Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
Let's Impeach the president
Topic Started: Feb 4 2007, 09:34 PM (671 Views)
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Let's Impeach the President
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Estion
Persistent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dupitable
Feb 14 2007, 04:50 PM
I would say the most romantasised war on earth was the Napoleonic war and Britain didn't use conscripts once during it. I don't think the French did until it was drawing to a close.

WRONG!!! The French introduced the concept of the levee-en-masse, the widespread use of citizen soldiers, at the very start of the French revolutionary wars in 1792 (see, e.g., the Battle of Valmy). Use thereof became only more substantial over the course of the wars, particularly in Austria, the Germanic states, and Russia.

Honestly, do you base these assertions on any actual fact, or do you just assume that what you hear on TV or through the grapevine is true?

Quick edit: ALL belligerent nations employed conscription on a massive scale during the First World War.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I believe that (some) youth today, because of the absence of a major World War, have no concept or real idea how horrific it is. I suggest the Thames TV series "The World at War" should be watched and any ideas of a "romantic" war will soon be forgotten.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My only romantic delusions of war are of those in acient times... Which happened to be the most horrific in many ways, ironically.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Estion
Feb 14 2007, 10:50 PM
WRONG!!!  The French introduced the concept of the levee-en-masse, the widespread use of citizen soldiers, at the very start of the French revolutionary wars in 1792 (see, e.g., the Battle of Valmy).  Use thereof became only more substantial over the course of the wars, particularly in Austria, the Germanic states, and Russia.

Generaly in Britain the Napoleonic wars are thought of as 1899 onwards.Indeed you are right, my apologies.

I have never once said war is romantic. Or proposed a view of war as romantic and honoiur filled. What I am simply saying is that soldiers in wars often see absolutely nothing wrong with killing and that in some wars soldiers actualy enjoyed them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Blah soldiers get use to war.They become numb to the killing. Dead bodies mean noting. To a soldier all they care about is staying alive and have food in their guts.Leave it to the civilians to stay if war is good or not. soldiers will fight for their country. Their brothers and sisters are what matters.

And PI my grammEr war to annoy you. I form my own opions on suft. I fsomebody comes up with something that makes more sense then I all for it. I don't belif in something for the sake of believing in something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yet ANOTHER WWI/WWII debate in a topic that has nothing to do with them!

----

So I just want to know, Estion, if you think there are any circumstances in which war is justified.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Estion
Persistent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
fighter4u
Feb 15 2007, 01:45 AM
Blah soldiers get use to war.They become numb to the killing. Dead bodies mean noting. To a soldier all they care about is staying alive and have food in their guts.Leave it to the civilians to stay if war is good or not. soldiers will fight for their country. Their brothers and sisters are what matters.

And PI my grammEr war to annoy you. I form my own opions on suft. I fsomebody comes up with something that makes more sense then I all for it. I don't belif in something for the sake of believing in something.

Yet another avalanche of bullshit! The very existence of post-traumatic stress disorders completely destroy this argument. Incidentally, they're no joke. My aforementioned sibling and friends have told me that people "freaking out" due to non-stop stress and life-threatening situations is a constant concern and a terribly serious one. That said, the vast number of soldiers who have spoken in opposition to the wars they're fighting belies completely this "soldiers will fight for their and not think about the ramifications" position.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What it all comes down to is whether you can be brainwashed into thinking you are under attack. The "self-defence" argument will always work in bringing in more recruits: creating killers out of respectable people who would never kill someone (over their nationality/religion) in any other circumstance. In many cases, the "self-defence" argument is true. But the term has always been ambiguous.

And f4u, what you said is why many societies over the course of history have tried to desensitize their populations to violence: Nazi Germany and the Roman Empire to name two. It's clear that societies with a casual attitude towards death are more likely to fight horrible wars than those that don't hold that attitude. Africa with its many wars and genocides is a good contemporary example. There are so many ways to die in Africa that violence is taken for granted to an extent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And f4u, what you said is why many societies over the course of history have tried to desensitize their populations to violence: Nazi Germany and the Roman Empire to name two

As I said. Deindividualisation. Look up a bloke called Zimbardo or Milgram if you want scare.

