If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If, for example, I know nothing of Chemistry, I will ask a Professor of Chemistry. But, until that point, I am perfectly entitled to pontificate about electrons in bonding, or whatever the silly subject is, for I am none the wiser.
hahahaha please don't pander to his ego DJP.
We are discussing the ethics of war, there is NO meed to have been in combat to be able to grasp the essential moral principles of what that combat entails.....
I listen to other people's opinions, as certainly must be verified by my previous posting. However... I do not lap up the posturing of them ignorant of the issue, and claim they defecate rosebuds...
The only thing that "pandering to (my) ego" gets is the resultant cynicism that comes with questioning the motivation of the sycophant.
I am most certainly not like you, nor likely anyone with whom you are familiar. Who and what I am were tested and proven long before you were even a stain on the sheets. Whatever you or anyone else thinks, says, or does changes nothing of my being.
You may listen, and heed from experience, or you may ignore, and pay the toll yourself. Be aware... you might not enjoy the price tag. Reality brings its own form of "sticker shock"...
You prefer to postulate from ignorance?
Point noted...
Perhaps you would like to "edify" them below as to the "moral realities" of war?
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=429314
Unless you have walked the path, you cannot know where it leads, nor the nature of the terrain...
what in fact is your point? You like to hide behind your elaborate prose without making a proper point on the matter in hand.
I assume you seek to show that there are no ethics in war, at least from the perspective of the combatants, we were trying to discuss WHY that is so, what do you think Thanatos?
Maybe he is trying to show that war has dented his own morality, and that these "events" that the russians tried out, were similar to his own experiences in vietnam?
I dont think i've ever learnt anything from Thanatos, he hides behind his elabortate writing style because he is unable to support any of his arguments except with links to gun forums and excerpts that have not been verified from Russian soldiers called Boris or "Russian conscript".
All we were ever discussing is wether war is ethical, which I believe in some cases it can be. But then you assume we are all making personal attacks against soldiers themselves and you call us sheep. And then you have the audacity to call us children.
I think you have always completely failed to grasp the point of a discussion, I accept that I am not a soldier, doesn't stop me from learning about it, and from being able to tell right from wrong? The fact that I am not a soldier means I can look upon the actions of a soldier and criticise them or praise them, without being biased, or without fear of offending my "brothers".
As for NI being a police action, who cares? The last time any of your troops came close to real combat was in Vietnam and you fucked that one up. Oh wait...you didn't lose, you made a "strategic withdrawl" because of the jumped up liberals back home.
Wasn't anything to do with your forces being deadlocked, and unable to move forwards. Course not, you all did an excellent job.
You believe that I am an idealist, that is because frequently you have chosen to ignore anything I have written. I am far from an idealist, as others will testify. I know that war is sometimes inevitable, and that there will be civilian casualties. I know that sometimes life in our country might be threatened by actions taking place all around the world.
What I question is the morality of launching a world wide war against terrorism, that has shown no recognisable victories. Sure you've occupied a piece of desert in the middle east, but you still haven't stopped the terrorist activity, you still haven't found Bin Laden or any of his close aides. Where is the morality in fighting a war you know you can never win?
oh by the way, congratulations on dropping bombs on that canadian base, more "collateral damage"?
Exactly, you've summed me up in a word, I do believe that people need to make some sacrifice.
In terms of indivudualism it is impossible to ignore one buring question, is it possible to put a price on a single life, and is it ethical to put the lives of strangers over that of a single person?
At the same time it is also impossible to ignore that some things need to be done for the greater good.
The ironic thing now is that while the West sits back and critizes the middle east for terrorism, its just that sense of compassionlessness and greed catching up to us. If your to go back and do a little research on the initial Zionist conspiracy to reoccupy Israel and the support they got from Britian and the rest of the western world you'll see that terrorism is not a security issue so much as a wicked cycle with wicked roots. We(Americans) had ours coming due to us for our support for Israel and our bullying foreign policys. I can at least justify santions for Iraq b/c Sadaam is a complete dickhead. Its funny I guess how we use terrorism so losely and one-sided like its an evil generated for the purpose of declaring hate and killing innocents without a cause. Ironically its an evil that we played a large hand in creating. What drives a beautiful 18 yr old girl who is a straight "A" student and engaged to be married to blow herself up? desperation? Hopelessness? When the United States, England, and especially Israel figure that one out they will be one step closer to reaching a solution. In the mean time mother nature will have to take her course. So yes I guess ethics does play A part in the solution to war just as the lack of ethics usually plays a part in the cause. I can't speak for England but some Americans are finally catching on to this, but we still have a long ride ahead. Sorry, I guess I rambled a bit. I do that sometimes
whats that about? Why do people think the world is overpopulated? There is room for many more people and our food growing capacity is still nowhere near it's peak......
