Your philosophy on war.

[onejayhawk]

I don't know from personal experience about being a solidier, true. But I have a fair understanding of how the system works and AFAIK all solidiers must answer to their highups, how is that not being a pawn?

Also, I may not have control of certain forces but that doesn't make me a pawn to them. If the weather isn't to my liking I can always move whereas if orders are not to a solidier's liking, he must follow them anyway or risk treason charges.


That's nice. I still don't see civili disobidience as war, siimply a choice not to conform. If someone asked to cut you in line at a movie theater and you declined would you conside that war?


Self-defense is not criminal behavior.


Why would I want to devote my life to something besides my personal interests (in other words : someone else's interests). I am here on this Earth to decide my own fate, my own interest and my own loved ones. Why should I give up that control to someone else with his own interests?

I understand this is a touchy subject, perhaps many reading/replying have had friends and/or relatives die in a war. Perhaps it gives comfort to think they died for some greater good. That is not a good enough reason for me to change my beliefs though. My brother was a solidier in the Gulf War ('91), he could have died, fortunatly the odds were heavily aganist that and he didn't even see combat. If he would have died I would probably be even more anti-war than I am today.

I stand by my conviction against war and my conviction that self-detirmination is the superior path to duty and unquestioningly following orders. My own conscious, my own "interests" are good enough for me. If I were to put myself at someone else's whim (especially if it potentially involved murdering other humans) I would not be being true to myself.

Violent opposition is not self defense.

AS to the rest, we have crossed paths long enough that I know your basically iconoclatic approach, and respect your choices. Wh at I object to is the occasional contemptuous outburst against those who hear the drum. You have your duty, and they have theirs. Who are either of us to judge one over the other.

J

 

[MobBoss]

So, threatening to punch someone is a method to avoid "war", in your eyes? Wouldn't just letting it go be much more like to prevent this "war"?

Actually threatening to punch someone is a method to prevent an asshat from cutting in front of me in line. Could I have let it go? Sure, however, I would have been out in the rain just that much longer...

 

[Narz]

Violent opposition is not self defense.

AS to the rest, we have crossed paths long enough that I know your basically iconoclatic approach, and respect your choices. Wh at I object to is the occasional contemptuous outburst against those who hear the drum. You have your duty, and they have theirs. Who are either of us to judge one over the other.

J

I didn't mean to disrespect solidiers. I just don't agree that invasions are justified. If I didn't have to risk killing or dying I might have joined the Marines. My brother was in damn good shape when he was in the Marines.

I didn't mean to show contempt for honest everyday men & women who choose to join the military to get money for college or gain self-discipline. That's admirable. I cannot hold in esteem those who perpetuate the myth that it is somehow honorable to throw away your life for "your country". I fail to see how ending up as a corspe on a field (or in a desert) serves anyone in any way under any circumstances.

Uhm...dont all employees have to answer to their higher-ups and are in essence pawns? Its a job. Just like any other. You seem to think soliders are just a bunch of drones that go there and do that. Not at all. Just like in any business you can have units that are run well and others that are run like crap and it all depends on the soldiers who make up those units.

It's not a job like any other because the consequences are much more severe if you quit.

Depends on the orders...are they lawful? If not, I dont have to follow them. But if your boss orders you to get him coffee do you? Or do you risk getting fired? Everyone follows orders in one way or another. If the weather isnt to my liking as a soldier, I can always put in for a transfer....ie..I can always just move.

Yep, choice is great to have but once your in the fronts lines your choice is already quite limited. Hardly comparable to the choice to get (or not get) your boss coffee in a safe civilian office job.

 

[:)civ2]

When should it be waged?
When it is profitable for attacking nation. Or isn't profitable for defending nation. For natural resources, strategic positioning, political motives, when leaders get angry. When your army is sitting on it's hands and not doing anything. Religous differences.
How should it be waged?
Any means necisarry. Covert ops to armoured coulums. One man assasination teams to a B2 with percision guided munitions. Mercinaries to profesional soldeirs. Armed Citizens to Land mines. My personal favorite is Artillery. Germ-warfare to Chemical warfare. Suitcase nukes to M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction.)
What should be done afterward?
This depends on the reason for attacking. The real reason, not propaganda. Maybe reconstruction to euthanizeing enemy populaces. Takeing of natural resources for your nations profit.
Peace should only happen when war is not profitable. Honor is up to the victor. America "honorably" bomb civilians trying to kill insurgents. Honor is ignorance, for it lets you have weakness. And in warefare, and all life weaknesses can become deadly.

 

[bigfatron]

What I find bizarre about this discussion is how many US respondents are in favour of fighting a war when it suits their country, totally blitzing the opposition, installing puppet governemnts etc. It's essentially a fascist viewpoint, and the impression is that it is absolutely necessary to survival and prosperity.

