View Poll Results: Would you Authorize a Military action for the sake of achieving Military or economic goals?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, (I am a man)

    65 63.73%
  • Yes, (I am a Woman)

    10 9.80%
  • No,( I am a man)

    21 20.59%
  • No, (I am a woman)

    6 5.88%
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Would You Authorize an Agressive Military Action? (Gender Poll)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Anfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niedersachsen , gijon
    Subrace
    Nordic amd Ibero-Celtic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    New York USA
    Gender
    Family
    not happy to be divorced
    Occupation
    All ways working
    Politics
    Community Volkisch
    Religion
    Old Religion - European
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Blood_Axis View Post
    Sorry...I missed that part. Disregard my vote, then

    Something tells me you would volunteer for the Russian front. People with a fanatical devotion and a cat who is the reincarnation of Ernst Rohm get a break for the purpuse of the poll.

    Slightly off topic, but I am reminded of Hanna Reitsch, Who was flying *into* Berlin when many weasels were trying to get out to save their hides.

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,207
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    I voted No. I don't like the idea of following Judeo-American habits.

    War for self-defence, yes. Otherwise, build up a strong military to prevent loonies from taking advantage of perceived weakness.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Anfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niedersachsen , gijon
    Subrace
    Nordic amd Ibero-Celtic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    New York USA
    Gender
    Family
    not happy to be divorced
    Occupation
    All ways working
    Politics
    Community Volkisch
    Religion
    Old Religion - European
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I voted No. I don't like the idea of following Judeo-American habits.
    Judaeo would be getting someone else to do the fighting for you.

    Christian would be listening to the Judaeos.

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,277
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    577
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    551
    Thanked in
    248 Posts
    How about going to war for oil? That is what the Bush-Cheney administration did, attempting to put the oil reserves around the Persian Gulf under American control. Though I think they may have found a better way of doing so via diplomacy rather then imposing liberal democracy on the Middle East, it being much easier to deal with dictators then with democratically elected leaders who have to worry about the next election cycle. And besides, America gets very little of it's oil from the Persian Gulf. Maybe it is an attempt to exert power over China which will need the oil or other countries that do get oil from that region & to counter Russia's power as an energy exporter.

    I voted No. I don't like the idea of following Judeo-American habits.

    War for self-defence, yes. Otherwise, build up a strong military to prevent loonies from taking advantage of perceived weakness.
    Wars have been fought for economic reasons forever, long before there was a United States. As for fighting for self-defense only, that is an interesting concept . The only people who fight wars of self-defense are those who have something to defend, something they or their ancestors acquire in wars of economic expansion. In many cases this is living space, real estate being the most prized economic asset. Your ancestors did battle with the Bantu & acquired land for living space - fair enough, that's the way of the world since the beginning of time & besides those Bantus just took it by force from other Bantus or Khosian peoples. And later the Boers had to fight a defensive war with the British in an attempt to maintain independence while the British were fighting a war for economic reasons, political control of the Witwatersrand Goldfields. The wars of mankind have always been conflicts between the haves & have nots, and the haves always had to be prepared to defend what they have or someone else will take it.

  5. #15
    Senior Administrator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Aeternitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,564
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    45
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    134 Posts
    I voted "yes" but an "other" or "it depends" option would be closer to my take on the matter. I think governments should be in the service of their people, and if military action is what would benefit them most, then so be it. I do believe however that as a start, things should be sought to be solved diplomatically, military action coming into the picture where diplomacy fails. I think all wars are more or less "gamble" and one can't tell for sure whether one will win them or not. There were wars, the most famous examples being the First and Second World War where the situation first looked favorable for one side, but then the wheel turned 180 degrees. That's why I think countries should know when to back out of a war. That is, when the war stops benefiting their people and when the damages and losses outweigh the gains. My impression is that the current wars the US is involved in have done more damage than good from a preservationist point of view. The US hasn't much to gain from converting other countries to "democracy", it and even European countries are filled with Iraqi refugees and the like, money and human lives are spent for these efforts when they could be better spent "at home". The US government should serve its own population, not that of Israel.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Teuton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 13th, 2009 @ 12:24 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-Dutch
    Ancestry
    Limburg-Germany
    Subrace
    Nordid
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Right-Winger
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    346
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The end justifies the means.
    Should it involve war, so be it.
    (yes, I am quite brutal)

  7. #17
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Schmetterling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    759
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    63
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    No. What if another country attacked yours out of the blue, just to improve its economical or political situation? Would you find it justified? I wouldn't. I approve of wars when we have to defend ourselves, but not going around attacking others unprovoked. That's savage and impulsive.
    "Tradition doesn't mean holding on to the ashes, it means passing the torch."
    - Thomas Morus (1478-1535)

