How do you make someone understand that being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is not a good thing?

Ithral , 7 hours ago

So, veteran here. I’ve tried to talk people out of joining the military or at least trying to avoid jobs with high probability of seeing combat. Usually the result is they just start prying about what combat is like and make statements about how much they want to experience it.

Another tack I haven’t tried but it might be more effective, is to describe how miserable it is to have the stench of a burn pit wafting over you, always wondering if the distant gunfire will move in your direction, being stuck manning a 24/7 watch where if even one person who can do that job dies or is otherwise incapacitated you will be stuck doing 12hr shifts instead of 8. Then you get back home and have to fight tooth and nail for benefits from the country that fucked your life up in the first place.

War is hell, coming home is hell, forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.

sunzu2 , 7 hours ago

forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.

Empire propaganda must be real good if this commenter has to say this out loud

FlashMobOfOne , 6 hours ago

It’s not the propaganda that’s good, SunZu.

It’s the poverty. Tens of millions of young people in this country have no other way out of debt or to move upward economically.

jerkface , 5 hours ago

It IS the propaganda that makes people decide that the military is a way out of poverty and not just another trap OF poverty. If there weren’t recruiters in every poor neighbourhood’s school, people might decide that joining a mission or Greenpeace or digging wells in Africa for a charity is their “only way” out of poverty.

FlashMobOfOne , 5 hours ago

Thank you for adding information to my reply.

PiJiNWiNg , 26 minutes ago

I have to disagree a little bit, as, at least in the US, there are some really great perks associated with miltary service. GI bill and VA home loans are some of the bigger perks, but theres plenty of smaller perks as well (if you know where to look).

Dont get me wrong, these benefits shouldn’t have to be “earned”, but one doesnt necessarily have to put themselves in harms way (or sacrifice their morals) to get those benefits. For example, I enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve at 18 and picked IT as my “rate”. I often joke that i picked the “lowest form” of miltary service, but Bush’s illegal war in Afghanistan was in full swing at the time and I wanted nothing to do with it, so I justified my choice with, “I’d rather help save people, then help kill people.”

As i joined the reserves, i was able to skip the otherwise mandatory time in service requirements for IT school, and went right after bootcamp. After training, i got stationed with my permanent reserve unit in my home town. Less then a month later i secured an entry level IT job, and have been in the industry ever since. A few years after that, I bought my first house with a VA loan.

While i was in, my service obligation was ludicrously easy. One weekend a month I’d shave and cut my hair, throw on a uniform, and do the same job I’d been doing in my civilian life for the weekend (when there was work to do anyway, we fucked off A LOT). Further, working in both private sector and government IT gave me some really useful perspective that helped me accelerate both my civilian and government careers.

Last thing ill mention is that, presumably due to my ADD, I tend to excel in a job in the first couple years, but eventually get bored and start slackin. CG deployments (at least for IT folks), were very rarely mandatory, but there was usually enough going on that if you wanted to deploy, you just had to say so. Because of this, if i started to feel bored at my civilian role, I’d just throw my name in the hat for a set of orders (ranging from 2-12 months in duration), travel the country on the governmwnt dime, work on some cool shit, maybe learn something, then go back to my civilian job feeling rejuvinated and wanting to apply what i learned. In case you dont know, employers are federally required to keep your position available for when you return (for up to 5 years). Also, depending on the orders, you’d often make more money then active duty folks doing the same job because you’d receive BAH to pay your rent/mortgage at home, while also receiving per diem based on the location of your orders.

Anyway, not trying to sound like a recruiter, but you dont have to sell your soul to get those bennies.

Coasting0942 , 2 hours ago

Sunny top secret art of war zeroth rule: Don’t get in a war idiot.

index OP , 2 hours ago

forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.

I believe abolish someone rights is never a good thing. If you are fighting against someone that wants to take these away you have even more reason to respect these rights and stand for them.

Dkarma , 1 hour ago

I see you’d rather die kneeling than standing.

AntiOutsideAktion , 47 minutes ago (edited 14 minutes ago)

It’s amazing the shit rich old people can convince poor young people to die saying

edit: meant to say ‘rich young people on computers thousands of miles away cheering on other people’s deaths’

I invite all of you chickenhawk nazi lovers to go die charging a trench in the place of someone who doesn’t support your cause and doesn’t want to die.

xor , 6 hours ago

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.

There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

index OP , 2 hours ago

The question asked in the thread title is really simple and you should try to stay on topic.