Dupitable. Do you think Air Raids are murder?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If they are directed at civilians yes. I dislike inirect warfare in general and despise tactics such as shock and awe that just rely on wanton destruction of public property. It is unfortunate that modern warfare has moved into urban combat and away from the battlefields and forests. It is abnominaly easier to kill civilians in urban then if you are dug in in the middle of the Ardenes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So there are cross overs when soldiers and murders become the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dup -----> Posted Image

Knew that would come in handy one day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Estion
Feb 15 2007, 04:32 AM
fighter4u
Feb 15 2007, 01:45 AM
Blah soldiers get use to war.They become numb to the killing. Dead bodies mean noting. To a soldier all they care about is staying alive and have food in their guts.Leave it to the civilians to stay if war is good or not. soldiers will fight for their country. Their brothers and sisters are what matters.

And PI  my grammEr war to annoy you. I form my own opions on suft. I fsomebody comes up with something that makes more sense then I all for it. I don't belif in something for the sake of believing in something.

Yet another avalanche of bullshit! The very existence of post-traumatic stress disorders completely destroy this argument. Incidentally, they're no joke. My aforementioned sibling and friends have told me that people "freaking out" due to non-stop stress and life-threatening situations is a constant concern and a terribly serious one. That said, the vast number of soldiers who have spoken in opposition to the wars they're fighting belies completely this "soldiers will fight for their and not think about the ramifications" position.

Estion so every soldiers who has ever fought in any war has post-traumatic stress disorders?

Quote:
 
Africa with its many wars and genocides is a good contemporary example. There are so many ways to die in Africa that violence is taken for granted to an extent.


Or Arov people become get used to what they can not change. If they didn't do that they would all have post-traumatic stress disorders....


And me. I think civilians become targets of war when enemy forces try to use civilians for cover. Bomb the civilians who ar esue for sheilds and terriosts wills top using them as shields. Keep be afraiding of attacking the humans sheilds and the human sheilds will stay because they work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ethically questionable bullshit!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Estion
Persistent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jiv, great reference to the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments (esp. Milgram). I'd completely forgotten about that, but it's incredibly apposite here. Nice!

F4u, evidently, you have no grasp of simple logic. You suggested that soldiers "get use [sic] to war," and care little about the emotional, ethical, or moral ramifications of the terrible acts that are often demanded of them.

I, recognizing that soldiers are, in fact, human beings just like the rest of us, suggested that the very existence of such psychic phenomena as post-traumatic stress disorder (which are prevalent enough not to be freak coincidences) undermines your position. I also alluded to my brother and several friends to supplement my statement with reference to first-hand accounts.

Your response was to suggest that I meant that every person who's ever fought in a war suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, which is clearly not what I meant. See, you've taken a very extreme position, defining soldiers almost as automatons devoid of emotional consequence. In a fairly impotent attempt to circumvent my more realistic argument, you're ascribing to me the equally extreme opposing position, which is, in fact, not what I believe.

Also, you're a moron. Cheers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Jiv, great reference to the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments (esp. Milgram). I'd completely forgotten about that, but it's incredibly apposite here. Nice!

The results are really worrying. I mean if you think of the shocking experiment most people are happy to say they'd refuse to go on but the statistics are so strong its hard to argue with it really. It's a really interesting field because it's just so strange to think that;s how people act.

Quote:
 
And me. I think civilians become targets of war when enemy forces try to use civilians for cover. Bomb the civilians who ar esue for sheilds and terriosts wills top using them as shields. Keep be afraiding of attacking the humans sheilds and the human sheilds will stay because they work.

Oh my... Didn't the bloke in charge of the brittish effort to keep USA under Brittish control try that and it resulted in massive increases in numbers of the american militia and it made everyone hate Britiain which lead to certain defeat?
If you do that you multiply your enermies IMO. That's not to say it is ethically accepted anyway...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
f4u your argument is dumb and ethically baseless. Most human shields aren't even willing to act as such. Every insurgency throughout history has behaved in the same way: guerilla tactics, a complacent population that is oftentimes held hostage by the insurgents, and forceful recruitment tactics from a pool of recruits that are isolated, most of the time illiterate of their situation, destitute, and with no means of escape from conflict. Human shields would not exist if it were not for the desperate situation they find themselves in during conflict, and are used purposely to increase the feeling of desperation by causing families to lose relatives and grieve.

To a lesser degree, large modern armies act in the same way in order to recruit. They could extort you if you have no means of escape (a draft or some equivalent), draw from the destitute (mercenaries), the illiterate (lowest-common-denominator propaganda), and training involves a desensitization to violence. A concern of the US military recruiters is that families in America are becoming small and that as a result, are more sensitive to casualties which makes recruiting harder.

So yes, all military establishments the world over acknowledge that soldiers have moral consciousnesses and families they care about, and try to deal with it and even exploit it in some worst-case scenarios (like HUMAN SHIELDS).

You're a fool.

