Your opinions on this radio phone in with a father of a soldier please...

[Zeuzzz]

This video really got me thinking about patriotism and the military. Its a radio phone in with the father of a soldier serving in the british army and George Galloway.

_UwthOTZH2g

To summarise, George says that he's glad he never had a father like him, one that is looking forward for a war to start with Iran even though his son may be killed during this combat. Thats a very brief summary, I suggest watching the clip in its entirety. George puts his opinions across rather strongly, as usual.

I think that it pretty much sums up the idiocy of war and patriotism very well.

[oldhat]

War is horrible and the only people who get excited by it are people like Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and George Bush and Fox News commentators because they never had the balls to go fight in one themselves.

My grandfather came back from the Pacific campaign with the Marines the biggest pacifist this side of Arlo Guthrie. He said the things he were like visions of Hell.

[Region Rat]

War is horrible and the only people who get excited by it are people like Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and George Bush and Fox News commentators because they never had the balls to go fight in one themselves.

My grandfather came back from the Pacific campaign with the Marines the biggest pacifist this side of Arlo Guthrie. He said the things he were like visions of Hell.

But, the Republicans.....

[Zeuzzz]

I dont think that anyone can argue with Georges premise.

What sort of person is willing to potentially sacrifice their own sons life for patriotic reaons? :eye-poppi Does raise some questions about all the worlds armies and families.

[Sporanox]

I dont think that anyone can argue with Georges premise.

What sort of person is willing to potentially sacrifice their own sons life for patriotic reaons? :eye-poppi Does raise some questions about all the worlds armies and families.

Look, a "let's go to war for the sake of war" premise is dumb. In this case, Galloway's discussion surely applies.

But there are situations where war is warranted. I'm not sure if you are denying that or not.

ETA: seems like you are. All the military families in the world are monsters? That's what you seem to be implying. That is quite low, even for you.

[gtc]

I think this thread should be merged into the other thread about George Galloway. His support for Hamas, Saddam Hussein, the Syrians etc shows that he is not anti-war but anti-West.

[Zeuzzz]

ETA: seems like you are. All the military families in the world are monsters? That's what you seem to be implying. That is quite low, even for you.


No, I am far from implying that. Just that all the families of every soldier in every army must have some sort of patriotic belief, religous belief, or think that the death of their own family is worth the cause (whatever that may be) they are fighting for.

In this situation (Iraq/Iran/Afghan) I dont think many people could argue that the cause is worth the death of someone close to them.

[Zeuzzz]

His support for Hamas, Saddam Hussein, the Syrians etc shows that he is not anti-war but anti-West.


He supports none of them. Their people, maybe. But them? No. Stop trying to derail the thread. This is supposed to be about the relationship between families of soldiers.

Of which I think most can agree the Dad who called in either does not like his son or has been brainwashed in some way.

[Sporanox]

No, I am far from implying that. Just that all the families of every soldier in every army must have some sort of patriotic belief, religous belief, or think that the death of their own family is worth the cause (whatever that may be) they are fighting for.

Oh really? So according to you, military families feel the death of a family member is worth it for "patriotic/religious/something beliefs." Couple that with this quote:

What sort of person is willing to potentially sacrifice their own sons life for patriotic reaons? :eye-poppi

I think that it pretty much sums up the idiocy of war and patriotism very well.

You're clever (or maybe just lucky) enough to not come out and fully state what you think, but we know for sure that 1) you believe that military families are all idiots and 2) WHAT SORT OF PERSON IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR FAMILY MEMBER?? (implied answer: monster/nazi/inhuman jerk)

You've dug yourself in. Enjoy the hole.

[gtc]

Stop trying to derail the thread. This is supposed to be about the relationship between families of soldiers.

So we shouldn't examine whether the person making the statement actually believes what he is saying?

Galloway clearly doesn't believe that the view he is expressing applies universally so why should we?

[Zeuzzz]

you believe that military families are all idiots


Not at all. their reasons for the war might be just, whether patriotic/religous/whatever, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. I would not call families of soldiers in WW1 idiots, that was a just cause.

But people who do not believe in the cause that their relation is fighting for should, surely, do the best they can to stop him, and protect him from potential death?

2) WHAT SORT OF PERSON IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR FAMILY MEMBER??


Indeed. Religous people, patriotic people, and mentally ill people is my vote.

[Quad4_72]

I think that it pretty much sums up the idiocy of war and patriotism very well.

Being patriotic is idiocy? I see...

Well I will go ahead and keep defending your right to say that. Carry on.

ETA: Assuming you are from America...

[Zeuzzz]

Being patriotic is idiocy? I see...

Well I will go ahead and keep defending your right to say that. Carry on.

ETA: Assuming you are from America...


Patriotism is in a vague sense a form of racism, and also related to religous systems of thought. I see all humans, whatever race, religion, political persuasion, or nationality, as equal personally.

From the WIKI page on patriotism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
Contemporary scholar of ethics, Paul Gomberg, has compared patriotism to racism. He argues that the primary implication of patriotism in ethical theory is that a person has more moral duties to fellow members of the national community, than to non-members. Patriotism is therefore selective in its altruism.[9] Gomberg notes the view (in ethics) that moral duties apply equally to all humans is known as cosmopolitanism.

Patriotism is strengthened by adherence to a native religion, particularly because such a community usually has its holy places inside its motherland. This is evident in cases of countries like India[citation needed] and Israel.

Patriotism implies a value preference for a specific civic or political community. Universalist beliefs reject such specific preferences, in favor of an alternative, wider, community. In the European Union, thinkers such as Habermas, however, have advocated a European-wide patriotism, but patriotism in Europe is usually directed at the nation-state and often coincides with Euroscepticism.

Some religious believers place their religion above their 'fatherland', often resulting in suspicion and hostility from patriots. Two examples of groups that have experienced this suspicion in the United States are Roman Catholics and Muslims. In the United States and the United Kingdom, Roman Catholics were seen as owing loyalty to the Vatican rather than the nation. Muslims are sometimes seen as owing loyalty to the Islamic community (Ummah) rather than to the nation. Other groups find a conflict between certain patriotic acts and religious beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites may choose to refuse to engage in certain patriotic acts or to display certain symbols.

[Quad4_72]

Patriotism is in a vague sense a form of racism, and also related to religous systems of thought. I see all humans, whatever race, religion, political persuasion, or nationality, as equal personally.

From the WIKI page on patriotism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

For me, being patriotic is about defending freedom. One of those freedoms is your right to spew nonsense. In other countries you are not afforded that right. Without patriotism, this nation would be a very different place. You remember that while you sleep in your warm bed tonight, safe because of the sacrifices of our military.

[Zeuzzz]

You remember that while you sleep in your warm bed tonight, safe because of the sacrifices of our military.


