It seems the OP has lost interest anyway, — Isaac
The oddity the OP is picking up on is that in the case of war, the decision (of literally life and death magnitude) is not only removed from any democratic process, but removed from personal choice too. — Isaac
I have never understood why this mass slaughter of Iraqi men isn’t considered a war crime. It’s clear that, at the time, the U.S. command feared it might be. [...] It makes sense that the elites were worried. These were, after all, mostly young men who’d been drafted and who, when thrown into combat, made precisely the decision one would wish all young men in such a situation would make: saying to hell with this, packing up their things, and going home. For this, they should be burned alive?
On some level, let’s face it: these men were cowards. They got what they deserved.
[...]
There seems, indeed, a decided lack of sympathy for noncombatant men in war zones. Even reports by international human rights organizations speak of massacres as being directed almost exclusively against women, children, and, perhaps, the elderly. The implication, almost never stated outright, is that adult males are either combatants or have something wrong with them. (“You mean to say there were people out there slaughtering women and children and you weren’t out there defending them? What are you? Chicken?”)
[...]
About the only real exception I know of is Germany, which has erected a series of monuments labeled “To the Unknown Deserter.” The first and most famous, in Potsdam, is inscribed: “TO A MAN WHO REFUSED TO KILL HIS FELLOW MAN.” Yet even here, when I tell friends about this monument, I often encounter a sort of instinctive wince. “I guess what people will ask is: Did they really desert because they didn’t want to kill others, or because they didn’t want to die themselves?” As if there’s something wrong with that.
[...]
Nevertheless, as anyone familiar with the history of, say, Oceania, Amazonia, or Africa would be aware, a great many societies simply refused to organize themselves on military lines. Again and again, we encounter descriptions of relatively peaceful communities who just accepted that every few years, they’d have to take to the hills as some raiding party of local bad boys arrived to torch their villages, rape, pillage, and carry off trophy parts from hapless stragglers.
I guess the logic is that by living in a country, you enjoy all the benefits provided by it, and that if the country's existence is threatened, you owe it to the country as your duty to fight and possibly die in order to preserve it. — _db
If possible, perhaps those who didn't want to fight could be allowed to leave the country entirely, as a kind of compromise. "You don't have to kill/die for us, but we don't have to kill/die for you either." — Pie
It seems the OP has lost interest anyway, — Isaac
Sorry, just been busy with stuff. I have been monitoring this thread and reflecting on things though. — _db
It does seem a little wrong to stay behind in a safety that is only made possible by the risk of others. — Pie
If possible, perhaps those who didn't want to fight could be allowed to leave the country entirely, as a kind of compromise. "You don't have to kill/die for us, but we don't have to kill/die for you either." — Pie
Ukraine imposed a general mobilization of all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 60, and banned them from leaving the country. — _db
In Ukraine, for example, there's a not insignificant number of the population who wanted to be under Russian rule, or who couldn't care less whose flag they were under. — Isaac
So the question is - if these people don't want to risk their deaths for the gain being offered, then in what sense is forcing them to do so in their interests (the people)? — Isaac
To me it's only reasonable/decent to pressure people to fight whose lives are already in serious danger. — Pie
Good point. That was more or less what happened with those Americans who fled to Canada because they didn't want to go to Vietnam. — Olivier5
I recall reading about a Russian tactic in WW2 where orders were given to shoot soldiers retreating from battle. — Agent Smith
To justify forcing people to fight a war (by claiming it's for their own good), it must be clear that things would be more bad than war. And that's a pretty tall order since war is really, really bad. — Isaac
This is an exaggeration. The main purpose of the blocking troops were to prevent uncontrolled and panicked retreats. Most of the retreating troops were sent off to the front again and only a small minority were actually executed. — _db
If nobody resisted the invasion of Ukraine, this would likely only encourage more bad Russian behavior - if nobody resists, then they're gonna take everything they can for themselves. — _db
the problem then is that the Ukrainian power structure took it upon itself to decide how the resistance would happen. — _db
At the end of WWII, Hitler & Co. ordered children and the elderly to defend Berlin, tooth and nail. That's obviously just a total waste of human life - the corrupt and evil leadership were just throwing away their own citizens so they could cling to power for a few more days. If the same thing were to happen in Ukraine though, there would be worldwide sympathy, the media would portray the child soldiers as martyrs, etc - yet it would largely be the same thing, just the leadership of a country trying to hold on to their positions of power for as long as possible, regardless of the costs. — _db
There is no evidence that this diagnostic applies to Ukraine. — Olivier5
If the government were concerned about something other than its own survival, then it would not need conscription — Isaac
It's not sufficiently in the interests of the people themselves the exact group of people who run the place to be forced into risking their own death to preserve. — Isaac
If the government were concerned about something other than its own survival, then it would not need conscription — Isaac
Why not? — Olivier5
It's not sufficiently in the interests of the people themselves the exact group of people who run the place to be forced into risking their own death to preserve. — Isaac
And in English? — Olivier5
The make up of a government (Zelensky or Putin, to put it simply) is of little relevance to serving the population's interests relative to their ability to influence what they do. Turnout at elections, for example, is often very low. — Isaac
A government justifying conscription on the grounds of public good is claiming that the people's interests are served by who is in government — Isaac
Hostomel and Bucha bear witness that there is a huge difference between the two. — Olivier5
to defend an independent polity, free to make its own collective choices. — Olivier5
All this talk about "the leadership of a country trying to hold on to their positions of power" applies squarely to nations of slaves, such as Russia. — Olivier5
the case is more complex for democracies, that may sometimes (in war times) impose stringent obligations such as conscription, that may appear undemocratic, for the purpose of safeguarding their democratic system from an aggressive dictator. — Olivier5
How do those atrocities have any bearing whatsoever on the relative ability of citizens to influence peacetime governments?
Honestly. You can't just answer every single question about Ukraine and Russia with "look Russia did a bad thing". It's puerile. — Isaac
For which you'd need evidence that the polity would be less free to do that under the threatening government than they would under the defending one. And that this difference is significant enough to risk unwilling lives for.
Evidence you lack. — Isaac
You've heard about the concept of democracy, and how it functions? The majority usually trumps the minority. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.