Soldiers are Soldiers, the Big Lie

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

You’re not even trying, rainjack.

Details are not important here. A supposed air superiority was just one of many possible options here.
You fundamentally argued that no one will ever attack if outnumbered:

“In the real world - name a country who has ever invaded in a offensive strike knowing they were outnumbered, or even 50/50?”

The question is: If the whole operation was much riskier, (as in: the enemy does actually resist, contrary to GW1 +2) and longer, how many “idealists” would glady go over there?

You can take the strength ratio of the Falkland War, if you want to. Initially, there was much speculation about the harrier’s effectivness. The exocet was also real and dangerous. So the argentinians HAD a real army, not like Saddam’s who basically just deserted en masse.

122

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

As I’ve opened up the thread, I feel responsible for it.

That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that attitude here.

I obviously won’t and can’t order you around, but I will at least point to unnecessary or distracting drivel.

You DID attempt to “order me around.” You’ll get much more cooperation from me if you use the magic word.

You Lixy bashing had nothing to do with this thread.
Feel free to argue with him concerning the question, please.

That’s better.

As to Irony, you are right, sometimes he indeed changes the subject abruptly to his one favorite topic. But I think if you would engage him in a more civil manner, his alleged “agenda”, as you say, would be way more transparent, instead of going under in a wild exchange of insults.

You have either not been reading here recently, or are confusing me with someone else. I haven’t had a “wild exchange of insults” with your buddy in many months. In fact, I even sent him a PM out of a sense of human compassion recently (which he failed to even acknowledge, BTW.)

Respect. I try to respect every man under the sun.
How do you see if someone fought in a (just) war? What if he endured way more hardships that aren’t visible through medals or aren’t easily retold with war stories? Would you respect the monk I spoke a few posts before if I told you he works in a ghetto where gunfights occur that often that it’s comparable to a war zone. Mind you, he gets no real pay, has no family and no “end of service”(don’t know how it’s called in english) looming a few months before him.
Would you respect him more,less?

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that someone of your intellect is posing these rather sophomoric questions. I can only assume that your own bias is distorting your thinking.

Would I respect the monk? Of course! Your poor grandmother? Without a doubt! More or less than the soldier? That’s a rather silly question; each and every monk, grandmother and soldier is a unique individual with their own fears, demons, motivations and situations.

The monk’s motivation would likely be more pure than the soldier’s, but on the other hand the soldier has a huge target on his chest and people trying very hard to kill him. The grandmother might be dealing with much more horrendous treatment on a daily basis than the others, but she didn’t WILLINGLY put herself in that situation when she could have avoided it.

From my perspective the question is not, “Why the respect for soldiers?” Rather, I have to wonder why you’re so interested in devaluing them and their service.
[/quote]

Thank you for contributing to the thread.

I think what divides us here that while you think I try to demote the soldiers I believe it’s apparent that you put them on a pedestal.
My question is- why?

Again, I have zero intention to specially devaluing their work, what they do seems to be something a man is build and fond to do- namely wage war.
Since you admit that the monk and my grandmother also deserve much respect, it seems only logical to praise them as much as other hard working folks.
Or is it the risk of death? If that’s the case, the opposite side will have to be praised as well, their delusions of afterlife-sluts aside.

See my dilemma?

123

So how about this extension of the theory?

Having established that a man has war in his blood and strives for an alpha status by force, if necessary, we can ask ourselves what the non-alphas’ reactions would be?

Perhaps there is so much praise because a lot won’t ever go to war, but instead try to associate themselves as closely as possible to mimicry to some degree?

If you’re not exactly a warrior, because you’re too old, to unfit, too cowardly/reasonable (two sides of the same coin), you could at least pretend that you are. It would also be wise to be a good buddy to the alpha, since the options (servant, enemy, beta or epsilon) are not that brilliant.

In this argument let’s call this the alpha-spectator

124

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I said if air supperiority was 50/50.

It’s difficult to nigh impossible to determine a factual strength ratio.
For instance, Germany severly underestimated the russian’s numbers.

But as to your question, this is easy:
Ancient times-all of Alexander the Great’s big battles
Medieval age-pretty much all of Jan Zizka’s campaigns and battles had him outnumbered
Modern age- a lot of Napolepon’s battles

So you see, real T-Generals with determined soldiers and good equipment could beat their enemies from the offense time and again.

But for the sake of rainjack, let’s say if USA-Iraq was comparable to the Mexican-American War. (I looked the casualties up, they were about 2:1)

SO you have to go back almost 200 years to find something that supports your theory?

Try again. This time - maybe keep it within 100 years.

Irrelevant bullshit seems to be your strong suit.

Ah, the Extension, Schopenhauers first stratagem.

An obvious fallacy.

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist01.htm

Can you fucking read you idiot? Your friend assumed 50/50 air superiority.

