Ouchface
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis What You Aren't being Told"
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Satyr000
Member


Posts: 454
Registered: 10-08



Kontra Kommando said:


Yes, exactly, both of those wars were over quickly. The major issue was the occupation, and reconstruction. War isn't like it was in the old days. Like in Roman times, they could just simply slaughter and crucify insurgents like they had done in Masada. The U.S. and the rest of the world now has to respect human rights and follow certain rules about war.



I don't know if you noticed but both wars completely destabilized the countries and has lead to more innocent death then before the wars started. Do you honestly think going to war with N.Korea will not have the same effect?

Also, as much as I hate say it, simply removing the leadership will only create a even bigger problem. So many people in NK wouldn't know what to do if Kim was taken out of power. You can't simply remove people from a situation like that and expect them function in a normal situation. They have been living under a dictatorship and mass brainwashing for years. If you don't get them the mental treatment they will undoubtedly need, there is no telling what kind of mental break down they will have.

Old Post 04-06-13 23:39 #
Satyr000 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Enjay said:

Tell that to the soldiers still getting killed in Afghan.

Afghanistan has been at war in one form or another for centuries. It is quite possible war will never be over there.



I've already said it a thousand times in this thread. The war, meaning the fight against the regimes, were over quickly. Those soilders are being killed by insurgents during the occupation process. The U.S. should NOT occupy North Korea, and hold their hands during the reconstruction.

Old Post 04-07-13 22:42 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
GeckoYamori
Member


Posts: 277
Registered: 07-08


I don't think any potential Korean insurgency would be comparable to the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those groups have been around for decades now and have their own agenda in the Middle East. The dictatorships were pretty good at stomping them out (Saddam just wasn't playing by Uncle Sam's rules).

Old Post 04-07-13 22:48 #
GeckoYamori is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Satyr000 said:


I don't know if you noticed but both wars completely destabilized the countries and has lead to more innocent death then before the wars started. Do you honestly think going to war with N.Korea will not have the same effect?

Also, as much as I hate say it, simply removing the leadership will only create a even bigger problem. So many people in NK wouldn't know what to do if Kim was taken out of power. You can't simply remove people from a situation like that and expect them function in a normal situation. They have been living under a dictatorship and mass brainwashing for years. If you don't get them the mental treatment they will undoubtedly need, there is no telling what kind of mental break down they will have.



So, you wouldn't even consider going to war if a nation threatens you openly with nuclear destruction? Kim Jong-Un is a lunatic, and a piece of shit dictator that wants to bomb the USA. That's more than enough for jus ad bellum.

Old Post 04-07-13 22:49 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



GeckoYamori said:
I don't think any potential Korean insurgency would be comparable to the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those groups have been around for decades now and have their own agenda in the Middle East. The dictatorships were pretty good at stomping them out (Saddam just wasn't playing by Uncle Sam's rules).


Moreover, we could hand N. Korea over to the South Korean gov't; reuniting them. From then on, we provide more weapons, and aid to them, while they forge their own U.S. friendly, state. We should let the Koreans craft their own state, with Seoul leading the way.

Old Post 04-07-13 22:59 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7875
Registered: 08-04



Kontra Kommando said:
Moreover, we could hand N. Korea over to the South Korean gov't; reuniting them.
Worse thing America could do, ever. Think about it, closely; what would happen if a productive, wealthy country all of a sudden acquired a whole society of sickly, broke, indoctrinated people in dire need of aid?

Old Post 04-08-13 00:06 #
Technician is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Technician said:
Worse thing America could do, ever. Think about it, closely; what would happen if a productive, wealthy country all of a sudden acquired a whole society of sickly, broke, indoctrinated people in dire need of aid?


I don't know, but they would have to figure that out for themselves. It seemed to work out for Germany. Besides, it would open up a new market for businesses, and provide a new source of labor that South Koreans can benifit from.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-08-13 at 03:02

Old Post 04-08-13 02:55 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12


I don't know... that all sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Old Post 04-08-13 03:09 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:


I don't know, but they would have to figure that out for themselves. It seemed to work out for Germany. Besides, it would open up a new market for businesses, and provide a new source of labor that South Koreans can benifit from.



Except it was a disaster for Germany. It's actually one of the main reasons a lot in the south want to reunify gradually.

Old Post 04-08-13 03:46 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13


Okay, well, what do you guys think would be a better solution?

