this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
124 points (75.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43747 readers
1517 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone 88 points 2 months ago (31 children)

So, veteran here. I've tried to talk people out of joining the military or at least trying to avoid jobs with high probability of seeing combat. Usually the result is they just start prying about what combat is like and make statements about how much they want to experience it.

Another tack I haven't tried but it might be more effective, is to describe how miserable it is to have the stench of a burn pit wafting over you, always wondering if the distant gunfire will move in your direction, being stuck manning a 24/7 watch where if even one person who can do that job dies or is otherwise incapacitated you will be stuck doing 12hr shifts instead of 8. Then you get back home and have to fight tooth and nail for benefits from the country that fucked your life up in the first place.

War is hell, coming home is hell, forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.

Empire propaganda must be real good if this commenter has to say this out loud

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's not the propaganda that's good, SunZu.

It's the poverty. Tens of millions of young people in this country have no other way out of debt or to move upward economically.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It IS the propaganda that makes people decide that the military is a way out of poverty and not just another trap OF poverty. If there weren't recruiters in every poor neighbourhood's school, people might decide that joining a mission or Greenpeace or digging wells in Africa for a charity is their "only way" out of poverty.

[–] PiJiNWiNg@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I have to disagree a little bit, as, at least in the US, there are some really great perks associated with miltary service. GI bill and VA home loans are some of the bigger perks, but theres plenty of smaller perks as well (if you know where to look).

Dont get me wrong, these benefits shouldn't have to be "earned", but one doesnt necessarily have to put themselves in harms way (or sacrifice their morals) to get those benefits. For example, I enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve at 18 and picked IT as my "rate". I often joke that i picked the "lowest form" of miltary service, but Bush's illegal war in Afghanistan was in full swing at the time and I wanted nothing to do with it, so I justified my choice with, "I'd rather help save people, then help kill people."

As i joined the reserves, i was able to skip the otherwise mandatory time in service requirements for IT school, and went right after bootcamp. After training, i got stationed with my permanent reserve unit in my home town. Less then a month later i secured an entry level IT job, and have been in the industry ever since. A few years after that, I bought my first house with a VA loan.

While i was in, my service obligation was ludicrously easy. One weekend a month I'd shave and cut my hair, throw on a uniform, and do the same job I'd been doing in my civilian life for the weekend (when there was work to do anyway, we fucked off A LOT). Further, working in both private sector and government IT gave me some really useful perspective that helped me accelerate both my civilian and government careers.

Last thing ill mention is that, presumably due to my ADD, I tend to excel in a job in the first couple years, but eventually get bored and start slackin. CG deployments (at least for IT folks), were very rarely mandatory, but there was usually enough going on that if you wanted to deploy, you just had to say so. Because of this, if i started to feel bored at my civilian role, I'd just throw my name in the hat for a set of orders (ranging from 2-12 months in duration), travel the country on the governmwnt dime, work on some cool shit, maybe learn something, then go back to my civilian job feeling rejuvinated and wanting to apply what i learned. In case you dont know, employers are federally required to keep your position available for when you return (for up to 5 years). Also, depending on the orders, you'd often make more money then active duty folks doing the same job because you'd receive BAH to pay your rent/mortgage at home, while also receiving per diem based on the location of your orders.

Anyway, not trying to sound like a recruiter, but you dont have to sell your soul to get those bennies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you've asked here doesn't match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not "war bad", but specifically that Ukraine's counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to "defend themselves".

There's a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

  • This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
  • The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn't change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
  • As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
  • Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn't change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia's.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be "how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good", to which the answer is "oh fuck off mate"

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] sweng@programming.dev 32 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Whether it's a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Just to throw my two cents in: This user isn’t a genuinely curious ponderer, rather they are a Russian troll trying to fish for arguments they could further use in bad faith to lick Putin’s boot.

Just read through their comment history and make your own mind. This is not genuine and most everyone is just feeding the troll.

The question itself is worth asking though. A lot of good points here, but they’d be better given in good faith for someone genuine.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin's-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn't great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Godwin's law itself always confused me. Of course comparisons with nazi Germany are overused, but it's literally only 80 years ago. The fact that it could happen such a short time ago means that many of the same dangers, same lessons learned are very likely still completely applicable today. The human behaviors that led to Nazi Germany are still there, in/outgroup thinking, fear of foreigners/others, etc etc etc

So yeah I don't think "Godwin's law" existing as a concept should stop valid comparisons.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 6 points 2 months ago

It doesn't! It's just a comment on how overused the comparisons are on the internet. To quote Godwin himself:

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Even though op's post history clearly points to the angle they're trying to get across, I'll answer for ya.

