Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

attacking must be optional for soldiers

Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:38:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The title may be confusing or nonsense. I will make it clear:

in many countries, draft or conscription is compulsory and soldiers are obliged to go into war. why? becuase the governor orders them. it is unfair, against the human right and illogical , irrational I think.

soldiers may be obliged to defend, it maybe logical. why? because since their birth they benefit from the government and thus can be defended for thay.

why soldiers are obliged to attack? what is the reasoning? when an army attacks somewhere, soldiers are not figting for their country, for their homeland, they are fighting for the purpose of an Incumbent politician who is in charge.

when Hitler attacked the ussr, that was not for Germany, that was Hitler's choice and why soldiers are obliged for the personal choice of their president?

I think this rule should be abolished. it has to be like this: if the country is under attack, the government can force soldiers to fight, to defend.

but it will have some problems as well, imagine: this law is made valid. then in all countries soldiers are free from joining the army when their country attacks, they are free from fighting. Country A attacks a small country which is too vulnerable, when other countries want to intervene the other countries could not have handled the Country A.

but after all, all soldiers are obliged to fight for the personal choice of a president in unsound. or am I wrong?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:20:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:38:55 PM, Artur wrote:
The title may be confusing or nonsense. I will make it clear:

in many countries, draft or conscription is compulsory and soldiers are obliged to go into war. why? becuase the governor orders them. it is unfair, against the human right and illogical , irrational I think.

soldiers may be obliged to defend, it maybe logical. why? because since their birth they benefit from the government and thus can be defended for thay.

why soldiers are obliged to attack? what is the reasoning? when an army attacks somewhere, soldiers are not figting for their country, for their homeland, they are fighting for the purpose of an Incumbent politician who is in charge.

when Hitler attacked the ussr, that was not for Germany, that was Hitler's choice and why soldiers are obliged for the personal choice of their president?

I think this rule should be abolished. it has to be like this: if the country is under attack, the government can force soldiers to fight, to defend.

but it will have some problems as well, imagine: this law is made valid. then in all countries soldiers are free from joining the army when their country attacks, they are free from fighting. Country A attacks a small country which is too vulnerable, when other countries want to intervene the other countries could not have handled the Country A.

but after all, all soldiers are obliged to fight for the personal choice of a president in unsound. or am I wrong?

The president acts for the good of the country.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?

Give me historical examples of this actually happening.

Because we need soldiers.

We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.

We must fight and there are many unwilling people.

But it is necessary.

Well the girl or guy was elected.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:17:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?
it depends.
Give me historical examples of this actually happening.
I do not know. I think it never happened. but if you asked example for "the elected guy acting for the bad of country", then: dictators. they all do more harm. the best example is dictator of north korea.
Because we need soldiers.
yes, we need.
We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.
we can. there may be.
We must fight
why?
and there are many unwilling people.
for what? to attack, invade another country, people?then yes, you are right.
But it is necessary.
what is necessary? invading another country is necessary? can you give us reasons?
Well the girl or guy was elected.
and then?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:31:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:17:17 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?
it depends.
Give me historical examples of this actually happening.
I do not know. I think it never happened. but if you asked example for "the elected guy acting for the bad of country", then: dictators. they all do more harm. the best example is dictator of north korea.
Because we need soldiers.
yes, we need.
We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.
we can. there may be.
We must fight
why?
and there are many unwilling people.
for what? to attack, invade another country, people?then yes, you are right.
But it is necessary.
what is necessary? invading another country is necessary? can you give us reasons?
Well the girl or guy was elected.
and then?

K...

You just contradicted yourself.

No, humanity is too self-destructive.

Do you want to maybe die terribly or get your leg blown off?

To defend or else the country is taken over.

The people made a choice, probably a good one.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:46:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:31:09 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:17:17 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?
it depends.
Give me historical examples of this actually happening.
I do not know. I think it never happened. but if you asked example for "the elected guy acting for the bad of country", then: dictators. they all do more harm. the best example is dictator of north korea.
Because we need soldiers.
yes, we need.
We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.
we can. there may be.
We must fight
why?
and there are many unwilling people.
for what? to attack, invade another country, people?then yes, you are right.
But it is necessary.
what is necessary? invading another country is necessary? can you give us reasons?
Well the girl or guy was elected.
and then?

K...

You just contradicted yourself.
how? show
No, humanity is too self-destructive.
the obligation "soldiers are obliged to do what superiors order/command" is one of the reasons why humanity is self destructive. that is one of the things with which certain people can make war
Do you want to maybe die terribly or get your leg blown off?
no
To defend or else the country is taken over.
no arguement for defending. we are here to discuss invading
The people made a choice, probably a good one.
and probably a bad one.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:48:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:31:09 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:17:17 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?
it depends.
Give me historical examples of this actually happening.
I do not know. I think it never happened. but if you asked example for "the elected guy acting for the bad of country", then: dictators. they all do more harm. the best example is dictator of north korea.
Because we need soldiers.
yes, we need.
We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.
we can. there may be.
We must fight
why?
and there are many unwilling people.
for what? to attack, invade another country, people?then yes, you are right.
But it is necessary.
what is necessary? invading another country is necessary? can you give us reasons?
Well the girl or guy was elected.
and then?

K...

You just contradicted yourself.
how? show
No, humanity is too self-destructive.
the obligation "soldiers are obliged to do what superiors order/command" is one of the reasons why humanity is self destructive. that is one of the things with which certain people can make war
Do you want to maybe die terribly or get your leg blown off?
no
To defend or else the country is taken over.
no arguement for defending. we are here to discuss invading
The people made a choice, probably a good one.
and probably a bad one.

btw, I dont understand what "your post is not unique " stand for? it does not post it.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 7:21:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:48:25 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:31:09 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:17:17 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:38:26 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:20:19 PM, Artur wrote:
The president acts for the good of the country.

1st:not always. 2.nd even if president truly acts for the good of the country, why should and must we make it compulsory for soldier to fight for the good assumption of a president? 3.rd what if president is wrong? what if that is indeed bad while president thinks it is good?

after all, why person is obliged to fight for the good of the country?

What the heck would he be doing?
it depends.
Give me historical examples of this actually happening.
I do not know. I think it never happened. but if you asked example for "the elected guy acting for the bad of country", then: dictators. they all do more harm. the best example is dictator of north korea.
Because we need soldiers.
yes, we need.
We cannot have peace, there will never be peace.
we can. there may be.
We must fight
why?
and there are many unwilling people.
for what? to attack, invade another country, people?then yes, you are right.
But it is necessary.
what is necessary? invading another country is necessary? can you give us reasons?
Well the girl or guy was elected.
and then?

K...

You just contradicted yourself.
how? show
No, humanity is too self-destructive.
the obligation "soldiers are obliged to do what superiors order/command" is one of the reasons why humanity is self destructive. that is one of the things with which certain people can make war
Do you want to maybe die terribly or get your leg blown off?
no
To defend or else the country is taken over.
no arguement for defending. we are here to discuss invading
The people made a choice, probably a good one.
and probably a bad one.

btw, I dont understand what "your post is not unique " stand for? it does not post it.

Oooooooooohh.

Invading another nation?

Sometimes it is necessary.

But yeah, that is fairly reasonable.

(your points against it)

I thought you meant fighting in general.

XD

And when it says "your post is not unique" it means that your device lagged and already send the command so it is already posted.

It is trying to send it again.

You're fine whenever it says that.