Do you look down on people who...

[~Di]

Aww, let's not be so hard on LoneWolf16. This is an incredibly complex personal issue, difficult for adults to decipher let alone young people. I think most of the young people who post on this forum are pretty danged smart. I don't want to discourage them from expressing themselves. I personally have learned a lot from them.

[alanschu]

Tom Hanks a horrible actor?

[julianw]

I say no.

[Walsingham]

Yeah, I don't want to knock the poor chap either. Points for even thinking about the issue, in my book.

 

However, for all you who think you should fight only when its 'right', I would say something my grandfather told me. He regrets more than anything that for want of a little action prior to WW2 he was dragged into a massive conflict that almost destroyed the country, and killed _every single one_ of his friends, bar his fiance.

 

As for the notion, Hades, that soldiers should pick and choose their orders, and have a political agenda I'd point at Pakistan, Turkey, and most of South America and ask if that's what you want. Britain, by contrast has a proud tradition of a military with the political awareness and interest of woodlice, and something like 400 years without a revolution.

[alanschu]

Agreed.

 

A military that picks and chooses its fights could be a horrible thing. Sounds like a situation ripe for a coup d'etat, or something similar.

[Cantousent]

I like that idea. Let's take the political process away from the civilian government and place it in the hands of the military.

 

The good news is, if a general tried wrest power from the Republic, the military itself would protect the Constitution. For good or ill, we live in a western democracy. That means our elected officials decide policy. We don't have to like it. We just have to live with it until the next election cycle.

[213374U]

I need to learn how to be more clear on here...it's causing way too many problems. 

It sure looks like it. I may have misinterpreted your statement about the degree in idiocy, I thought it was aimed at me in particular. I sincerely apologize for the rude reply (unless that was in fact the intent).

 

I do, however, believe that the point went over your head. Let's see if I can make it clearer. You said you'd rather die nobly, but you certainly aren't going to do anything that may cause that to happen (as in taking up a hazardous profession). You'll forgive me if, after reading your posts here, I doubt you'd do something as stupidly risky as rushing into a burning building because you think somebody may still be inside. That's how I think you're deluding yourself, and that's why I don't think you can say that "not wanting to die for something you don't believe in" is a valid reason for not serving.

 

And there's a difference between "actively seeking death" and having a dangerous job. One'd think said difference is pretty obvious but, after reading a few posts, I felt the need to remark this.

[Gorth]

Ah yes, all the young men, fighting and dying nobly for the glory of God and country, whichever one it may be...

 

A typical working day at Verdun

 

 

Notice how the young men in the foreground has been given the privilege of donating their bones as a new fixture of the disputed area, showing true willingness to go all the way for their cause. Thats the spirit boys, we envy you

[213374U]

Looks like fun.

[Cantousent]

Those were conscripts, Gorth. Verdun might be a bad example, as World War One was morally ambiguous. The joke is good. Nonetheless, like most jokes, it doesn't really do much to enlighten the issue.

 

On the other hand, do you suggest that there is nothing for which you would fight? If someone attacked your land, you wouldn't fight? ....Or maybe you'd fight if someone attacked your land but would not fight if, say, your land attacked someone?

 

You see, it transcends simplistic views. Somewhere between blindly following or resisting authority is the idea that we buy into our own culture, government, and community. It is ours and it is worth protecting.

 

We live in a democracy. If folks don't like our foreign policy, they have but to vote.

 

So, yes, any one of those young men who donated his bones to the monument of freedom and country and God is a thousand times more worthy than the old man who died some fifty years later afterwards didn't even consider the risk. Some of them lived and some of them died. It was ever thus.

Edited May 9, 2006 by Eldar

[Cantousent]

And there's a difference between "actively seeking death" and having a dangerous job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is a good point. Think of the Spartan who died at Thermopylae. He lost all honors because the Spartans decided that he actively sought death. dying on the battlefield because you want to die is not heroic. It is suicidal.

[LoneWolf16]

@Numbers

 

Sorry again for the misunderstanding and my subsequent reaction to your's.

 

One last flailing stab in the dark here. The burning building scenario is just a prefered avenue of death, not something I believe will happen now or ever. It's just a preference, admittedly naive and foolhardy, but still a preference. I even said that I'd like to do it more toward middle age...mid to late age upon further thought...to end my life with a bit of nobility rather than gradually wasting away.

 

In regards to the military that's still my reason, for a situation like the current Iraq "war". If I were to be sent off, thousands of miles away, for a purpose I didn't believe was worth the involved effort, I'd have to consider a different career. I know there are military jobs much closer to home, but...

