Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Footkerchief]

Answering a call to arms when your country and liberty is threatened is one thing, but I feel there is no real threat.  Only a hyped one.

Your not him, and you are judging him because he is doing something he thinks is right.

Wait, so you think it's wrong to verbally judge the morality of another's actions, but it's okay when a lynch mob executes someone:

According to your philosophy, if raping children, then chopping off their limbs one at a time while cooking and eating each one, makes me happy, then I should do that

If it makes you so happy that you don't have any regrets when the towns people lynch you, and its not me then yes.

Huh?

[Qloos]

Answering a call to arms when your country and liberty is threatened is one thing, but I feel there is no real threat.  Only a hyped one.

Your not him, and you are judging him because he is doing something he thinks is right.

And if he is not right, then he is not noble, he is either brainwashed or ignorant or desperate for money (As Armok said).  I want an explanation as to what he is fighting for, how what he is fighting will preserve what he is fighting for and how far he plants to take this fight.

[Realmfighter]

WHAT I SAID.

It was an example. If i had actually cared, i would have put death row or something else.

And if he is not right, then he is not noble, he is either brainwashed or ignorant or desperate for money (As Armok said).  I want an explanation as to what he is fighting for, how what he is fighting will preserve what he is fighting for and how far he plants to take this fight.

There is no universal right and wrong. Everyone has thee own opinion on what it is.

If Strife thinks he's in the right, he in the right.

[Qloos]

If Strife thinks he's in the right, he in the right.

WHAT?!  So If I kill a man because he stole a quarter from me, and I can justify it in my own mind.  Then I'm in the right?  You said it yourself, there is no universal right.  If the group around me agrees with my justification that he stole my quarter.  I must have been in the right.

[Realmfighter]

If Strife thinks he's in the right, he in the right.

WHAT?!  So If I kill a man because he stole a quarter from me, and I can justify it in my own mind.  Then I'm in the right?

In your own mind, yes.

Not the jury's minds, of course.

[andrea]

I understand what you are saying, but you are not saying it in a good way...

[Qloos]

Not the jury's minds, of course.

Exactly, justice is a human concept which is enforced by social groups.  By the American constitution and The Geneva Convention the American Army is already in the wrong.  Willingly joining the will of this entity is what he plans to do, now explain how he is justifying this in his own mind.

You originally stated that if he can justify his actions to himself then there is no problem.  I disagree wholeheartedly:  Justice is something enforced by groups.

[LegoLord]

Qloos, I can't believe that you even understand the concept of terrorism.  There is still a threat of terrorist attacks, and one is in fact expected to happen within the coming months.  It is suspected that the only way to really put a stop to them is to kill or capture the leaders, such as Osama.  So whether you feel threatened or not, there is a threat, and it is very real.  And you'd be putting yourself in ignorance to think you are safe.

And frankly I'm appalled that this:

Also, do not forget that in other countries, "the army" is used for different stuff in peace-time, like helping with natural disasters such as floods. You've got this huge team of people, who have immense technical knowledge, the awesome tools that go with it, can be deployed in a short time, and are trained to make split decisions under duress. (Well, that's the ideal situation of course ).

Was completely ignored.  After all, it is a large part of what the army is doing in the Middle Eastern areas it's occupying.

If Strife thinks he's in the right, he in the right.

WHAT?!  So If I kill a man because he stole a quarter from me, and I can justify it in my own mind.  Then I'm in the right?  You said it yourself, there is no universal right.  If the group around me agrees with my justification that he stole my quarter.  I must have been in the right.

Yes Qloos, that is exactly how the judicial system in the US works, albeit that is a very Strawman-esque example.  Do you even live here?

And would you care to specify this breaking of the Geneva Convention?  Are our soldiers just walking into villages with incendiaries and killing everyone?  No.  This is not Vietnam, stop acting like it is.

[Realmfighter]

Justice is something enforced by groups.