Old Post 04-08-13 04:30 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:
Okay, well, what do you guys think would be a better solution?


The US and South Korea seem to think waiting for the DPRK government to liberalize / become more friendly is a good idea.

Old Post 04-08-13 04:49 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12


There's really no perfect solution. I dunno... Sign Dennis Rodman on as an embassador? This is thinktank shit, for sure. :P

Old Post 04-08-13 06:50 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT


Posts: 6381
Registered: 12-00



Kontra Kommando said:
I've already said it a thousand times in this thread. The war, meaning the fight against the regimes, were over quickly. Those soilders are being killed by insurgents during the occupation process.

And that's why I said what I said. The war may be officially over but for the soldiers on the ground, the soldiers being shot, blown to pieces and being targeted by rocket attacks on their camps etc the war is pretty indistinguishable from the position they find themselves in today.

Indeed, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, for many soldiers the war being over was the start of their troubles - regardless of how politicians classified the conflict at that point. In Afghanistan in particular, dismissing the Taliban as merely insurgents is a dangerous thing to do. They still have a huge influence in the country and are a very present feature of everyday life there.

I'm sure that the grieving relatives back home will be comforted to know that their nearest and dearest didn't die because of war but because of insurgents during the occupation process.

[edit]because a sentence didn't make sense.[/edit]

Last edited by Enjay on 04-08-13 at 12:43

Old Post 04-08-13 10:51 #
Enjay is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
printz
CRAZY DUMB ZEALOT


Posts: 8824
Registered: 06-06



Satyr000 said:
So many people in NK wouldn't know what to do if Kim was taken out of power. You can't simply remove people from a situation like that and expect them function in a normal situation. They have been living under a dictatorship and mass brainwashing for years.
I don't buy that. One's primary concern is to survive, not to be indoctrinated. A less repressive regime would be better no matter what. If a change meant easier access to communication and base resources, everyone would be better. Don't use that bullshit excuse.

__________________
Automatic Wolfenstein - Version 1.0 - also on Android

Old Post 04-08-13 11:31 #
printz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12


Yeah... Infrastructure-wise, there's no doubt North Koreans would have a steep hill to climb. But I've just got to believe that people want mostly the same things no matter who's ruling them. You know, basic Maslow's Hierarchy stuff.

Old Post 04-08-13 14:23 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Enjay said:

And that's why I said what I said. The war may be officially over but for the soldiers on the ground, the soldiers being shot, blown to pieces and being targeted by rocket attacks on their camps etc the war is pretty indistinguishable from the position they find themselves in today.

Indeed, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, for many soldiers the war being over was the start of their troubles - regardless of how politicians classified the conflict at that point. In Afghanistan in particular, dismissing the Taliban as merely insurgents is a dangerous thing to do. They still have a huge influence in the country and are a very present feature of everyday life there.

I'm sure that the grieving relatives back home will be comforted to know that their nearest and dearest didn't die because of war but because of insurgents during the occupation process.

[edit]because a sentence didn't make sense.[/edit]



Okay, but solders have a job to do, they're willingly signing up for combat. They know what they're getting themselves into; its not like there's a draft. That's like saying we should not have fire fighters, because sometimes they get caught in burning buildings.

Old Post 04-08-13 14:26 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12



Kontra Kommando said:


Okay, but solders have a job to do, they're willingly signing up for combat. They know what they're getting themselves into; its not like there's a draft. That's like saying we should not have fire fighters, because sometimes they get caught in burning buildings.

Except it's not at all like that. It's more like saying we shouldn't set entire city blocks on fire in separate theatres and expect firefighters to take this in stride. True, it's their job, but you don't help when you go around starting fires (hackneyed war analogy).

Old Post 04-08-13 14:51 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



schwerpunk said:
Except it's not at all like that. It's more like saying we shouldn't set entire city blocks on fire in separate theatres and expect firefighters to take this in stride. True, it's their job, but you don't help when you go around starting fires (hackneyed war analogy).


Hopefully the sanctions work, but if they don't, than the U.S. will have the right to defend itself, and it's allies if we have to. I don't see war as a desirable alternative, but it should be an option on the table if absolutely necessary.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-08-13 at 15:45

Old Post 04-08-13 15:38 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT


Posts: 6381
Registered: 12-00



Kontra Kommando said:
Since we live in a world of scares resources, war is inevitable unfortunately.