I dont think that all wars in general (especially the recent wars of the last few decades) have improved our safety [UK here] at all; if anything they have created unbalance and widespread resentment of our political leaders. I can not think of any situation over the last decade that has indicated we are going to be attacked, and thus at war with, a foriegn country; and they have initiated the action.

Theres a hell of big difference between defending armies and armies on the offence.

[Sporanox]

Not at all. their reasons for the war might be just, whether patriotic/religous/whatever, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. I would not call families of soldiers in WW1 idiots, that was a just cause.

WWI was a just cause?? World War Freaking I? Do you know how that started? System of alliances, pointless trench bloodshed, power after power without previously discernible grudges dragged into conflict? THAT is the war you want to fix your banner to?

And you think today's wars are pointless. Well.

But people who do not believe in the cause that their relation is fighting for should, surely, do the best they can to stop him, and protect him from potential death?

Speaking of the US, family members can get involved in politics - just like the rest of us. Beyond that, though, any monkey wrench created in the system is likely to kill some other poor sap. That isn't very moral.

You were talking about families who believed in a hypothetical war effort, though, so why this diversion?


Indeed. Religous people, patriotic people, and mentally ill people is my vote.

And all of them are considered to be twisted unless they agree with you. Great worldview you got going there. Hopefully you don't mind the loneliness.

[Zeuzzz]

And all of them are considered to be twisted unless they agree with you. Great worldview you got going there. Hopefully you don't mind the loneliness.


Not all of them at all, infact the vast majority of all of those groups are fine, its just that these systems of thought are the paths that enable the warful acts to be created by the minority.

[Zeuzzz]

Being british is an accident of birth. If you'll forgive me, thats just the patriotism that Dr Johnson called the last refuge of the scoundrel. I'm proud of many things british people have done and ashamed of others. I'm proud of many things that french people have done, and would be ashamed of others. I'm a human being.


^^^

[Sporanox]

Not all of them at all, infact the vast majority of all of those groups are fine, its just that these systems of thought are the paths that enable the warful acts to be created by the minority.

Patriotism and religion allow a minority to override a majority? Uh...

Does that mean patriotism and religion are inherently malicious factors?

[Zeuzzz]

Does that mean patriotism and religion are inherently malicious factors?


No not at all, they are just the means by which people are convinced to commit inhumain acts they would not normally.

[Sporanox]

No not at all, they are just the means by which people are convinced to commit inhumain acts they would not normally.

I don't exactly disagree with you here, but there are two qualifiers. 1) your application of this principle is terrible and 2) patriotism and religion are not at the root cause of all inhuman acts. Far from it.

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed. Religous people, patriotic people, and mentally ill people is my vote.
In that case, pehaps you'd rather all of those Albanians dead in 1999, rather than have those military types show up and stop their looming slaughter at the hands of Milosevic's troops.

Welcome to the Monster's Ball.

[Arcade22]

I don't exactly disagree with you here, but there are two qualifiers. 1) your application of this principle is terrible and 2) patriotism and religion are not at the root cause of all inhuman acts. Far from it.

I am a patriot and nationalist and i agree. The problem with Patriotism and nationalism is extremism, but then again that is a problem all ideologies have.

[Quad4_72]

I dont think that all wars in general (especially the recent wars of the last few decades) have improved our safety [UK here] at all; if anything they have created unbalance and widespread resentment of our political leaders. I can not think of any situation over the last decade that has indicated we are going to be attacked, and thus at war with, a foriegn country; and they have initiated the action.

Theres a hell of big difference between defending armies and armies on the offence.

Ummmmm. Your country and mine have been attacked by terrorists in the last decade. Perhaps you forgot? Or do you not think that is significant enough to warrant the use of our military? I am curious how you would feel if a group of foreign terrorists flew planes into your two largest buildings and killed thousands of people.

[Brainster]

I see that Galloway, like so many others, does not understand the meaning of the phrase, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." It's not an observation about patriotism, it's an observation about scoundrels.

[sugarb]

No not at all, they are just the means by which people are convinced to commit inhumain acts they would not normally.

Hello, Zeuzzz. I wish I could make my comments brief, but I cannot think of a way to do so. I apologize in advance for that.

The only people in my family that served in the military did so voluntarily. Did I ever think their lives were "worth sacrificing" for patriotism?

What a strange way to look at it. Very strange, indeed.

When my sister enlisted in the Army after college, I cried. When I took her to the recruiters office to leave for Basic Training? I cried. When I drove home from that? I cried for weeks on end.

When my sister finished her Basic Training, we went to her graduation and I cried. When she left for California for her linguist school, I cried.

I cried because I love my sister. I love my little sister more than my own life. She was my world, Zeuzzz. She still is.

Her life, to me, was not worth sacrificing for ANY cause. Not my baby sister. Not her. I'd prefer to die myself. But my baby sister felt a desire, and made a decision, to serve her country. SHE believed in it, Zeuzzz. SHE did. SHE was willing to possibly sacrifice her life. Not me, not my family. Her.

I am proud of my baby sister. More than I could ever express in words, and it would have probably ended my world had she been killed, had she sacrificed her life...but you know what? She would have done what SHE believed was right, and THAT is what I supported.

We do not, as you imply, believe that our family members are worth sacrificing for patriotism. THEY do, and we support THEM, and we support their ideals, their beliefs, their want and need to serve for strangers who couldn't care less about them on a personal level. How dare anyone imply that I saw, EVER, my baby sister as worth sacrificing for anything! What kinds of monsters would say such a thing?

Oh, I know. I know what kinds of people say such things. People who do not know or understand what our servicemen and women do by CHOICE. People who only see politics, and not personal reasons and calls to serve something greater than one's self.

You know, my husband is a paramedic and a firefighter. He chooses to do something that could get him killed. And I love him, and support him. Does that mean I think HE is worth sacrificing for a perfect stranger or a property with no feelings whatsoever? Of COURSE not. Again, I'd rather die myself. But HE feels a need and desire to do what a whole lot of people wouldn't ever do...put himself at risk, for perfect strangers, for crazed drug addicts, for victims of shootings even when the scene isn't secured...for something greater than himself.

Our policemen and women, are THEY worth sacrificing to save you and yours? Why? Why? Why do they risk sacrifing their lives every day for people who don't appreciate them? For people who don't respect them? For people who hate them, resent them? Are they worth it? If it is you or yours, is that policeman's life worth saving you?

To their family? No. Except that...well, it is a call to duty that some people feel. Most probably never feel it. Some feel it so strongly they just make it their lives, knowing it could end their lives. And that is something to be respected. Call it patriotism if you will, but to the men and women serving, in whatever capacity, it is about more than just country, state, city, town. It is about PEOPLE.

[UnrepentantSinner]

For me, being patriotic is about defending freedom. One of those freedoms is your right to spew nonsense. In other countries you are not afforded that right. Without patriotism, this nation would be a very different place. You remember that while you sleep in your warm bed tonight, safe because of the sacrifices of our military.

Oh please. Stop that. Zeuzzz is crazy and off-base, but this sort of rhetoric is unbecoming of people in uniform (and rank hypocracy from chickenhawks). And I say that as someone who's safe and warm bed was provided by the military from birth to 23.

[Zeuzzz]

Ummmmm. Your country and mine have been attacked by terrorists in the last decade. Perhaps you forgot? Or do you not think that is significant enough to warrant the use of our military? I am curious how you would feel if a group of foreign terrorists flew planes into your two largest buildings and killed thousands of people.


And our military actions have helped to deter future terrorist attacks, have they?

And no, there has not been any country attacking us. Just a (at the time) rather small extremist group. What the subsequent two invaded countries had to do with that event has not been forthcoming.

[foxholeatheist]

My Dad retired as a Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force and continued to work with the DoD after as a civilian. Earlier this year he was stationed in the Green Zone and I was lucky enough to go there on a detail and we met. He met the other guys in my unit and when he talked to my LT and found out that we had taken fire and returned fire his demeanor had changed.

We went out for a coffee (Green Bean, POG food!) and he really wanted to know if he in anyway ever forced me to join or encouraged me to do so. I guess he didn't want to feel that he had influence in me risking my neck. I explained that the chances of actually dying are pretty low and we're relatively safe. I think he still feels a little guilty (in a round-about way) that I have been blown up and peppered and lost friends of mine.

I know for a fact my father doesn't want to see any more conflict. All his buddies are also down range and he's been there longer than almost any soldier. I suppose my point is that this guy is not representative of the attitudes of the families and friends of deployed soldiers. I'm a big boy and I can make my own choices and I choose to serve in the Army. One thing you should know is that 70% of those deployed never roll outside the wire. They support the guys that do.

In any case, what this guy is saying does not speak for military families as a whole. Most, if you would take the time to see, just have had their lives interrupted for a year (less in the other services) and await the time when they can get their lives whole again.

[Zeuzzz]

I know for a fact my father doesn't want to see any more conflict.


And that makes perfect sense, and is what a father of a soldier should be thinking if he's a caring loving person.

Its the guy in the OP that bugs me. It seems that he is very happy his son might be in a conflict that can be totally avoided, and in fact wants the conflict to start. :eye-poppi

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I dont think that anyone can argue with Georges premise.

What sort of person is willing to potentially sacrifice their own sons life for patriotic reaons? :eye-poppi Does raise some questions about all the worlds armies and families.

Only a complete brainwashed retard!!!

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Ummmmm. Your country and mine have been attacked by terrorists in the last decade. Perhaps you forgot? Or do you not think that is significant enough to warrant the use of our military? I am curious how you would feel if a group of foreign terrorists flew planes into your two largest buildings and killed thousands of people.

False flags don't count.

How would you feel if you found out that those supposedly leading you didn't care about you and would happily sacrifice you for their own greedy agenda?

People should stop joining the military until the Military is only used for defense purposes.

[foxholeatheist]

Are you willing to give me a job after 2012?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why do they risk sacrifing their lives every day for people who don't appreciate them? For people who don't respect them? For people who hate them, resent them? Are they worth it? If it is you or yours, is that policeman's life worth saving you?

becuase they are being falsely indoctrinated they are serving their country when they are doing nothing of the sort. All they are doing is getting themselves killed for some cowardly old men in suits and high foreheads.


To their family? No. Except that...well, it is a call to duty that some people feel. Most probably never feel it. Some feel it so strongly they just make it their lives, knowing it could end their lives. And that is something to be respected. Call it patriotism if you will, but to the men and women serving, in whatever capacity, it is about more than just country, state, city, town. It is about PEOPLE.

Deluded people. if they woke up and realised the truth they wouldnt' have joined up ion the first place.

Let's save military service for defending the country!!!!!

[Sporanox]

False flags don't count.

You're a truther. How did I guess.

[sugarb]

becuase they are being falsely indoctrinated they are serving their country when they are doing nothing of the sort. All they are doing is getting themselves killed for some cowardly old men in suits and high foreheads.



Deluded people. if they woke up and realised the truth they wouldnt' have joined up ion the first place.

Let's save military service for defending the country!!!!!

Hmm. Indoctrinated. That's a good one. So what you're saying is that people enlisting in the military are basically what? Idiots? Morons? Uneducated? What?

Baby sister had six degrees (two masters) by the time she finished college, before she enlisted. Not uneducated. Not indoctrinated, certainly...since the college we attended certainly had a more liberal slant, and baby sister was (and is) proud to call herself a liberal.

Deluded is one thing she most definitely is (and was) not.

Nor are police officers, firefighters, ems workers...I'm sad for you, that you think everyone that feels called to serve is deluded. Indoctrinated.

Huh.

That's really sad.

[Zeuzzz]

False flags don't count.You're a truther. How did I guess.


:bwall

He said nothing about 9/11, just false flag operations. Of which there have been countless ones of over the years by various military organisations.

So lets stop labelling people presumptiously, eh?

[gtc]

:bwall

He said nothing about 9/11, just false flag operations. Of which there have been countless ones of over the years by various military organisations.

So lets stop labelling people presumptiously, eh?

Follow the quote chain.

He was responding to a mention of 9/11 and, apparently, the London bombings in 2005.

He certainly seemed to be suggesting that 9/11 was a false flag.

[funk de fino]

Not at all. their reasons for the war might be just, whether patriotic/religous/whatever, it TOTALLY depends on the situation. I would not call families of soldiers in WW1 idiots, that was a just cause.

Would you call families of the veterans of the Gulf War (1990) idiots?

[Zeuzzz]

Would you call families of the veterans of the Gulf War (1990) idiots?


Different situation. The Gulf was is the war I know the least about.

And no, obviously they are not all idiots.

But take for example Vietnam, once it had become largely realised at home that they were fighting a unjust war for immorral reaons the families revolted and helped to stir up a large anti-war campaign. That in my opinion is most admirable.

[geni]

No, I am far from implying that. Just that all the families of every soldier in every army must have some sort of patriotic belief, religous belief, or think that the death of their own family is worth the cause (whatever that may be) they are fighting for.

In this situation (Iraq/Iran/Afghan) I dont think many people could argue that the cause is worth the death of someone close to them.

So you think we should go for the satuation nuclear bombing aproach?

[funk de fino]

Different situation. The Gulf was is the war I know the least about.

And no, obviously they are not all idiots.

But take for example Vietnam, once it had become largely realised at home that they were fighting a unjust war for immorral reaons the families revolted and helped to stir up a large anti-war campaign. That in my opinion is most admirable.

Why is it different? You have started with a very broad brush and now you are backtracking, while seeming to know very little about anything you post on.

[quarky]

If anyone here is defending my freedom with their sacrifice, please stop now.

[Zeuzzz]

If anyone here is defending my freedom with their sacrifice, please stop now.


Some of your comments are cryptogram's entwined within conundrums.

Care to elaborate on this :D

[Zeuzzz]

Why is it different?


Because not all parents (thank god) of people in the army are as mad as the specific guy in the OP I was refferring to. Who seems to choose his country over his sons life.

[quarky]

Some of your comments are cryptogram's entwined within conundrums.

Care to elaborate on this :D

Yes, thank you.

I'm having my period now. I'm really, really pissed-off by the chumpiness of various heros.

The biggest sacred cow in the universe these days is our soldiers, whom "serve" us. I must call the bluff on this. I can't take it any more.

If a very wealthy old white male has convinced any one here that it is heroic to kill someone, in whatever conflict du jour, and you haven't examined the hell out of the proposition; if you want to kill Iraqi's because you are convinced that Sadam blew up the World Trade towers, for instance...

This is not heroic. This is not "serving my country".
This is being a brain-dead retard.
This is being a chump.

I'm allowed to say this. I was drafted in '68 for a farce. I killed someone.
I'm done killing. I'm not a hero. I didn't serve anything.

I'm about to lose my mind.
We argue about gays in the military.
We have lost sight of the larger picture.

Is it OK to kill a stranger on their land?
That should be the issue.
Killing someone.

If I was younger, and got drafted now, I absolutely would dedicate my life to fragging as many officers as I could.

That is how I would 'serve' my country.

Fortunately, I'm old, and not interested.

[foxholeatheist]

<-- Brain-dead retard.
<--Chum.

[quarky]

Foxholeatheist,

You know I love you anyway?
Please come home alive.
And not cynical. Not hardened beyond what normal society can handle.
Please don't kill yourself in front of your wife, like several of my friends did after "serving" in Vietnam.

And please forgive me.

[foxholeatheist]

I'm cool. PTSD is a pretty nasty little item. I've never shown any signs. Like William Munny said in "Unforgiven": "Killing is a hell of a thing". Folks that aint done it don't know and you can't say anything to them that can make them understand. I've seen guys that it didn't seem to bother at all and some others that needed help coping afterward... It is indeed a hell of a thing.

That's war man, that's the nature of the beast and it's not pretty and it's not right and it's not clean. And it's not over and I don't think it ever will be. My father was at Da Nang and the first Gulf War. His father was at Guadalcanal. Drafting folks aint right and that's not how you make a proficient professional fighting force.

But check this out, I don't care what you've seen or what you did. There's no good reason to be fragging officers. I'm pretty sure you don't really mean that anyway.

If you need help go see the VA and they'll hook you up. I urge you to do so.

[Zeuzzz]

Nominated, Quarky.

[quarky]

I'm cool. PTSD is a pretty nasty little item. I've never shown any signs. Like William Munny said in "Unforgiven": "Killing is a hell of a thing". Folks that aint done it don't know and you can't say anything to them that can make them understand. I've seen guys that it didn't seem to bother at all and some others that needed help coping afterward... It is indeed a hell of a thing.

That's war man, that's the nature of the beast and it's not pretty and it's not right and it's not clean. And it's not over and I don't think it ever will be. My father was at Da Nang and the first Gulf War. His father was at Guadalcanal. Drafting folks aint right and that's not how you make a proficient professional fighting force.

But check this out, I don't care what you've seen or what you did. There's no good reason to be fragging officers. I'm pretty sure you don't really mean that anyway.

If you need help go see the VA and they'll hook you up. I urge you to do so.

I'm cool too, my friend, and not about to frag anyone. Not even officers.
Because I've decided to go along with one goofy religious/woo-ass thingy:

Please don't kill anyone.

That's all I got for religion.
I'm trying to make it softer than "Though shalt not kill!"

Imagine if that was the edict that defined civilization?
That would be very handy.
Of course, it also implies some alternate way of getting people to die, so that people can keep having babies.

If war and disease and car wrecks don't kill us, what will?
I'm of the opinion that, if it gets too crowded on Earth, I should be the first to go.

Imagine if you decided for real, not to kill anyone, as long as you live?
Its easy for me to imagine this, having already failed at it.

Strange, isn't it?
The above sugestion is utterly un-patriotic, yet utterly christian moral hi-ground. Two math formulas that don't co-equate.

You seem like a good guy.
Do you think you will still be a good guy if you are forced into a situation wherein you have to shoot some women and children?

The way to digest such ugliness is to tell one's self that this is an ugly, nasty world we live in.

We've always tried to kill each other. Its how technology evolves.






Regular Joe's will tell you: I keep a gun. In case some bad guy breaks into my house and tries to rape my wife. That's when I would kill.

Well, in my case, the only thing that could make me kill again, would be an officer ordering me to kill again...which I've clearly decided not to do.
So, yes. If I ever had to kill again, I would kill the person that was forcing me to kill, against my will.

But, like I said, I'm no fragger.
I'm a damn medic.
Not even gay, should it matter.

[Zeuzzz]

So, yes. If I ever had to kill again, I would kill the person that was forcing me to kill, against my will.


And any decent man with a steel spine and open mind would, especially if they, by not doing as told, would suffer the same fate.

But, like I said, I'm no fragger.
I'm a damn medic.
Not even gay, should it matter.


Yes, it does, apparently the sexual preferance of people in the army deserves more debate than what the whole point of an army is to do. Thats poitics for ya :rolleyes:

http://www.davidburt.co.uk/funstuff/images/ArmyGay.jpg

[quarky]

So then you see why I claim to be against gays in the military?

I'm against heterosexuals in the military.
I'm against the military.
I'm against killing.

I don't care what paranoid hate fantasy people can come up with.
We are doomed regardless.
So why not exit with a touch of class?
Why not decide not to kill anyone?

[Zeuzzz]

"Why not decide not to kill anyone?"

*ponders*

There is no way any Human Being from Planet Earth should disagree with this statement.

*awaits*

[quarky]

"Why not decide not to kill anyone?"

*ponders*

There is no way any Human Being from Planet Earth should disagree with this statement.

*awaits*



Yeah, weird.

Smacks too much of religion, I guess.
Morality is always self-serving.
Its morality that makes us kill; makes us reproduce too much; makes killing essential.

Cleanliness is next to godliness, they say.

And to be really clean, is going to bring up some dirt.
Like a coal fired power plant, powering your shower.

[funk de fino]

Because not all parents (thank god) of people in the army are as mad as the specific guy in the OP I was refferring to. Who seems to choose his country over his sons life.

Yet you chose to tar all families with the brush, not me. You are now back pedalling. Good on you.

[funk de fino]

And any decent man with a steel spine and open mind would, especially if they, by not doing as told, would suffer the same fate.

