War and world Leaders

Post Reply New Topic

There was a time where your leaders fought beside you.

Now, they simply sign something that makes you go fight for 'king and country.'

I ask: "If leaders were to fight alongside their fellow civilians (Hey, I dont think PM's or Queens or Presidents are worth more then me, not even the pope - all human), do you think they'd be a bit more cautious when starting a war?"

Do you think Bush would be in Iraq right now if he had to go himself? And if not, why does he have the ability to send others? I never agreed to the war in Iraq (although I'm Canadian) but some 'guy' they 'voted in,' in a poor example of 'democracy,' can send me (them) to a country, where most people can't even point it out on a map, and protect people?

Now, I know some people will say 'we need a leader' which is fine, but most leaders are intelligent and someone you'd die for and not just out of symbolism or duty but because of absolute importance and belief.

I'll never believe in a governmental system beyond logic and there is nothing logical with forcing people to fight.

So, discuss the importance of a leader and where his 'words' end and his 'actions' begin. I dont listen to people after I've had time to watch their behaviour. What people 'say' and 'do' are completely different things.

Steve Yzerman of the NHL used to lead his team by example, not by a pep talk he couldnt follow

I may be totally wrong on this, but I thought the UK went with us because of the guilt of colonization of the area.

To Iraq? I figure, based on Englands past, they just wanted to fight someone

This topic misses the point of why a leader went into combat. It was not so the leader might get killed like the common soldier. It was so the leader would lead the common soldier (or often more precisely, lead the people that would lead the common soldier). In the modern world of war this is impossible for reasons of sheer practicality. Nor is it a good idea to have your own leaders (who are generally not an expert at military tactics) get killed for no strategic purpose.

The United States, which is a democratic federal republic, voting in a policy which sends volunteers to fight overseas. These volunteers know this is a possibility when they sign up. The current volunteers are the certainly more definitely aware then those who signed up before 9/11. They aren't idiots. Canadians, and Germans fought in Afghanistan. When you join the military (although some European countries have military service as a requirement) that is always a possibility. I am open to proposals as to a military that would function otherwise.

True that leaders would be less likely to run wars but such an arrangement makes war artificially more costly so that even if war was necessary it could not be conducted efficiently as jimservo says before me. Whether or not the leader would go himself or not really is a matter more of moral character/bravery than of need and he does have legitimate authority to send them because all volunteers, as jimservo also points out, have sworn an obligation to serve this leader or group of them so by the nature of the agreement they can legitimately be ordered around and without a conflict of rights. The only problem comes with the draft, and even that can be justified in extreme situations.

There is nothing logical with using the forces of a nation to fight a force believed to be threatening that nation? That seems odd, because the entire purpose of those forces is to fight those threats, so these people are getting money and possibly college aid based upon their agreement that they can be "forced" to fight.

To me, the leader(s) can take upon many different roles based upon the nature of a governing agent. Anyone who acts as a leader should attempt to be the moral support and be the brains or have the support of brains, but words and actions of this individual really don't matter so much as their ability to get the group led to good outcomes through defeating the challenges faced using resources available. The moral standing of this leader, although possibly of some importance, especially because of the need for moral support, is not the most important quality, and a leader can be the slimiest Machiavellian in existence so long as he can do his job.

The flaw in your arguments is that you automatically think a leader is 'right.' This is why actions must speak louder then words.

Iraq didnt have WMD and Bush sent in his 'volunteers' to look for them. Surprise.

As well, you volunteer to SERVE YOUR COUNTRY and NOT YOUR PRESIDENTS BAD DECISIONS or INTERESTS. Nor do you serve for your COUNTRIES interests, such as cheaper oil. These types of scenarios are different from 'serving your country' for 'home protection.' If you want to compare WW2 with the Iraq war, enjoy. America started one versus WW2 where America RESPONDED to one as the country was becoming threatened.

In Iraq, they are not SERVING America, they are serving IRAQ. Now, they are 'guns for hire' and not 'America's defense.'

Of course, now we can make up 'threats' and 'blame' others and send men over to die because we think that'll work (show me a time where force has worked)

The hardest part is making people realize there IS no reason for war. Of course, the reason its difficult to do that is because people refuse to look through the eyes of a 'human' versus looking through the eyes of 'their side' (west).

No, we assume that leaders direct governing forces. They are supposed to be right, and we attempt to remove or weaken them if they are wrong, but if governing power authorizes the use of force then the use of force is required.
You volunteer to serve your country under the direction of the government. Essentially speaking, you serve the government as a member of the armed forces and can only rebel against the government if that government attacks the people. Incompetence by government officials has no bearing on whether you are or are not obligated to serve the government which employs you. As well, you DO serve your countries interests, this has been true for many many years and under almost every administration, whether it is fighting pirates, helping the allies of that nation or etc. In fact, many political scholars argue that the military is simply another political tool for serving the nation's interests and is not a purely protectionary force like you say.
If we screw up in Iraq then American interests will be threatened because with Iraq in its condition, it can easily fall to Islamic extremism, I will not argue about whether or not we should have started the war, but we sure as heck need to finish it otherwise we will have more enemies and terrorist groups that will pose a threat to American safety and by staying in there we can hope to prevent this from happening(hopefully).
You mean a time when war has worked? How about the Civil war? We crushed a rebellion in our own nation at that time through the use of force. We could also mention just about any other war, many of them have worked for one side or another.

