View Poll Results: Would you refuse to participate in a war initiated by the government of which you are a citizen of?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes I would refuse to fight but agree to serve in a non-military capacity.

    0 0%
  • I would refuse to participate in any capacity.

    4 66.67%
  • I would agree to fight.

    2 33.33%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: War, What Is It Good For?

  1. #21
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Aryo-Germanic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    V10b
    Country
    England England
    State
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Location
    Dane Law
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Parent,Co-habiting
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Exposing idiocy
    Religion
    Wodenist
    Posts
    1,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    372
    Thanked in
    254 Posts
    This currently popular view that war is always a rich man's scheme or is merely about resources is wrong - it never takes geopolitics and national security into account - and this pacifist stance is ultimately also responsible for our non-reaction to our borders being overrun. If a country lacks a martial spirit it won't even defend the integrity of its borders either when it comes to illegal migration.
    I have in one of my posts pointed out the geopolitical aspect. It is not the masses that 'benefit' from the slaughter of their young men but the elite who always manage to spare their own offspring from enlistment (shades of Bush, Clinton and Trump) but play fast and loose with the lives of others. The man in the street is concerned with having food, clothing, heat and shelter. He is generally not concerned with extending the boundaries of Greater Israel or enriching the military industrial complex. James Douglas Morrison said it better than I ever could: "
    Do you know we are being lead to slaughters by placid admirals and that fat slow generals are getting obscene on young blood? "

    Of course I would fight if my government wants it, and so should you, just not our current governments - they would never fight the wars we need or have to fight.
    Defending one's borders is one thing (even the Vatican City does that) but that does not justify wars of aggression, wars fought for regime change and in vassalage to Israel.

    We are living in the nuclear age. It is not a matter of throwing a few spears anymore. The existence of the very planet is at stake. I am thankfully too old to fight but if I were young and knew what I know now I would tell them where they could stick their call up papers.

    Western governments are the enemy of Western Peoples. They represent ONLY the moneyed Jews and other globalists who want to destroy us. No nationalist worth his salt should support any of these bastards. There ARE wars worth fighting, but none that are dictated by the blood traitors in official capacity.
    I agree. Eloquently put.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Wuotans Krieger For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 07:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,167
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,552
    Thanked in
    1,109 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wuotans Krieger View Post
    It is not the masses that 'benefit' from the slaughter of their young men but the elite who always manage to spare their own offspring from enlistment (shades of Bush, Clinton and Trump) but play fast and loose with the lives of others.
    It completely depends on the war whether a common man benefits from it. If the U.S. army invaded Northern Mexico to establish a buffer zone between the U.S. and Mexico common Anglo-American people would benefit a lot from it. And it would not lead to nuclear war.

    The man in the street is concerned with having food, clothing, heat and shelter.
    No surprise: spineless, cowardly and egotistical people only care about themselves and their own living conditions. They also keep their heads down when their neighbors are murdered or raped by invaders. The further these people are kept away from matters pertaining to national security, the better. Besides, we weren't always this weak and idiotic. People used to care for let's say Elsass and Lorraine. It's only us modern westerners who shy away from war - it's a sign of decadence - and the result is that we are colonized by foreigners instead of occupying North-Africa's coastline to establish no go zones, preventing Africans from reaching our shores.

    Common man is generally not concerned with extending the boundaries of Greater Israel or enriching the military industrial complex.
    Neither am I, so why do you use this argument? We have legitimate geopolitical interests of our own in Western Europe and they're worth going to war for.

    We are living in the nuclear age. It is not a matter of throwing a few spears anymore. The existence of the very planet is at stake.
    And how many nuclear wars have we seen so far?

    It changes nothing, one can not let the community be blackmailed because nuclear weapons exist - limited wars between super powers are still possible without nuclear annihilation - and nuclear weapons are on the way out anyway and in the process of being replaced by non-lethal weaponry which can cause just as much crucial damage to cities, by taking out all the electronic devices in a certain location without hurting anyone.

    You still think like people did back in the Cold War, that world does not exist anymore, W.K. - and people were wrong in the Cold War too - a conflict between West and East would've been limited, local and non-nuclear rather than total war. Same holds true today. If China and Taiwan + the U.S. ever go to war they won't be firing nukes at one another. People just love a good doomsday fantasy.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  5. #23
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Aryo-Germanic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    V10b
    Country
    England England
    State
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Location
    Dane Law
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Parent,Co-habiting
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Exposing idiocy
    Religion
    Wodenist
    Posts
    1,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    372
    Thanked in
    254 Posts
    It completely depends on the war whether a common man benefits from it. If the U.S. army invaded Northern Mexico to establish a buffer zone between the U.S. and Mexico common Anglo-American people would benefit a lot from it. And it would not lead to nuclear war.
    This would constitute a 'war of aggression' which in itself is a war crime. However the US government already has a long record of war crimes so it would be just another one to add to its growing list.

    No surprise: spineless, cowardly and egotistical people only care about themselves and their own living conditions. They also keep their heads down when their neighbors are murdered or raped by invaders.
    On the contrary man's need for food, shelter, clothing and warmth are part of Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' which apply to all human beings. Many people even today in the 'west' lack some of these basic needs so why should they be concerned about the geopolitical power games of the elite? Your second sentence is highly emotive and thus not one that can be debated. I prefer to deal with facts, not populist scaremongering.