 

#1. I may be pretty thin, but I'm by no means fit. Gaunt would be a better word.

#2. Somehow, getting screamed at constantly, or told to "take that hill" just doesn't sit well with me.

#3. I'd rather not kill somebody unless I absolutely-no-choice-involved-I'll-die-if-I-don't-do-it have to.

 

And yes, the distinction between the job itself and seeking purposely has been noted.

[Lucius]

@Eldar, only one slight objection to your post, the ' fight for freedom' phrase you guys like to fling about doesn't really fit into WW1.

[213374U]

#1. I may be pretty thin, but I'm by no means fit. Gaunt would be a better word.

#2. Somehow, getting screamed at constantly, or told to "take that hill" just doesn't sit well with me.

#3. I'd rather not kill somebody unless I absolutely-no-choice-involved-I'll-die-if-I-don't-do-it have to.

That's okay. You don't like the military. Nothing wrong with that, really. And those are much more solid reasons than the one you gave originally for not signing up.

 

 

@Eldar, only one slight objection to your post, the ' fight for freedom' phrase you guys like to fling about doesn't really fit into WW1. 

Well, sometimes you die for freedom and stuff, sometimes you die for the interests of a few smarter than yourself, and if not, you just die for absolutely no reason.

 

Sucks, don't it?

[Gorth]

Those were conscripts, Gorth.  Verdun might be a bad example, as World War One was morally ambiguous.  The joke is good.  Nonetheless, like most jokes, it doesn't really do much to enlighten the issue.

Well, it made you write this constructive post, which can now be used for a (hopefully) constructive reply. I'm a manipulative SOB sometimes... :cool:

 

On the other hand, do you suggest that there is nothing for which you would fight?  If someone attacked your land, you wouldn't fight?  ....Or maybe you'd fight if someone attacked your land but would not fight if, say, your land attacked someone?

It's all hypothetical at the moment, as I was born too late for the last war on danish territory. The thousands of young danes fighting abroad at the moment are all volunteers. Their reason for volunteering eludes me (apart from it being a paid job offering some fringe benefits in the form of training, education, good references etc.)

 

If I were to grossly simplify my attitude towards what I would fight for right here and now, it would be survival. Not particularly glorious, but the truth. Again, I know other peoples mileage vary and they get all upset about politics, religion and power structures in other parts of the world. My passions are more mundane (Sp?). The very same lack of passion for the previously mentioned things makes it hard for me to understand the mindset of people who both die, kill and commit atrocities for them. Deep down I'm still a primitive being though, if threatened enough, I *suspect* some kind of adrenaline induced behaviour would take over and make me excessively violent.

 

You see, it transcends simplistic views.  Somewhere between blindly following or resisting authority is the idea that we buy into our own culture, government, and community.  It is ours and it is worth protecting.

Thats what all participants in a war says

 

We live in a democracy.  If folks don't like our foreign policy, they have but to vote.

If they happen to be born on the right side of a line on the map, the line on the map being where it is for whatever reason, they may have that option. Last time I checked, citizenship was a requirement :D

 

So, yes, any one of those young men who donated his bones to the monument of freedom and country and God is a thousand times more worthy than the old man who died some fifty years later afterwards didn't even consider the risk.  Some of them lived and some of them died.  It was ever thus.

I always did and always will consider war an incredibly waste of human resources, and I'm not talking about money. Perhaps the guy that survived another fifty years did more to contribute to the wellbeing of his fellow country men/party members/faithful/ethnic group ? Death is such a final thing, so we can only speculate, was the bottle half full or half empty. Did his dying or his living contribute more ? >_

 

Was it Clausewitz (Sp?) wrote something along the lines of war being too serious to be left to politicians, they give up peace way too easily (not a precise quote).

[Diamond]

Verdun might be a bad example, as World War One was morally ambiguous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't any war morally ambiguous?

[alanschu]

I am thinking that Eldar was implying that the war wasn't really all about intense hatred...or something (excluding the start of course).

 

For instance, WW2 was in large part revenge against the Allies for it's treatment of Germany post-war, as well as an inherent hatred towards the Communist force of the Soviet Union.

 

I'm not sure...I'm grasping at straws here.

[Cantousent]

We can get into stupid arguments about right and wrong wars. However, in World War One, Germany was acting in the part of a 19th century colonial power. The European powers as a whole were a mixed lot, but, while there was a difference in the preferred methods between countries, they all relied on similar methods and worked for similar goals. Germany, leading to World War One was not much/any worse than the other European powers.