You educate the Russians. They're living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they're educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they'll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.

[–] drq@mastodon.ml 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

@InternetUser2012 I am Russian. Believe me when I say: most of us perfectly know what's going on.

We're just scared. That's it.

@index

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can't make a person understand anything. If the very simple explanation of "draft the unwilling and send them to die" doesn't convince them, they don't want to be convinced. I couldn't name a single person who thinks that's good, just maybe some folks who would say it's sometimes a grim necessity. And I guess I'm in the latter camp, but shit would have to be dire.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 21 points 2 months ago

I'll take bad faith posts for $1000 Alex

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You can't make anyone understand anything.

You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.

I know you're looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you "attack" them, they will "defend". This does not change their opinion.

It's better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.

It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that's not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don't let them do that. It's about what they believe.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol. Where was this post when Russia drafted citizens to continue the invasion?

The Ukrainian "invasion" is to force Russia to withdraw from the war Russia started.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] john89@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who has the capacity and wisdom to know why wars are waged in the first place would never voluntarily fight in one.

It's reinforced my philosophical idea that wars are just a way for humanity to purge the worst of itself.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Eh. Overseas? Definitely not. If my home is invaded? You bet your ass I'm fighting the invaders.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago

I don't have anything specific, but generally speaking those who idolize war have never seen the horrors of war. Speaking with veterans who have actually seen real combat is a good place to start.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Hunter Thompson opined that the US draft was better than the alternative.

Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve. With a 'volunteer army' only the poor need to go.

Another drafted vet said that draftees are more likely to speak up if civilians are targeted because the soldiers know that they are eventually going home. Lifers will obey all orders.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 13 points 2 months ago

Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve.

You can't expect shit from the parasitic rich... In practice poors went anyway.

Bone spurs bitch

And when they went, they chilled at some air force base like Bush Jr

Good point on war crimes but if war crimes are part of the order, peasants will have to do it and that's how these things happens mostly anyway IMHO ie it was the order, then once they are caught it is always the "intern's" fault

[–] Mathazzar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Systemic racism in the US ment an inproportionate number of drafted service personnel were black as white draftees were able to get college deferments in higher numbers.

This boiled back down to the poorer economic situation of black peoples in the Civil rights era fighting for basic equality.

The draft also caused friction that increased fraggings as this racist treatment by educated white officers or NCOs were dealt with locally. Fragging was furthered by a disconnect between draftees who wanted to just survive and glory hounds who saw military service and War as some great adventure.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn't own me, I'm not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.

This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don't even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

On a related note, if the US continues on its current trajectory, I predict the draft to return within the next eight years. The Selective Service System never went away. Look what congress is up to right now: Lawmakers move to automate Selective Service registration for all men

load more comments (1 replies)

Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.

[–] a_new_sad_me@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Disclosure: I'm Israeli, I'm anti war and anti occupation. I was drafted more than 20 years ago (it's sort of mandatory here).

I think you paint it in a too much simple colours. In the war between israel and Gaza now, both armies fight for what they believe is the safety of their home, and in both armies there are high numbers if drafted (by force people). Also, in both sides, there is a level of truth that without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk. So you end up in a situation where there is an army that you don't fully agree with and you serve in it since the alternative is even worse.

It boils down to the fact that your political leaders are not having your well-being at the top of their priorities. I believe that your discussion with that someone should be about that. Not about do/don't draft but how to promote a world where there will be no need for drafting.

(I believe that the same goes to Ukrain and Russia war).

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Same reason you cant make them understand that making and holding onto billions in profits is also not a good thing

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

You draft them and order them to invade another country.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn't get them to think, nothing will.

[–] Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Let's start with the second part of your question? How do you make someone understand that invading another country is not a good thing?

[–] OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Not that I was ever interested in being military, but I was at a lunch with two older lifelong army retirees. They kept talking about how military service broke their bodies and politicians won't cover their medical costs. These injuries were independent of any combat: It's just expected that you sell every part of yourself when you sign up.

Who wants to be 45 years old with a limp, be unable to hear a quiet conversation, and have horrible back problems.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί