| What would you do? Fight or not? 16:01 - Jun 6 with 10979 views | victorywilhappen |
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/06/mobilisation-squads-face-h
The reality is there are not enough troops and more weapons need Soldiers not
deserters, objectors or those who want to make money abroad rather than fight.
The war is still being fought by middle-aged men in the main. The Infantry was in the past a young man's game. Hence Infant-try. The young abroad and being protected. Others are sitting cafes in Kiev, others are fighting on the frontline.
What will happen? [Post edited 8 Jun 2024 10:52]
|  | | |  |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 10:54 - Jun 10 with 2168 views | WeWereZombies |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 10:25 - Jun 10 by bluejacko |
So then IF pootin was invading our country what exactly would you do? Please give any instances of where pacifism has actually worked against an invader. |
It works all the time, because most people manage to reason across their differences with other to a sensible degree and potential invaders think twice (or even many more times) before invading. Despite appearances to the contrary in some media reports the entire surface of this planet is not consumed by war (and thus pacifism is the constant winner by default) as there is a constant effort by billions to get along and make as good a life as they can for themselves. Indeed when war does occur it seems that civilians are the main bulk of the casualties (whether that be in Aleppo, Idlib, Tigray, Maruipol or Gaza) and the presence of a defence force is more concerned with defending itself than those you might expect it to defend.
As has been pointed out, quite a few times now, if Russia did try and invade the United Kingdom it would most likely go nuclear (probably as a limited lower scale disablement strike and not the full kybosh) or be a naval battle royale before a fait accompli. Whether individuals fought or not would be almost irrelevant by then. The real battle, the true defence is to have a developed network of contacts, of trade with potential aggressors (which may be already happening in the case of China) and an intelligent system of diplomacy that ensures any threat of invasion has negative repercussions for the invader (which is where the 'West' should be stepping up the approach as Russia has absorbed the initial shocks to it's economy.) |  |
| |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 11:02 - Jun 10 with 2152 views | bluejacko |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 10:54 - Jun 10 by WeWereZombies |
It works all the time, because most people manage to reason across their differences with other to a sensible degree and potential invaders think twice (or even many more times) before invading. Despite appearances to the contrary in some media reports the entire surface of this planet is not consumed by war (and thus pacifism is the constant winner by default) as there is a constant effort by billions to get along and make as good a life as they can for themselves. Indeed when war does occur it seems that civilians are the main bulk of the casualties (whether that be in Aleppo, Idlib, Tigray, Maruipol or Gaza) and the presence of a defence force is more concerned with defending itself than those you might expect it to defend.
As has been pointed out, quite a few times now, if Russia did try and invade the United Kingdom it would most likely go nuclear (probably as a limited lower scale disablement strike and not the full kybosh) or be a naval battle royale before a fait accompli. Whether individuals fought or not would be almost irrelevant by then. The real battle, the true defence is to have a developed network of contacts, of trade with potential aggressors (which may be already happening in the case of China) and an intelligent system of diplomacy that ensures any threat of invasion has negative repercussions for the invader (which is where the 'West' should be stepping up the approach as Russia has absorbed the initial shocks to it's economy.) |
I asked what you would do? If your approach was to work then there would be no wars but the fact remains we have madmen intent on causing mayhem and no amount of reasoning seems to work does it? Russia has broken at least three ‘peace’ agreements with Ukraine so again the talking didn’t work. Still you are entitled to your opinion but dont forget people died for you to be able to have it 80 years ago. |  | | |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 11:12 - Jun 10 with 2125 views | WeWereZombies |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 11:02 - Jun 10 by bluejacko |
I asked what you would do? If your approach was to work then there would be no wars but the fact remains we have madmen intent on causing mayhem and no amount of reasoning seems to work does it? Russia has broken at least three ‘peace’ agreements with Ukraine so again the talking didn’t work. Still you are entitled to your opinion but dont forget people died for you to be able to have it 80 years ago. |
And I have already answered the personal 'what would I do' earlier in the thread. I wouldn't pick up a rifle but I would do what I could to booby trap the invader, to make their life impossible as far as I could without, hopefully, triggering repercussions against my fellow civilians or resistance fighters (which is why my recommended book is so important, Cammaerts work as an SOE agent in the Vercors aided the French to an immeasurable degree. He did have to pick up a revolver at one point though, it is true, and execute a collaborator because no one else was in the special position in the ad hoc chain of command that he was in - and is was technically an illegal act by a foreigner against a French citizen, but such was his reputation he was able to meet with the family after the Second World War and make a peace with them, he even settled in that part of France eventually.) So please do not equate pacifism with doing nothing in the face of aggression. | |
| |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 12:39 - Jun 10 with 2067 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 09:06 - Jun 10 by Churchman |
NATO was utterly defensive in its creation and has been ever since. You only have to see its composition to know that.
To describe NATO as expansionist or threatening is ludicrous. Sovereign countries wishing to join it for mutual defence is logical. When Russia say it’s a threat to them they really mean these countries they consider theirs are satellites, sub countries, within their sphere of influence and they’ll use any map from history to prove their point.