That is a dreadfully pathetic and insulting post.

I was in the forces, not out of some loyalty to my country or some mad desire to kill a fellow human being but because I wanted to do a job which took me around the world and in which I would learn a trade. My first trip abroad was to the Gulf War. I was there because I had signed a piece if paper an stood up straight and said I would serve the Queen and all that blah blah blah. I knew the risk of joining. I knew what I might have to do. When I went to the Gulf I knew it could just as easily have been another conflict ( and indeed I served in another later). It could have been another Falklands or even another type of attack on my country. During the Gulf War I came under enemy fire for the first time in my life and it was the most scary thing I have ever known. I had to take special tablets because the enemy we were trying to remove from Kuwait had chemical weapons. I had to carry out special drills in case. I saw 28 reserve US servicemen/women get blown to smithereens by a scud missile. I saw the mess in Kuwait. I saw the mess after the Basra road massacre. I did not rejoice. I only rejoiced when I landed back in my home base and saw my family. When you join up (for whatever reason) you do not get to pick and choose where and when and what will happen. If you renege on that contract then you suffer the consequences. Did I suffer some slight effects of PTSD? Yes a little. Am I better now? Yes, but I will never forget.

I did not support the later Gulf War in Iraq. I did support the removal of Saddam however. I saw what this man did. I spoke to Iraqis who wanted rid of him. Yet we left him there, and they suffered, and were massacred when we went. Many years later, when I was in Saudi with my present job, one of the students came to me after the first day and thanked me and told me his family were from Kuwait and the things that went on there during the invasion were truly terrible. Is this thanks what I wanted? No, but it made the whole thing a bit more clear in my head as to why we did it. Would I want the US or Canada or Spain to come and help my country if we were invaded? Yes, I would. If I was still in the service would I go and help other countries in the same situation? Yes, I would.

Can I see why quarky has the attitudes he does? Yes, I do. Because he served and he has been damaged by it, I can see some of his pain. I am a little luckier I guess. Do I think it is a fantasy world he would like? Yes, I do. This world will always need armies because humans are humans. Do I wish humans were different humans and we did not need armies? Yes, I do.

Do I object to ignorant posters trying to insinuate that servicemen are not decent men and have no spine? Why funnily enough, I do.

Anyone who thinks we can do without armies is childishly naieve. Is it something we can strive for? Yes. Is it something we can hope for? Yes. It will not happen in my lifetime or anyone elses here. Get used to it.

[Zeuzzz]

During the Gulf War I came under enemy fire for the first time in my life and it was the most scary thing I have ever known.


Why were they shooting at you? Had it occured to you that they too were scared, under pressure, frightened to death, and not wanting to do what they were doing? Or did you completely de-humanize them?

I saw 28 reserve US servicemen/women get blown to smithereens by a scud missile. I saw the mess in Kuwait. I saw the mess after the Basra road massacre.


that must have been awful :(

I did not rejoice.


What sick idiot would :eye-poppi

I only rejoiced when I landed back in my home base and saw my family. When you join up (for whatever reason) you do not get to pick and choose where and when and what will happen. If you renege on that contract then you suffer the consequences. Did I suffer some slight effects of PTSD? Yes a little. Am I better now? Yes, but I will never forget.


Hey, if there are still some lurking memories there that keep you up at night or you have not come to terms with, I highly recommend signing up for the clinical trials that are taking place around the world that are using MDMA to cure PTSD. It works absolute wonders. Or you can often find an MDMA therapist that will offer treatment "off the record".

Watch these (if you prefer scientific studies then I can give them if you prefer):

CNN: Ecstasy cures PTSD
KYidpI1eMss

Agony or Ecstasy? The MDMA Dilemma [UK Channel 4]
rgnspX-fh-M

Just offering advice, you seem to be not fully over what the army made you do.

Do I think it is a fantasy world he would like? Yes, I do. This world will always need armies because humans are humans.


This is the flaw in your mentality in my opinion, the 'Things have always been that way so thats how they will stay' type attidude is absolute hogwash. As soon as you say that it doesn't make any sense.

Do I wish humans were different humans and we did not need armies? Yes, I do.


Good, there some common ground at least. :)

Do I object to ignorant posters trying to insinuate that servicemen are not decent men and have no spine? Why funnily enough, I do.


I really am sorry, for this has gotton far deeper than I ever intended.

How many people did you kill? Have you been back to the area and appologised to their families? Now that would be having a spine. To have them forgive you would let you rest forever at peace.

I *********** hate war.

Even more I hate the people that send people to their death whilst not risking their own.

Cowards.

You, luckily, are clearly not one of them.

Anyone who thinks we can do without armies is childishly naieve.


Completely without armies, no, of course not. But without agressing armies, yes. Purely defensive armies that could decrease in number with time, given the correct policies and treaties is ultimately what will have to happen unless we are all doomed to mutual self destruction. And I have far more faith in the human race than that.

Is it something we can strive for? Yes. Is it something we can hope for? Yes. It will not happen in my lifetime or anyone elses here. Get used to it.


But we can bloody well try and make a start. It is never too late to start sowing seed

[Zeuzzz]

I'm about to lose my mind.



Quarky, how can one of the most open, intriguing and funny minds on the forum be about to lose anything? :) You got us chappy, and I'm sure much more, although a stubborn bunch the Jref crowd can be.

[Zeuzzz]

I *********** hate war.

Even more I hate the people that send people to their death whilst not risking their own.

Cowards.



Sorry I got a bit carried away earlier. But my main point is that it is not necissarily anything to do with the person who fires the gun, its the people that train (brainwash) the people to fire guns in the first place that are the morally corrupt people, the people who give out orders from the safety of their bunkers, and the poloticians that start these wars.

If anything the people that get commanded to shoot people are just as much victims themselves as the people they shoot. And my heart goes out to them.

[funk de fino]

Sorry I got a bit carried away earlier. But my main point is that it is not necissarily anything to do with the person who fires the gun, its the people that train (brainwash) the people to fire guns in the first place that are the morally corrupt people, the people who give out orders from the safety of their bunkers, and the poloticians that start these wars.

If anything the people that get commanded to shoot people are just as much victims themselves as the people they shoot. And my heart goes out to them.

BS. We are not brainwashed.

[funk de fino]

Just offering advice, you seem to be not fully over what the army made you do.

So wrong. Made to do nothing.

This is the flaw in your mentality in my opinion, the 'Things have always been that way so thats how they will stay' type attidude is absolute hogwash. As soon as you say that it doesn't make any sense.

Check the long history of the human race. You are the one with the flaw I'm afraid

[quixotecoyote]

Do I object to ignorant posters trying to insinuate that servicemen are not decent men and have no spine? Why funnily enough, I do.

Anyone who thinks we can do without armies is childishly naieve. Is it something we can strive for? Yes. Is it something we can hope for? Yes. It will not happen in my lifetime or anyone elses here. Get used to it.


Because Zeuss is displaying a funhouse mirror version of my own occasionally repeated position, that yes we need armies, yes I respect the courage and bravery of people who sign up, but that doesn't mean they get an automatic good-guy card.

As you said, you knew what you would be required to do when you joined the army. I'm guessing that you thought the chances of being required to do something good were greater than the chances of being required to do something bad. The point is that I bet you made that evaluation.

That's an evaluation that everyone who voluntarily joins a military should make, and if they don't, I think it's a kind of moral negligence.

[Darth Rotor]

Why not decide not to kill anyone?
That's a good sentiment that, by itself, slides gently into utopian ideals. Human beings ascribe to a wide enough set of points of view that you can't rely on that sentiment being 100% universal.

Too bad.

Lots of good utopian ideas fall apart when they run into humanity's tendency to be imperfect or grasping.

No further comment, from a retired officer who's not interested in being fragged, as you might appreciate. :cool:

@qc: it's a risk one must accept, or not sign up. That option wasn't available in the age of the draft.

[Lupie]

Sorry I got a bit carried away earlier. But my main point is that it is not necissarily anything to do with the person who fires the gun, its the people that train (brainwash) the people to fire guns in the first place that are the morally corrupt people, the people who give out orders from the safety of their bunkers, and the poloticians that start these wars.

If anything the people that get commanded to shoot people are just as much victims themselves as the people they shoot. And my heart goes out to them.

I am a veteran. I enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1990. I was a crewman on an M1 Abrams. I joined the service of my own free will. I knew the score, and was made well aware of the risks. My father, who is a Marine, and veteran of the Korean Conflict neither encouraged, or discouraged me. He left the decision up to me.

Once in the Army, nobody "brainwashed" me. Later, when I became one of the people that "train the people to fire guns", I did not brainwash anyone, and I take offense with your insulting generalization that the people who train our soldiers are "morally corrupt".

You paint with an awfully broad brush.

L.

[Brainster]

You paint with an awfully broad brush.

And yet he misses the barn every time. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Might as well tell my short, uninspiring tale as well.

Dad was career Air Force and retired as a SMSgt just as I graduated H.S. I received an Air Force ROTC scholarship, wasn't cut out to be an aerospace engineer and lost it within 1 semester. Enrolled at a different school and eventually got into Army ROTC via their SMP program (Enlisted basic, Reserves/ROTC for 2 years then commissioning). Wound up with a Reserve commission in 1990 as an artillery officer. Spent FAOBC at Ft. Sill in '91 watching the equipment coming back from the Gulf on rail flatbeds. Hurt my back in the last few weeks of the course and was medically retired.

The only brainwashing in the process was me convincing myself I'd make a good officer. Hell, I wouldn't even have made a good soldier*... but that didn't stop me from at least trying.

* A conclusion I came to in the mid 90s and still abide by today.

[funk de fino]

Because Zeuss is displaying a funhouse mirror version of my own occasionally repeated position, that yes we need armies, yes I respect the courage and bravery of people who sign up, but that doesn't mean they get an automatic good-guy card.

correct.

As you said, you knew what you would be required to do when you joined the army. I'm guessing that you thought the chances of being required to do something good were greater than the chances of being required to do something bad. The point is that I bet you made that evaluation.

correct


That's an evaluation that everyone who voluntarily joins a military should make, and if they don't, I think it's a kind of moral negligence.

correct

I'm afraid the defensive armies stuff is cloud cuckoo land for zeuss unfortunately. He does not understand history or the human race. In the first conflict I served it was to free an invaded country. The second conflict I served in was to prevent ethnic cleansing of muslims in areas of europe. Another "theatre" I served in was to protect an island from invasion by a country who had invaded it previous and been expelled.

Where aggressor armies and defensive armies fit into that I have no idea, but I know I have not invaded any country. Does that make me one of the good guys or the bad? Am I morally corrupt? Do I have no backbone?

It's idiotic posts like this that is the real fantasy

People should stop joining the military until the Military is only used for defense purposes

[quixotecoyote]

Where aggressor armies and defensive armies fit into that I have no idea, but I know I have not invaded any country. Does that make me one of the good guys or the bad? Am I morally corrupt? Do I have no backbone?

It's idiotic posts like this that is the real fantasy


Correct. (as you might say)

I used to think it was pretty clear cut, that after Vietnam and the Latin America interventions, anyone who actually weighed the likelihoods would guess that they'd end up supporting dictators and suppressing people, but since then I've seen that while some wars are indeed clear cut idiocy (Vietnam/Iraq) that others are grey areas and plenty others are pretty clear acts of good, although these do tend to be smaller in scale (Liberia).

Now I'm taking the position that it's not clear enough for me to judge anyone's motivations for joining the military. It's not a lifestyle I wanted, with moral considerations placing a distant second in my own life choices, but I don't think I can say that everyone who joined in x period must have had bad motivation or moral negligence.

[quarky]

I should really stay out of this.
But it sure would be nice if we could at least have the collective will to hone in on war profiteering, which has been somewhat rampant.

I'd like to ask Henry K. a few questions. Dick C. too.

[funk de fino]

I should really stay out of this.
But it sure would be nice if we could at least have the collective will to hone in on war profiteering, which has been somewhat rampant.

I'd like to ask Henry K. a few questions. Dick C. too.

You could ask Dick if war profiteering was so great why did Halliburton drop KBR who had a lot of no bid contarcts?

Was it because of the poor profits? 4.6%, Pre Tax, in some years. Or do we expect the military to do everything for themselves nowadays and forget civilian companies.

Business is business unfortunately, that also applies to war, and always has.

[Undesired Walrus]

Non-violence is great, but the fact that it is so often honourable doesn't immediately disqualify certain wars from being just.

[quarky]

Sure; just wars is a good compromise. To me, it would require something very clear and obvious. War is morally serious stuff. It shouldn't be taken lightly. Our last few were not necessarily necessary, imho.

Its an odd game. It doesn't matter much how you get in a war, but once in it, then there are rules and war crimes.

[Skeptic]

<-- Brain-dead retard.
<--Chum.

Yup.

This "concern for the poor brainwashed soldiers" is simply social snobism and bigotry, flouting one's "superior" education and insight that allows one to not be "brainwashed" like those inferiors creatures, the soldiery.

Like most bigots, when confronted with someone who happens to be a soldier (or Black, or Jewish, or whatever), they backtrack: "oh, we don't mean YOU, we mean all those OTHER brainwashed soldiers, which..."

"Present company excepted", in other words.

Unsurprisingly, this arrogance comes together with ignorance: those who would "educate" the "brainwashed" soldiers about what is "really going on" turn out to know little of the world, still less about the military, and nothing at all about the average soldier's views and motivation.

