (which isn't the case where I live). For me, and every other male in my country, this question becomes very real by the time we get 18. We have to choose between a mandatory military service or, probably since the 1968 movement, a so called "civil service". Before that you didn't even have the choice.

It's part of being a soldier to follow orders without asking questions. It wouldn't work otherwise. I guess what I meant is that I, personally, would have a problem with filling this role. I'd also have a problem with shooting at people so I'm out anyway

But honestly, the concept of a soldier is a really weird one to me. You send the strongest young males your country has to offer into battlefield, risking their lives. It's the worst thing you could possibly do to the gene pool.

The only reason for armies to exist are backwards countries and their insane leaders that do not have any other way of showing strength. They are using the military for organized terrorism. That's why civilized countries still need armies for protection.

I'm just skeptical that sending them in the offense can really do much. You can wipe out their entire army (because they have less money), killing thousands upon thousands of people on their side. You risk a few hundred or thousand lives on your side. Millions of people are traumatized for their life.

And all - at best - to speed up a process that must have been going on already, because if it didn't, people will stay as insane under your leadership as under the crazy one. So as for democracy being the best judge: Some of the most extreme leaderships in history had been elected by their people. Mass choices of this kind aren't global, they're done by a biased group of people (people who live in the same country) that mostly vote on propaganda, not facts.

Defense is different, of course, because you don't really have a choice. But there's no physical "Army of Islamism" to start a war against, only a crippled mentality. So there's nothing that could be defeated by shooting it.

No, something's terribly wrong with powerful people, elected or not, having control over an army of young guys who may not question their decisions. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire, but on the long term (or "philosophically speaking") it's wrong.

Wait, where were we? I guess it was about why I think I'm a better judge than many governments in the world

PS:

That I'd like to know as well :/