|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If these differences involve flying jetliners into civilian residences and the like, I see no problem with killing those who ordered such actions.
|
I do; I'd much prefer they be apprehended and tried if at all possible.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
But you know, maybe you're right. Next time we see Bin Laden the global community should just wag their collective fingers at him and tell him what a naughty boy he was.
|
It's not like soldiers have successfully stopped him, so I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. All our soldiers are doing are wandering the world destabilizing huge portions of it with violence at great cost to our nation. Their actions haven't made us more secure.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Some people need killing.
|
No, some people need to not be mindlessly obeyed by paid killers.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
The world would be a better place if people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden and the like didn't exist. Unfortunately they do, so it's up to us to end their existence as soon as possible by whatever means possible. |
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, bin Laden: all men who would be totally ineffectual if not for the fact that thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of people agree to enact violence on their behalf. On their own they are nothing: it's the men in their service that make them terrible. It's soldiers that make them terrible.
We're never going to have a world totally free of people with a disposition to be Hitlers or Stalins. We could have a world where such men could never gain substantial sway or cause substantial harm, though. In order to have it, the governments of the world need to be disarmed of their military capabilities, though, because as long as the governments of the world retain military capability, it will eventually be used for it's only true purpose: warfare.
It won't happen in the foreseeable future, though. People will keep trying to justify, keep wanting to cheer their soldiers on, keep coming up with excuses for why we should maintain expensive corps of paid killers. And in doing so, they'll be helping to provide the next Hitler or Stalin with the tools they'll need to cause devestation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, Fox.
Join the police. Stand up for your society while not supporting the military.
Or be a pacifist, what ever.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If these differences involve flying jetliners into civilian residences and the like, I see no problem with killing those who ordered such actions.
|
I do; I'd much prefer they be apprehended and tried if at all possible.
|
And how do we do this without soldiers?
We tried this in Afghanistan. We asked the Taliban to hand over the people who plotted 9/11. They refused.
Without soldiers, these people would still be living in Afghanistan free to plan another 9/11 style attack and another and another and another and another.....
Going further back in history, remember Hitler at Munich?
And there are countless other instances which prove that your theory is unworkable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If these differences involve flying jetliners into civilian residences and the like, I see no problem with killing those who ordered such actions.
|
I do; I'd much prefer they be apprehended and tried if at all possible.
|
And how do we do this without soldiers? |
It's clearly not working with soldiers, so why are we talking about soldiers as if they're the solution?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Without soldiers, these people would still be living in Afghanistan free to plan another 9/11 style attack and another and another and another and another..... |
People are still free to plan another 9/11 style attack, and another, and another. Soldiers have not removed this possibility; perhaps they temporarily cannot use Afghanistan as a base of operations, but so what? They'll work from elsewhere for now, and come back to Afghanistan as soon as we leave (as we eventually must). Our use of soldiers has not made us better off. Quite the opposite, our use of soldiers has caused American deaths, and the deaths of innocent non-Americans as well, and also cost us substantially in terms of economic prosperity.
I'm not saying this isn't a difficult problem, I'm saying soldiers haven't solved it, and I don't believe they will -- or can -- solve it.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Going further back in history, remember Hitler at Munich? |
Hitler used soldiers; in a soldier free world, Hitler would have been no where near as threatening. As I've said more than enough times, so long as any nation chooses to retain a standing army, soldiers will be a necessary evil, emphasis on the word evil. If I were saying something like, "America should unilaterally disarm itself," then yes, you'd be right to say my theory is unworkable. I'm not saying anything like that, though, I'm just quite accurately placing part of the blame for warfare, tyranny, and attrocity at the feet of people who are willing to become soldiers, as well as those who cheer them on from the sidelines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If these differences involve flying jetliners into civilian residences and the like, I see no problem with killing those who ordered such actions.
|
I do; I'd much prefer they be apprehended and tried if at all possible.
|
And how do we do this without soldiers? |
It's clearly not working with soldiers, so why are we talking about soldiers as if they're the solution?
