A conscientious objector.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Okay, that's a complicated topic and I hope my English skills don't let this come across very wrong. But neither war was "literally pointless". This is only right from a rather narrow perspective, in my opinion. The conflicts between the involved countries and ideologies - for whatever reason - were real and they were real enough for many people to take up arms and literally kill each other. Unfortunately, that's my personal opinion, mankind needed this bloody lesson to understand how important peace is and that there must never be a european conflict ever again. Those two world wars should always remind of the horrors of the war, being a constant memorial. If Europe - which it mostly has - understood that lessons, those two wars were not pointless at all. It resulted in the european union, in a united Europe, which was completely unthinkable 80 years ago. One of Germany's closest allies being France nowadays, while literally stabbing each other to death only 104 years ago! It's incredible. Men needed these experiences to understand the necessity of keeping peace. Something that has been forgotten in the last decade, unfortunately, with many people from the war generations dying and not being able to keep preaching this important lesson. Which is very worrying indeed.
Edit:
I'd also like to point out that saying that it's always the lower class people who fight these wars is not entirely true. It's true they suffered the most, but of course, in the two world wars, every class was involved and suffered. But again: yes, lower class people suffered the most, as they always do, also in peace times, so that's nothing surprising.
I am not arguing that point, because in the end it does not matter who put a person in the position to chose whether to kill or not. There is not a cause, person or country in this world I would kill for. Not one. Die for? For people I think so, at least as confidently as I can. At the end of the day we all have a belief(s) that define the core of who we are, and this is mine.
I mean fair enough, I just don't think they need that personally but I guess they clearly think they do, so I hope they're right. In my eyes they need people who can operate in isolated pockets, with minimal support and carry out urban gorilla warfare without getting drawn into large scale contacts where Russia can use air assets and armour.
I was a reservist here and even I'd want a refresh before I got thrown in.
only to killing. I would do my part in any other role that was needed. I guess that may be hypocritical, but it’s what I got.
A country consists of people and while it is its own legal entity, talking about countries means talking about people as well. Also, men between 18 and 60 might not just be needed to kill people, but to do other things - in times of war, there's a lot to be done in order to support the troops.
I believe most soldiers are. Until situation somehow forced you to. I would rather not fight than having to kill but to be honest situation might dictates otherwise. I belive those 100k russian soldier also dont enjoy killing. Maybe some of them did
And in most conflicts you barely even see what you're shooting for most of the time (quoting roland bartezko).
In the case of Ukraine, I'd have thought most of the conscripts are required as light infantrymen because what they need most is boots on the battlefields.
However if the United States was drawn into a war so major that they started drafting people again, you'd very likely be assessed for your talents. You wouldn't necessarily have to be fighting/killing on the front line, I'd have thought there'd be opportunities to be anything from a driver, a USAF radar operator, even a sailor or a chef on a warship.
An armed insurgency of every able bodied male, spread across an area the size of Texas, occupying both rural and urban areas, would be an absolute nightmare scenario for the Russians. Would you not agree?
Before you get too sloshed on your road side Molotovs and get-Putin revery, it's worth noting that round here we have a rich and celebrated history of objection and pacifism. It's not really that shocking for compulsory national service edicts to not sit well with some, during a time of war.
Now back to being Bravehearts.
Now back to being Bravehearts.
I’m a really good cook, so that’ll do.
Or medics. They made a hollywood blockbuster recently about a conscientious objector who won the Medal of Honor as a medic in the Pacific in WWII.
This will constitute an enormous deviation if we go too far, but the first war was fought over inches on a trench-stained battlefield which came about as the result of alliance entanglment. It was the most pointless series of conflicts probably ever recorded. The second is more complex. Your average soldier is working class, is the point I'm making. All classes definitely suffered more in the second than the first because that was much closer to absolute war with cities destroyed all over the continent.
It is a lot easier to talk about the ideal, fairness and morality from the comforts of our sheltered homes. It's sad Ukrainians who do not wish to fight are now being forced to. But it's just as sad for Ukrainians who choose to fight or who had to make the decision to declare conscription. This really isn't a case of let only those who want it do it, because none of them want the war.
Sure. I don't know about Ukraines situation but for the UK, there is more weapons than service personnel, but no where near enough to additionally arm a medium sized city, nevermind the country.
It’s like the anti-Patton “The object of war isn’t to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his” quote
Hacksaw Ridge was in?
I understand that the reasons at that specific time were absolutely pointless, but in the grand scheme and looking back at it using a historic scale, those two pointless wars (also the first one, being even more pointless than the 2nd), taught us the most important lesson of European history - which makes both extremely important and not pointless at all. It's a crazy thought, but since Europe has experienced these total and full scale wars full of inhumanity and suffering, we might have saved countless lives and prevented suffering long term, since we actually learned from them.
Maybe it's worth having a discussion about NATO because beyond Putin's theater of the absurd, there are lots of misguided people focused on the boogieman NATO.
