Your philosophy on war.

[MobBoss]

Being a solidier is being a pawn, a man who's mission and purpose is no longer under your own authority and who's mission and purpose can be changed at any moment by the whim of those who command you.

Not my cup of tea.

You sir, know very little about being a soldier. As for your assumption of a soldier being a pawn, I humbly submit that we are all pawns, in one shape or another, to forces outside of our control.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Even the United States Military is more often than not composed of government-sanctioned thugs.

I strongly disagree. While there are some isolated incidents such as Abu Graib, that is the exception. A more common occurance is military personnel being killed trying to help others, such as the 2 SF soldiers who were killed by a planted bomb as they helped a pregnant woman or killed while giving food to kids, who were also killed by the real thugs of the enemy. While any organization has its 'thugs', we deal with ours; some other organization encourage it throughout their entire force.

After you walk into a rape room or view a mass grave (such as those in East Timor, Kuwait after the Iraq invasion, Bosnia, etc.) statements like the above tend to annoy you. There is no comparison.

 

[JohnRM]

I take great exception to this statement John. In my opinion, after almost 20 years of military service, I think the exact opposite is true. Abu Graib is the exception, not the norm.

I strongly disagree. While there are some isolated incidents such as Abu Graib, that is the exception. A more common occurance is military personnel being killed trying to help others, such as the 2 SF soldiers who were killed by a planted bomb as they helped a pregnant woman or killed while giving food to kids, who were also killed by the real thugs of the enemy. While any organization has its 'thugs', we deal with ours; some other organization encourage it throughout their entire force.

After you walk into a rape room or view a mass grave (such as those in East Timor, Kuwait after the Iraq invasion, Bosnia, etc.) statements like the above tend to annoy you. There is no comparison.

Yeah, I don't know why I said that. I know that its not true.

 

[onejayhawk]

Uhm, very silly statement. Poland in no way started the war with Germany in WWII and by and large agressors start wars, not defenders.

On the contrary, thisn is a classic case on point. Czechoslovokia rolled over and let Hitler dismember the country, taking the German speaking parts for basically nothing. Poland refused to play ball in that game, forcing Hitler to invade to get what he wanted. Look at it this way, wars start when someone says, "I'm not giving it to you, you have to take it."

Not according to Clauswitz. War is just a means to an end and is part of politics and diplomacy. Without the threat of war, diplomacy is futile.

That is a paraphrase of what I said, with a slightly different tilt. War and diplomacy are inextricdably related by either statement. Also bear in mind that both war and diplomacy are about using pressure to improve your, mostly economic, situation. Two sides of a coin, as I said.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Civil disobience is not war.

Ghandi would disagree with you. He would acknowledge it as war by nonviolent means

Nor is violent opposition.

No, that is simply criminal behavior. Or am I reading you wrong?

War is going off to kill someone you don't know. Kind of like being an unpaid hitman. Being a solidier is being a pawn, a man who's mission and purpose is no longer under your own authority and who's mission and purpose can be changed at any moment by the whim of those who command you.

Not my cup of tea.

Even for you this is a bit much Narz.

If you cannot accept that someone would be willing to devote their life and livelihood to something other than their personal interests, that speaks poorly of you, not the man taking the oath of service.

J

 

[Kayak]

@Kayak: not even a regular exception, Abu Graib is the only exception in our current "war". I'm in no way painting halo over my American head, but you must admit that since the beginning of the 20th century, the overall number of that kind of thing has dropped.

Unfortunately Abu Graib is not the only current one, You are forgetting about a few other prisons in Iraq and some deaths in Afganistan. I agree that the numbers of this sort of thing have probably been dropping. What I was reffering to by the word regular, is that incidents have popped up in almost every war we have fought.

Also, don't bash veterans, that's just evil, they have or are doing a great service for their nation. Even if they just dug trenches in Alabama, they have still done more for their country than the average citizen. Because at any time they were willing to fight and die for their homeland. That requires respect, and they have mine.