Epictetus, again, put it best nearly 2000 years ago: "the brave man is called a fool by the coward."

[leftysergeant]

Being patriotic is idiocy? I see...

When it crosses over into jingoism and a belief that the military option is always the most effective, yes.

[leftysergeant]

You could ask Dick if war profiteering was so great why did Halliburton drop KBR who had a lot of no bid contarcts?

Was it because of the poor profits? 4.6%, Pre Tax, in some years.

Those figures may be fudged. There was aslo a bad PR thing going on.

Or do we expect the military to do everything for themselves nowadays and forget civilian companies.

Looking at the number of soldiers who have been electrocuted or caught dysentery in KBR-built shower points, not a bad idea.

[applecorped]

Looking at the number of soldiers who have been electrocuted or caught dysentery in KBR-built shower points, not a bad idea.

What numbers?

[foxholeatheist]

Eh, if they are using KBR stuff they're POG Fobbits anyway and not really soldiers.

[Darth Rotor]

When it crosses over into jingoism and a belief that the military option is always the most effective, yes.
Which is why Bush and Cheney attacked Venezuela, Iran and North Korea ... wait a minute, they didn't.

I wonder why.

@ applecorped: I think it was two, but I'd need to refresh the memory on that. The company ought to be liable for that, negligence. IIRC, the court cases are still on going, not sure, would need to check.

DR

[Prometheus]

Eh, if they are using KBR stuff they're POG Fobbits anyway and not really soldiers.

So do they in any way contribute to the effort, or are we just sending them over for ***** and giggles?

[Skeptic]

Why not decide not to kill anyone?"

*ponders*

Because some people richly deserve killing.

To go for the obvious, the concentration camp staff in Nazi Germany would be one such group. Killing them would have saved millions of innocents.

So does Osama bin Laden, though not on the same scale. Had he, or others in his organization, been killed in time, 9/11 might have been prevented.

Had Stalin been assassinated in 1931, or Mao in 1951, it is quite possible that tens of millions they killed would have lived. Killing a suicide bomber on his way to blow up children saves those children. If Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was shot through the head by one of his intended victims, she'd have saved not only herself but others -- for the cheap, cheap price of the worthless life of a psychopathic sleazeball.

I am an IDF soldier on reserve duty. When I am in active service, if I happen to see a suicide bomber in a car, or a Hamas man aiming a gun or trying to fire a rocket, you bet your behind that I'd do my best to kill them.

It's a hell of a job, as anybody who ever had to do it would tell you. But deciding "not to kill anyone" merely means letting those who would butcher babies have a field day.

[Zeuzzz]

This "concern for the poor brainwashed soldiers" is simply social snobism and bigotry, flouting one's "superior" education and insight that allows one to not be "brainwashed" like those inferiors creatures, the soldiery.


A certain amount of de-humanizing has to be done to make a person kill another person. Call it what you will, training or brainwashing, its entire premise for working relies on entirely what you just said; "snobism and bigotry, flouting one's "superior" education and insight that allows one to not be "brainwashed" like those inferiors creatures" ... that they have to kill.

Odd that.

Like most bigots, when confronted with someone who happens to be a soldier (or Black, or Jewish, or whatever), they backtrack: "oh, we don't mean YOU, we mean all those OTHER brainwashed soldiers, which..."


Theres a difference between a war veteran who has risked his life based on the orders of a colonel, and the politician that gives the colonel their instructions based on their political decisions.

Unsurprisingly, this arrogance comes together with ignorance: those who would "educate" the "brainwashed" soldiers about what is "really going on" turn out to know little of the world, still less about the military, and nothing at all about the average soldier's views and motivation.


Now fill me in jack: What would the over-riding motives be?

Epictetus, again, put it best nearly 2000 years ago: "the brave man is called a fool by the coward."


And I believe a well know french proverb goes something along the lines "A coward often deals a mortal blow to the brave".

.... on that note, on what basis are you calling me a coward? Because I am not enrolled in the military?

[Zeuzzz]

Because some people richly deserve killing.


Oh your a nice un. :rolleyes:

To go for the obvious, the concentration camp staff in Nazi Germany would be one such group. Killing them would have saved millions of innocents.


Hogwash. Would have likely created more anger and resistance at the time. Lock em up; and give them mental health support to treat the brainwashing.

Had Stalin been assassinated in 1931, or Mao in 1951, it is quite possible that tens of millions they killed would have lived. Killing a suicide bomber on his way to blow up children saves those children. If Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was shot through the head by one of his intended victims, she'd have saved not only herself but others -- for the cheap, cheap price of the worthless life of a psychopathic sleazeball.


And I suppose you would be an advocate of the same killings of George and Tony to save the lives of the near millions now dead in the middle east?

Or the same assassinations for any other regime or political party in the last few decades that has killed (multi)millions?

I am an IDF soldier on reserve duty. When I am in active service, if I happen to see a suicide bomber in a car, or a Hamas man aiming a gun or trying to fire a rocket, you bet your behind that I'd do my best to kill them.


Then you are one hell of a man.

By all means do, but ask yourself before or after pulling the trigger, what fuels the hate that has driven such murderers to such extreme measures?

It's a hell of a job, as anybody who ever had to do it would tell you. But deciding "not to kill anyone" merely means letting those who would butcher babies have a field day.


You dont have to kill those that butcher babies to stop them butchering babies.

"Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation, or creed." Bertrand Russel

[Tailgater]

You dont have to kill those that butcher babies to stop them butchering babies.


Well, quit wasting your time on the internet and get to it.

[Zeuzzz]

Well, quit wasting your time on the internet and get to it.


If I knew of any such cases I would.

You know of any baby butcherer death squads I could sign up to? Or are such criminals dealt with by civil law now-a-days?

[Tailgater]

I don't know. Run up to a suicide bomber before he detonates and ask him.

[funk de fino]

Those figures may be fudged. There was aslo a bad PR thing going on.

That exact figure was from one set of financials. Certainly not fudged. The PR thing certainly, along with the recent financial horror story from their fine which was mainly KBR from what I gather. They laughed when we were fined around $40 mil then took a hit 10 times that.

Looking at the number of soldiers who have been electrocuted or caught dysentery in KBR-built shower points, not a bad idea.

But unrealistic.

[Tailgater]

Better yet, wave to the guy with the shoulder rocket and tell him we can work this out in a civil court.

[Zeuzzz]

I don't know.


And so endeth any civilized discussion with Tailgater.

[Zeuzzz]

Better yet, wave to the guy with the shoulder rocket and tell him we can work this out in a civil court.


Or not!

Better yet, get the suicide bomber, and their family that live close by if they are available, to try to shout up to the stealth bomber blowing the living crap out of thier houses and people to ask why.

[Tailgater]

And so endeth any civilized discussion with Tailgater.