Since we live in the world, war is inevitable, resource problems or not. Humans are, by nature, clannish, violent, possessive aggressors (and apes generally are quite aggressive species). We have always been like that and it is likely that we will continue that way. It doesn't take much to start a fight between two humans. Wars are just the ultimate extension of that.

I heard an interesting point being made on a radio discussion a few months back. One of the speakers said that our technological ability was evolving at a far faster rate than our political ability. What she meant by that was that our intelligence allows us to make bigger and bigger technological advances but, at a base level, we simply cannot stop fighting over what is often the international version of "hey pal, did you spill my pint?". The danger therein is that as we improve our technological abilities we create things that our politics are not mature enough to use responsibly.

Old Post 04-08-13 17:10 #
Enjay is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12



Enjay said:

Since we live in the world, war is inevitable, resource problems or not. Humans are, by nature, clannish, violent, possessive aggressors (and apes generally are quite aggressive species). We have always been like that and it is likely that we will continue that way. It doesn't take much to start a fight between two humans. Wars are just the ultimate extension of that.

I heard an interesting point being made on a radio discussion a few months back. One of the speakers said that our technological ability was evolving at a far faster rate than our political ability. What she meant by that was that our intelligence allows us to make bigger and bigger technological advances but, at a base level, we simply cannot stop fighting over what is often the international version of "hey pal, did you spill my pint?". The danger therein is that as we improve our technological abilities we create things that our politics are not mature enough to use responsibly.

I've heard of a similar concept, only it was labelled as "culture lag" and was focused on the ratio of technological vs. social progress.

[Wikipedia stub]

Old Post 04-08-13 17:17 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13


Technology is also a double-edge sword when it comes to politics. On the good side, more people are aware of what's going on because of the internet. One the bad side, some people are low-information consumers, and may be mislead by bad sources, like a half-baked Facebook meme.

Moreover, I believe that the internet has caused deeper partisan-ism in the US. people tend to communicate more with others that share a similar world view, in turn creating echo-chambers. This causes people to live and think inside of a polemic bubbles. Nevertheless, the internet is here to stay. Since all of this is relatively new, it's going to take some time for society to adjust. Despite these negative aspects, I believe the internet and technology have more good to offer than bad.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-08-13 at 17:47

Old Post 04-08-13 17:30 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12388
Registered: 07-06



schwerpunk said:
Except it's not at all like that. It's more like saying we shouldn't set entire city blocks on fire in separate theatres and expect firefighters to take this in stride. True, it's their job, but you don't help when you go around starting fires (hackneyed war analogy).


With the difference that fire is more of a physical/natural phenomenon, even when deliberately started, and firefighters don't have to face the same moral dilemmas that soldiers or even policemen face when ordered to take lives. There are no human "fire people" to do battle against, just an inhuman "fire elemental", so to speak.

When signing up for (modern) soldiering or police work, you essentially sign up to be a (relatively well-paid) pawn at the hands of your country's political and military elite and you're expected to do what you're told with much less remorse and "veteran's problems" than a conscript that fought in WW II, Korea or even Vietnam. Know how RTS games work, where you tell your units to go there or do that and they say "Yes, Zir!"? That's all there is to it, really, no matter how much they may pump your head full of propaganda trying to make you feel like a special, super-human pro-democracy righteous warrior.

You are NOT reacting to a natural phenomenon, you're carrying out policy decided by humans, for other humans. There's quite a difference. As long are you're only asked to pump someone full of lead from the safety of a helicopter gunship, sure, it's all fun and games. But if you catch lead in the process, don't expect to find much sympathy outside of a closed circle of people in your same situation. After all, your employer grants you medcare/retirement and probably other perks like citizenship, no?

Old Post 04-08-13 21:58 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:


With the difference that fire is more of a physical/natural phenomenon, even when deliberately started, and firefighters don't have to face the same moral dilemmas that soldiers or even policemen face when ordered to take lives. There are no human "fire people" to do battle against, just an inhuman "fire elemental", so to speak.

When signing up for (modern) soldiering or police work, you essentially sign up to be a (relatively well-paid) pawn at the hands of your country's political and military elite and you're expected to do what you're told with much less remorse and "veteran's problems" than a conscript that fought in WW II, Korea or even Vietnam. Know how RTS games work, where you tell your units to go there or do that and they say "Yes, Zir!"? That's all there is to it, really, no matter how much they may pump your head full of propaganda trying to make you feel like a special, super-human pro-democracy righteous warrior.

You are NOT reacting to a natural phenomenon, you're carrying out policy decided by humans, for other humans. There's quite a difference. As long are you're only asked to pump someone full of lead from the safety of a helicopter gunship, sure, it's all fun and games. But if you catch lead in the process, don't expect to find much sympathy outside of a closed circle of people in your same situation. After all, your employer grants you medcare/retirement and probably other perks like citizenship, no?



However, I would argue that war is in fact a natural phenomenon; it is within our nature to be war-like. Despite every advance in civilization, war has always been a fixture in our history. This is what it basically comes down to in your perspective on foreign affairs. You are either a Realist, who believes war is inevitable because of man's nature. Or, you are a Liberal, who believes mankind is not inherently malcontent. I believe its not an invention, that it is natural, being a creation of nature like fire. Basically, I made the fire fighter analogy, because no matter what you do, you can't prevent war, like you can't prevent fire.

Old Post 04-09-13 01:14 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:

When signing up for (modern) soldiering or police work, you essentially sign up to be a (relatively well-paid) pawn at the hands of your country's political and military elite and you're expected to do what you're told with much less remorse and "veteran's problems" than a conscript that fought in WW II, Korea or even Vietnam. Know how RTS games work, where you tell your units to go there or do that and they say "Yes, Zir!"? That's all there is to it, really, no matter how much they may pump your head full of propaganda trying to make you feel like a special, super-human pro-democracy righteous warrior.




Based on this statement, I would venture to guess you take a more left-winged, radical perspective. That's fine though, because it's one of the four theories in foreign relations. However, there is plenty of scholarly work that backs up the other three as well.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-09-13 at 04:24

Old Post 04-09-13 01:28 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12388
Registered: 07-06



Kontra Kommando said:
Based on this statement, I would venture to guess you take a more left-winged, radical perspective.


I don't see how being e.g. an extreme right-wing or liberal activist could change the perception of modern soldiering (or merc work, in general) of anyone with half a brain.

In fact, I think a true "economic liberalist" would view it even more cynically and tell you "it's just a job, a dirty one but still a job". Maaaaaybe the right-wing one, if leaning towards the patriotic side, would be more idealistic and view it through less materialistic and cynical glasses (e.g. Warrior's Honour, Duty Towards Your Country etc.) , but then he probably would seriously challenge the "half a brain" assumption. To rise through the ranks of any such organization, you actually need a balanced perception: not too cynical as to disbelieve too much of what you're told to do (and thus do everything half-heartedly), and not too blindly devoted to be considered nothing more than an order dispatcher. You need the right amount of knowing how stuff really works AND how to appear like you are "in" it. Sources: my military experience ;-)

My point was that: WW2-era like G.I. Joe posters appealing to patriotic sentiment alone would hardly move anyone today, let alone convince a young man with perhaps a degree to enlist. Just check out what benefits recruitment offices (in the US) are promising recruits today (salaries well beyond the current minimum wage, college funding, even automatic citizenship). In other Western countries, professional militaries (the ones that actually get sent on NATO missions, not the few cases where conscripts are still used) are much more closed organizations with significant detachment from society (e.g. a Dutchman is unlikely to hear about his country's military in anything except news coverages from Afghanistan or Iraq where they sent a handful of very well-paid specialists, and then again only when someone gets blown up).

Throw in some (typically US) direct collaboration/subcontracting between modern armies and corporations (this goes both ways, e.g. research projects/military protection) and I don't see how any romanticized, idealistic view of soldiering la Beau Geste could have any place in a modern military. Today, it's all about PMCs, drones, "peacekeeping", "rebuilding" and privatized logistics.

Old Post 04-09-13 08:55 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DeathevokatioN
Forum Staple


Posts: 2522
Registered: 03-10



Quast said:
As far as the video insinuation that the US is intentionally starving nk out... bollocks. Anything resembling a north korean economy has been in tatters for over 30 years at this point. Juche policy does a damn fine job enough of keeping their people far hungrier than 3 years of sanctions.
I disagree, did you see the interview where it was pointed out that half a million children starved as a result of sanctions against Iraq? The ruling class in America is well aware that sanctions can lead to mass starvations or at the very least severe economic hardships given the right conditions / distribution of wealth / social hierarchy etc (therefore leading to discontent towards said regime you're trying to bring down) especially under governments that sucked in the first place, they get intensified under a government that didn't care about their people in the first place. I can't quote the video (but if you want I can try look for it again) because unfortunately I've lost it in a sea of other Jewish crimes against humanity, but with Iran I remember an interview with a Zionist speaker saying that "they either disarm their nukes or their citizens can't put bread on the table".