Why should they look through the eyes of "human"? They have loyalty and ties to their group, their families belong to their group, if their group falls then they lose everything they ever had and ever loved despite any successes by humanity as a whole. The group is a logical extention of their self-interest, and the fact that human beings have self-interest is part of their nature, your complaint is that their ideological self-interest isn't the same as yours.

The idea of 'fighting' is, in itself, illogical, unless its self defense, so any "logic" deriving from it is stemming from an act that was illogical to begin with, correct? If so, then the idea of 'logic' is flawed from the root of where it started. Illogical choice is made, then logical, then logical, then logical < -- yes, those 3 'logical' choices were 'right' but the root decision was not, it was 'illogical' to begin with.

To break it down, if I fight one person over an idea and kill them (say, religion), I am charged with murder and rightfully so. However, make it a 'group' of people, instead of just 1 person, name them a 'country' and now 'murder' turns into 'war.' I'm fighting and killing for the EXACT same reason, individually, but contained within a group of people with similar thoughts as me versus others with different thoughts. Well, if killing people in war is 'logical' then we should start more wars when our ideas conflict.

When you view the 'self' within a war, logic has been tossed out. Logically, you dont or shouldnt want to lose your life or else suicide would be everywhere and by everyone. So, you've already placed yourself in an illogical form of solving a problem. Again, I do not argue self defense as one did not start it, but any conflict that begins was done so out of illogical reasoning and selfishness.

Fighting is not illogical. It is a choice made based upon outcomes. The choice to fight is costly but it can have benefit. A choice is rarely or never illogical in and of itself but rather must be made in reference to present states.
You are only charged with murder because the rules of that society claim that such an act is murder, they only claim that such an act is murder because for you to kill random people poses a threat to all of them. The only problem is that international politics cannot be defined by any strong law as no strong authority exists to enforce such a law. Killing in war though, is only logical though, when we view our society as benefiting from killing that group to pursue an objective and that war is only logical when the value of the objective is greater than the loss by the society.

No, we haven't. No soldier wants to lose their life, they just view the risk as worth the potential gain by their country. So therefore, it is not necessarily illogical.

Oh but it is. Your trust in your country is flawed in that you are serving your countries interest, not yours. Having said that, you are now fighting out of decisions YOU did not make which makes it illogical to fight.

You must appreciate 'life' to understand this. Life is what matters. Your ideas, your religions, your thoughts, these cannot exist without LIFE. People place importance on 'King and Country' as if THEY are right. They are not right, they can even use you for personal 'greed.'

I think what I would recommend is everyone studying 'self' and then re-entering a debate on war, especially any war that is for 'King and Country.' Germany was serving its 'Countries' interest in regaining land, amoung various other things. Does a farmer REALLY care where his land is, especially if he is not ON that land?

As well, the idea of nationality is illogical in that it can cause one to act out of patriotism, not self, which can be emotional (olympics). No farmer should have a beef with an American farmer unless his nation does something to stir the pot. Without borders or countries, a farmer in Iraq is simply a 'dot' on planet earth. If he hates a farmer from the states, he simply hates another 'dot' on a different continent of earth. If they have a dispute, its between them, not their countries. What goes on between 2 people is not what goes on between 2 groups. As well, one must recognize that having different beliefs IS a part of life. These are my beliefs but anyone who thinks people should 'think like them' is illogical. I'm merely suggesting people be 'open minded' in the true definition. < -- actually, this last statement, ignore, its too hard to type out what I TRUELY mean.

Now, to go back on murder, a simple rule is 'do what you want as long as it doesnt step on my toes.' Most religions, if not all, preach almost identical ideologies in respect to happiness and peace (you know, those reasons religion DOES exist). So, it is highly unlikely any society, today, will go back to allowing 'murder' to happen. Again, view the 'self' when arguing this. Would you kill someone? Whats preventing you? Law? How about the idea of being killed after you've set a precedent? If logic was that humans should kill other humans, then our specie would have wiped itself out, but nature, which can be argued as also logic, does not actively have species killing its own unless for status of a pack (most only fight, not kill). Logic and Nature agree that a specie cannot succeed this way. Its only logical.