  8. #18
    Senior Member Morning Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 1st, 2009 @ 01:48 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Southern California
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student/Retail
    Politics
    Moderate Libertarian
    Religion
    Hard Polytheist Heathen
    Posts
    65
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I voted yes. I don't like war, but if a military or economic goal is achieved, that will mean that there will be less issues, including bloodshed (at least for me, not my competition), down the road. This might seem immoral, but it is even more immoral for a leader to severely screw their people over so that they can feel good about being righteous. Morality is subjective, the blood and gold of one's nation state objective.

    With Russia and China having no qualms about this type of behaviour, then I see no alternative. This leads into the 'prisoner's dilemma' aka Game Theory which in its simplest form is that if we where to cooperate we would both be better off, but since we don't trust each other we aggressively compete, and hence trust is lowered and there is less cooperation, making things worse off for both of us, and those caught in the middle. Workable energy alternatives are the only option that I see for escaping the present dilemma.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Anfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2009 @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niedersachsen , gijon
    Subrace
    Nordic amd Ibero-Celtic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    New York USA
    Gender
    Family
    not happy to be divorced
    Occupation
    All ways working
    Politics
    Community Volkisch
    Religion
    Old Religion - European
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeternitas View Post
    I voted "yes" but an "other" or "it depends" option would be closer to my take on the matter. I think governments should be in the service of their people, and if military action is what would benefit them most, then so be it. I do believe however that as a start, things should be sought to be solved diplomatically, military action coming into the picture where diplomacy fails. I think all wars are more or less "gamble" and one can't tell for sure whether one will win them or not. There were wars, the most famous examples being the First and Second World War where the situation first looked favorable for one side, but then the wheel turned 180 degrees. That's why .
    I Am glad that I worded the question as I did, because this first of all is a gender poll ment to guage the responses of both women and men to a possible and thoretical situation.

    I envision any such action as one that is Judicious, and not wreckless. Remember that the post mentions " Oportunity to strengthen " and no caveat of risk making it less likely that it would be a big gamble. If I would have been to specific this a scenario it would not heve served the intent of this poll.

    I dont think I was talking Weltkrieg but I like that you "Think big". I was thinking of something more localized, as the Americans do it. I am sure you notice the USA never fights big wars.


    I think countries should know when to back out of a war. That is, when the war stops benefiting their people and when the damages and losses outweigh the gains. My impression is that the current wars the US is involved in have done more damage than good from a preservationist point of view. The US hasn't much to gain from converting other countries to "democracy", it and even European countries are filled with Iraqi refugees and the like, money and human lives are spent for these efforts when they could be better spent "at home". The US government should serve its own population, not that of Israel
    You explain it well with the last sentence. America's Government, to some extent *is* Israel. America is a supermarket/finacial Aid center/ pirate base for non Germanics.

    I think countries should know when to back out of a war. That is, when the war stops benefiting their people and when the damages and losses outweigh the gains.
    Yes. I agree

    I was thinking more of Germany as the embodyment of the theoretical protagonist, with the result benifiting periferal Germanic States as well as germany.

  10. #20
    Senior Member SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 01:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,984
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Only if it's the last, best, alternative, which does not apply to the wars of the US in the 20th century.

    An example of a positive war would be the wars against the indians in the 19th century, which created open land for the common people and new Germanic immigrants to expand into, allowing many the chance for their own farmstead who would not otherwise have had this chance.

    I don't believe the wars against Iraq were 'for oil', as the oil remains under foreign control, US companies did not get the contracts for Iraqi oil, and prior to the wars the oil was being sold on the open market. The only way a 'war for oil' would work would be if OPEC were to be dismantled, which would probably be too expensive to be worth it.

    The Afganistan War also made sense initially, to chase out the Taliban/Al-Queada, the problem was that this turned into an ideological crusade and the principle of 'pluralistic democracy' was placed ahead of the American national interest (this also happened in Iraq), with the result being that an unstable regime that is increasingly less friendly to us was installed.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Height of Skadi Members (Combined Gender Poll)
    By Scáthach in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 337
    Last Post: Thursday, January 17th, 2019, 01:15 AM
  2. Gender and Second Pregnancies
    By Bärin in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, September 11th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  3. Gender and Creativity Or.......
    By QuietWind in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, 12:00 PM
  4. The New Science of Gender
    By Phlegethon in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, September 22nd, 2003, 03:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •