As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have
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.
Back then the forced draft supporters where hiding behind their hypocrisy
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.
How do you make someone realize that their philosophical views are bad then?
Classically, you’d discuss their views with them and find the logical conclusions. Then you’d talk though if those ideas contradict with other ideas they hold. That sort of discussion/dialogue is basically all of Plato.
We don’t have a way to do this. I don’t think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.
The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people’s views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it’s gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn’t already come around on it.
How could one convince you that your philosophical views are bad?
deleted by creator
Is every alternative preferable to war? For example, should Ukraine have agreed to become part of Russia to avoid war?
Quite a few nations capitulated against the Nazis within days or even without a fight to avoid war. It saved a lot of lives. Does that make it the right choice? Who is to say…
What’s for sure is that Boris shouldn’t have vetoed the peace agreement in 2022.
I didn’t think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn’t the right choice.
Look it’s hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation
So if you have an immoveable stance against war, isn’t it just as likely someone out there believes they have a similarly immovable stance in favor of the draft?
deleted by creator
Uh, just to be clear, I’m not actually trying to sway you. Just pointing out to OP, and to you I guess since you’re engaging, that when someone holds an “immoveable stance” as they themselves say, and aren’t open to changing their views, it is highly unlikely one can convince them to change. Like, someone could up to you and say you’re wrong and evil for your views but that probably isn’t going to convince you, right?
Perhaps by bringing up resources that prove my philosophical views bad
What kind of resources are we talking about here? Clearly it doesn’t help to make you talk to 1 person that holds contrasting views, as that seems to be your starting point. A study of 1000? A study of 100000? An empirical research over 100 years? 500? A meta analysis? 5 people talking to you about it? 10? 100?
So have you tried that with the people who agree with the draft? Did you find it was convincing to them?
You can’t force someone to believe something
First you set up a news agency. You tune into their fear of inadequacy. You craft stories and spin truths to Make sure that they’re good and scared of the future of them and their family. You keep slowly chipping away until they have no problem with suspension of disbelief. You make sure that day and their friends all have the right tools to indoctrinate each other. Then you get small and big business on board by offering them tons of money to help keep everybody good and scared. You craft laws and put people in the right places in police organizations to make sure that the people you’re trying to scare them with are seen as the Boogeyman. Sure, it’s not technically forcing but it’s forcing…
That’s not how it works. It isn’t your way or the highway
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.
Yeah like somebody else said, you’d have to challenge their philosophical believes that leads them to hold this opinion first.
And that in turn requires argueing them from a position not based on “I disagree, and my opinion is the correct one”, but on philosophical, logical and argumentative flaws in their believe system. Which is not easy to do. At all. It’s in fact very hard, made harder by the fact that our brains can see information, actively realize this information is correct and contradicts something we thought of earlier, and yet also discard said information and stick to the existing mental model instead. Meaning that even if you do everything correct, they might go “Yes, that’s true” and then nothing happens, out of no ill will.
Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn’t get them to think, nothing will.
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.
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).
without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk
Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?
I think you gotta recheck your math on that one
And of course the same thing applies to Israel; without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.
Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.
I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.
If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.
I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
The whole concept is bankrupt. An IDF soldier is being fired at from a school because he is on Palestinian land, occupying it by force to maintain the land that was stolen from the Palestinians and facilitate the taking of more.
There are degrees. If he’s sniping schoolchildren, then that will inflame the conflict more and promote more October 7ths. If he’s “only” firing back at the school, so “defending” himself… well, it’s “better” I guess, but if you break in my house in the middle of the night and I attack you, you’re not “defending” yourself even if you limit yourself to fighting with me and not hurting my wife.
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
Their actions don’t seem to have a cost though. Or rather the mechanism of retribution is so indirect and random that I don’t think that Hamas’s counterattacks make all that much difference to their calculus of what they can get away with doing to the Palestinians. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Like I said, even “killing only militants” leaves Israel in the position of the war criminal. They are invading and stealing homes, farms, anything they can find and pushing the Palestinians into a vanishingly small series of refuges which they then invade in turn. Why would “militants” not fight back in that scenario? What should they do instead?
I do agree with your take on how unrealistic peace is in the present climate. It needs to be imposed from outside by force in order to happen, which won’t happen, because the US would need to be actively involved in making that happen and the US likes things more or less as they are (or at least as they were before the counterattack after October 7th got so genocidal that it started causing political issues for leaders in the US).
0·10 months agoHammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter).
So you can quote/point out the specific part where that is? I would love to read it.
(I mean, it is in their charter)
pretty sure it’s no longer in their charter.
Also why do you keep calling it an army. Gaza doesn’t have an army.
This is a militant group, with actual guns and drones or explosive and uniform (that they don’t always wear), not a bunch of kids with sticks. This either an army or a terror organisation.
Hamas’s new charter (2017l is sort of accepting Israel (I don’t recall the exact wording, but something along the lines of “if all/most Palestinians accept it”). But the 1988 (in particular article 7, but also 28) charter was never cancelled and the 2017 was never officially approved
First paragraph: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leading-hamas-official-says-no-softened-stance-toward-israel-idUSKBN1862O4/
Funny story, I was mistaken for an Israeli patriot today, just because of my accent and what I was wearing. I was reassured, if you like, that the world is not going to ostracise Israel and Israel will keep existing. That was the gist of it anyhow. Of course I have no doubt israel will keep existing, what with all the support of the world’s hegemons. What worries me is that Israel will keep existing in its current form: a fascist, genocidal ethnostate. Describing the only armed resistance against occupation permitted by Israel to take hold, as an ‘army’, creates a false sense of equivalence between Hamas’s militants and the IDF with all its powerful tech. To describe what’s been going on in Gaza for the past 10 months as a war between two armies simply defending their own people is, well stunning, when faced with all the evidence of the IDF’s targeted mass killings of Palestinian civilian lives, as well as their callous disregard for Israeli lives (eg Hannibal directive).
First, as I said before, I’m against the war, against the occupation, and in favor of two states solution (ideally, a democratic one Jewish-palestinian state should exist, but this is not going to happen).
Now, I’m sorry, if you ignore the hostages, and the fact that October 7th happened as an offensive act by Hammas, you are painting only a partial picture.
Hamas had 10m to stop the the offensive by Israel, release the hostages. It was that easy 8 months ago, even 5 month ago. Today, I’m not sure. If you ignore this card in hamas’s hands then you are again, painting a partial picture.
And as I said countless times in this thread, directing our anger at the armed forces, rather than politicians (on both sides) only aggravate the war.
I am angry at the politicians in the US etc for their continued support of the mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m also angry at the Israeli head of state and political machine, who controls the IDF. When I say ‘the IDF’ I mean of course the military arm of the state of Israel. The Likud charta explicitly states the aim of one Israel ‘from the sea to the river’ - oh, the irony!
What Hamas has done on Oct 7, even if all stories are to be believed, pales in comparison to what Israel has done to innocent Palestinians - schools, universities, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, etc -before and since. And it was clearly provoked by years of being occupied in an open-air prison. So I’m sorry if I’m not interested in the ‘we’re only defending our own’ shtick.
A two-state solution is only possible if Israel withdraws, stops occupying Palestine and allows it to exercise full sovereignty of its borders, governancet, and defence.
Issue is that “old people” had to spend their time in the army, sometimes even in a foreign land (Good old time of the colonial war), so kids these day feel so privileged
I mean, we can blame the boomer for a lot of thing, but in the 60’s and sometimes 70’s (In many countries) young men had no option but do a military service which way involved going to fight to keep the colonies.
If someone’s romanticizing war to the point that they’re thinking being drafted isn’t a bad thing then no amount of sources or stats would convince them otherwise. I mean, best case scenario they get randomly yanked away from their life, family, and friends and get to burn barrels of shit in the middle of nowhere. How fun.
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.
I didn’t think it’s wrong universally, for example, Ukraines current offensive into Russia.
Ukraine is using special forces for this, who are well paid professionals with strong ideological under pinnings. Those guys are into that shit.