And that group is the american public, approving of his heroic acts.

[Qloos]

Qloos, I can't believe that you even understand the concept of terrorism.  There is still a threat of terrorist attacks, and one is in fact expected to happen within the coming months.  It is suspected that the only way to really put a stop to them is to kill or capture the leaders, such as Osama.  So whether you feel threatened or not, there is a threat, and it is very real.  And you'd be putting yourself in ignorance to think you are safe.

By your own armies admission, torture has been committed which does nothing but create hatred for the USA.  How many people have died world wide to terrorism compared to car crashes?  To smoking?  To being struck by lightning?  Being paranoid of an external and media hyped threat to the point that you sacrifice personal freedom is harming yourselves more than actual terrorist acts.  Black lists of perfectly normal people have been created, people are harassed while traveling because of the tone of their skin.  You have invaded countries with no links to terrorism in some blind crusade.

And would you care to specify this breaking of the Geneva Convention?  Are our soldiers just walking into villages with incendiaries and killing everyone?  No.  This is not Vietnam, stop acting like it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

[LegoLord]

And in that case it was not the army as a whole, but a portion of it, and those involved were tried by their superiors.

[Qloos]

And in that case it was not the army as a whole, but a portion of it, and those involved were tried by their superiors.

More like they were chosen to take a fall - for - their superiors.

Watch "Taxi to the dark side" A documentary on Abu Ghraib.

[Nether]

I wish I had the chance to legitimately say Danger Close.

Then again, you might never either.

Ehm, you live close to lucy, sofy, janet, whatever, right? For all I know that means danger close all the time.

@Strife:

Good luck, stay safe, and don't be one of those idiot's that kill things unnecessairily (Or however you spell that). Also, don't forget to help us out if the zombie's arrive!

[Siquo]

It is suspected that the only way to really put a stop to them is to kill or capture the leaders, such as Osama.

If you fight for honour, and the other fights out of desperation (I saw someone here misunderstand Armok: The desperation he mentioned was that of seeing no other option left), the desperate one probably wins. Sun tzu even knew this, and advised to always leave an escape route for the enemy army. Because if they can see no escape, they fight out of desperation, and will fight ten times as hard. There's nowhere to go for a lot of people, especially now. The US has, with the help of my country as well, alienated lots of people in the world, who now see no other option then to fight the invaders of their soil, the rapers of their daughters (yes, it may have happened once, but that's enough for some), the killers of their mothers (collateral damage is to be expected).

Continuation of the war is only making it worse, and increases the chances of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of desperation, it is the only way a small group of people can hit a large group of people. No, they are not going to fight fair, because it wasn't a fair fight to begin with.
"But they started it!" you would say. Well, yes and no. Open hostilities and mass casualties, yes. But do you remember Saddam? And the rulers of Saudi Arabia who are not much better than Saddam was? The US was/is keeping those oppressors in place, with money, weapons, and WMD's (Saddam used gas he got from the US as a present to annihilate entire Kurd villages. He got that gas to use in his war against Iran, by the way, who therefore also hate the US).

Now how to fight an invisible enemy, one much larger than yourself, far away, who by pulling the strings, is still responsible for your and your family's suffering? You try to scare him with a big boom and some bluff. It worked, but not as they had expected. And now, there's no way back.

Back to the wall, no way out. The bully is coming for you. Do you whimper in a corner, or lash out with all you've got?
That is what strife is about to face, that kind of enemy. I do not envy him.

[Creaca]

Why do both sides of the argument think we're in Iraq for any reason other than the oil? Sorry but America's military leaders are not Gallant White Knights or Blind Zealots. They're a bit more Pragmatic than that. We're securing a stable Pro-America country in the middle east for the oil, and the eventual military bases that are near the oil. If some people get civil liberties and find themselves not under the heel of an abusive dictator, all the better. Hell, Japan and Puerto Rico are doing pretty well.