    The further these people are kept away from matters pertaining to national security, the better. Besides, we weren't always this weak and idiotic. People used to care for let's say Elsass and Lorraine. It's only us modern westerners who shy away from war - it's a sign of decadence - and the result is that we are colonized by foreigners instead of occupying North-Africa's coastline to establish no go zones, preventing Africans from reaching our shores.
    'National security', an oft used term to justify both the curtailment of human rights and the waging of illegal wars. It doesn't mean anything. The only threats that the common man faces are the effects of the foreign policies of Zionist controlled 'western' governments who have succeeded in making their homelands less safe and less 'secure'. The biggest threat to the security of our peoples are our governments who place the wellbeing of the peoples at the bottom of their list of priorities. They serve the elite, not the people. "Shying away from war" is not a sign of 'decadence' but common sense. Aren't two world wars enough for you? Perhaps if you had been born in the aftermath of WWII where bomb sites still existed in the 1960s you might have thought a little differently. If you had been born and brought up in the midst of the 'Cold War' where nuclear extinction was never far from your thoughts you might have had a different perspective. The way to stop mass immigration is not more war: THAT is the catalyst for immigration. Instead you need to secure one's borders. the first step to doing that is exiting from the European Union.

    Neither am I, so why do you use this argument? We have legitimate geopolitical interests of our own in Western Europe and they're worth going to war for.
    I am not saying that you personally do but that has been the effect of every war since 1939. Only States have 'geopolitical interests' and States do not serve the interests of the people but the interests of the elite. this has been the case ever since the emergence of States. They are not 'my' geopolitical interests. They are not 'your' geopolitical interests but those of the elite.

    And how many nuclear wars have we seen so far?
    It changes nothing, one can not let the community be blackmailed because nuclear weapons exist - limited wars between super powers are still possible without nuclear annihilation - and nuclear weapons are on the way out anyway and in the process of being replaced by non-lethal weaponry which can cause just as much crucial damage to cities, by taking out all the electronic devices in a certain location without hurting anyone.
    One so far-WWII ended via the illegal act, the war crime (which has gone unpunished) of the USA unleashing two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6/8/45 and 9/8/45 respectively. WWII did not start out as a nuclear war but it ended that way. Furthermore the United Kingdom was complicit in the war crime as it gave its consent under the Quebec Agreement. This diabolical act set a precedent, a fearful one at that. So just because a war starts off with conventional weapons (which are deadly enough) it does not necessarily mean that it will end with just conventional weapons.

    Nuclear weapons are not "on the way out". Trump's pulling out of the INF Treaty and Russia's response and unveiling of new weapons has accelerated the push and we are now closer to nuclear annihilation than at any other time since August 1945.

    Your reference to cyber warfare (although I concede that you did not use that term) is an excellent point. Yes this will become another aspect of modern warfare and for this reason as individuals we need to ensure that we are not totally dependent on anything that can be affected by cyber warfare. I will give you one example. In the United Kingdom the idiotic government has rolled out a programme of fitting 'smart' meters in domestic and commercial premises giving a target date of the beginning of 2020 for gas and electric utility companies to do this. It is not mandatory to have one
    and most people do not want them and only a fraction of homes have had them fitted. I could mention more about this but I would be going off topic. The point is that someone's electricity and gas could be instantly cut off with this device via digital means, making the residents vulnerable. By not engaging with this kind of technology and staying with older forms of technology we help to reduce that kind of vulnerability.

    You still think like people did back in the Cold War, that world does not exist anymore, W.K. - and people were wrong in the Cold War too - a conflict between West and East would've been limited, local and non-nuclear rather than total war. Same holds true today. If China and Taiwan + the U.S. ever go to war they won't be firing nukes at one another. People just love a good doomsday fantasy.
    Yes I still think like in the 'Cold War' and with good reason too-the 'Cold War' has returned and the stakes are just as high as last time which makes the 'game' of war even less worth playing than before. I am a Germanic preservationist. I view WWI and WWII with horror, not only for the terrible loss of life but the destruction that it has done to our cultures and the threat to our future survival. War threatens what we have left. During my lifetime the 'west' and 'east' stood on the brink of nuclear war not once, not twice but 13 times. See: https://metro.co.uk/2016/07/18/13-ti...r-war-6013942/

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Wuotans Krieger For This Useful Post:


  7. #24
    Munchkin
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    LillyCaterina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/Irish/French
    Ancestry
    England/Ireland/France
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Deli Shift Leader/Manager
    Politics
    Centrist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,597
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    890
    Thanked in
    474 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gareth Lee Hunter View Post
    You should have included more specific choices in your poll, which I was unable to answer, because I, too, will fight to protect my homeland, and my loved ones from unjustifiable aggression. I just don't agree with instigating unnecessary wars that trade innocent lives for dollars.
    Wars that are basically started to expand territory by aggressively violating the rights of other nations to be secure within their borders don't always work out so well in the end. And the results for ordinary people are often too horrible to describe. I found this video about someone who was brutalized because of hatred that persisted against German people after WWII.

    Not all in life is at it appears to be.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LillyCaterina For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Was WWII the “Last Good War”?
    By celticviking in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 21st, 2011, 06:06 AM
  2. Revisiting the 'Good War's' Aftermath
    By Nachtengel in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, December 11th, 2009, 04:40 PM
  3. The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two
    By MCP3 in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, 08:23 PM
  4. The `Good War’ Myth of World War II, and Why It’s Dangerous
    By Nachtengel in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, August 23rd, 2009, 08:01 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, July 12th, 2004, 03:36 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
  •