Are you prepared to die for your country?

[Sava]

If there isn't a dire need for troops, why would I join the service? It's a waste of time.

Sure its good for people with no place else to go, or gun freaks who just need to shoot people.

Not serving in the military has nothing to do with wanting a war or not. I know the horrors of war and have had many family members involved in wars.

IMO, to solve the world's problems, there needs to be a decisive war where one ideology reigns supreme. War (not conflicts) unites. Look at the result of some of the major wars.

Civil War: United America.... this if often called the real Revolution.

WWII: United Western Europe

The United States has the potential, by conventional means, to form a set of task forces that can prevent nuclear launches by every power. If I were in command, I would develop the capability to strategically disable every non-allied nations' nuclear capabilities to prevent MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Sure, the casualties would probably eclipse one billion, but if there is a decisive victory, it would usher in a golden age of mankind never before seen.

Just for the record, many military strategists have never served in the military. The military trains you how to be a grunt, not a leader.

[Heresson]

Are You prepared to die for your country?

No, but I'm always prepared to send someone to do that

[Zoid]

Originally posted by paiktis22
You know I think they are laws (in Greek military code and I imagine elsewhere) which do give you the right to disobey the order of a superior if this is wrong.

Now I have no clue what would that mean in actual combat but there are these laws.

I'd have no problem obeying orders as long as they are just. An order to execute unarmed innocents would propably find me turning my gun the other way and pointing to the one that gave the order.
But that is all in theory, see. Unless you're there you'd never know.

Yes, there is such a thing as private morale code. But it´s easier to deny responsibility by claiming that you only obeyed orders.

IIRC that was the most common defense in the Nürnberg trials after WWII. "Hey, I didn´t know that they killed all those jews, and besides I was just obeying orders"

Or in Vietnam: "Hey I didn´t know that all those women and children weren´t really VC. But what the hell they´re only gooks, and besides I was only obeying orders...

Well, that makes it alrighty then, does it?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

And Kamrat, wtf is he doing, giving his opinion here, rather than being out talking face-to-face?
Another nimrod better at theory than practice.

You talking to me? When have I ever complained about pseudo-discussions on Poly? I see this as intellectual exercise/relaxation (depending on the subject).

And I AM out there several times a week, working for the party, Friends of the earth, ATTAC, etc...

[SlowwHand]

No, Kamrat.
You were chastizing Herr, and I agree with you.
I'm asking , Why is he giving his opinion, instead of "being out"?

[Zoid]

Sorry, Sloww. Misunderstood you there...

And there is always those who think you should do more worthwile things with your time. (My mother for one... ) I usually just ignore them, but this one was exeptionally whiny, I just couldn´t let that pass...

[markusf]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Yes, there is such a thing as private morale code. But it´s easier to deny responsibility by claiming that you only obeyed orders.

IIRC that was the most common defense in the Nürnberg trials after WWII. "Hey, I didn´t know that they killed all those jews, and besides I was just obeying orders"

What about the people who droped the a-bomb in japan,
shouldn't they be tried for crimes against humanity? Or people behind US foriegn policy that kills millions?

In every conflict those in power on the losing side are the "evil" ones and are punished. Those in power on the winning side are immune to ridicule.

Or in Vietnam: "Hey I didn´t know that all those women and children weren´t really VC. But what the hell they´re only gooks, and besides I was only obeying orders...

Well, that makes it alrighty then, does it?

IF the US where to invade mexico what would happen to the average person there? Pretty much absolutely nothing. Who would be the losers in that situation? The only people who have anything to lose are those currently in power, and those with a lot of money and investments in infustructure. So in the end both sides come up with propaganda to try and make people fight for them.

When the US gets into big wars, its not because its "just" or fighting oppression etc. When people die fighting for the US they don't die "liberating" some oppressed people, they are dieing to save US economic interests, such as oil, or the right to open a macdonalds or the right for US companies to have access to cheap labour etc etc etc. Why should people die fighting for the richer to get richer?

[Zoid]

markusf: I´m not sure wether you agree with me or not. But I agree to what you say anyhow...

[markusf]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
markusf: I´m not sure wether you agree with me or not. But I agree to what you say anyhow...

I agree with you, just stating that in the vast majority of wars it really doesn't matter who wins them, the majority of peoples lives are not going to be changed. When it comes right down to it, your fighting for the rich to get richer...

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wow. Way to totally mis-characterize those of us who won't die because we believe our nation has no moral authority to force us to.

You're such a talky little worm. Stick to imaginary BB wars. People like tub will take care of the real ones...

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I know, but the odds would be low...and the cost/benefit analysis favors me, in my opinion.

worm.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
No, I'd be no use dead. Hell, I'd be no use fighting. Give me a job away from the frontline where I can help the country with my brain not my trigger finger.

Frigging worm geek. I bet everybody can come up with some excuse like that. Guess what? Maybe your brains would be useful at the front. But without guts or leadership ability...maybe it would be better to keep you protected by others.

[markusf]

Originally posted by GP


Frigging worm geek. I bet everybody can come up with some excuse like that. Guess what? Maybe your brains would be useful at the front. But without guts or leadership ability...maybe it would be better to keep you protected by others.

uhm... If the US was in danger of being destroyed wouldn't that be the result of a nuclear or chemical war? So there wouldn't be a front.. Just a few people in control rooms pushing launch buttons...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
The United States has the potential, by conventional means, to form a set of task forces that can prevent nuclear launches by every power. If I were in command, I would develop the capability to strategically disable every non-allied nations' nuclear capabilities to prevent MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Sure, the casualties would probably eclipse one billion, but if there is a decisive victory, it would usher in a golden age of mankind never before seen.

Stick to video games, son.

Just for the record, many military strategists have never served in the military. The military trains you how to be a grunt, not a leader.

This is based on how much service? Which military strategists? (FYI: Sid Meier is not Alfred Thayer Mahan....)

[TCO]

Originally posted by markusf


uhm... If the US was in danger of being destroyed wouldn't that be the result of a nuclear or chemical war? So there wouldn't be a front.. Just a few people in control rooms pushing launch buttons...

Markus,

1. Wombat posited the front.

2. People have been talking about pushbutton war for the last 50 years...we ain't there yet.