It has worked with soldiers. Saddam was one of the biggest supporters of terrorism for example...who initially apprehended him? Nothing else would work.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Without soldiers, these people would still be living in Afghanistan free to plan another 9/11 style attack and another and another and another and another..... |
People are still free to plan another 9/11 style attack, and another, and another. Soldiers have not removed this possibility; perhaps they temporarily cannot use Afghanistan as a base of operations, but so what? They'll work from elsewhere for now, and come back to Afghanistan as soon as we leave (as we eventually must). Our use of soldiers has not made us better off. Quite the opposite, our use of soldiers has caused American deaths, and the deaths of innocent non-Americans as well, and also cost us substantially in terms of economic prosperity.
I'm not saying this isn't a difficult problem, I'm saying soldiers haven't solved it, and I don't believe they will -- or can -- solve it.
Yet there hasn't been another 9/11 style attack so far. And if people come to equate the consquences of Afghanistan with a 9/11 attack, I daresay the government of whatever country is simply not going to wink at any terrorist group.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Going further back in history, remember Hitler at Munich? |
Hitler used soldiers; in a soldier free world, Hitler would have been no where near as threatening. As I've said more than enough times, so long as any nation chooses to retain a standing army, soldiers will be a necessary evil, emphasis on the word evil. If I were saying something like, "America should unilaterally disarm itself," then yes, you'd be right to say my theory is unworkable. I'm not saying anything like that, though, I'm just quite accurately placing part of the blame for warfare, tyranny, and attrocity at the feet of people who are willing to become soldiers, as well as those who cheer them on from the sidelines. |
Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hitler used soldiers; in a soldier free world, Hitler would have been no where near as threatening. |
Actually, it was the European nations (including the english) lack of a strong army that helped usser in WW2. The Germans built thier military regardless of the rules and then had a stronger military than those who should have opposed them.
Your belief is not about a country specifically, but rather that the Global community can enforce a world with no military. The question is then raised as to how?
Pakistan had an agreement with the Pastun that they would not enforce the territories with the military and that allowed the P. Taliban and others to take control. The Police failed to do the job.
You seem to believe that there is some "wonderful world" that will exist so long as "we" agree to it.
In my country, it was understood in 1968 that the Police could not deal with certain firearm related incidents. They created the Armed Offenders (AO), they did this by taking certain police and training them to the level of soldiers.
The military trained them to thier level and the police took the role of using weapons in our society as it is illegal for the military to involve themselves in civilian issues. The police AO trains reguarly with the military and to the same level as the military, but act under different rules.
If the AO fails to do the job, then the SF is seconded to the police to do the job. We call them by different names, but the training is not lacking and the result for those who go against them wouldnt be majorly different.
Call them by a different name and yet, the result would still be the same. Though our police train our military as to how to behave in a peace keeping operation, so what goes around comes around.
Your argument that without a soldier, the world would be different is not actually correct, They may not be called soldiers, but the actions wouldn't change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world.
As far as paramilitaries, soldiers are soldiers regardless of the capacity they're serving in. So if you're talking about nationally funded paramilitaries, my answer is the same as regarding other soldiers: they need to go. If you're talking about some sort of independent paramilitary force roving the countryside causing havoc (I'm not sure I'd call this a paramilitary force, but just in case you were talking about something like this), then I'll point out that these aren't a problem in the well-policed civilized world. The answer to such groups isn't soldiers, it's adequate and effective police forces existing everywhere in the world in order to bring order.
Soldiers destabilize society, reduce economic prosperity, enable dictators and tyrants, and are ineffective at combating any problem except other soldiers. They're a necessary evil, but hopefully some day they won't be, and glorifying that necessary evil makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Hitler used soldiers; in a soldier free world, Hitler would have been no where near as threatening. |
Actually, it was the European nations (including the english) lack of a strong army that helped usser in WW2. The Germans built thier military regardless of the rules and then had a stronger military than those who should have opposed them. |
And they built their stronger military out of what? Oh yes, soldiers.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Your belief is not about a country specifically, but rather that the Global community can enforce a world with no military. The question is then raised as to how? |
I don't think the global community can enforce a world with no military, which, again, is why I call soldiers a necessary evil. What I'm against here is the glorification of soldiers. They aren't good, they aren't noble, and we'd be in a better world if people who were willing to serve as soldiers didn't exist. Their profession is not worthy of respect.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Your argument that without a soldier, the world would be different is not actually correct, They may not be called soldiers, but the actions wouldn't change. |
I'm sorry, but like much of what you've said, that's incredibly stupid. Whatever you call them, a soldier is still a soldier. The world you describe isn't the world I'm suggesting.