The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad.

You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine

You are twisting what i’ve said. I encourage you to read other people post better because i never made such claim.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

If you believe that not being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is the equivalent of rolling over and dying you are probably victim of the propaganda. As other have suggested here i advise you to watch drones videos from this war where they roll over and die

sweng , 9 hours ago

Whether it’s a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

index OP , 8 hours ago

How do you make someone realize that their philosophical views are bad then?

imPastaSyndrome , 8 hours ago

You can’t force someone to believe something

linearchaos , 8 hours ago

First you set up a news agency. You tune into their fear of inadequacy. You craft stories and spin truths to Make sure that they’re good and scared of the future of them and their family. You keep slowly chipping away until they have no problem with suspension of disbelief. You make sure that day and their friends all have the right tools to indoctrinate each other. Then you get small and big business on board by offering them tons of money to help keep everybody good and scared. You craft laws and put people in the right places in police organizations to make sure that the people you’re trying to scare them with are seen as the Boogeyman. Sure, it’s not technically forcing but it’s forcing…

Vanth , 8 hours ago

How could one convince you that your philosophical views are bad?

index OP , 8 hours ago

Perhaps by bringing up resources that prove my philosophical views bad

Carighan , 8 hours ago

What kind of resources are we talking about here? Clearly it doesn’t help to make you talk to 1 person that holds contrasting views, as that seems to be your starting point. A study of 1000? A study of 100000? An empirical research over 100 years? 500? A meta analysis? 5 people talking to you about it? 10? 100?

Vanth , 4 hours ago

So have you tried that with the people who agree with the draft? Did you find it was convincing to them?

todd_bonzalez , 7 hours ago

Sorry, I’m completely immovable on the stance that war is bad. Never once has mass human slaughter made the world a better place.

I understand that, like everything, there are those who disagree. Moral relativism aside, those people are wrong, in the sense that I have zero tolerance for supporting campaigns of mass death.

Vanth , 4 hours ago

So if you have an immoveable stance against war, isn’t it just as likely someone out there believes they have a similarly immovable stance in favor of the draft?

yuuunikki , 8 hours ago

That’s not how it works. It isn’t your way or the highway

aberrate_junior_beatnik , 8 hours ago

We don’t have a way to do this. I don’t think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.

The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people’s views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it’s gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn’t already come around on it.

JohnDClay , 8 hours ago

Classically, you’d discuss their views with them and find the logical conclusions. Then you’d talk though if those ideas contradict with other ideas they hold. That sort of discussion/dialogue is basically all of Plato.

MagicShel , 9 hours ago

You can’t make a person understand anything. If the very simple explanation of “draft the unwilling and send them to die” doesn’t convince them, they don’t want to be convinced. I couldn’t name a single person who thinks that’s good, just maybe some folks who would say it’s sometimes a grim necessity. And I guess I’m in the latter camp, but shit would have to be dire.

Carighan , 8 hours ago

Yeah like somebody else said, you’d have to challenge their philosophical believes that leads them to hold this opinion first.

And that in turn requires argueing them from a position not based on “I disagree, and my opinion is the correct one”, but on philosophical, logical and argumentative flaws in their believe system. Which is not easy to do. At all. It’s in fact very hard, made harder by the fact that our brains can see information, actively realize this information is correct and contradicts something we thought of earlier, and yet also discard said information and stick to the existing mental model instead. Meaning that even if you do everything correct, they might go “Yes, that’s true” and then nothing happens, out of no ill will.

bstix , 7 hours ago

You can’t make anyone understand anything.

You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.

I know you’re looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you “attack” them, they will “defend”. This does not change their opinion.

It’s better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.

It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that’s not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don’t let them do that. It’s about what they believe.

Skua , 5 hours ago

OP, nobody in that thread yesterday was saying it was a good thing. When a country gets invaded, your responses are always going to be a matter of lesser evils. Apologies for Godwin's-Law-ing this off the bat, but it wasn't great that the Allies drafted hundreds of thousands of people and invaded Nazi Germany. It was still better than every other option.

Azzu , 3 hours ago

Godwin’s law itself always confused me. Of course comparisons with nazi Germany are overused, but it’s literally only 80 years ago. The fact that it could happen such a short time ago means that many of the same dangers, same lessons learned are very likely still completely applicable today. The human behaviors that led to Nazi Germany are still there, in/outgroup thinking, fear of foreigners/others, etc etc etc

So yeah I don’t think “Godwin’s law” existing as a concept should stop valid comparisons.

