This is very true. Professional armies spend a lot of time and training, not in producing someone who will so much kill strangers, but more someone who will defend those around them and themselves. A professional solider might be trained to kill, but they are not trained to kill indiscriminately, or to be cruel or callous. Some do cross that line, but its surprisingly few - and often when you get major issues such as Abu Garab - the problem lies in the way that the structure of the military has embraced a callous disregard that creates an environment that permits such horror.

When it comes to terrorism, that tends to be missing. Terrorists don't really act within that important limitation. Terrorism often embraces a 'By Any Means' rather than a 'by any means necessary' approach. The military don't take lives lightly.

The danger of recent developments in the political command such as embracing callous, cruel or indiscriminate killing, with minimal justification is dangerous because it can lead to a steady corruption through the military that affects its discipline.

And if there is one thing that a trained professional solider has that a militia or terrorist doesn't, its that professional discipline.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well yes, but that is beside the point, which is the creeping lunacy that is revisionism.
This film is nearly 80 years old. Who the hell is dumb enough to be offended by it and why should we care about such limited mentalities anyhow?

I don't know enough about nationalization as a concept that can work effectively to judge it even even-handedly....Though I do know that if an individual doesn't own something or have a stake in it that they frequently will misuse and abuse that which is given to them freely.

However, the idea that conservatives were against nationalisation is a relatively recent thing...I remember Macmillan and his 'family silver'. However, I know it isn't affordable as a pragmatic solution currently.

However, on these other matters I think this is where I find myself.

Totally agree, nationalism is a concept like any other and as such it has its benign extent all the way through to its extremes.

I think the kind of nationalism that believes that all human life is born equal of worth, independent of abilities or who you are born too....I think once that concept is accepted then nationalism is about building a better society based upon values and culture but also pragmatic solutions that work....ie competition, innovation...rewards for striving and so on....I suppose it's all about the extent.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yep, professional soldiers in the battlefield are of course exposed to barbarism and the stress of imminent death. The longer that goes on the more likely that its affects will be harder to deal with...which I suppose is why they rotate troops regularly.

'If you stare into the abyss' is what comes to mind and hence, along with the training and the culture, how professional the command structures are within forces is an intrinsic difference in how ethical they end up behaving.

But as with all human systems you will have bad apples or/and people who break. The business of killing people as a norm isn't healthy long term for an inherently social animal like us.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Thing with nationalism, is that its an easy one, like religion is, to rally people to, because its a vaguely definable concept, but one that a lot of people share - that by definition can be used to excuse criticism and exclude valid assessement (basically its an poorly defined ideology).

And one abused by most totalitarian states in history. Even the Communists played to National Identity and Nationalism to validate terrible crimes.

There isn't anything wrong with being a nationalist, if you can accept that nationalism isn't a truth in its own right, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with criticism of national ideals.

Its kind of a bit like how political correctness is becoming a measure to shut people up, rather than to stimulate discussion.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The film is a period piece and depicts those times. It's accuracy as far as individual portrayals are like any other film of its type and era. Probably a bit melodramatic and stereotyped. It was made 80 years ago by people of the time and that is all we need to know.