Here's the history of NATO aggression, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Libya in 2011. These were actions mostly justified due to major terror situations that had to be addressed. Am I missing anything? Now, I'm not trying to counter the Putin rhetoric which is complete nonsense. The west never even considered invading Russia, ever. I feel it's important to figure out how to respond to the kooky anti-war folks that lack a substantive argument against NATO. - Maybe it's best to set aside the nuclear weapons aspect in this exchange of ideas
I just don't see the mainstream media dealing with this issue.
Yeah, NATO members who participated in Afghanistan and Iraq committed blatant war crimes as were exposed by the 100,000's of Wikileaks files, but NATO's conduct in Europe and in particular Ukraine seems to be poised to simply prevent conflict.
It's worth repeating, for most of us it's common sense, but not for everyone.
Example: More than 50% of US Republicans polled favor Putin over Biden, which is incredibly insane.
Here's the history of NATO aggression, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Libya in 2011. These were actions mostly justified due to major terror situations that had to be addressed. Am I missing anything? Now, I'm not trying to counter the Putin rhetoric which is complete nonsense. The west never even considered invading Russia, ever. I feel it's important to figure out how to respond to the kooky anti-war folks that lack a substantive argument against NATO. - Maybe it's best to set aside the nuclear weapons aspect in this exchange of ideas
I just don't see the mainstream media dealing with this issue.
Yeah, NATO members who participated in Afghanistan and Iraq committed blatant war crimes as were exposed by the 100,000's of Wikileaks files, but NATO's conduct in Europe and in particular Ukraine seems to be poised to simply prevent conflict.
It's worth repeating, for most of us it's common sense, but not for everyone.
Example: More than 50% of US Republicans polled favor Putin over Biden, which is incredibly insane.
Might aswell draft in Tom Hanks again
Lots of ways to arm an insurgency. Iraq showed us that.
That’s the one! Couldn’t think of the name
Nah, he’s not in that movie.
My great uncle was in the Marines during the Korean War. He was a cook at Parris Island and his commanding officer essentially blocked them from going to Korea because he knew how bad it was.
There are times I've fluctuated between thinking I could never serve in the military as a teenager before considering Annapolis, which I didn't do (more out of lack of desire to wake up early every day than anything). In a situation like Ukraine is in, I like to think I would stay and fight. In reality, who knows what we would do.
I can understand, if you are Christian and believe in God it goes against everything you have been taught. It would be hard to kill somebody, even if they are the oppressor.
^ leading by example. That’s why the men have to stay.
While it's hardly a perfect 50/50, I guess you two will be pleased to know that a lot of women already have been serving in the Ukraine's defense forces for years.
This is from 2021 for example:
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...oldiers-armed-conflict-is-not-the-only-danger
"A total of 23 percent of Ukraine's army are women, according to numbers released by the Ministry of Defence, a number that has increased 15-fold in just ten years. Around half of them are soldiers while the other half work in civilian support roles. In 2008, only 1,800 women served in the Ukrainian military, a number that rose to 23,000 in 2017, 24,487 in 2018, 27,074 in 2019, and 29,760 women in 2020."
Down to a new influx of mostly men I think the number is closer to 15% at the current moment. You could read more about the specifics below, though if you want to be completely exact about the numbers it's a complex technical discussion on itself:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-war...-women-will-be-on-the-front-lines-11645113866
https://112.international/ukraine-t...order-no-one-to-take-women-to-army-68122.html
https://www.wionews.com/world/women...n-huge-numbers-as-russian-threat-looms-448690
https://www.military.com/daily-news...ilitary-conscription-russia-threat-looms.html
I'd also say it's important to keep in mind that while the current martial law might might be focused on males between 18-60 years old, this doesn't exclude the fact that countless of new women are joining in or joining them as well, right now as we speak.
I mean, if you ignore all the wars god commanded his people to fight. Sure. But that’s for another thread.
That man is already a national hero in Ukraine.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear, I did see Ukraine has a decent chunk of female members. Not discrediting their contribution. Women can fight, a obese male is of far less use than an active woman of the same age for example. So it seems ridiculous to still base it off sex in 2022.
Raised Catholic but it is not a Christian thing. As @Carolina Red pointed out, citing Christianity as a reason to object to killing and war is the height of hypocrisy.
I really hope we're able to resupply them. They can't hold out forever in Kyiv without SAMs and anti-tank weapons.
To fight against the oppressor, yes. Not to conquer.
It does say we should turn the other cheek as well, basically give up your life. Not sure if that means war though.
Definitely, I think he's already become a hero around most parts of the globe. He truly inspires.
This aligns with what Ben Rhodes and Max Seddon suggested on Rhodes' podcast on the eve of the invasion.
I don’t think it is, if you were a good living Christian there would be no need for war.
It's sad knowing most Western leaders would have been out 2 days ago without hesitation. Look at the Afghan muppet we backed who left days before they arrived in Kabul
I guess you’ve never read the Book of Joshua.