And btw, your posts would be a lot easier to read if you spilt up the prose a bit <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
I agree that there are very serious environmental issues to do with population growth but I don't subscribe to the apocalyptic theories of doom and destruction because they simple aren't true...
I think we have sex as much as any Africans, the issue is one of culture and of development not of sex drive.....
Anyway you said that ethics were an illusio because of human nature. Do you not think that our ethics have advanced,do you not think they will continue to advance?
Due to the fact that we have no natural predators, I think war, hunger, and disease are all effective means of population control. You'd be silly to over look the millions of people who have died at war and think otherwise. But I never said it was neccessary. It doesn't have to be, but until we can all put our differences aside then it will continue to be. I apologize if I was straying from the original topic or if you had problems following.
I was (of course) refering to the human race as a whole when talking about overpopulation and food supply.
I agree that there are very serious environmental issues to do with population growth but I don't subscribe to the apocalyptic theories of doom and destruction because they simple aren't true...
China itself represents about a fifth of the world's population. Maybe your in England now. I here it close to impossible to legally immigrate and find work there with out substancial job experience or family b/c its so crowded. I live in Charlotte NC now and although I don't see population growth as an immediate threat to anyones health, this place grows significantly every year, especially as 1000's of Mexicans illegally immigrate here. So when you say population growth is not a problem you seem to be generalizing that to represent Earth as a whole when certainly large portions of this planet are being negatively impacted in various ways. I think as we continue to expand at this rate we have to take in to consideration that our problems will expand as well. We are always looking at the immediate solution as to how to get by for now instead of down the road generations ahead.
As far as reproduction goes I said we need to stop irresponsibly breeding. If you can't take care of yourself why would you bring a child into the world. It is an issue of ignorance and culture, but its still driven by sex drive and I never said it was a problem limited to Africa, its all over. Unwanted children are a plethora in every country.
Finally In regards to ethics I meant they still seem to be weighted greatly toward illusion, but I do believe they exist, and have advanced. I just see what's happening in the middle East and it makes me realize how far we have to go. It all starts with the individual. I believe in the Buddha in the sence that we all have the ability to find peace within ourselves and no one person is better than the next. But have you ever taken a day to mentally focus on how many time you critically judge someone you don't know, or lie, or do some thing selfish. It really allows you to recognize your true nature. That's not to say you or I are bad people, Its just saying it takes work to make yourself a better person and its easy to get off on the wrong foot, especially brought up under harsh environments. We are lucky we grow up in a cultural setting that encourages good ethics.
*pats self on back and feels important*
I wonder what I can come up with for you all next week ..... <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
There is more than enough food to go around, and scientists predict that with current technology the planet can easily sustain 12 billion people.
However this food needs to be distributed fairly and equally.
As we reach the carrying capacity of this planet I feel several things may happen:
1)Technology will improve which will allow us to grow more food
2)We wil start to colonise nearby planets such as mars and the moon, enabling surplus populations being sent there.
3)There will be a major world war/global catastrophe within the next 50 years, resulting in a decrease in population in the third world areas (any global catastrophe wont affect the West so much due to our technology and ability to defend ourselves).
4)Population growth will level off, and reach it's peak in about 2012. Scientists and analysts predict that by 2012 there will be 2 possible outcomes. Either we will continue to reproduce at our present level, resulting in a population of 18 billion by 2050, or the population growth will slow down, and our population will rise to about 10-12 billion by 2050.
There is only one rule, and one ethic in war: DO NOT LOSE! Everything else is a matter of convenience - a luxury - to the "victor". The "ethics" of the vanquished are a moot point, as they most frequently have ceased to exist...
Ah... another opportunity for your favorite preoccupation: the attempt to defame US forces.
Yes... I saw much worse in Vietnam, and it was at the hands of your "noble" freedom fighter NVA "valiantly throwing off the shackles of US 'imperialism'". No... I did not do those things myself, however much you would wish to believe that I did.