The discussion was over long ago in this thread. We are on to utopian lunacy and zingers about baby butchers.

[Tailgater]

Or not!

Better yet, get the suicide bomber, and their family that live close by if they are available, to try to shout up to the stealth bomber blowing the living crap out of thier houses and people to ask why.

It wasn't a bomber. It was an inside job.;)

[Zeuzzz]

It wasn't a bomber. It was an inside job.;)


Evidence of obfuscation noted.

[Zeuzzz]

Theres no significant moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Can we agree on that?

[Tailgater]

Evidence of obfuscation noted.

As opposed to evidence you have that the Hamas soldier firing a rocket, Skeptic is refering to, just had his house hit by a stealth bomber and not recruited from some other place.

[Tailgater]

Theres no significant moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Can we agree on that?

Technically both kill innocent people, but one is all of the time and one is some of the time. One is targeted to kill the highest number of innocents and one is strategically (and not always successfully) to kill the least.

[Ziggurat]

Theres no significant moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Can we agree on that?

No. Suicide bombers primarily target civilians. Stealth bombers have always targeted military targets. The difference is important.

And let me know next time we kidnap a retarded kid (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/01/1107228703372.html?oneclick=true) and strap him to one of our JDAMs in an effort to blow up voters.

[Zeuzzz]

just had his house hit by a stealth bomber


Dreadful isn't it?

Yet his inhumain action will too often be publically touted as the doings of the group you said.

[Zeuzzz]

No. Suicide bombers primarily target civilians. Stealth bombers have always targeted military targets. The difference is important.


Should we take a look at how many civilian deaths each method has caused in total over the years? Or is it best we gloss over that figure :)

And let me know next time we kidnap a retarded kid (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/01/1107228703372.html?oneclick=true) and strap him to one of our JDAMs in an effort to blow up voters.


Tragic story.

Sigh.

Still so black and white. Guess you'd have to be colorblind to see it.

[Ziggurat]

Should we take a look at how many civilian deaths each method has caused in total over the years? Or is it best we gloss over that figure :)

Go ahead and try. But I suspect you will rather quickly move the goalpost.

Tragic story.

Sigh.

Still so black and white. Guess you'd have to be colorblind to see it.

Seeing that kind of evil as anything OTHER than moral pitch black is not any kind of sophistication, it is a hallucination. There is no excuse for that. There is no rationalization for that. I understand full well that the world is full of nuances, but this isn't one of them!

[Zeuzzz]

utopian lunacy


Funny you would call ideas of 'utopia' lunacy. The world changes. Slowly, but it does.

Now would you not consider the world we live in to be somewhat dystopic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia)?

Would you not want to change that for the better?

[foxholeatheist]

I acknowledge that this Zeuzzz dude is correct and all soldiers are depraved killers.

Because he refuses to even listen to folks that are out there actually doing the fighting it's clear that this belief in steely eyed robotic killing machines is ideology and not grounded in any sort of fact or understanding.

You ask the idiots that shell us why they're doing it. I would but you know, I don't have the most TV friendly face for Al-Jazera and CNN and such.

[Zeuzzz]

I acknowledge that this Zeuzzz dude is correct and all soldiers are depraved killers.

Because he refuses to even listen to folks that are out there actually doing the fighting it's clear that this belief in steely eyed robotic killing machines is ideology and not grounded in any sort of fact or understanding.



Go on then, I've started an entire thread for you to continue this:
Continuation of discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5230980#post5230980) your input would be much appreciated to get the discussion going.

[Skeptic]

By all means do, but ask yourself before or after pulling the trigger, what fuels the hate that has driven such murderers to such extreme measures?

Oh, I do, I do. The other day I saw a woman shouting, "help! rape!" as a man with a knife was about to rape her. I had a gun, and thought of shooting him, but then I thought: what awful thing had she done to him to push him to such extreme behavior? So I let her be raped, she probably deserved it.

You dont have to kill those that butcher babies to stop them butchering babies.

More often than not, you do. When you see a group of Hamas men setting up a rocket to be lanuched at a city, or a suicide bomber going to detonate himself, believe me, nothing but killing does the job. I suppose you have other suggestions. Invite them to tea?

[Skeptic]

I acknowledge that this Zeuzzz dude is correct and all soldiers are depraved killers.

It's amazing how he found out this truth without ever having served in the military, or, it seems, even meeting any soldiers, in his life.

He googled "proof that soldiers are depraved killers", I guess.

[Skeptic]

Seeing that kind of evil as anything OTHER than moral pitch black is not any kind of sophistication, it is a hallucination.

There's always the old fall back: "what have we done to them to make them act that way?"

I raped, killed, and ate a baby yesterday (not necessarily in that order). Ergo, according to this logic, the baby -- or his parents -- or someone of their nationality -- or some company they work for -- just had to do something very, very bad to me, so it's all their fault!

Otherwise, I wouldn't have done something that awful, would I?

[Darth Rotor]

Theres no significant moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons. Can we agree on that?

Wrong. The Stealth bomber frequently kills no innocent people. Your lack of understanding of how modern air strike work rather leaped out at me.

Other times, people nearby an air strike die, people not necessarily targeted, or who just happened to be within the frag pattern. That accounts for "killing the innocent" and is generally within the Geneva Conventions that address that precise problem. It recognizes that this is a problem. Deliberately targeting those innocents is indeed proscribed.

The suicide bomber deliberately targets those innocents, and/or takes few to no measures to avoid attacking, or killing them. The suicide bomber does not acknowledge the entire system that established the Geneva Protocols and Conventions. The core difference is moral.

So, no, you are as usual wrong, there is a significant moral difference.

Is there a kinetic and practical difference?

I don't see much of one, if you were close enough to the blast area to get killed.

DR

[Skeptic]

Quoting myself from a different thread:

These sort of "peace camp" folks are to soldiers what homeopaths are to real doctors.

Both know nothing at all about the subject they pontificate about (war or medicine), have no training in the field, and for that matter rarely even know or speak with those who do (soldiers or physicians).

But that doesn't stop them from:

(a) claiming everybody who really knows something about the subject is evil and lying and awful, due to a "brainwashing conspiracy" by the "establishment" to "hide the truth",

and

(b) Declaring how wonderful things would be if we'd only let them run the show, and take over running military campaigns or hospitals.

Both just going on and on, with complete conviction, pontificating on a subject it is blatantly obvious (to all but themselves) that they know nothing about.

[Lupie]

A certain amount of de-humanizing has to be done to make a person kill another person. Call it what you will, training or brainwashing, its entire premise for working relies on entirely what you just said; "snobism and bigotry, flouting one's "superior" education and insight that allows one to not be "brainwashed" like those inferiors creatures" ... that they have to kill.

Have you ever killed a person? If not, how do you know what has to be done to supposedly "make a person kill another person"?

L.