SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - "Ask the Man Who Owns One".

Page 2 of 2

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - "Ask the Man Who Owns One". (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203166)

Stealhead

03-23-13 10:25 PM

[QUOTE=Platapus;2030471]

That may not be as easy as you think.

This concerning the US Army and the Army has a regulation for everything, let's look at Army Regulation 600-43 which covers conchies.

Quote:

1–5. Policy
a.
Personnel who qualify as conscientious objectors under this regulation will be classified as such, consistent with the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. However, requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are—

.....

(4) Based on objection to a certain war.

You can't be a conchie only with respect to a specific war or action. It is either all or nothing and you will need evidence. In a volunteer service, it will be harder to show sincere evidence after voluntarily enlisting or accepting a commission.

Military members do not, and can not, choose which war or action to take part in. That falls, for good or bad, to our civilian control of the military.

The old guys do the lying and the young guys do the dying is, sadly reality in the military. Ya gots to understand that if you choose to serve in a voluntary service--- it is only voluntary until you sign, after that, it ain't. :yep:

(sorry the software is messing up the quote)
You miss my point I clearly stated that a person that enlists in the US armed forces does not get to choose where they go.My point was if he felt that Iraq was unjust he could have changed his status if he truly felt so. This of course makes him an objector no matter what.

I understand the military fairly well I was in it for 12 years.:up:

I think you misunderstood me to think that you can be an objector to one conflict but not another that is not what I meant.

As your post shows you can change your status to objector at anytime but it is all or nothing.If he still wanted to fight then he had no choice but to go where he was ordered and hope that he got sent to Afghanistan unfortunately he was seriously injured and never got the chance.

Ultimately my opinion is if you do not want to fight possibly die or possibly get wounded in a war you feel is unjust do not join the armed forces simple as that.You can not trust politicians to not get the military involved in an unjust or questionable action.That is not to say that every action is wrong but it happens.

Platapus

03-24-13 07:18 AM

I am sorry I misunderstood your post.

But on the bright side, it gave me yet another opportunity for another of my bombastic know-it-all annoying posts. :D

And ya know I can't resist that. :know:

geetrue

03-24-13 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2030556)

England has a history of bloody war and conquest, primarily conquest OF England by its neighbours (little wonder that when we finally stopped being invaded we spent the rest of our history invading everyone else). First the Romans, then the Angles and the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans, and then when we got bored of that we had several civil wars, played with republicanism, split from the Pope and went on to become an industrial powerhouse before being thoroughly economically thrashed in two world wars.

The period before the Norman invasion, the death of 'the old ways' and the coming of Christianity, the fight for Brytenwalda. It's quite a fascinating era, one that I've barely scratched the surface of it. Lots of old relics from the era around here though, there's an Anglo-Saxon cemetary complete with burial ship just down the road from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo) and where I lived when I first moved up here was said to be just across the river from where Boudica made camp on her way south from Iceni territory to sack Camulodunum.

I must admit, that is one thing I do feel sorry for chaps in the US for, a dearth of historical sites and buildings, not that there aren't any, but they are all clustered in a specific era.

I didn't mean to go fishing on someone else's thread, but this subject is so
interesting ... I will start another thread called, "The history of the United Kingdom that you have come to love or hate"

Come on over ... you too Steve

mookiemookie

03-24-13 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webster (Post 2030018)

yep, we were so much better off with Obama and Hillary running things, letting people die while ordering soldiers nearby to STAND DOWN and watched it live on tv as the ambassador and his team died in the street waiting for help that would never come. all to protect the lie that terrorists are on the run so they would look good for the election.

See kids, this is what we call a red-herring fallacy.

Bilge_Rat

03-24-13 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2030079)

Bush and Cheney abused the well-meaningness and good will of young people the same way Hitler abused the young people in Germany - they lied, misled, betrayed, manipulated, staged events and evidence. This is what pathos and nationalism, both in the Third Reich and the modern America, such a dangerous, two-sided issue. Yes, in the abuse of the young own people I absolutely compare Bush&Neocons to Hitler and the Nazis.

