Asklemmy

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.

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"

Just to throw my two cents in: This user isn’t a genuinely curious ponderer, rather they are a Russian troll trying to fish for arguments they could further use in bad faith to lick Putin’s boot.

Just read through their comment history and make your own mind. This is not genuine and most everyone is just feeding the troll.

The question itself is worth asking though. A lot of good points here, but they’d be better given in good faith for someone genuine.

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.

Even though op's post history clearly points to the angle they're trying to get across, I'll answer for ya.

You educate the Russians. They're living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they're educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they'll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.

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.

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.

I'll take bad faith posts for $1000 Alex

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.

Lol. Where was this post when Russia drafted citizens to continue the invasion?

The Ukrainian "invasion" is to force Russia to withdraw from the war Russia started.

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.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who has the capacity and wisdom to know why wars are waged in the first place would never voluntarily fight in one.

It's reinforced my philosophical idea that wars are just a way for humanity to purge the worst of itself.

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.

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?

On a related note, if the US continues on its current trajectory, I predict the draft to return within the next eight years. The Selective Service System never went away. Look what congress is up to right now: Lawmakers move to automate Selective Service registration for all men

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).

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.

Same reason you cant make them understand that making and holding onto billions in profits is also not a good thing

You draft them and order them to invade another country.

Let's start with the second part of your question? How do you make someone understand that invading another country is not a good thing?

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?

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

You start by giving up on making them understand.