 

World War Two is not morally ambiguous. Hitler was attempting to realize the dream of empire by swallowing the surrounding democracies. He was wrong. As for the allies, only a fool would contend that defending your country and your people is morally ambiguous. It's popular, in our day and age, to say that all violence is wrong. Whatever you might think now, it looks different from the other side. Killing folks trying to take your land, destroy your democracy, rape your wifes, slaughter your children, and kill you is not morally ambiguous. It is appropriate.

 

So, in short, no, Diamond. I think your argument is ridiculously stupid on its face. I don't need to grasp at straws.

 

@Gorth: I'll respond to you later. Your posts require a thoughtful response.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I always did and always will consider war an incredibly waste of human resources, and I'm not talking about money. Perhaps the guy that survived another fifty years did more to contribute to the wellbeing of his fellow country men/party members/faithful/ethnic group ? Death is such a final thing, so we can only speculate, was the bottle half full or half empty. Did his dying or his living contribute more ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

War and conflict promote growth. As long as you don't look at the cost. It's quite useful when it comes to advancements in technology.

[Gorth]

War and conflict promote growth. As long as you don't look at the cost. It's quite useful when it comes to advancements in technology.

Yes and no. All in my oppionion and all that disclaimer stuff, but...

 

Hasn't the last two decades seen a rapid growth of all kinds of technology without the necessity of the countries involved fighting for their very existance ?

 

My theory being, that war promotes technology advances allright, but usually the kind that requires human sacrifice (virgin or not), whereas peace brings a

different kind of technology.

 

To me, it looks more like existing processes and ideas gets streamlined and made more efficient during times of war more than becoming "innovative". You have to make "Gadget X" before the enemy, and there is no shortage of resources to develop it, nor opportunities to test it, either on "them" or "us".

 

The ancient romans believed that the ballista was such an awesome weapon, the weapon to end all wars, because how could anybody stand against the might of the roman army when equipped with ballistas >_

 

As for Verdun, the picture wasn't chosen randomly, because it shows one consequence of leaving peace in the hands of politicians. All the major european powers of their time were convinced of their own cultural and historical superiority and were busy making a tangled network of treaties to ensure that when (not if) conflict came, theirs would come out on top.

 

In the end, one shot was all it took to set off the chain of events that lead to war on a massive scale (for glory of etc.), leading politicians, who had never been at the business end of a gun themselves, to send millions of young men to war.

 

So to answer the original posters question, no I would not look down upon somebody who shirks away from taking up arms, unless they are a truly firm believer themselves in what they do. Not just obey instructions blindly beacuse somebody else tell you that it is the right thing to do for the glory/benefit/expansion of "the cause".

Edited May 10, 2006 by Gorth

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes and no. All in my oppionion and all that disclaimer stuff, but...

 

Hasn't the last two decades seen a rapid growth of all kinds of technology without the necessity of the countries involved fighting for their very existance ?

 

My theory being, that war promotes technology advances allright, but usually the kind that requires human sacrifice (virgin or not), whereas peace brings a

different kind of technology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the technology I can think of (without really thinking about it) either has it's origins in WWII. Or was first used by the millitary before being adapted for the civilian sector.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions.

[Gorth]

I'm sure there are exceptions.

Computers... they predate that particular war. The internet, it came after it, although it has it's roots in the cold war, but wouldn't that be more of a political conflict than a military one ? >_

[Lucius]

Well, sometimes you die for freedom and stuff, sometimes you die for the interests of a few smarter than yourself, and if not, you just die for absolutely no reason.

 

Sucks, don't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm only pointing out that all the European participants of WW1 were equally bad, none of the nations were fighting for 'freedom' like they did in WW2, for instance. (as in freeing Europe from Germany).

 

The impression I gained from studying WW1 was that sending all those millions of men to their deaths was, to put it very very brief as I'm short on time; utterly pointless.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Lucius

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Computers... they predate that particular war. The internet, it came after it, although it has it's roots in the cold war, but wouldn't that be more of a political conflict than a military one ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dosnt the modern computer have it's origins in the code machines of WWII ?

 

The cold war could have exploded at any time. So I think the principles apply. You still had an arms race and the mentality that accompanies it.

 

The "evolution" of the rocket would be a pretty good example.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm only pointing out that all the European participants of WW1 were equally bad, none of the nations were fighting for 'freedom' like they did in WW2, for instance. (as in freeing Europe from Germany).

 

The impression I gained from studying WW1 was that sending all those millions of men to their deaths was, to put it very very brief as I'm short on time; utterly pointless. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

War was a popular passtime for the Europeans. What changed in WWI was the scale of carnage.