Conversation
Notices
-
I personally couldn't be a soldier. I'm pretty sure I'd end up deserting or turning against my squad due to not being given full info on what I'm doing, or being given an order against my ethics. I could be a warrior sure, if there was a reason to like another country invading mine, I don't mind risk and fighting, but I couldn't blindly follow orders.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:14:05 UTC from web-
@nerthos Any proper military must trust it's officers afield to exercise discipline and judgement. Where the high command does not trust it's officers on the field to complete the mission in the most expedient means according to the ethic of the force, and feels it must be so rigid, it is a military whose leadership becomes ineffective.
-
@nerthos There are some Canadian Armed Forces generals and the like that have written interesting essays on this subject.
-
@maiyannah For me it's mostly an issue with the fact that I can't deal with doing things without knowing the whole picture, and that's just not how military works.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:23:10 UTC from web-
@nerthos I think you've watched too many films. Except for black operations, the pre-deployment briefing will be quite thorough as to the situation, potential actors, and objectives, prior to having boots on the ground. At the very least, this is the case in the Canadian military. I couldn't speak for any other.
-
@maiyannah It's not like that everywhere. And it's not just about the immediate situation on the field. If the enemy had the moral high ground, I'd be inclined to fight for them. I can't put up with being the bad guy. That's why I'd only join a defensive war, since it'd automatically mean my side is the good side.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:30:01 UTC from web-
@nerthos If you seek a battle where you are purely on the side of good, then you will fight in no conflict ever recorded, I dare to say. Even something like WW2, with the atrocities committed by the germans, had plenty of "war crimes" on the Allies' side too. They just don't get prosecuted of course, because the allies won.
-
@maiyannah I know, hence the whole "not pledging myself to a country" thing. I just think defensive wars are ok because you're basically defending your home from someone who's breaking into it. But that's my limit.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:34:48 UTC from web
-
-
@nerthos @maiyannah Weeelllllll, not necessarily. Technically speaking, the Nazis were fighting a defensive war after both theaters reversed in favor of the Allies.
It's all about what each side is fighting for.-
@gameragodzilla It's not a defensive war if it's the continuation of a failed attack on someone else, but anyway, WWII had good and bad on both sides so yeah. One can't justify Germany invading Poland for example, but them invading France could be justified. The whole thing was a mess.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:37:51 UTC from web-
@nerthos Well if you look at it with "who did what first?" kinda way. If you look at end goals of all the powers involved, it becomes more morally justifiable. Nazis in general, regardless of whether they were attacking Poland unprovoked or getting revenge on France, were genocidal racial supermacists hell bent on world domination and the destruction of certain groups of people. The Allies, well, they weren't perfect as they had Fluffle Puffing Stalin on their side, but by and large they were trying to combat the actions of these genocidal lunatics.
Nothing in the world is ever black and white. Even the romanticized view of "warriors" is not ever black and white because, as you pointed out, even a purely "defensive" war can be done by bad guys, so it's always about who's "more" in the right.-
@gameragodzilla In my opinion WWII was a mess because 80% of the nations involved were objectively bad. Nazis were awful, sure, but the only reason they got into power was due to the allies in the first place. Only a few countries you can say were actual victims of the war, like poland that was attacked unprovoked, or like finland that had to ally itself to germany because the allies wouldn't help them against the soviets, being completely willing to sacrifice a nation to have Stalin's help against germany. The rest were all bad. It's like having a prison fight between a racist killer, a passion killer, and a greed killer. They're all bad.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:48:14 UTC from web-
@nerthos Yeah, but at the end of the day it's about who's worse and taking that guy out first. You can't always have clean hands and fight against bad people. It's why most people don't fight themselves and just let the military handle things.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos you sir, have the mentality of a mercenary
and from one merc to another, be proud in being so.
for once you make more money than the average jar-head, you get better gear too.
plus you're not blindly following some idiot who's only reason for being "above" you is kuz his daddy and the General were hand-job-buddies back in the all-boys school for snotty-nosed-ponces, and who probably wouldn't know the difference between combat knife and a trench knife if it was half-way through his left kidneyMonday, 30-May-16 00:44:19 UTC from web-
@zennx I'm more of a knight than a merc, but I'd take merc over soldier.
Monday, 30-May-16 00:49:55 UTC from web
-
-
@nerthos I don't think I'd ever betray my squad but considering my authority issues I could easily see myself guilty of some green on green crossfire concerning an inept officer 0:-)
-