Killing for religion - illogical
Killing for country - illogical
Why? These 2 things do not actually exist - nothing more then idears

Imagine - John Lennon

Its more then a hippy song or a pipedream... its true

No, you did make the decision. You made the decision to serve your country which means that you are obligated to serve their interests. You made this decision in the first place because you believe your country's interest is important. It is NOT illogical for that reason.
Prove that life is the only thing that matters. Many people have causes they are willing to die for and beliefs more important than life itself. Is it illogical to die for a cause you believe in? No, it is following your interests.
Farmers do care about their land, they also care about access to more land. Conquering more territory can get more land for the farmer. As well, it gives the nation power over the resources in that area, which means that the residents of that region do not have to worry about a hostile power denying them those resources.
Nations were extensions of self-interest and to act in the interests of your nation is in a way like acting in the interests of family. It is a part of self-interest as the individuals who serve their nations do so because they believe that such is important. Borders cannot be eliminated with the wave of a wand so therefore we must act in a world with borders and do so sensibly. As well, legal structures still need maintainance by authorities and authority tends to require division of land into efficient groupings, not only that but even if our border was dissolved today, and especially if it was done today other peoples would take advantage of this lack of defense and use it to destroy our people and take our wealth.
Some people would kill others if there was nothing stopping them. Heck, I know that I would be more willing to engage in destructive acts against my enemies if there was no rule keeping me from doing so. Logic is that humans DO kill other humans, the reason we don't isn't because not killing each other is natural but rather that we band together in a society of law to prevent death and protect our interests.

These 2 things do have impact on the world and can be considered to exist. If religion does not exist then what do churches do? If countries do not exist then where are the governments coming from? These are real human structures and human structures are one of the major reasons for human beings to kill each other.

Gentlemen, these are human issues, humans are killing each other for human desires/wishes/politics/issues/cheeseburgers.
As we have all experienced, humans are excessively illogical creatures, for example: Take the American political system, does it seem logical to create a system where corruption is an 'integral' part of the system? At least unofficially, its a system that hides blind bribery and propogranda behind a two-ton curtain of bureaucracy. The rich are able to effectively convert entire blocks of congress by the application of juicy moo-lah, in the long run, to produce even more liquid assets and perpetuate the cycle. Religion is, as at most other times in history (Remember the protestant/catholic wars?), is simply the grease in the axle of Desolation.

Thats ONE example.
The solution is difficult, because we cannot force leaders to fight alongside their men without breaching their freedom, and therefore the Bill of rights.
Maybe if we told Georgey that their was a newly-wed-gay-black-muslim-lower-class couple running for the Leaders of 'Democratic' Iraq? Give him a map (And teach him to read), a plane, and slap a couple of S.L.A.Ms onto the convienient doorway, and hooray!!

Lets be grateful that we are Autista, and that our policies don't involve warfare, yah?

Well, yeah, people kill each other a lot and I would bet that a human being has in fact killed another for a cheeseburger. Another thing, is that calling me a gentleman, really is incorrect, I have never argued that I am gentle. Greatly illogical is where some of my questions come in on your assessment, the only question about this is whether or not illogical is defined from the point of being not conforming to pure logic, or from the point of pursuing their goals illogically. For the former dancing around covered in peanut butter is definitely illogical, while for the latter it may not be if the person desired to dance in peanut butter. As well, do humans even attempt to be logical? Once again, you have to point out whether or not you are looking at humans and the paradigm of pure logic or at them being logical in context of human society and culture. Really though, you'd have to clarify your point on the American political system and how it was designed to be corrupt though and how it is illogical to make it corrupt. I know it was designed to be inefficient, and the reasons for inefficiency are logical, and also I am definitely aware that there were not many good examples to go off of for creating a republic by the time of the American revolution so therefore we had to develop a lot of our own ideas. As well, I won't say make any claims about it lacking corruption, but your claims on it are bolder than that of most critics. Religion though, is just another measure by which man gets power over their fellow man and of course rulers trying to expand power often times call for war, which I'd argue is a major part of the religious wars at that time as catholic leaders saw these groups as a threat to their power.
I don't think that such would work although, such might sadden you.

We don't have any organization or power so we can't have policies so grand as to include war. The most we could ever have is a barfight and that would easily be against our best interests given that I'd bet most of us are horrible fighters relative to the population.

Awesome, I'm having trouble debating with you because everything you say is "logical." Your arguments would serve you extremely well if this year was 234 B.C. and not the current society we live in. It would be brilliant, in fact, if we were Barbarians who cared about nothing more then greed, something you are also arguing (gaining 'interests' and 'land' for the farmers example). Is greed "logical?" You're confusing 'negative traits' in humans as "logic" and basing that "logic" solely on the fact humans are CAPABLE of doing it. Capability and 'logic' are NOT connected.

We do NOT conquer for land anymore. As well, the only thing religion and nationality does is cause problems, you said yourself with your 'structure' example (I dont know if you were trying to prove me wrong but you actually just worded MY phrase differently). As well, what does conquering do? Promote slavoury (illogical? - unless you think it'll be productive and view this as "logical" because its "efficient")? Add land to a countries own (for what? Economic gain? Logical in that sense, remove nationality and EVERYONE can gain (I care more about an individuals rights then your belief/reliance on government)). Nationality and 'conquering land' only feeds the rich. If you conquer Africa, you probably wont be paying lower taxes, the only difference is your GOVERNMENT is earning money, not you, THEM. But, i'm sure they 'logically' thank you for doing that. (Feeds the rich, buries the poor).

You can kill for your ideas but only out of self defense, not OFFENSE. I think you're having a very difficult time understanding this.

It is a impossibility but if Bush or Blair had to fight along side there soldiers they most likely would seek out solutions to fix the problems more readily.