Why are you still trying to engage me, by the way? I thought I was just an ignorant troll, and I thought we agreed you'd stop? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world. |
Even granting this argument, you've only shown that militaries are unhelpful against terrorists. Terrorism isn't the only threat the people of this world has ever seen, or will ever see. It seems like you're fighting the last war, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why are you still trying to engage me, by the way? I thought I was just an ignorant troll, and I thought we agreed you'd stop? |
I said troll or ignorant. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
| Quote: |
Why criminalize war, it's just a symptom of the actual problems: soldiers willing to kill on government orders. Politicians would be impotent without soldiers to act upon their commands.
Criminalize soldiers. |
| Quote: |
| Why on Earth would I take the place of someone whose behavior I'm condemning? I don't need to become a paid killer to know I'm ethically uncomfortable with people being paid killers. The last thing I'd want to do is to take a job in an organization I'm proposing the univeral abolishment of. |
But I would not like people to believe that your argument "that soldiers are nothing more than killers" should stand without an equal response.
Dont like it. Sue me. Its a discussion forum.
Its hard to understand your point.
1. Soldiers shouldn't exist.
2. People who want to be soldiers shouldn't exist.'
3. all violence can be constrained by police.
4. When we educate, enforce people to think as we should.
Is that close to the points that you have made?
Now, how are we to reach that point?
Genetics?
Law enforcement?
Evolution?
__________?
(post edditted) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Summer Wine wrote:
| Quote: |
Your argument that without a soldier, the world would be different is not actually correct, They may not be called soldiers, but the actions wouldn't change.
I'm sorry, but like much of what you've said, that's incredibly stupid. Whatever you call them, a soldier is still a soldier. |
We said exactly the same thing. Yet you call me stupid.
What is a 'soldier'? A soldier is a person who acts according to certain rules.
Even if you criminalized "soldiers", the Govt, would train people to do the same job and call them something else.
Why? Because the job still needs to be done.
Call a man a "trashman" or a "street cleaner", the job doesn't majorly change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world.
. |
"the civilized, well police part of the world" is a very small part of the world.
Even in the best countries we still have a lot of police brutality (remember that guy who was sexually assulted with a plunger by our finest) And that is only one in a very long list of incidents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thoreau
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been trying to sort out this idea.
What if the U.S. Congress passed a law that tied some 'cost' to being engaged in a war or 'police action.'
For example, what if there was a law that said for every division involved in a military action federal sales tax would be increased 1%.
Logically this works. Being at war increases costs so a tax increase is justified. If the war is 'just' then U.S. citizens should have no problem paying a little bit more. If the war is viewed as unjust then people will complain about the war and the tax increase and hopefully put pressure on their representatives.
I'm not sure a tax increase is the best thing. But there should be something that is automatically triggered by war. Something that has the potential to be politically costly back home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world. |
Even granting this argument, you've only shown that militaries are unhelpful against terrorists. Terrorism isn't the only threat the people of this world has ever seen, or will ever see. It seems like you're fighting the last war, Fox. |
Can you suggest a threat that could occur on a reasonable socially stable, well-policed planet which would require standing militaries to combat, but doesn't involve other human soldiers (given I've all ready granted that so long as some soldiers exist, others become necessary evils)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world.
. |
"the civilized, well police part of the world" is a very small part of the world. |
I agree. My point was rather that if (when?) the rest of the world joined us in that regard, police could keep sufficient order that such things would be no where near as much a problem as they are in barbaric parts of the world.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Even in the best countries we still have a lot of police brutality (remember that guy who was sexually assulted with a plunger by our finest) And that is only one in a very long list of incidents. |
And I agree this is a problem. It's not a problem relevent to soldiers, though; we don't call in the army to deal with police brutality. Rather, we use other police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
