Your country needs YOU!

You missed the point. I am a pacifist and see politicians as the real enemy of peace. To me the first people who should be drafted would be politicians/their children then newspaper owners/journalsts and their chiuldren. There would be a swift peace/agreement.

You haven't answered my question about the flaws in your logic as to what dictates when you will go fight or sit in prison, but you are keen to change the subject, fair play to you any which way by admitting defeat
 
Last edited:
He clearly doesnt want a conflict with NATO (not yet or for a while anyway). If he did, it would be very easy to start. The Russians make a lot of confident noise, but so far they have not shown any physical signs that they will attack a NATO nation.

I do agree with you somewhat, in that this does not mean he doesnt have eyes on a broader conflict in the future, but at the moment, i just don't see how they are in any state militarily to fight NATO, and as mad as Putin and his cronies are i think they know that too.

Personally the only way I see him involved with direct conflict with NATO would be if he was looking for an off-ramp in Ukraine, which doesn't seem something he is interested in, expending a few thousand Russian soldiers in some kind of pointless attack to sell it to the Russian public as NATO aggression and being at war with all of NATO so having to pull back to defendable positions in Russia. (It might seem a bit laughable to us but the intended audience isn't us). But again something maybe we aren't prepared enough for and could take unnecessary casualties before it was stopped.

I think there is a real risk though that we are blind-sided by the pace Russia might rearm at, they still have the cash there to fund a full mobilisation if they went down that road, the situation isn't unfixable if they really applied themselves. My concern is the likely path from here is deep into Cold War territory, with far too much complacency and unwillingness to spend money and that has a real risk of enticing Russia towards military ends.
 
The NRA type response. We just need bigger and more guns to kill the 'bad guys'. How's that working in America?

Your ideas about Putin are really simplistic. It is still a joined up world and Putin realises it.

I kind of expected that response, people leaning towards pacifism generally see things very black and white and can't see the granularity in what I'm saying. You are very wrong to paint me in the NRA corner.
 
I'd like to add that the best way out of this situation for us, EU and NATO to take over the Ukraine government, and negotiate with Putin, even if it means creating another west/east border situation like what happened post WW2 with Germany.

Big picture I can see the argument for this.
Its certainly grim.

OK putin. Have some territory. Get your win. Suck all the other bordering countries into NATO and make an effective... No more.

Allow anyone to move into the NATO/Russia side and support them on NATO side.

It would save so many lives. Else it's juts going to carry on for who knows how long.
 
You haven't answered my question about the flaws in your logic as to what dictates when you will go fight or sit in prison, but you are keen to change the subject
You mentioned the UK being attacked then talked about WW2. That was not a situation when another country suddenly attacked Britain as we decided to declare war. You then went on to rabbit about Iran which had nothing to do with the point I made.
 
I kind of expected that response, people leaning towards pacifism generally see things very black and white and can't see the granularity in what I'm saying. You are very wrong to paint me in the NRA corner.
People leaning towards militarism tend to exaggerate any threat because they see the situation simplistically as the 'good guys vs the bad guys'
 
Last edited:
People leaning towards militarism tend to exaggerate any threat because they see the situation simplistically as the 'good guys vs the bad guys'

That might be but my posts contain a significant amount of balancing the threat...

EDIT: End of the day though, I might not get everything right, but generally I get the broad strokes - back in 2014 for example:

They do indeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29003116 doesn't look like Putin plans to stop or care about sanctions until they've carved out a triangle of east/south east Ukraine.

I would say I tend to be overly cautious but not without a good reason behind it and there are good reasons behind what I'm saying now, same as in the build up to the invasion of Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
The NRA type response. We just need bigger and more guns to kill the 'bad guys'. How's that working in America?

Your ideas about Putin are really simplistic. It is still a joined up world and Putin realises it.

Much as I agree with the pacifist outlook, and avoiding conflict wherever possible, it's not necessarily about having "bigger guns", it's just about making yourself an unappealing target, where the risk of failure (or even the cost of success) is not necessarily worth it. It's no different to making your house unappealing to would-be thieves.

All else being equal, you're far more likely to get broken into with a flimsy wooden door, sash windows with crap locks and a post on Facebook announcing you're off on holiday for 2 weeks, than if you have locked double-glazed windows, multi-point locking door and CCTV all over.

I used to get bullied a lot in school, until my mum gave a very wise piece of advice - don't ever start a fight, but always make sure you're prepared to finish one; if someone hits you, hit them back so hard they never try it again.

Surprise surprise, it works. If someone thinks you won't fight back, you're an easy target, and they will do what they want. If they know you're prepared to fight back, then they'll think twice, and there's a good chance you might not even have to fight at all.

TL;DR; It's not about fighting back. It's about letting the other person know that you can and will do so if necessary.


Unfortunately, there's also a massive difference between fending off a "bad guy" trying to break into your house (where they face the risk directly) VS someone sat safely in a bunker on the other side of the world sending people he couldn't give 2 **** about to their death.
 
Last edited:
I used to get bullied a lot in school, until my mum gave a very wise piece of advice - don't ever start a fight, but always make sure you're prepared to finish one; if someone hits you, hit them back so hard they never try it again.

Surprise surprise, it works. If someone thinks you won't fight back, you're an easy target, and they will do what they want. If they know you're prepared to fight back, then they'll think twice, and there's a good chance you might not even have to fight at all.

