|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Lancelot posted:lol @ people unironically using the phrase "military bashing" in this thread The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... 
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:He said sports fans, not sports people. I guess politicians don't plea fealty to the all blacks / any other sports team that wins then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:The only time I ever heard somebody say "sand friend of the family" irl was talking to a guy at school who was going to join the military Dudes like this usually gtfo out as soon as they can when they realise that they have to live with people who aren't middle class white guys 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Celia Lashlie has pancreatic cancer 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Maybe they should learn that patriotism is weird as gently caress and you can protect the world better than going places at the behest of the US/UK to shoot "terrorists" unless you're in the SAS you're not really going to shoot anyone. i mean, sans recent developments when was the last time our armed forces had actual combat roles? Kathleen fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:unless you're in the SAS you're not really going to shoot anyone. That's true, but while 100 of our troops fix bridges that leaves 100 spare US troops to shoot terrists. Its irrelevant what they personally do - we collectively pull the trigger. Edit: I am sure there are hundreds of us and UK troops who haven't personally shot or killed anyone, from cooks to infantry, pilots to tank drivers
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:unless you're in the SAS you're not really going to shoot anyone. Yeah this is why I'm confused by some of the things people are saying, given the work that the NZ forces usually does is disaster relief, and peacekeeping as part of our obligations in the pacific and SEA regions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
yo, you know you can do disaster relief without having to be broken down to see people as threats, or trained to murder on the order of someone in the US/UK because our PM is a spineless turd, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:yo, you know you can do disaster relief without having to be broken down to see people as threats, or trained to murder on the order of someone in the US/UK because our PM is a spineless turd, right? Michael Joseph Savage & Helen Clark, two well-known spineless turds
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
There's no such thing as a non-combat role on the ground during an insurgency. The NZDF's role in Afghanistan was reconstruction. They lost 8 people to combat situations in two years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
what if the troops were trained to help people, and not kill people
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:what if the troops were trained to help people, and not kill people What if this was already a thing which happens? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:What if this was already a thing which happens? I think that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure how well the provincial reconstruction stuff would have gone if we'd sent people incapable of defending themselves or their bases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
They were gonna send my dad to Afghanistan as a civilian engineering consultant, and one time he lost a fight with an armchair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:Michael Joseph Savage & Helen Clark, two well-known spineless turds depending on how seriously you take John A Lee's memoirs then that might not be too far off wrt Savage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
This whole discussion is retarded. Armies exist because the world is the way it is; I realise that in an ideal world they wouldn't exist, but unfortunately humans are humans and thus they exist. If everyone refused to join an armed force then the world would be a better place. If everyone picked up a piece of rubbish every day there would be no need for street sweepers. Neither of these things are going to happen any time soon. It makes no sense to me to blame people in the army for the decisions politicians make. 'The army' doesn't choose if it gets sent to fight on the other side of the world, that's a political decision. I don't understand why all the vitriol is directed at the poor cunts digging ditches as opposed to the rich cunts sending them off to get shot for reasons that make no sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It makes no sense to me to blame people in the army for the decisions politicians make. 'The army' doesn't choose if it gets sent to fight on the other side of the world, that's a political decision. I don't understand why all the vitriol is directed at the poor cunts digging ditches as opposed to the rich cunts sending them off to get shot for reasons that make no sense. . it's like blaming coal miners for global warming. we're talking about working class people trying to live a comfortable life here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This whole discussion is retarded. Armies exist because the world is the way it is; I realise that in an ideal world they wouldn't exist, but unfortunately humans are humans and thus they exist. If everyone refused to join an armed force then the world would be a better place. If everyone picked up a piece of rubbish every day there would be no need for street sweepers. Neither of these things are going to happen any time soon. What the gently caress of course people in the army get to decide if they go to a specific war or not. If they think the war is somehow wrong, they have an obligation to society to refuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:. this is probably the best analogy, also because ideally we'd make both jobs obsolete but they aren't assholes for pushing back against that or asking to see an alternative first
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