How many planes were there in the Spanish-American war?

[/quote]

“In the real world - name a country who has ever invaded in a offensive strike knowing they were outnumbered, or even 50/50?”

This is what you wrote.

He answered.

Can you read RJ?

125

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You’re not even trying, rainjack.

Details are not important here.
[/quote]

You could have stopped right there.

126

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:

If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?

So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, [b]air superiority was 50-50[/b], your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…

In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?
[/quote]

Here was his original question. I highlighted the part that you evidently can’t read, Orion. Read it slow. Read it twice if you have to.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since Schwartzie says details aren’t important.

Now how about trying to read the entire fucking thing before proving you are an idiot?

127

Actually, you are the one that misread my post twice:

  1. “air superiority is 50/50” means in rainjack-land that the defender has air superiority?

  2. I wrote: “…if the enemy was a real threat…”, explored a few possibilities (details which aren’t important) all of which don’t mean that the enemy has the total advantage: I even wrote: “wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour” meaning you still have THE advantage.

128

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:

If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?

So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, [b]air superiority was 50-50[/b], your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…

In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?

Here was his original question. I highlighted the part that you evidently can’t read, Orion. Read it slow. Read it twice if you have to.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since Schwartzie says details aren’t important.

Now how about trying to read the entire fucking thing before proving you are an idiot?

[/quote]

My pointing out that you constantly change the premise of your argument so that your half-baked conclusion still stands makes me an idiot?

129

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:

If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?

So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, [b]air superiority was 50-50[/b], your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…

In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?

Here was his original question. I highlighted the part that you evidently can’t read, Orion. Read it slow. Read it twice if you have to.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since Schwartzie says details aren’t important.

Now how about trying to read the entire fucking thing before proving you are an idiot?

My pointing out that you constantly change the premise of your argument so that your half-baked conclusion still stands makes me an idiot?[/quote]

No - your inability to read makes you an idiot. It’s right there. This is the second time I have had to say it.

130

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Actually, you are the one that misread my post twice:

  1. “air superiority is 50/50” means in rainjack-land that the defender has air superiority?[/quote]

Didn’t you just say that the details weren’t important? Dude - you are the one that used the term first. I misread nothing.

[quote]2) I wrote: “…if the enemy was a real threat…”, explored a few possibilities (details which aren’t important) all of which don’t mean that the enemy has the total advantage: I even wrote: “wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour” meaning you still have THE advantage.
[/quote]

Who has suggested that the enemy had to have the total advantage?

Go back. Think about what you want to say, then say it in the fewest words possible. It sounds like you don’t even know what you are saying at this point.

131

I believe there are great, strong, proud, and intelligent men in the service. I have the greatest respect for them. I am just ashamed at how this administration has used them. If all efforts were placed on afghanistan instead of iraq, I may consider joining up. I think we are getting pissed off at the wrong people here. We should be mad that our men are dying in a place we should have never been. We had many times to be proud of our country after 9/11, in afghanistan. Now, it just seems sad to hear about a mess we cannot just walk away from but should not idle in. I am afraid that neither Mccain, Obama, or Hillary have the right answer. Because the right answer just isn’t there anymore. Very tough times are ahead for my generation.

132

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
But that wasn’t Schwarz’ question in the first place, Chushin.

Whether civilians should show respect for soldiers or not is not under dispute.

The question was why are so many people in such awe of military people. …[/quote]

I think it is a bogus question because I don’t know anyone that is in “awe” of them. I respect them for doing a tough job. Some of them are great people, some of them are assholes. I generally give them the benefit of the doubt in most situations and wait until the facts are in to judge.

Bogus question.

133

Just because very few women participate in war does not make them less beastly. Women in general are more concerned about their health,more easily frightened and they are neither expected nor demanded to go to wars.

A lot of women shame men into conscription and wars. The governments have actually orchestrated shaming campaigns geared around women pressuring men into combat.

It is women who control reproduction and women can choose whether or not to have ‘beastly’ genes continuing their existence or not. The fact is a huge lot of women are excited by any display of power and dominance,and morals are not the first thing they’re gonna think about it when they see a dominant soldier,capable of protecting and providing.

134

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:

If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?

So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, [b]air superiority was 50-50[/b], your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…

In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?

Here was his original question. I highlighted the part that you evidently can’t read, Orion. Read it slow. Read it twice if you have to.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since Schwartzie says details aren’t important.

Now how about trying to read the entire fucking thing before proving you are an idiot?

My pointing out that you constantly change the premise of your argument so that your half-baked conclusion still stands makes me an idiot?

No - your inability to read makes you an idiot. It’s right there. This is the second time I have had to say it.

[/quote]

It is just that my ability to read is only called into question if I cannot seem to pin the ever changing premise of your argument down.

Hence the question.