OP is about Russian consript who got deployed in Ukraine “by mistake”
But I’d be okay with Ukraine deploying conscripts to that front.
No argument for the draft is valid.
Would you rather see Ukraine fall to Russia than implement a draft?
Loaded question but yes
How about WWII? Should the allies have been significantly weaker and prolonged how long the Nazis were in power to avoid a draft?
The possible benefits of something unethical doesn’t justify doing it.
I’d hold a lesser of two evils justify it. The government already dictates what you need to do. Is it the commanded act of killing people that you think takes it too far?
a lesser of two evils justufies it
Again, no it doesnt.
the government already dictates what you need to do
what? no?
is the command act of killing people that you think takes it too far?
any forced labor takes it too far.
Why ought countries risk their existence to avoid a draft? The government already dictates other matters of life and death. Forgoing a draft would force bigger permanent militaries and not allow for some defense in depth strategies.
In most cases, The people have been indoctrinated by propaganda and it’s been reinforced by their friends family neighbors local government officials. They’re seeing this as good versus evil. Be it forced draft or abortion bans. You can’t talk somebody out of brainwashing. In most cases they will never change their minds until they find themselves on the s***** end of the stick. When their children get drafted or die in the military, or the wife gets raped and impregnated, they say this is horrible and you go wait weren’t you telling us you felt the other way? And they go I just didn’t know. But they did know people told them they just refused to believe it. You’re basically trying to fight religion with reason, and you can’t do that.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Thank you for adding information to my reply.
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.
So you would rather assist with war crimes/genocide than live in poverty? I would rather serve crack than serve the empire.
Sunny top secret art of war zeroth rule: Don’t get in a war idiot.
forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.
I believe abolish someone rights is never a good thing. If you are fighting against someone that wants to take these away you have even more reason to respect these rights and stand for them.
I see you’d rather die kneeling than standing.
It’s amazing the shit rich old people can convince poor young people to die saying
deleted by creator
I proudly went through conscription in Finland, because we know what Russia was capable of.
So who are these Nazis you speak of?
You’re from Finland and you have to ask where the nazis are?
I don’t, but apparently you do.
So who exactly are you calling nazis?
Literal nazis who wear nazi symbols on their persons and anyone who positively associates with them or supports them
I don’t, but apparently you do.
Your trash talk is incoherent. You don’t have to ask but I do? My dimwitted child, you are the one asking.
Hey now, the Finns dropped their Nazi symbology way back in… four years ago.
Since you’re very fond of listing links and sources, I’ll show you how argumenting is actually done. (Since your link lists were nothing but "I hope you never read any of these because they’re not actually even related and I can’t come up with an actual argument.)
You misuse the word “symbology”.
Likeness in symbols representing different things aren’t two different things using the same symbology, they’re the same symbol which represents a different thing.
We’ve been using the Swastika since the Iron Age. When did they form the Nazi party again?
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakaristi_Suomessa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century
Awkward how you pretend to be so knowledgable, yet make these cringe “arguments”, because I made you upset by asking you whether you’re pro-Russian or not. Something which you absolutely refuse to answer. Weird, huh?
deleted by creator
I’m sure many eastern Ukrainians who were getting killed and repressed by their own people for a decade did. Some of them explicitly requested Russian intervention.
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2022: Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
.
The post-2014 coup annexation of Crimea want as smoothly as it did because many of the residents wanted it.So do you think Russia was in the right to invade Ukraine?
I don’t really know what Russia ought to have done, but the US knowingly put Russia between a rock and a hard place. How would the US have reacted if Russia was creeping a “defensive” alliance toward the US’ border and orchestrated a Mexican coup?
- NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
- The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements
- The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine In May of [2022] Ukrainian media reported that then-British prime minister Boris Johnson had flown to Kiev the previous month to pass on the message on behalf of the western empire that “Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
deleted by creator
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.
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?
I don’t know a single person who was in the military who has good things to say about it.
After training, sure, they’re all for it. After doing the job for real (combat or not) and getting out, not a single time that I can remember.
