Results 1 to 20 of 642

Thread: William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Nonsense.
    The quote was clearly in a context implying that such extreme punishments without due trial were commonplace. Now you're moving goalposts and talk about what some of the most extreme armies did at their worst times.
    My statement was simple, plain and true. Armies, every one that I've read of, kill their deserters if they feel the need. With due process or without, commonplace or not, they do it. That is a simple fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    See? "military". Not 'extreme dictatorship's military that's desperate because it's losing badly', no "ultimate step" stuff or anything like that. You contrasted civilian jobs with military jobs in general.
    No, that is the difference between military and civilian. You can be ordered to go out and die in a military organization and you can't quit if you feel like it. A banzai charge was effectively an order to die, gloriously maybe in the eyes of Imperial Japanese militarists, but it was an order to go out and die. When the Union soldiers got the warning order for the attack at Cold Harbor they knew that for many of them it was an order to die. They didn't write their names on pieces of paper and pin them to their uniforms for nothing. At Waterloo a unit was ordered by some peer to attack in line when a cavalry unit was plainly in sight on the flank of their route. That was an order to die. They did as they were ordered and most of them did.

    So yea, soldiers can be ordered to die. And soldiers can't leave when they feel like it. There may be some exceptions to the leave when they feel like it part but in general it's a no go, especially in war.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #2
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    No, that is the difference between military and civilian. You can be ordered to go out and die in a military organization and you can't quit if you feel like it. A banzai charge was effectively an order to die, gloriously maybe in the eyes of Imperial Japanese militarists, but it was an order to go out and die. When the Union soldiers got the warning order for the attack at Cold Harbor they knew that for many of them it was an order to die. They didn't write their names on pieces of paper and pin them to their uniforms for nothing. At Waterloo a unit was ordered by some peer to attack in line when a cavalry unit was plainly in sight on the flank of their route. That was an order to die. They did as they were ordered and most of them did.

    So yea, soldiers can be ordered to die. And soldiers can't leave when they feel like it. There may be some exceptions to the leave when they feel like it part but in general it's a no go, especially in war.
    You're dealing in extremes here. (Besides, every soldier who can fight 'the enemy' also has the capacity to fight against who truly takes his freedom instead of doing as ordered).

    You're mistaken if you think I couldn't find similar in the realm of civilian work.

    Military Mi-8s were used to lower supplies to ground workers. Later, fitted with external spray systems, they helped drop a bonding mixture over the (Chernobyl) reactor area to prevent contaminated dirt from spreading. Aeroflot-supplied versions executed precise drops of the chemical in bulk form, using their own pilots who were trained for Arctic oil-pipe laying and fire-fighting control in the former Soviet Union.

    The Mi-8's four-axis autopilot gives it added yaw, pitch and roll stabilisation under any flight conditions. This made it ideal for precision flying close to the exploded reactor.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ernobyl-12245/

    Ever read about who fought the fires in German cities 1944/45? Hint: not only soldiers. In fact, few if any soldiers. Do you have an idea about what it's like fighting a firestorm? Or what it's like staying in the control centre bunker of a coal powerplant during an air raid? Again, civilians. And yes, they would not have improved their odds of survival if they had said "####, I'm outta here".


    What's next? A claim that these civilians were exceptions?
    Well, let me count the Banzai charges of the U.S.Air Force during the Iraq occupation then so I can establish the ratio of "Banzai!" to airmen...
    Oh, wait. "Civilians" were the only ones who blew themselves up in that conflict. Many airmen were enjoying air conditioning meanwhile.


    You argue for special status of military personnel based on extremes which rarely ever affect them, but which affect a few civilians as well.
    Your case is incoherent because military personnel isn't that special. Some soldiers developed a certain class conceit about their trade, though.



    Besides, most incidences of such class conceit are not about soldiers supposedly accepting greater risks. Most of what examples I saw were snobbier than that: They were pretending a superior morality.
    There was usually a huge influence by right wing attitudes sniffable - particularly conceit about "moochers", "liberals", and the like.

    The idea of military personnel being special or superior to the general population is more an authoritarian-leaning political attitude almost always found in military forces staging a coup d'tat than it is a justifiable assertion.

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    You're dealing in extremes here. (Besides, every soldier who can fight 'the enemy' also has the capacity to fight against who truly takes his freedom instead of doing as ordered).
    Yes, the difference between civilian and military is extreme. That is the point. And yes every soldier can rebel against authority, that is why every army I've ever read of tries to nip that in the bud by killing those of their own who desert or disobey when things get hard enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    You're mistaken if you think I couldn't find similar in the realm of civilian work.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ernobyl-12245/
    Check the same thing for all the policemen and firemen who went into the twin towers on 9-11 and didn't come out. They went in on their own. They could have quit on the spot if they wanted to and not gone in. My point wasn't at all about the bravery that many people exhibit very often. My point was about people who want to run away can be forced to stay in the military and while civilians can mostly scoot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Ever read about who fought the fires in German cities 1944/45? Hint: not only soldiers. In fact, few if any soldiers. Do you have an idea about what it's like fighting a firestorm? Or what it's like staying in the control centre bunker of a coal powerplant during an air raid? Again, civilians. And yes, they would not have improved their odds of survival if they had said "####, I'm outta here".
    Yeah, I did read about them, in Bomber by Len Deighton. That was a really good book. Very brave people. But were they drafted and forced to stay in those jobs if they didn't want to? I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    What's next? A claim that these civilians were exceptions?
    Well, let me count the Banzai charges of the U.S.Air Force during the Iraq occupation then so I can establish the ratio of "Banzai!" to airmen...
    Oh, wait. "Civilians" were the only ones who blew themselves up in that conflict. Many airmen were enjoying air conditioning meanwhile.
    You lost me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    You argue for special status of military personnel based on extremes which rarely ever affect them, but which affect a few civilians as well.
    Your case is incoherent because military personnel isn't that special. Some soldiers developed a certain class conceit about their trade, though.
    I am arguing that the military is fundamentally different from the civilian world. My case is quite solid in that respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Besides, most incidences of such class conceit are not about soldiers supposedly accepting greater risks. Most of what examples I saw were snobbier than that: They were pretending a superior morality.
    There was usually a huge influence by right wing attitudes sniffable - particularly conceit about "moochers", "liberals", and the like.

    The idea of military personnel being special or superior to the general population is more an authoritarian-leaning political attitude almost always found in military forces staging a coup d'tat than it is a justifiable assertion.
    I don't know what this is about or who it is directed to.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 933
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 02:38 PM
  2. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  3. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  4. Stryker collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 05-25-2013, 06:26 AM
  5. The John Boyd collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •