Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Supporting the troops = glorifying war?

Page 2 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

27 Dec 2011, 1:48 pm

Military solutions are not the most effective means for eliminating civilian casualties. For the military solution to work you first have to defeat the enemy which could take years and in the meantime result in millions of dead civilians. A far more effective solution would have been to allow the United States to take in Jewish refugees.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 1:48 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
If there were no troops they'd just use more drones. Wars are started by politicians, not soldiers.


Soldiers finish the wars though. And plus, why would they even use soldiers if drones could do EVERYTHING. There's some things in a war only humans on the ground can do.


Not for much longer. The development of unmanned drones is progressing fairly well, and it'd only speed up in the absence of troops.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

27 Dec 2011, 1:49 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
phil777 wrote:
False equivalency. Supporting the troops, which are human (for the moment) and need our compassion and sympathy does not mean we need to agree with the reason that supports the conflict which has put them into a situation of war. Usually people "support" the troops, with financial or at the very least, moral support, but it can't be certain that most of the soldiers really want to wage war (some do, obviously), which is often declared for political reasons, and by an executive branch of government which cares more or less for their safety, and onto whom they have very little mean of intervention.


So like, would it make sense if I said "I support rapists, but not rape?" Or "I support bank robbers, but not bank robbery?" The troops ARE the war. If they really are so peaceful and honorable, they would refuse to fight unjust wars.


Broad generalizations. Do you also condemn smokers for smoking? The person who is doing a bank robbery might be desperate (or just in for the money, admittedly) and wants to feed his family, and he has nothing to lose by doing so. Also, the troops are only associated with war because they participate in it. You forget to mention the field surgeons, engineers and logistics specialists that help a mission go smoothly. Also, I reckon you sign a contract with the State when you sign up for the army, no? For a given amount of them to serve? It would be awkward if you came to breach your contract or do something that runs counter to what you are engaging yourself to do. This is usually why I'd rather support "peace" missions, the likes of which the UN does (although admittedly, they're underpaid, so they look like a joke).



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 1:50 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Military solutions are not the most effective means for eliminating civilian casualties. For the military solution to work you first have to defeat the enemy which could take years and in the meantime result in millions of dead civilians. A far more effective solution would have been to allow the United States to take in Jewish refugees.


That's exactly what I think, and that's why I reject the notion, that's popular even among pacifists, that WW2 was a rare example of a just war. I also think the aggression of Germany and Japan had to do with our punitive sanctions against them, not because they were evil societies.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 1:52 pm

Of course WWII was justified. Or would you rather live in a society founded by Hitler?



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 1:53 pm

phil777 wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:

Broad generalizations. Do you also condemn smokers for smoking? The person who is doing a bank robbery might be desperate (or just in for the money, admittedly) and wants to feed his family, and he has nothing to lose by doing so. Also, the troops are only associated with war because they participate in it. You forget to mention the field surgeons, engineers and logistics specialists that help a mission go smoothly. Also, I reckon you sign a contract with the State when you sign up for the army, no? For a given amount of them to serve? It would be awkward if you came to breach your contract or do something that runs counter to what you are engaging yourself to do. This is usually why I'd rather support "peace" missions, the likes of which the UN does (although admittedly, they're underpaid, so they look like a joke).


No, I don't condemn smokers because they are only hurting themselves.

And yeah, it would be 'awkward' to quit a contract with the 3rd Reich to exterminate minorities, right? It would still be the right thing to do though.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 1:54 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Of course WWII was justified. Or would you rather live in a society founded by Hitler?


Was living under Soviet Russia any better?



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 1:54 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Of course WWII was justified. Or would you rather live in a society founded by Hitler?


Was living under Soviet Russia any better?


Well, yes, actually.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 1:57 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Of course WWII was justified. Or would you rather live in a society founded by Hitler?


Was living under Soviet Russia any better?


Well, yes, actually.