I had both lots of advice, though I didn't tend to get bullied, but my parents leaning more towards pacifism didn't do me any favours, neither did hitting back - suddenly I'm the bad guy and getting in trouble with the teachers though I never started any of the fights... I really learnt to become quite cynical of people from that alone.
 
Last edited:
suddenly I'm the bad guy and getting in trouble with the teachers though I never started any of the fights... I really learnt to become quite cynical of people from that alone.

Thankfully my mum had my back on this one. She'd reported it to the school on many occasions prior and nothing had been done, and the head very quickly STFU when this was pointed out :cry:
 
Much as I agree with the pacifist outlook, and avoiding conflict wherever possible, it's not necessarily about having "bigger guns", it's just about making yourself an unappealing target, where the risk of failure (or even the cost of success) is not necessarily worth it. It's no different to making your house unappealing to would-be thieves.

All else being equal, you're far more likely to get broken into with a flimsy wooden door, sash windows with crap locks and a post on Facebook announcing you're off on holiday for 2 weeks, than if you have locked double-glazed windows, multi-point locking door and CCTV all over.

I used to get bullied a lot in school, until my mum gave a very wise piece of advice - don't ever start a fight, but always make sure you're prepared to finish one; if someone hits you, hit them back so hard they never try it again.

Surprise surprise, it works. If someone thinks you won't fight back, you're an easy target, and they will do what they want. If they know you're prepared to fight back, then they'll think twice, and there's a good chance you might not even have to fight at all.

TL;DR; It's not about fighting back. It's about letting the other person know that you can and will do so if necessary.


Unfortunately, there's also a massive difference between fending off a "bad guy" trying to break into your house (where they face the risk directly) VS someone sat safely in a bunker on the other side of the world sending people he couldn't give 2 **** about to their death.
We already have that by being a member of NATO which now includes many more members than before Putin's invasion. No need to start re-arming etc.
 
We already have that by being a member of NATO which now includes many more members than before Putin's invasion. No need to start re-arming etc.

Those members only have value (in this context) if they have the means and will to defend themselves and the other members. If every member of Nato decides they also want to go the pacifist route like you seem to be suggesting the UK should, then it doesn't matter how many members there are.
 
The best pacifist take is knowing how to defend yourself, but not getting involved in conflicts and promote diplomatic outcomes instead. The doesn't mean you need to arm yourself to the teeth, but getting a balance between baring your teeth without actually wanting to bite. I mean look at martial arts, most people do them for fitness, making friends, build a bit of self confidence, and 99.999999% of the time you go through life without needing to use it, but knowing you can probably defend yourself helps boost your confidence and potentially make attackers think twice after a few pokes.
 
Those members only have value (in this context) if they have the means and will to defend themselves and the other members. If every member of Nato decides they also want to go the pacifist route like you seem to be suggesting the UK should, then it doesn't matter how many members there are.
Why would they NOT defend themselves. There are not many pacifists.
 
The best pacifist take is knowing how to defend yourself, but not getting involved in conflicts and promote diplomatic outcomes instead. The doesn't mean you need to arm yourself to the teeth, but getting a balance between baring your teeth without actually wanting to bite. I mean look at martial arts, most people do them for fitness, making friends, build a bit of self confidence, and 99.999999% of the time you go through life without needing to use it, but knowing you can probably defend yourself helps boost your confidence and potentially make attackers think twice after a few pokes.
Or you can belong to a bigger gang(NATO). An agressor may not think twice about attacking you on your own but if there were nine of your friends with you...............
 
Why would they NOT defend themselves. There are not many pacifists.

Are you asking me that question, or yourself? You're the one suggesting the UK doesn't ensure it has the means to do so :confused:

Like I said, you need to have both the will and the means to do so. It's all very well saying "yeah we'd defend ourselves if attacked", if at the same time simultaneously saying we don't need to be prepared for it.

Or you can belong to a bigger gang(NATO). An agressor may not think twice about attacking you on your own but if there were nine of your friends with you...............

If those are your nerdy friends from the chess club, then I'm not sure it would have the effect you hope for :cry:
 
Personally I'm not a fan of letting anyone else look after our defence beyond a reasonable amount - NATO article 5, etc. is all well and good but only obliges rendering of aid and there is no telling what the situation might be. Global politics can, sometimes, change far faster than people think, those who might be our friends today might not be tomorrow.

And sadly if things do kick off it'll likely be the UK amongst the first to get stuck in and some other countries doing everything they can to keep their hands clean of it, even if in reality it risks all our futures including their own.
 
Personally I'm not a fan of letting anyone else look after our defence beyond a reasonable amount - NATO article 5, etc. is all well and good but only obliges rendering of aid and there is no telling what the situation might be. Global politics can, sometimes, change far faster than people think, those who might be our friends today might not be tomorrow.

And sadly if things do kick off it'll likely be the UK amongst the first to get stuck in and some other countries doing everything they can to keep their hands clean of it, even if in reality it risks all our futures including their own.
The UK will do what it always does. Trot along obediently behind the USA, puffing up its chest to appear bigger than it really is.

In reality it's best to think of the UK govt as subordinate to the USA, because it is in a military context.
 
I dunno if in any way related but I'm getting a ton of promoted ads of late for armed forces recruitment along with promoted material on social media sites, etc. related to WW2 glorifying fighting for your country, etc. maybe someone knows something we don't :s
 
Back
Top Bottom