-----

And of course, Dupitable, the Nazis were just soldiers who were following orders, not actual murderers. And the Hitler Youth existed to promote peace and make German teenagers feel safe in their glorious National-Socialist realm.

Idiot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And of course, Dupitable, the Nazis were just soldiers who were following orders, not actual murderers

Whilst I accept that as true that is one of the things I do not like an "armies". I guess it's nessarcary really, but I do not like the diffusion of responsibility.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In ordinary circumstances, the failings of an army are due to the misconduct of commanders.

In Nazi Germany, this was the case. Commanders were telling the soldiers to kill every man, woman, and child Warsaw; and they were letting them to. After the massacre was done, the Hitler Youth counted the bodies because they were supposed to become desensitized to violence and commit crimes in their own right, not just because someone was telling them to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
F4u, evidently, you have no grasp of simple logic. You suggested that soldiers "get use [sic] to war," and care little about the emotional, ethical, or moral ramifications of the terrible acts that are often demanded of them.

I, recognizing that soldiers are, in fact, human beings just like the rest of us, suggested that the very existence of such psychic phenomena as post-traumatic stress disorder (which are prevalent enough not to be freak coincidences) undermines your position. I also alluded to my brother and several friends to supplement my statement with reference to first-hand accounts.


I didn't say they didin't care. I said they become numb to it. Those who don't usually have post-traumatic stress disorder(like really?) and I didn't say they were freak coincidences. And could we see these first ahnd accounts you so proundly talk about?

Quote:
 
Oh my... Didn't the bloke in charge of the brittish effort to keep USA under Brittish control try that and it resulted in massive increases in numbers of the american militia and it made everyone hate Britiain which lead to certain defeat?
If you do that you multiply your enermies IMO. That's not to say it is ethically accepted anyway...


Jivdom that different. Because Amercians soldiers were not take women and using them as sheilds to escape British soldiers like they are in today Middle East.

Where terriorts operate in civilians towns and ctiys knowing the only way they can be killed is if civilians are taken with them.With the civilians not giving a dam and letting them because where the milants are the ones who cloth and feed them. What about this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6162494.stm

Where hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around miliants to stop a Israelis air strike. Miliants did that because they knew that Isreal (crumbling to western nations and their people who may I add aren't the one being shot at and kill everyday) wouldn't shot. As such the terriosts escape to fight and kill Isreal civilians for another day.

Now the point I trying to make is just because civilians put themself between a missile and a enemy force. Doesn't mean you can't shot. After all the civilians are thinking in their heads. They won't shot.We are civilians. But I think they shouldn't be called civilians. But enemy forces.As they using their bodies as a sheild and are intently trying to stop the enemy form reaching it goal of killing a man who will kill them and their own civilians and have already done so.

Now after shotting the missile. Killing the gunmen and 30 or 50 civilians. Other civilians will think before putting their lifes on the line. Now you say that will make the suriving familes hate you even more. But if you hadn't figure it out yet.They already hate you and aborting the air strike didn't make you love them. No it gave the terriost another victory and made the people more loyal to the terriorts.

And Arov yeah these people do want to be human sheilds.

After all.countrys like Isreal have their hands teid behind their back when it come to teriost as they have to obey international law.Terriorts on the other hand relgurly piss on it.The only way to stop every want be terriorts group is to show that you can play their game to. Show them that civilians won't protect them and you strip them of a deadly weapon.

Now here a situation. Your a Amercian/British contrist leading a squardon in Iraq. The place have gone to hell. You and your squardon or whatever have almost come to the end of your protaol.Already you been attacked several times by gunmen dressed as civilians. Losting a few mens.

On your right in a alley way you notice a 12 year old girl running toward you with what "appears" to be a bomb in a bulkly schoolbag. Your the only one who has a chance to kill the girl before she can get close enough to blow up the bomb(if she has one).

Now your have three choices.
1.You can shot and kill her.Such saving your remaining men along with your life.But finding out later.She was just a harmless civilian.
2.You can hesit(spelling) and if you do it means you and your men ge tkill as she is a sudical bomber.
3.Or you can do noting.Let her kill you as you won't fire on what may just be a civilian.But by doing so you are kill by the bomb.(or if your perfectly willing to deid) then your remaining men are killed and such they never get to see their familes again and their familes never to see their mom/dead sister/brother/son/daughter again.

Arov with the Nazi soldiers. They belive that they were the cause of all of their problems and of their misry. So they willingly killed the civilians.

As for the Hitler youth.Not only was their noting else to do but join it. All their friends did and those who never were made fun of and beaten up by their friends.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6