The post was copied and pasted from another forum, originally posted by a Russian veteran of the war in Chechnya. Argue your points with him. Since I observed much worse on a daily basis, I have little doubt of the veracity of his "quotes"...
And THAT is the basic difference between you and me: I speak from experience, and you postulate from supposition and ignorance.
I also chose to post concerning the nature of a similar combatant as we are facing in Afghanistan. And to use someone else's statements and experiences, because you ain't gettin' close to mine...
And you likely never will, concerning anything of substance, or specifics of experience. You have the opportunity to study the "broad strokes", but refuse to learn because it does not conform to your conceited little prejudices. The "fine details"? Will never be available to the likes of you, because you have neither the trust nor respect requisite to be allowed through that portal.
You think I talk in elipses? Try to get into a conversation with others of my Brothers. They are not so revealing as I...
Anytime you attempt to judge a world beyond your protected and pampered life by the values of that protected and pampered life, you present a prima facie case of your pretentious imbecility.
You want to understand war? Enlist. Take up a weapon, and defend a post. Give something real and tangible of yourself, other than your mouthy profiling arrogance. Put your life where your mouth is. Should you survive the experience, you will find that you observe those such as you (are now) with a similar disgust.
However, from the nature of your posts, I doubt you possess the testicular quality requisite to make the cut.
How old are you? 18?
Still in school?
You ARE a child.
At 18, I could answer YES to several of the rhetorical questions I posted previously; by the time I was 21, I was forced to answer YES to every damned one...
I dismiss your perspective because you have not the basis to judge "right from wrong" concerning the issue of war. You want to judge it from your ignorance, and it can only be truly comprehended from experience. "Right from wrong" in your civilian world are not "right from wrong" in war.
You have not the fucking RIGHT to judge what you cannot understand, and certainly have not the right to "criticise" what you cannot comprehend...
Vietnam was "fucked up" by the politicians who prevented the war from being correctly prosecuted. Had the shackles been removed, it would have been a rout, as evidenced by the fact that US forces NEVER lost an engagement platoon size or larger...
As for "the last time any ... troops came close to real combat"? REALLY bloody ignorant, aren't you? The "sandbox" a decade ago was not recess at kindergarten. Iraqi military was one of the strongest in the world, easily equal to Britain's, AND more experienced. Pull your head out and get a glimmer of light in between your ears...
MANY other conflicts involved "real combat", but that wouldn't be convenient to your supposition, now would it?
Politically constrained from getting the job done, and severely reprimanded when we moved forward past "politically correct" arbitrary boundaries. THAT ONE I can speak from personal experience. And the details?
Fuck you.
What? Does not fit your neat little agenda? War causes inconvenience?
How long did it take to end Hitler's war? That was only on two fronts for Britain, and how long did you get your ass handed to you? In a conventional war? This war is WORLD WIDE, with no fronts, no lines, and not even damned uniforms. As I posted months ago, it is going to last a long, long time, and only the pathetically naive would expect/demand less. That includes you, right?
Think attacking forces in Afghanistan is going to directly end actions everywhere else in the world? It is merely the start, as Diesel has posted uncountable times. And it WILL be won, but is going to require those with the stomach for the job, not whiney little teenie boppers with short attention spans...
Oh, by the way - FUCK YOU.
It is demonstrative of your TOTAL and WILFULL ignorance of the reality of war to not understand that "friendly fire" DOES happen, and within a theatre of war, not every little thing is so neatly demarked as within your delusional perspective.
Last I heard, the F-16 was fired upon twice by ground troops, who turned out to be Canadian: I am withholding ANY judgment until all facts are known, and then, I still accept that this is the nature of combat. Lamentable consequences, but most definitely, a familiar component of real combat. It was not the first, nor will it be the last. If you cannot understand it, then you have no business discussing "the morality of war".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you choose to listen... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Yes, I DO have a compassionate side, but there is also a switch that starts "the machine", and most who have survived heavy combat have that very same faculty. It gets real cold, real effective, and real focused, REALLY damned fast. Perhaps that is why I survived what many others did not. That particular faculty is requisite within real warriors.
The "truth" about ethics?
Machines have NO ethics.
If you can comprehend that, then you will understand why much of this thread is just so much public masturbation by them who are clueless...
Read the second post on this page, by Desantnik...