135

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Just because very few women participate in war does not make them less beastly. Women in general are more concerned about their health,more easily frightened and they are neither expected nor demanded to go to wars. A lot of women shame men into conscription and wars. The governments have actually orchestrated shaming campaigns geared around women pressuring men into combat.

It is women who control reproduction and women can choose whether or not to have ‘beastly’ genes continuing their existence or not. The fact is a huge lot of women are excited by any display of power and dominance,and morals are not the first thing they’re gonna think about it when they see a dominant soldier,capable of protecting and providing. [/quote]

A tad far fetched. I like to believe the human race has evolved past this point at least somewhat.

136

No I think Alffi is up to something.

I opened the thread to show and discuss about the fact that soldiers get overly praised.
Why is that?
My curiosity is based on the old observation that because men need a good excuse to kill, they attach all things glamorous to it. Why is the mechanism right now in America so effective? 11.9 comes of course to the mind.
More then one time someone chimed in, wondering how I can flame those brave man and women. I do not wish to demote their courage, but question the moral side of it everyone attaches so eagerly. It always comes down to the aura of glamour that sourounds the kill. Why lie about it?
If the risk of death or mutilation is the key point, combatants of all sides should be praised.

Now I introduced a theory extension on the last side about the alpha spectators.
Obviously, there must be an advantage in supporting and glorifying war.

Alffi examined the advantages of a female who cheers for the troops.

First, a woman has traditionally less control over their sons. They try to emulate the father and manly deeds, separating themselves from feminine acts. So female strategies are probably more of a damage control.
Secondly, of course women will cheer for their sons and his decisions.
But there is more to it.
A woman who acts warlike or aggressive enjoys definitely advantages over a non-alpha female. Such an aggressive behaviour in women is very effective, because, contrary to men, they seldom have to back it up.
So the “alpha-spectator” archetype also applies to them.
And to support Alffi, if some woman are interested in manly alpha genes over cautious philosophers’, then surely this is an explanation why so many gladly support war, the key domain of the alpha.

137

[quote]Force wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Just because very few women participate in war does not make them less beastly. Women in general are more concerned about their health,more easily frightened and they are neither expected nor demanded to go to wars. A lot of women shame men into conscription and wars. The governments have actually orchestrated shaming campaigns geared around women pressuring men into combat.

It is women who control reproduction and women can choose whether or not to have ‘beastly’ genes continuing their existence or not. The fact is a huge lot of women are excited by any display of power and dominance,and morals are not the first thing they’re gonna think about it when they see a dominant soldier,capable of protecting and providing.

A tad far fetched. I like to believe the human race has evolved past this point at least somewhat. [/quote]

That would require enough time and incentives for the genes to change.

Since they had neither he is probably spot on.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, if we all were like we publicly claim to be, we would not last on this planet for a single year.

138

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Actually, you are the one that misread my post twice:

  1. “air superiority is 50/50” means in rainjack-land that the defender has air superiority?

Didn’t you just say that the details weren’t important? Dude - you are the one that used the term first. I misread nothing.

  1. I wrote: “…if the enemy was a real threat…”, explored a few possibilities (details which aren’t important) all of which don’t mean that the enemy has the total advantage: I even wrote: “wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour” meaning you still have THE advantage.

Who has suggested that the enemy had to have the total advantage?

Go back. Think about what you want to say, then say it in the fewest words possible. It sounds like you don’t even know what you are saying at this point.
[/quote]

Can we get to the point, please`?
I feel like I’m a teenager again and arguing with hysterical girlfriends. Countless bickering over words and (I’ll tell you what you said! No, you said…) nonsense.

The point was, how eagerly would have all those goodly soldiers- who all want to do some good and make a difference- went to a much more difficult war, like say GBritain - Argentina '83 (was it?), only longer.

Can I have a no bullshit answer please?

139

If they believed they could win, they would go eagerly.

140

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:

If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?

So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, [b]air superiority was 50-50[/b], your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…

In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?

Here was his original question. I highlighted the part that you evidently can’t read, Orion. Read it slow. Read it twice if you have to.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since Schwartzie says details aren’t important.

Now how about trying to read the entire fucking thing before proving you are an idiot?

My pointing out that you constantly change the premise of your argument so that your half-baked conclusion still stands makes me an idiot?

No - your inability to read makes you an idiot. It’s right there. This is the second time I have had to say it.

It is just that my ability to read is only called into question if I cannot seem to pin the ever changing premise of your argument down.

Hence the question.

[/quote]

Nothing has changed. I just don’t think that if the original question included references to the use of aircraft, he should stay in that era to back up his shit. He didn’t.

But I forgot one, though - the US kicked the living shit out of the Axis in WWII. I think they were fairly well matched militarily - you guys were just too busy trying to exterminate the inferior races in cyanide showers.