Yet quite a lot of the rest of the world gets by just fine without an agressive military force - Japan has minimal armed forces for its size, western Europe doesn't spend a whole heap, the majority of countries around the world are not in danger of invasion nor capable of staging one, Costa Rica even has no military and is just fine and dandy.

Is it really necessary? bases in over a hundred countries, stealth this and remote guided that? What has it achieved, except giving some right wingers a hard-on at night?

What we need is less nationalism and jingoism, not more. then we might be able to agree, logically and rationally, when it is the right thing to stop some evil sob gassing, raping or doing great wrong, without the distraction of pleas of national sovereignty and international posturing.

War? asimov paraphrased it right IMHO - the last resort of the incompetent. Describing it as inevitable is just a cop-out from trying to prevent it.

 

[carniflex]

It should be abolished.

 

[El_Machinae]

War? asimov paraphrased it right IMHO - the last resort of the incompetent. Describing it as inevitable is just a cop-out from trying to prevent it.

I don't know. I think that there are legitimate reasons to go to war. Hellishly hard to know ahead of time, of course.

 

[CaptainF]

What I find bizarre about this discussion is how many US respondents are in favour of fighting a war when it suits their country, totally blitzing the opposition, installing puppet governemnts etc. It's essentially a fascist viewpoint, and the impression is that it is absolutely necessary to survival and prosperity.

Yet quite a lot of the rest of the world gets by just fine without an agressive military force - Japan has minimal armed forces for its size, western Europe doesn't spend a whole heap, the majority of countries around the world are not in danger of invasion nor capable of staging one, Costa Rica even has no military and is just fine and dandy.

Is it really necessary? bases in over a hundred countries, stealth this and remote guided that? What has it achieved, except giving some right wingers a hard-on at night?

What we need is less nationalism and jingoism, not more. then we might be able to agree, logically and rationally, when it is the right thing to stop some evil sob gassing, raping or doing great wrong, without the distraction of pleas of national sovereignty and international posturing.

War? asimov paraphrased it right IMHO - the last resort of the incompetent. Describing it as inevitable is just a cop-out from trying to prevent it.

Does make you wonder doesn't it.

Here in america most of us get our rocks off on defending "freedom" (inc.) whilst imposing the opposite on other countries.

I get my rocks off on criticizing this philosophy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

_______________________

What I find bizarre about this discussion is how many US respondents are in favour of fighting a war when it suits their country, totally blitzing the opposition, installing puppet governemnts etc. It's essentially a fascist viewpoint, and the impression is that it is absolutely necessary to survival and prosperity.

Yet quite a lot of the rest of the world gets by just fine without an agressive military force - Japan has minimal armed forces for its size, western Europe doesn't spend a whole heap, the majority of countries around the world are not in danger of invasion nor capable of staging one, Costa Rica even has no military and is just fine and dandy.

Is it really necessary? bases in over a hundred countries, stealth this and remote guided that? What has it achieved, except giving some right wingers a hard-on at night?

What we need is less nationalism and jingoism, not more. then we might be able to agree, logically and rationally, when it is the right thing to stop some evil sob gassing, raping or doing great wrong, without the distraction of pleas of national sovereignty and international posturing.

War? asimov paraphrased it right IMHO - the last resort of the incompetent. Describing it as inevitable is just a cop-out from trying to prevent it.

 

[Steph]

For me, war is always a question of balancing pro and con. What is the cost and the gain of using the force? What is the coast and the gain of not using it?
A country should be able to use the necessary amount of force when by doing it, it can protect its interests and citizens without putting even more other interests and citizens in jeopardy.
World War I was unjustifiable. It costs millions of life for almost nothing but national pride.
World War II is justified because of the evil Nazi philosophy.
Second Gulf War is not justified because the goal (removing of WMD) could have been achieved without an invasion for a much lower cost.
...
And when figthing a war, a country should use the correct balance of force to maximize the gain and reduce the coast to achieve a set goal.
If the goal is to destroy a country military, hit them hard with all you can, targeting only military facilities....
However, I think attacking civilian should be avoid as much as possible. Not because it's immorale. Because it's usually counter productive.

 

[Phlegmak]

George Orwell stated war pretty well. This is a paraphrase.

"War is the gathering of the product of human effort, putting it into a pile, and setting it on fire."

It's a tremendously sad thing that war is necessary. For example, the people of Darfur would sure be happy if someone would declare war on Sudan so they can become free.

 

[Darkness]

What I find bizarre about this discussion is how many US respondents are in favour of fighting a war when it suits their country, totally blitzing the opposition, installing puppet governemnts etc.

Bizarre?

Maybe...

But this has been (and still is) standard US policy for at least a century, so I can't really see why these responses surprise you...