Putin is a dictator. A madman with no value whatsoever on other people’s lives. None. The difference between him, Hitler, Tojo and the Japanese madmen and Stalin? Not a huge amount. Scale maybe, but that’s about it. To even suggest he wants peace is not true. Like all dictators, he’s a scared little man that loses his fear by pushing outwards. Ukraine, resource wise, is potentially a rich country. Poland, Balkans, Baltics, Finland provide him with £££, status and ‘security’ in his own power.
The idea that war should never be fought is totally right. It shouldn’t. Violent death is a truly appalling, ugly thing. Avoid at all costs? Almost - sometimes it just has to be, unless you really don’t value or even fear freedom. WW2, WW1 and Ukraine are proof of that and also proof of how mad it all is.
But yes, it’s tiresome to hear the apologists for Putin trying to somehow justify his actions in the blind hope the problem will go away. If history teaches us anything, it’s that it won’t go away. [Post edited 10 Jun 2024 12:28]
|
Indeed the expansionism is a narrative pushed by Russia which unfortunately some people seem to swallow unquestioningly:-
“ The wording “NATO expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not hunt for new members or want to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision for NATO Allies and those countries who wish to join alone.”
The key point here is ‘choice’. Unfortunately, we’ve seen plenty of comments where people are happy for Russia to override the sovereignty of another country by dictating what international organisations they can join. | | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 12:47 - Jun 10 with 2046 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Indeed, lessons must be learned in respect of the response to Crimea. Unfortunately, this was once again a demonstration of appeasement not working. Whilst military responses should be avoided apart from last resort, the feeble response to Russia’s invasion sealed the fate of Eastern Ukraine.
The Tories were busy playing tennis and fundraising with Putin’s pals, the Germans were hooked on cheap gas, and selling VW’s in Moscow. Therefore what we ended up worth was a couple of token sanctions on Russian individuals. Putin’s annexation of Crimea was a calculated gamble that he won. More severe sanctions on gas exports, access to foreign capital, appropriation of Russia’s foreign assets as we have now, may have prevented a wider attack on Ukraine. | | | |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 13:08 - Jun 10 with 2032 views | Churchman |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 20:10 - Jun 8 by WeWereZombies |
That's a must read, vital stuff and the closing two lines 'When will we learn that war begets war? Violence always begets violence.' underlines my own pacifism. Which is also strengthened by the time my uncle related one of his experiences in the Mediterranean during the Second World War. I haven't signed the Official Secrets Act myself but out of respect for him will not relate his part in the incident. However this veteran of four years in the Med on convoys between Alexandria and Malta, the Battle of Cape Matapan, the capitulation of the Nazis in Algeria and Tunisia, the acceptance of surrender of small islands off Sicily, the support of the Allied invasion along the west coast of Italy as far as Naples and then a year or so on the Arctic Convoys finished with 'War is the worst thing in the World, never go to war.' |
Greed, the human desire for control, the contempt of others, the survival instinct if you like - these are the things that beget war and violence. You cite WW2. The vast majority of the people of Europe didn’t want another war.
They'd witnessed the horror of WW1 and the privations it caused. It was seismic, particularly in Germany. There were no crowds cheering in Berlin when war was declared. But Hitler wanted it beyond anything else. Pacifism encouraged him. Weakness encouraged him. The desire for history making conquest, the riches for the country it would bring and his crazy view of the world encouraged him.
The only thing the allies could be criticised for was not stopping Hitler through their desperation for peace which manifested itself in political and military weakness. The smaller nations? Only by treaty and strength of their allies could ever have saved them. The first was non existent, the second inadequate. The Germans were emboldened to take what they saw as theirs.
There was no peace begets peace then. In fact the opposite happened. Do you think the government of the day really wanted war with Germany? Of course not. If NATO falls apart as it probably will if trump wins, do you really think Putin will stop? Of course not. All the peace marches in the world will only encourage him. Weakness is to be despised.
Trust me, you won’t find many veterans who won’t say war is the worst thing in the world. It is and many spend a lifetime coming to terms with it. While pacifism is an admirable sentiment, that doesn’t mean that people who stand against the madmen want to and are ‘warmongers’. They just see that sometimes it’s the only way of stopping people who would subjugate them and others. |  | | |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 14:55 - Jun 10 with 1979 views | bluejacko |
| Eight conscientious objectors on why they refused to serve in the army on 11:12 - Jun 10 by WeWereZombies |
And I have already answered the personal 'what would I do' earlier in the thread. I wouldn't pick up a rifle but I would do what I could to booby trap the invader, to make their life impossible as far as I could without, hopefully, triggering repercussions against my fellow civilians or resistance fighters (which is why my recommended book is so important, Cammaerts work as an SOE agent in the Vercors aided the French to an immeasurable degree. He did have to pick up a revolver at one point though, it is true, and execute a collaborator because no one else was in the special position in the ad hoc chain of command that he was in - and is was technically an illegal act by a foreigner against a French citizen, but such was his reputation he was able to meet with the family after the Second World War and make a peace with them, he even settled in that part of France eventually.) So please do not equate pacifism with doing nothing in the face of aggression. |
My bad you did👍 | | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 20:41 - Jun 10 with 1921 views | Nomore4 |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 16:07 - Jun 6 by J2BLUE |
The younger generations are not cut out for war.