Skua , 3 hours ago

It doesn't! It's just a comment on how overused the comparisons are on the internet. To quote Godwin himself:

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.

That_Devil_Girl , 8 hours ago

I don’t have anything specific, but generally speaking those who idolize war have never seen the horrors of war. Speaking with veterans who have actually seen real combat is a good place to start.

Dagwood222 , 8 hours ago

Hunter Thompson opined that the US draft was better than the alternative.

Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve. With a ‘volunteer army’ only the poor need to go.

Another drafted vet said that draftees are more likely to speak up if civilians are targeted because the soldiers know that they are eventually going home. Lifers will obey all orders.

sunzu2 , 7 hours ago

Under the draft everyone, rich and poor, was expected to serve.

You can't expect shit from the parasitic rich... In practice poors went anyway.

Bone spurs bitch

And when they went, they chilled at some air force base like Bush Jr

Good point on war crimes but if war crimes are part of the order, peasants will have to do it and that's how these things happens mostly anyway IMHO ie it was the order, then once they are caught it is always the "intern's" fault

Mathazzar , 7 hours ago

Systemic racism in the US ment an inproportionate number of drafted service personnel were black as white draftees were able to get college deferments in higher numbers.

This boiled back down to the poorer economic situation of black peoples in the Civil rights era fighting for basic equality.

The draft also caused friction that increased fraggings as this racist treatment by educated white officers or NCOs were dealt with locally. Fragging was furthered by a disconnect between draftees who wanted to just survive and glory hounds who saw military service and War as some great adventure.

a_new_sad_me , 8 hours ago

Disclosure: I’m Israeli, I’m anti war and anti occupation. I was drafted more than 20 years ago (it’s sort of mandatory here).

I think you paint it in a too much simple colours. In the war between israel and Gaza now, both armies fight for what they believe is the safety of their home, and in both armies there are high numbers if drafted (by force people). Also, in both sides, there is a level of truth that without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk. So you end up in a situation where there is an army that you don’t fully agree with and you serve in it since the alternative is even worse.

It boils down to the fact that your political leaders are not having your well-being at the top of their priorities. I believe that your discussion with that someone should be about that. Not about do/don’t draft but how to promote a world where there will be no need for drafting.

(I believe that the same goes to Ukrain and Russia war).

mozz , 7 hours ago (edited 7 hours ago)

without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk

Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?

I think you gotta recheck your math on that one

And of course the same thing applies to Israel; without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.

a_new_sad_me , 7 hours ago

Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.

mozz , 7 hours ago

I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.

If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.

I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.

bobr , 9 hours ago

Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.

CrabAndBroom , 4 hours ago

I’m not part of the typical group that gets drafted (presumably young men) but my argument has always been that my country doesn’t own me, I’m not its property. If I want to fight for/serve my country I will, but IMO it has no right to just use me at will like a resource.

This especially goes for times like these, when everything is unaffordable, nobody can get a house, you can barely see a doctor, the police don’t even bother solving most low-level crime and the rich are lining their pockets with our money. The system is not upholding its end of the social contract at all, so why should it expect any extraordinary measures from us?

OneCardboardBox , 7 hours ago

Not that I was ever interested in being military, but I was at a lunch with two older lifelong army retirees. They kept talking about how military service broke their bodies and politicians won’t cover their medical costs. These injuries were independent of any combat: It’s just expected that you sell every part of yourself when you sign up.

Who wants to be 45 years old with a limp, be unable to hear a quiet conversation, and have horrible back problems.

JohnDClay , 8 hours ago

I didn’t think it’s wrong universally, for example, Ukraines current offensive into Russia.

sunzu2 , 7 hours ago

Ukraine is using special forces for this, who are well paid professionals with strong ideological under pinnings. Those guys are into that shit.

OP is about Russian consript who got deployed in Ukraine "by mistake"

JohnDClay , 7 hours ago

But I’d be okay with Ukraine deploying conscripts to that front.

Diplomjodler3 , 9 hours ago

Show them some videos of people getting blown up by FPV drones. If that doesn’t get them to think, nothing will.

Ziggurat , 9 hours ago

Issue is that “old people” had to spend their time in the army, sometimes even in a foreign land (Good old time of the colonial war), so kids these day feel so privileged

I mean, we can blame the boomer for a lot of thing, but in the 60’s and sometimes 70’s (In many countries) young men had no option but do a military service which way involved going to fight to keep the colonies.