klen dool posted:What the gently caress of course people in the army get to decide if they go to a specific war or not. If they think the war is somehow wrong, they have an obligation to society to refuse. Hahaha what? You and me and everyone else in this country (and every other country) do things that we know are bad/wrong all the time but nobody refuses out of an 'obligation to society'. Nobody outside of internet autist thought-excercise reasonable-men actually thinks in terms of the effects their actions have on society. They think about how to achieve their own personal goals and ambitions whilst avoiding being piss-poor and other social strife. That is the nature of institutions, of which the army is one. They function because they put individuals in a position where they either make a 'bad' choice to protect themselves or are shuffled further down the social ladder and replaced by someone more willing to do so. Do I quit my job because my company does things that are bad for the environment/someone in asia? Nope because I don't want to be unable to feed my kids because I've shat my own career down the toilet and then watch someone more morally flexible step into the gap and do the same things anyway. Do I quit the army/get put up for charges because Armies Are Bad and Violence Is Wrong? No because then I'm a completely unqualified bum with no money and no prospects/real work experience whatsoever and I get to watch someone less morally pure get promoted over me to do the same job anyway. Every aspect of life is like this and the only people I can think of who have successfully avoided this are buddhist monks and similar monastic orders who have made a massive, deliberate shift in their lives to separate themselves from the hamster wheel of society. You get to choose between a crap choice and a really, really really crap choice and you choose the first one because nothing you do will make any difference anyway. Claiming that they should somehow martyr themselves for the fulfilment of a political directive whilst completely torpedoing their personal circumstances is ridiculous. They might refuse because they're afraid of risk or any number of other personal reasons but there are very few people who would refuse because of their 'obligation to society'. That argument is completely disconnected from reality. Think about why the people you see on a day to day basis make the decisions they make with their lives. Only a very few (or not, depending on your social circle) have the personal luxury and security to afford to make decisions for the betterment of society to the detriment of their own circumstances. I'm sorry for the wall of text but that view is repeated time and again on the net and it drives me crazy. If you want the world to change you need to give people incentive to dismantle the institutions that gently caress the world instead of just expecting them to sacrifice their livelihoods for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? youre right we should all go work for tobacco companies or the IMF gently caress trying to be ethical I don't agree that people in the military should be expected to face court martial rather than accept deployment, but nor can you just say "well if I don't do this someone else will" because that's the kind of Ayn Rand mentality that justifies most of the gross poo poo that goes on in the world in the first place voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? I often refuse out of obligation to society, a not-insignificant number of people do. Slavvy posted:That is the nature of institutions, of which the army is one. They function because they put individuals in a position where they either make a 'bad' choice to protect themselves or are shuffled further down the social ladder and replaced by someone more willing to do so. Do I quit my job because my company does things that are bad for the environment/someone in asia? Nope because I don't want to be unable to feed my kids because I've shat my own career down the toilet and then watch someone more morally flexible step into the gap and do the same things anyway. Do I quit the army/get put up for charges because Armies Are Bad and Violence Is Wrong? No because then I'm a completely unqualified bum with no money and no prospects/real work experience whatsoever and I get to watch someone less morally pure get promoted over me to do the same job anyway. Bullshit, you can't simplify life like this - its just not reality. Everyone has different motivations, and different things incentivise different people. If I was in the army, and I was told to shoot a civilian, I wouldn't need an incentive to not shoot them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
i hope we can all agree that the NZ SAS being complicit in torture is in fact bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
klen dool posted:What the gently caress of course people in the army get to decide if they go to a specific war or not. If they think the war is somehow wrong, they have an obligation to society to refuse. I'm not sure I agree here - you can think war is wrong but you can think poo poo-heads like Isis are worse. Where does your obligation to society lie then? To help stop the bad guys or to make a point about war by not going? E: I mean one of the legacies of the world wars was an underlining from our elders that war can be a tremendous waste but it doesn't mean we're able to turn a blind eye when people do monumentally evil poo poo to other people and threaten to do it to us. As much as I hate to use this phrase this week, the world is many shades of grey, and barely ever black and white. Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:i hope we can all agree that the NZ SAS being complicit in torture is in fact bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:I'm not sure I agree here - you can think war is wrong but you can think poo poo-heads like Isis are worse. Where does your obligation to society lie then? To help stop the bad guys or to make a point about war by not going? Kind of weird to end on that statement after dividing the world into goodies and baddies a la GIJoe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
ISIS is pretty god drat terrible but so is the systematic disenfranchisement of anyone slightly middle eastern by the US and dehumanisation, torture and "accidental" deaths of prisoners whom hadn't even been accused of anything, or the constant bombings of civilians under the guise of "liberating" them. I'd rather we don't side with either of them to be honest!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