I hope you don't think I do in any way.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
Gain power=>assemble forces=>attack your neibhoor=> Burn, plunder, raze, ruin, desecrate everything in your way=>use plunder to muster even more forces=>attack your next neghboor!
SCULLS FOR THE SCULL THRONE!SCULLS FOR THE SCULL THRONE!SCULLS FOR THE SCULL THRONE!

 

[CivCynic]

He would acknowledge it as war by nonviolent means

...and how does this make sense, again?



I don't have a thought-out philosophy on war, for I wish to believe that I shouldn't need one.

 

[Panzeh]

I don't agree with the idea of military or paramilitary forces being seperate from the rest of the population. This would make war and justice personal and would make people think twice before they go, but it would give the resolute the tools to go to war when they choose. It's not right to have castes that are the only people allowed to use violence, it should be available to anyone.

 

[MobBoss]

On the contrary, thisn is a classic case on point. Czechoslovokia rolled over and let Hitler dismember the country, taking the German speaking parts for basically nothing. Poland refused to play ball in that game, forcing Hitler to invade to get what he wanted. Look at it this way, wars start when someone says, "I'm not giving it to you, you have to take it."

Uh...no...I hope you can see the flaw in your logic here. Wars start when someone (in this case Germany) wants something you have. By your logic, Poland was responsible for a war, since it didnt buy into being a victim of Germany....thats just whack thinking. If Germany hadnt been so intent in absorbing all its neighboring countries, I highly doubt there would have been a war.[/QUOTE]

 

[Narz]

You sir, know very little about being a soldier. As for your assumption of a soldier being a pawn, I humbly submit that we are all pawns, in one shape or another, to forces outside of our control.

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.

Ghandi would disagree with you. He would acknowledge it as war by nonviolent means

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?

No, that is simply criminal behavior. Or am I reading you wrong?

Self-defense is not criminal behavior.

Even for you this is a bit much Narz.

If you cannot accept that someone would be willing to devote their life and livelihood to something other than their personal interests, that speaks poorly of you, not the man taking the oath of service.

J

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.

 

[JoeDeep]

When should it be waged?

When the General's tell us to fight.

How should it be waged?

No quarter, hit'em hard and fast. Leave the remaining enemies to wonder what the hell that was.

What should be done afterward?

Beer.

=D

 

[blackheart]

When should it be waged?

When it is the most efficient option for achieving a specific goal.

How should it be waged?

In a manner that ensures a favorable, non-pyrhic victory.

What should be done afterward?

Begin an intermingly of cultures so the societies involved are more tolerant towards each other and future armed conflict can be avoided.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

War is good, it keeps men busy. Just give them leave once a year to go home and impregnate their wives, and all will be well.

 

[blackheart]

War is good, it keeps men busy. Just give them leave once a year to go home and impregnate their wives, and all will be well.

Or the local prostitues

 

[onejayhawk]

...and how does this make sense, again?

What are you not understanding? In the end, war is almost always a overscale game of chicken. Whoever flinches first loses. Generally when the choice is submit or die, people flinch, but usually it happens long before that. If the reason for flinching is all in the mind, then no violence takes. Try googling Gaius Lefty's name.

J

 

[blackheart]

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?

"The good of the many over the good of the one"

"United we stand, seperated we fall."

I see your point though. Modern wars have little to do with survival or defense.

 

[Colonel]

When should it be waged?

Whenever the need for something outweighs the need for human life, quite often to be more accurate.

How should it be waged?

In a manner, where the enemy populations are willing to submit to your will and that of your countrys'

What should be done afterward?

Installation of a government which is more favorable to your needs, aswell as permanet military presence in said country.

 

[MobBoss]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

I almost punched a guy cutting line at a movie once. He backed off. So, my show of force avoided a "war".

 

[punkbass2000]

I almost punched a guy cutting line at a movie once. He backed off. So, my show of force avoided a "war".

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"?