I very much include myself in that at 36 years old.
I would be crying and wanting to phone my mum after ten minutes. |
On TWTD since 12years old….You are what’s required | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 14:27 - Jun 11 with 1801 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Thanks for sharing, and probably a fair reflection of the increasingly unstable political situation worldwide. In Africa alone there has been 7 coups since 2020. There’s also the Sudan war which has displaced millions yet gets very little coverage. It also links well to these thread because several of these have seen Russian involvement, either supplying weapons to militants, or via Wagner.
There’s without doubt a new Cold War playing out between the liberal democracies of the West, and the Authoritarian states of Russia, China, and Iran. | | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:16 - Jun 11 with 1758 views | DJR |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 14:27 - Jun 11 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Thanks for sharing, and probably a fair reflection of the increasingly unstable political situation worldwide. In Africa alone there has been 7 coups since 2020. There’s also the Sudan war which has displaced millions yet gets very little coverage. It also links well to these thread because several of these have seen Russian involvement, either supplying weapons to militants, or via Wagner.
There’s without doubt a new Cold War playing out between the liberal democracies of the West, and the Authoritarian states of Russia, China, and Iran. |
The situation in Sudan is undoubtedly tragic, but conflicts like this are always complex and this indicates there are numerous foreign players involved, the main one being the UEA. Interestingly, it suggests Iran and Russia would be on different sides. It also suggests no direct involvement from the west, perhaps because they have no strategic interest.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sudans-conflict-whos-backing-rival-commande [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 15:54]
|  | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:48 - Jun 11 with 1729 views | Zapers |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 16:44 - Jun 6 by bluejacko |
So who’s going to protect you and your family if god forbid push comes to shove and your not going to fight? You really can’t enjoy the freedoms won by those servicemen if you can’t want to defend them. Even now at 68 I would pick up a weapon again if I had too! |
Because you are a proper man | | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 16:02 - Jun 11 with 1704 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:16 - Jun 11 by DJR |
The situation in Sudan is undoubtedly tragic, but conflicts like this are always complex and this indicates there are numerous foreign players involved, the main one being the UEA. Interestingly, it suggests Iran and Russia would be on different sides. It also suggests no direct involvement from the west, perhaps because they have no strategic interest.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sudans-conflict-whos-backing-rival-commande [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 15:54]
|
The below is a good summary of Wagner’s involvement in various coups:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_activities_in_Africa
Unfortunately what I’m seeing is an increasingly unstable continent which is sadly scaring away Western FDI which would help with economic development in Africa. Likewise, the Chinese are increasing their footprint there building infrastructure, however they are often putting together contracts which are likely to be defaulted on, in order to instead gain ownership of key assets. [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 16:06]
| | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 18:21 - Jun 11 with 1637 views | Radlett_blue |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:16 - Jun 11 by DJR |
The situation in Sudan is undoubtedly tragic, but conflicts like this are always complex and this indicates there are numerous foreign players involved, the main one being the UEA. Interestingly, it suggests Iran and Russia would be on different sides. It also suggests no direct involvement from the west, perhaps because they have no strategic interest.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sudans-conflict-whos-backing-rival-commande [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 15:54]
|
Sudan contains people from over 500 ethnic groups, speaking more than 400 languages. Latterly controlled by Egypt & Britain, it was given independence in 1956 after the Egyptian monarchy had been overthrown. Unsurprisingly, given its diversity, this hasn't been a success, like many parts of Africa, whereby colonies were converted into countries. |  |
| |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 18:23 - Jun 11 with 1627 views | Ryorry |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:48 - Jun 11 by Zapers |
Because you are a proper man |
Guess that'd make me a "proper (wo)man" then ... |  |
| |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 18:34 - Jun 11 with 1608 views | DJR |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 18:21 - Jun 11 by Radlett_blue |
Sudan contains people from over 500 ethnic groups, speaking more than 400 languages. Latterly controlled by Egypt & Britain, it was given independence in 1956 after the Egyptian monarchy had been overthrown. Unsurprisingly, given its diversity, this hasn't been a success, like many parts of Africa, whereby colonies were converted into countries. |
Religion also plays a part in conflicts in Africa, with groups such as Boko Haram. | | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? (n/t) on 19:39 - Jun 11 with 1556 views | bluejacko |
| What would you do? Fight or not? on 15:48 - Jun 11 by Zapers |
Because you are a proper man |
Are you taking the mick? [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 19:43]
| | | |
| What would you do? Fight or not? (n/t) on 20:05 - Jun 11 with 1534 views | Churchman |
| What would you do? Fight or not? (n/t) on 19:39 - Jun 11 by bluejacko |
Are you taking the mick? [Post edited 11 Jun 2024 19:43]
|
Of course he is. But I doubt he’d do it to your face - so my advice is leave it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