That said South Africa had an economic boom during sanctions which backfired because many small businesses popped up due to gaps in the market opening and said businesses started thriving because we stopped having shitty bullshit Chinese substitutes.

Kontra Kommando said:


I never said we should nuke them, I said we should destroy their infrastructure, kill their leaders, and support pro-U.S. factions there. I advocate neutralizing a hostile regime, not genocide.

Almost every regime change America or the UN(interested in peace) has EVER helped bring about has brought genocide and even worse regimes, more suffering, worse suffering, irreparable destabilization.

Old Post 04-09-13 09:32 #
DeathevokatioN is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12


So the paper (don't laugh, there are still some decent articles in print media) this morning tells me that NK got yet another verbal smackdown from China, this time not so subtly. Essentially, China is saying that they "won't let" NK seed "chaos" and 'strife' (forget the wording) in their neighbourhood for "selfish gain." This political attack actual helps distract NK from SK and the West, while also reminding them of the true cost of their threats, should they continue to pursue this strategy of attention-getting.

Basically, China is calling out NK's bluff like the West couldn't get away with.

Old Post 04-09-13 11:51 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



DeathevokatioN said:
Almost every regime change America or the UN(interested in peace) has EVER helped bring about has brought genocide and even worse regimes, more suffering, worse suffering, irreparable destabilization.


Again, I can see there are more radical theorists here. There are much more idealistic people in the world that believe people can co-exist absent of violence. By the way, I don't mean the fallaciously, it is just simply true.

Old Post 04-09-13 14:25 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2048
Registered: 05-12


Idealism is anathema to political realism, KK. Machiavelli would be disappoint. :/

Old Post 04-09-13 14:41 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1316
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:


I don't see how being e.g. an extreme right-wing or liberal activist could change the perception of modern soldiering (or merc work, in general) of anyone with half a brain.

In fact, I think a true "economic liberalist" would view it even more cynically and tell you "it's just a job, a dirty one but still a job". Maaaaaybe the right-wing one, if leaning towards the patriotic side, would be more idealistic and view it through less materialistic and cynical glasses (e.g. Warrior's Honour, Duty Towards Your Country etc.) , but then he probably would seriously challenge the "half a brain" assumption. To rise through the ranks of any such organization, you actually need a balanced perception: not too cynical as to disbelieve too much of what you're told to do (and thus do everything half-heartedly), and not too blindly devoted to be considered nothing more than an order dispatcher. You need the right amount of knowing how stuff really works AND how to appear like you are "in" it. Sources: my military experience ;-)

My point was that: WW2-era like G.I. Joe posters appealing to patriotic sentiment alone would hardly move anyone today, let alone convince a young man with perhaps a degree to enlist. Just check out what benefits recruitment offices (in the US) are promising recruits today (salaries well beyond the current minimum wage, college funding, even automatic citizenship). In other Western countries, professional militaries (the ones that actually get sent on NATO missions, not the few cases where conscripts are still used) are much more closed organizations with significant detachment from society (e.g. a Dutchman is unlikely to hear about his country's military in anything except news coverages from Afghanistan or Iraq where they sent a handful of very well-paid specialists, and then again only when someone gets blown up).

Throw in some (typically US) direct collaboration/subcontracting between modern armies and corporations (this goes both ways, e.g. research projects/military protection) and I don't see how any romanticized, idealistic view of soldiering la Beau Geste could have any place in a modern military. Today, it's all about PMCs, drones, "peacekeeping", "rebuilding" and privatized logistics.



I'm not the one being idealistic, I'm just asserting that I believe that war will always be fixture in human civilization. If you believe soldiers are being used as pawns, than that just confirms that you have radical left-wing perspective on that issue. Perspectives do matter, because you are basically stating you opinion on a theory is superior to others. Radical theory has a populist appeal to it, that is undeniable. But it is not the only school of thought. Being cynical about the set up of our society is in fact a Marxist view. People who enlist for benefits, are in fact faithfully investing in the society they are protecting. Their actions, and not necessarily their words, expresses their validation of their state. They are investing in future participation of the society they live in.

Old Post 04-09-13 14:41 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis What You Aren't being Told"

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.