 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
I wouldn't send anyone to die if I wasn't willing to go myself, and even then only in very limited circumstances, and I would ONLY send volunteers. No conscripts, even to save the US.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
quote: even to save civilization, the entire human race? What a twisted, demented scale of priorities. How selfish. |
First of all, I said any task I'm unwilling to do myself.
Secondly, be realistic. Do you REALLY think enough people wouldn't volunteer to save the planet?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
quote: might sound noble , but there are times you have to make choices , and choose |
Possibly, but since I know that conscription is slavery, and immoral, I refuse to engage in it.
BUT, this is a largely irrelevant tangent. If you want to talk to me about conscription anymore, start your own thread.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:29
|
|
No one is expendable, but then again no one is so special they couldn't be replaced.
It has got nothing to do with 'sacrificing' troops, or sending them to suicide missions. If a leader makes a choice, that this is what we're going to do, he is then cofident his actions are right. Therefore he will go himself too. If not, well.. then there must be a problem.
If mission or plan is looking like it will sacrifice lots of folks.. well then you just have to look at it again and make it better. But to expect no one will die is foolish and weak. Leaders must be strong and show the way, all the way. Tjey must be accept that they can die too. Well that should at least motivate them to make good plans. I don't understand any other way. If leader is making good plans, and he is proud of his troops and sure of its effectiveness and combat abilities, then naturally he should feel the urge to go first. He can't demand things he is not able to do himself. He must be one of the best himself. Good leaders are also good soldiers, or should be. How the heck can he spend all the time making plans with others, then when the time comes he just stays back where it's more safer? He should take the honour of being the first to enter and last to come back. What good leader thinks he is better than the lower ranks? That's not a good leader. And what good leader does not send his best men first chance he gets, but more 'expendable' guys who are not so qualified? Not a good leader. Leader is confident and knows he's right and will succeed. Or then he's not exactly leader material in the first place, damn it!
There is no problem what so ever.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
Pekka, I largely agree with you, except for your "no one is so special..." line.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
Not if they volunteered to go.
By "volunteer" I don't mean volunteer for the army in general, but volunteer for the specific military action that lies outside of defending the nation itself, which is implied in joining the army. Obviously, a foreign war requires outside, voluntary funding, as well, and the war has to be in defense of another.
Yes, with so many stipulations, my support for a war is hypothetical rather than realistic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:29
|
|
quote: Not if they volunteered to go.
By "volunteer" I don't mean volunteer for the army in general, but volunteer for the specific military action that lies outside of defending the nation itself, which is implied in joining the army. Obviously, a foreign war requires outside, voluntary funding, as well, and the war has to be in defense of another.
Yes, with so many stipulations, my support for a war is hypothetical rather than realistic. | But you are against the US involvement in WW2. Almost all of the soldiers volunteered to defend their country, AFAIK. In fact, I've heard many stories of kids lying about their ages in order to enlist. Why the double standard?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
panag,
quote: and are you or have you been faced with conscription yet , ....... |
I haven't been faced with genocide, either, but I can still say genocide is wrong.
Sava,
quote: But you are against the US involvement in WW2. |
Certainly.
quote: Almost all of the soldiers volunteered to defend their country, AFAIK. |
A majority of Marines and naval personnel were volunteers. A majority of army personnel were conscripts.
quote: In fact, I've heard many stories of kids lying about their ages in order to enlist. |
So?
quote: Why the double standard? |
There's no double standard. Conscription existed, and the war was not funded voluntarily.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
You asked if I'd faced conscription, implying (in my mind) that I wasn't qualified to have an opinion if I wasn't subject to it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
quote: Against WWII. I've heard it all now, David.
We pushed for that one to happen, didn't we? |
We certainly did.
-Scrap metal and oil embargo against Japan
-Escorting British convoys through war zones carrying war material
-Giving war material to the British to be used against the Germans
-Firing on U-boats on sight
-Radioing position of U-boats to the British
Make no mistake, the embargo against Japan didn't justify Pearl Harbor (although I'd say that Germany had a legit reason to go to war due to attacks on U-boats), but we certainly weren't trying to avoid war.
panag,
The thread is up.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
Let me clarify my position.
If people are contracted to do risk their lives for a certain cause, then I would not order them (assuming I had the power) to die, or face elevated risk of death, for that cause.
For example, I would ask a fireman to go into a burning building or not, but for me, its his perogative whether he does or not. Obviously, in most cases he will.
Also differentiate there between something that will save a life, a directly productive outcome, and something that will take other lives (i.e. die to make others die) which is directly destructive. Obviously, the outcome of that destruction may indeed be positive, but thats another matter thats irrelevant.
About idealist pacifism, its an interesting thought that if everybody was entirely logical, there would be no armies and there would be no war.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|