Forums

Not everyone enlists in the army for the same reasons. I think allot of what your saying is the way things "Should" be instead of the realists way of thinking about things in which not everything "is" the way it should be.

What the fuck? When you justify something that justification doesn't have to last for eternity, we can discuss if was or was not the best decision but it was a thought out decision which was the point I was trying to make. And of course things change besides the fact that the population growth didn't go as planned technology also changes and you can have more food with less space.

Yes this is how things "shoulld" be.

But this is meaningless here, when you enlist you are choosing to follow the ideals that it represents, your reasons for enlisting don't really matter.

The point was, clearly if they had spent more trying to combat this, rather than trying to expand, they'd of never had that problem.

And unless they were planning on killing even more than they eventually did, they'd gain more population in the first place by expanding, wihch kind of defeats the point.

Shoot your squad and rape the woman.

Don't forget to pillage everything!

Let me put it anouther way. Lets say you enlist to protect your country, you then fly across the world to anouther country, a situation arose in which you had to give your life for that of an innocent cilvilian of that country. To that person, thats not their reason that they joined. Why should they give their life? Because its right? Because of an ideal? Is that their ideal?

That is an individuals deicision, an over ranking ideal can't push them to sacrafice themselves. Dying is scary, you can't decide how someone will act in that situation because the army they choose decided they should act a certain way. People are unpredictable. An army is a group of individuals, all of which can be unpredictable to a certain level. You throw a group of individuals into a war zone were they see their friends get shot by natives of that country, who knows how someone will deal with that?

This is the best you can do, since obviously the situation sucks and either choice sucks:

Estimate the probability that the woman is in fact a hostile.
Multiply this probability by the number of soldiers in your squad.
If the answer you get is greater than 1, shoot.

Basically, if your expectated value comes out greater than 1, your expectation is to have killed one person while having saved greater than one person.

Anyways, since the probability of the woman being a hostile is very high given what you know, I would have to say that you should shoot.

Then they are the wrong type of person that should be enlisting.

Of course you can't really predict how someone will react, but it's the fact that most soldiers, or militaries in the first place don't consider this to be their duty, that's the problem.

That's not your place to say. Again, i wish the world functioned the way you see it. I think we all do but in reality, it docent.

But if only these "good" people sign up, the army of America could be compared to 1% of the inhabitants of Liechtenstein, there is need for people who can do their jobs without questions.

Hence my comment "And this is exactly what is wrong with soldiers."

Then i agree =)

I just think its weird that your debating with Karpman who is trying to say how things are while your trying to say how things should be. Its a weird position where your both actually correct.

Your an optimist debating with a realist. These two things don't oppose each other. Its a debate over what is and what should be, they are both right 0_o

The problem with your arguments is that you're thinking of an ideal world which doesn't exist, combat what? An increasing population? Do you want to sterilize them? Improve your farming techniques when your population may explode in the next few years?

And a population doesn't increase forever, what Germany did was what Spain and Britain and other great powers had been doing for centuries, hegemony over other European nations so that they could have more for themselves.
But I digress my final statemen is: wars happen for a reason when all other solutions have been spent and they are not acts void of any thought. Over and out I'm going to sleep.

Then it should be the people giving those orders who are the "good" ones.

And the ones who don't follow them are kicked out.

If a Soldier's duty is to follow orders, than why aren't the good people giving those orders.

If the reasons for war were justified then we wouldn't need such people. As it is, I don't see how anyone could be proud of fighting for my country.

But since the system is corrupt it won't happen, the people who shut up and listen get promoted while the "good" people are considered bad because they are asking questions, that is how it works and the army is the last thing I would sign up for, also for that reason.

Again, that is the problem with soldiers.

Also to add to Narmy's comment, if a war is "justified", than you don't really need an army of "good people" to fight it.

It's because almost all wars are not justified that it is required.

Of course, a true American knows God forgives everything as long as you repent! So why only sin once? lol

Haha i wouldn't say its corrupt, its just not perfect. Also your generalizing a system without much knowledge on it. Almost anything that is run by humans has a certain amount of bad judgement.