Bush is like Hitler? The Germans murdered 6 miillion jews, the Germans murdered at least 3.5 million Russian POWs. The Germans setup a system of Death camps. The Germans setup slave labour camps. The Germans wanted to conquer Russia, kill off half the russians and enslave the other half and many others. As far as I know, the US does not engage in mass murder of civilians...:hmmm:

August

03-25-13 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 2030916)

Apparently Godwins law is only applied selectively...

Catfish

03-25-13 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 2030916)

Playing devil's advocate here:

Comparing Bush to Hitler ? Strange, or do you mean by level of incompetence ?

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland. Probably good for the world, but:
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

Stalin murdered appx. 40 million people, 13 million of them being jews, the 'rest' (sorry) of 27 millions having no special ethnicity, or religion. He also killed almost all of the polish 'intelligentsia' and all polish officers he could get his hands on. But go on, he was 'your' ally.

"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US was involved in officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.
Also ... right, who would call native Americans civilians ?
:dead:

Bilge_Rat

03-25-13 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2031168)

Playing devil's advocate here:

I love that game. :ping:

Quote:

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland.
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

I think the issue is more whether a comparaison of Bush to Hitler is a fair one.

The argument seems to be that Hitler's war on Russia was as unjustified as Bush's war on Iraq. While this may seem true on the surface, there are important differences.

Hitler invaded Russia as part of his plan to obtain Lebensraum. Under his plan, half the Russian people would be killed off and the other half would be used a slave labour in the new Russian protectorate. As it was, an estimated 13 million Russian civilians died, including 2.1 million who died in forced labor camps in Germany.

Bush invaded Iraq under a misguided plan to replace a dictator by an elected government which was put in place fairly quickly after the invasion. An estimated 100,000 civilians died, but only 10-15,000 as a consequenec of direct action by the Coalition.

Its hard to see how you can equate Bush to Hitler.

Quote:

"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US had officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.

Again, it depends what you define as "mass murder". Do you think herding old men, women and children into a gas chamber and murdering them is the moral equivalent of Iraqi civilians which are accidentally killed as a result of military actions?

August

03-25-13 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2031168)

Playing devil's advocate here:

Playing devils advocate to your devils advocate:

Quote:

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland. Probably good for the world, but:
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know

."

No Germany intended on invading Russia long before England declared war on Germany. "Lebensraum" was not something thought up in 1940.

Quote:

But go on, he was 'your' ally.

That is really immaterial to a Bush/Hitler comparison. If you're forced into an "I know we were bad but other were just as bad" argument then you're pretty much surrendering the argument before you even get started.

Quote:

"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US was involved in officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.
Also ... right, who would call native Americans civilians ?

Collateral damage is not anywhere near the same thing as the systematic rounding up and murder of millions upon millions of civilians.

You might have somewhat of a point about the AmerIndians although massacres happened on both sides going back centuries and at no point was genocide of all American Indians a state ordered and sponsored operation. Besides if you want to go back into ancient history then shall we talk about the genocide committed by the Ambrones and Cimbri against the poor Noricum? (I was watching PBS this weekend :D)

Catfish

03-25-13 03:03 PM

It's ok, i really did not mean anyone to take that seriously :03:

However i saw it apart from the Bush-Hitler comparison, which is plain wrong - if not comparing the use of the media, and how to convince a people of the 'necessity' of going to war :hmm2:

Tribesman

03-25-13 04:28 PM

Quote:

Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

How can you not know?
Read the treaty between Poland and Britain. It specifies that it only covers invasion by Germany.

Catfish

03-25-13 04:41 PM

You mean, like the treaty with Belgium some time before. :hmmm:
But this treaty did not really guarantee a help, for Belgium - Niall Ferguson's "The pity of war" is a real eye opener.

I just wonder where this one-sidedness comes from :03:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page