I can't wait to see which even-worse group will supplant DAESH once they've been dealt to!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:I'm not sure I agree here - you can think war is wrong but you can think poo poo-heads like Isis are worse. Where does your obligation to society lie then? To help stop the bad guys or to make a point about war by not going? I don't believe this war is about stopping Isis. I believe wars like this creates the next Isis. I believe that participating in this war will cause civilians to die, civilians that won't die if we don't participate - and we are obliged to society to not intervene in the manner that we are going to. My stance isn't just for the principle of pacifism - its for the tangible outcome of reducing human suffering and extinguishment. I believe we turn a blind eye to atrocities happening all over the world all the time, Isis has nothing to do with why we are deploying. I believe there is a better solution than shooting (or helping to shoot) what the yanks and poms think we should. I believe Isis, and Jordan, and Israel, and the UK, and especially the US are all as bad, brutal, fanatical and uncivilised as each other. I believe that if the Palestinians had backing, they probably be as bad as Israel - and I kinda think we would be too. I don't believe in evil. I want my government - who is literally turning my efforts against me by using my taxes to cause the murder of civilians and using my taxes to tell me its necessary - to not become evil. I believe I have probably revealed to much about myself in this post, in far too pompous a manner, but gently caress man there are people over there and there is nothing more important than life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:i hope we can all agree that the NZ SAS being complicit in torture is in fact bad Did I miss news? I thought our SAS just grew a badarse beard and shot at things in a building.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Did I miss news? I thought our SAS just grew a badarse beard and shot at things in a building. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10720934 A few years ago now, it's one of the things Jon Stephenson uncovered
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Prime Minister John Key said last August that when the SAS handed someone they had detained to other units, they made sure that person would not be tortured. what a good bloke oh you mean they didn't make sure? oh and they were directly responsible for multiple deaths and maimings because of their actions? oh well let's have a beer and let Slavvy's Just World of Good and Evil sort everything out
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
We shouldn't be fighting ISIS because we have nothing of value for the fight and it is only being done for Key's "Prestige". Considering that he can't be hosed following our own laws and ethics, who ever is going over there is going to do some seriously bad things that doesn't help out of poor leadership and goals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
If we don't murder enough Arabs, the big boys won't let us in the treehouse. It's right there on the wall: 1) you gotta kill some Arabs 2) no girls
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Prime Minister John Key said last August that when the SAS handed someone they had detained to other units, they made sure that person would not be tortured. Wait what is this Ayn Rand bullshit, how did anyone get that out of my post? I don't believe in a just world or any poo poo like that, the world is a horrible place. I'm saying that expecting people to change things by altering their own lives is unrealistic in the extreme because most people just aren't wired that way for whatever reason. I'm saying it's terrible that we're getting involved in a cycle of endless violence, but blaming the actual guys doing the shooting is pointless. They're just tiny cogs in a massive machine, they aren't the ones making the decisions that put them in those circumstances. I also like the fact that so many people here claim moral agency that allows them to act for the betterment of society because they're so enlightened but then just automatically assume that everyone who goes to the middle east is a baby murdering bloodthristy fuckhead who couldn't possibly be outraged by these things and would never take personal actions to try to avoid being a horrible oval office while they're actually there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Yeah, the issue is that "the machine" isn't some abstract alien entity, it is literally just enough people following your bullshit "meh, gotta make a living" philosophy. To use your example, if enough people did say "I won't mine coal, as I'm morally opposed to the consequences" or even "because it would be nice for humanity to survive", the coal industry would collapse. Unemployment rates are the grease that keeps the wheels of being a loving rear end in a top hat turning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I realise that. Hence my allusion to everyone picking up one piece of rubbish to keep the streets clean. The realities of life when you aren't affluent and successful mean you don't really get to choose to help humanity as opposed to yourself. This also tends to breed the kind of people who, when successful, do horrible things instead of using their excess wealth to help other people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I put the 'being able to turn down deployment if you don't like war' to one of my friends in the armed forces. He tells me that in actual war that wouldn't be an option because there's not a lot of point training someone in combat who is then going to refuse to go into combat situations so they generally get told it's not for them. The stuff the armed forces do at the moment is a different story (I'm guessing he means peacekeeping/humanitarian and reconstruction), and people coming home because the stress of being in what is effectively a war zone gets to them and they can't handle it is a thing that happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:I put the 'being able to turn down deployment if you don't like war' to one of my friends in the armed forces. He tells me that in actual war that wouldn't be an option because there's not a lot of point training someone in combat who is then going to refuse to go into combat situations so they generally get told it's not for them. The stuff the armed forces do at the moment is a different story (I'm guessing he means peacekeeping/humanitarian and reconstruction), and people coming home because the stress of being in what is effectively a war zone gets to them and they can't handle it is a thing that happens. This sounds an awful lot like "moral people don't make it long enough in the army to get deployed", but I could be misreading it. I am not suggesting there are people in the army who would refuse deployment - I am suggesting there may be people in the army who might refuse deployment to specific situations if they found it morally objectionable - ie they'd be happy to go into somalia and fight warlords and not happy to invade Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:43
|
|