How is a gulag any more merciful than a Nazi camp? The Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis could dream of. WW2 was not about humanitarianism it was about money.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 2:01 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Of course WWII was justified. Or would you rather live in a society founded by Hitler?


Was living under Soviet Russia any better?


Well, yes, actually.


How is a gulag any more merciful than a Nazi camp? The Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis could dream of. WW2 was not about humanitarianism it was about money.


Only because the Nazis were stopped. I can tell you for sure that us Aspies would be gassed if the Nazis still had power, and anyone alive wouldn't be allowed to debate this publicly either.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

27 Dec 2011, 2:02 pm

Little known fact, the Soviet did improve the alphabetisation rate of the countries they were in, going as far as giving them a language when there wasn't any WRITTEN ones. It was a bit chaotic during the wars, but that's how it was when the Soviet Union started with Lenin and a little bit after he died. They did afterwards try to impose the russian language for propaganda tactics (and also, because alphabetisation of the people was going in that sense), look at how many times some countries had to change their alphabets each 10 years, and you'll see it wasn't so fun. :p



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 2:03 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Only because the Nazis were stopped. I can tell you for sure that us Aspies would be gassed if the Nazis still had power, and anyone alive wouldn't be allowed to debate this publicly either.


I think they would have become more mild in their ideology, just like Kruschev through 1991 they weren't killing people to the same degree as they were in Soviet Russia from the 1910s-1950s.

The Nazis weren't good, I certainly loathe their ideology, but I think the supposed uniqueness of their evil has mostly to do with the fact that they lost the war. A lot of things about them, such as them being anti-gay, are not entirely true.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 2:04 pm

phil777 wrote:
Little known fact, the Soviet did improve the alphabetisation rate of the countries they were in, going as far as giving them a language when there wasn't any WRITTEN ones. It was a bit chaotic during the wars, but that's how it was when the Soviet Union started with Lenin and a little bit after he died. They did afterwards try to impose the russian language for propaganda tactics (and also, because alphabetisation of the people was going in that sense), look at how many times some countries had to change their alphabets each 10 years, and you'll see it wasn't so fun. :p


The Nazis also improved the Autobahn. No regime is 100% bad. I mean hell, even George W. Bush was a supporter of the space program. I will give him that.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 2:05 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Only because the Nazis were stopped. I can tell you for sure that us Aspies would be gassed if the Nazis still had power, and anyone alive wouldn't be allowed to debate this publicly either.


I think they would have become more mild in their ideology, just like Kruschev through 1991 they weren't killing people to the same degree as they were in Soviet Russia from the 1910s-1950s.

The Nazis weren't good, I certainly loathe their ideology, but I think the supposed uniqueness of their evil has mostly to do with the fact that they lost the war. A lot of things about them, such as them being anti-gay, are not entirely true.


Either way, that they were fought and defeated is certainly a good thing, and WWII was better than the alternative of letting the Nazis take over the world.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

27 Dec 2011, 2:07 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Either way, that they were fought and defeated is certainly a good thing, and WWII was better than the alternative of letting the Nazis take over the world.


And how are you so certain there wasn't a peaceful way to stop them? And really, to play devil's advocate, is our Western civilization, the one that is destroying the biosphere, really any better than a Third Reich?



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Dec 2011, 2:10 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:

Either way, that they were fought and defeated is certainly a good thing, and WWII was better than the alternative of letting the Nazis take over the world.


And how are you so certain there wasn't a peaceful way to stop them? And really, to play devil's advocate, is our Western civilization, the one that is destroying the biosphere, really any better than a Third Reich?


Oh yes, because I'm sure if Churchill had just had a nice chat with Hitler and asked him calmly to call it off and step down, we'd have been able to avoid all that nasty war business! Why didn't anyone think of that? :roll:

And yes, it is better than the Third Reich. Don't get me wrong, our society is crap, because humans are, but it's a lot better than Nazi Germany.