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57320&perpage=30&pagenumber=2
I already know the enemy we are fighting cannot be seen, cannot be found and cannot be killed.
What I was getting at was that a CONVENTIONAL war, like the current one cannot ever defeat terrorism or guerilla action.
War cannot be understood fully by soldiers, want to know why? because you have demonstrated an inability to look at it with an unbiased approach. You only see it from one side. You saw America's defeat in Vietnam as a result of the politicians.
I see it as a result of:
1)fighting an unpopular and unneccasry war in the first place.
2)The result of several hundred thousand US troops losing their lives for a cause nobody who mattered believed in.
3)Fighting a conventional war, with conventional means, when the war clearly needed a different approach.
The war in Afghanistan is similar, the US and UK governments are taking an approach similar to that taken of the generals of world war one. Sending cavalry to charge the lines for lack of any better ideas. Ever heard of the term "if it aint broke?". The same thing happened in Vietnam, thinking they could use tactics learnt in World war 2, the generals sent tanks with little infantry support into hostile areas, jungle and urban areas included. Why? It worked in the second world war, why won't it work now?
You consistently maintain that I have no understanding of war, when I have demonstrated that I clearly do. Just because I don't know about the personal experiences of soldiers, does not mean I can't make informed decisions and recognise where mistakes have been made.
Again you have taken a biased view, you believe because you have picked up a rifle, you are better than everyone, and anyone who hasn't picked up a rifle is of no use in your grand scheme of things.
You believe I lack the will or the "balls" to pick up a rifle. If you knew me, if you read ANY of my other posts you would know my ambition is to join the RAF or the Royal Armoured Corps. Failing that I want to join the police.
The only difference between you and me is that I am not going to be forced into it. I am making the CHOICE. Something you never had.
As for the Canadians and "friendly fire being inevitable", I have heard of no reports of troops dying through the negligence of any army other than the US one. The fact that the pilot cannot say how many bombs he dropped tends to dent my confidence further.
The fact that the pilot, or the pilot's range finder chose to ignore the thermal, reflective strips allied soldiers where on the top of the helmets, and bomb them anyway.
Accidents like this don't happen anymore, unless the person who causes the accident choose to ignore the safety procedures.
Error... </STRONG>
Error... </STRONG>
Just like cricket can only be truly understood by "darts" players? LMFAO!
Error... Fifty odd thousand, not "several hundred thousand".
So no one mattered except them with the same view as you?
Have you ever even visited the US?
Did you live here during the '60's?
By what basis do you claim to comprehend what anyone believed in during that time? By what you read in your obviously revised and distorted history propoganda? By what your handlers allow you?
LMFAO!
DAMN! How could I have been so blind? They flew the tanks in with helicopters, just like the infantry! How could I have missed that? LMFAO!
Only time I saw tanks was around cities under siege. Yes, there were tanks in Vn, but I was mostly in places where tanks did not go, because you do not search for an elusive target making that kind of noise.
And we fought them very well, the NVA and VC. We killed sixty times our losses. We were constrained by the "new warfare" tactic of observing "politically correct" parameters, so that the touchie/feelie sheep like you would not be offended by reality.
Oh, PUL-LEZE! Tell me MORE about what I lived, and you merely speculate about? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You prove it with your blatant and wilfull ignorance; I merely point it out.
What I said was you do not have the testicular qualities requisite to make the cut. You have not the DISCIPLINE to make the grade. You have not the COMMITMENT to stick to it. Your personal life (which you post) reeks of your incompetence, and deprivation of honor.
You want to run your mouth about what you DO NOT know, rather than shut it and listen.
With your posted attitude, you would wash out in the first week with any COMPETENT armed force...
Heaven help them! <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
</STRONG>
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Let us hope that ALL firearms are majikly removed from Britain prior to that lamentable moment...
<STRONG> </STRONG>
You insult me with your supposition, AND your arrogance.
You are NOTHING! like me, nor who I was at your age.
Training accidents are inevitable in the military, especially when "live fire", or within a war zone. Your ignorance proves nothing!
And if the Canadians did - as within news reports - fire upon the F-16, then the "cause" of the "accident" certainly does NOT rest upon the shoulders of the F-16 pilot.
You comprehend nothing of the nature of combat, but want to proclaim yourself the omnipotent expert. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> THAT in and of itself declares you A CHILD!!!
Rolling on the floor laughing my fucking ass off!!!
[ 19-04-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]