NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question. I won't prejudice the results any more than necessary by putting excess blurb in the first post.


For the interests of clarity we will ignore the existence of military medics.








EDIT: apologies for the extraneous capital H in the title, both my keyboard and mouse are acting funny today.

Simple question. I won't prejudice the results any more than necessary by putting excess blurb in the first post.


For the interests of clarity we will ignore the existence of military medics.

Well you cant just ignore military medics for they have the toughest jobs of all. Not only do they treat injuries and save lives, many medics do so while under hostile fire.

So by that reasoning, you cannot ignore military medics. It is unusual for medics in this country to come under fire by hostile people. It has happened but they stay out of the way till it is safe for them to treat the wounded.

Military medics do not have such luxery. They have to treat wounded and evacute them while facing enemy fire and thus risk injury to themselves as well as death.

Therefor, I admire both the Military and the medical personnel.

Simple question. I won't prejudice the results any more than necessary by putting excess blurb in the first post.


For the interests of clarity we will ignore the existence of military medics.





EDIT: apologies for the extraneous capital H in the title, both my keyboard and mouse are acting funny today.

Medical. I watch M*A*S*H.

Medical FTW!

I feel that we shouldn't overlook the medics who work in the inner cities as well. There are a lot of places where medics go into situations where there have been explosions or gunfire and help the woulded. Oftentimes, they come under fire as well or in danger of further explosions or whatever.

I can't help put admire the military. Not only do they put their lines on the line for us, but they also have to cope with a population which doesn't fully appriciate them and what they do for us and would still die for the countries and our safety and freedoms.

Do you honestly doubt the outcome?

Well you cant just ignore military medics for they have the toughest jobs of all. Not only do they treat injuries and save lives, many medics do so while under hostile fire.

So by that reasoning, you cannot ignore military medics. It is unusual for medics in this country to come under fire by hostile people. It has happened but they stay out of the way till it is safe for them to treat the wounded.

Military medics do not have such luxery. They have to treat wounded and evacute them while facing enemy fire and thus risk injury to themselves as well as death.

Therefor, I admire both the Military and the medical personnel.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

medical-military are unemployed and unproductive, a drain on society

Medical.

medical-military are unemployed and unproductive, a drain on society

What are you talking about? The Medical Corps. gives up phenominal pay and luxury to save the lives of soldiers in battle! How is that unemployed and unproductive?

military including military medics.

Medical.

Which would you rather - remove all military personnel and equipment from the earth, or remove all medical personnel and equipment from the earth?

That's not to say I don't admire the military - there is always a need for them, in many different roles. However, medical professionals contribute more positively than those in the military.

Medical. I watch M*A*S*H.

Alan Alda is dreamy.

Alan Alda is dreamy.

Did you ever see the Futurama episode with the robotic Alan Alda?

Do you honestly doubt the outcome?

Actually with the current votes at 7:17 I'm kind of surprised the way this is going.

medical-military are unemployed and unproductive, a drain on society

Oh this is pure horseshit. As a son of both a former officer (father retired) and an elisted person (mom) this is an insult.

Actually with the current votes at 7:17 I'm kind of surprised the way this is going.

You should have added a both option.

Actually with the current votes at 7:17 I'm kind of surprised the way this is going.

Really? I'm not.

You should have added a both option.

Why? It is an either/or question. It clearly says "Who do you admire more?"

If you can't make your mind up thats your problem and not the polls.

Why? It is an either/or question. It clearly says "Who do you admire more?"

If you can't make your mind up thats your problem and not the polls.

I admire them both equally. That is why I have not voted in the poll.

Did you ever see the Futurama episode with the robotic Alan Alda?

It was pretty close to the last couple seasons of M*A*S*H, I thought. Although I love the early seasons. :D

To answer the OP, I have no admiration for the planned destruction of lives, but a very high regard for the medical profession. As long as it is persued as profession and calling, rather than a way of making a lot of money.

Really? I'm not.

I'm kind of surprised the military got that many votes, to be honest.

Depends on the person. Some soldiers have noble reasons for the things they do, some don’t. Some doctors have noble reasons for the things they do, some don’t.

Why? It is an either/or question. It clearly says "Who do you admire more?"

Well, 'whom' rather than 'who', but yes to the meat of your post.

I think I have to go with Military, just for the fact that they leave their families and homes to go out and do things that I can't.

I really am digging my PT this week though, for the first time in about 3 years I am only in moderate pain.

I have a very high regard for the medical profession. As long as it is persued as profession and calling, rather than a way of making a lot of money.
I worry about some of the medical students I know who are very likely to be doctors in the next two or three years. And, as you hold that view, so should you.

Well, 'whom' rather than 'who', but yes to the meat of your post.

and what about those of us who admire them both equally?

and what about those of us who admire them both equally?

What about you?

What about you?

Nothing. I admire them both equally and will not choose one over the other. That is like asking a parent what child he/she loves more in a multi child family.

and what about those of us who admire them both equally?

Then you can't vote as there isn't an option. And that isn't contradition it's just a fact.

(Sorry I'm being very argumentative tonight)

and what about those of us who admire them both equally?
You say "I admire both equally", then you drop it.

I worry about some of the medical students I know who are very likely to be doctors in the next two or three years. And, as you hold that view, so should you.

I know enough idiot, money-grabbing, arrogant doctors. Some in my own family, I'm ashamed to admit. Then again, I know a lot more idiot soldiers.

And then there's my mother and my brother who are both dedicated nurses and who I admire greatly for that.

Medical. No question. My God, this isn't something I have difficulty reaching a decision about, there simply is no contest at all. None!

Nothing. I admire them both equally and will not choose one over the other. That is like asking a parent what child he/she loves more in a multi child family.

Whatever, we get your point. Move on.

You say "I admire both equally", then you drop it.

For a poll to be accurate, you do have to have a both or no opinion/do not care option. That is common curtesy.

I'm done. I have some last minute packing to do.

I tend to view it this way, without medicine, how long would the military last? Afterall, the military has relied heavily on medical support. Hard to fight when you are gushing blood all over the place.

Nothing. I admire them both equally and will not choose one over the other. That is like asking a parent what child he/she loves more in a multi child family.

I like one of my kids more than the other one.........*runs*

i got people in my family who are docter's who i still can't work out how they became one

an i know some people who should not be let near weapon's as cops , military, or as a civilian

then some of my family say they are going into hiding if i get into the Army

For a poll to be accurate, you do have to have a both or no opinion/do not care option. That is common curtesy.

But you can't have 'both' as the question is an either/or one. Saying having both would be utterly pointless and you might as well not have it.

then some of my family say they are going into hiding if i get into the Army

Isn't that always comforting? ;)

Can I go into hiding too?

For a poll to be accurate, you do have to have a both or no opinion/do not care option. That is common curtesy.

I'm done. I have some last minute pacing to do.
But then the poll would be inaccurate as the question asks which you admire more. Polls are not the be all and end all of NS General, no matter what anyone says.

Isn't that always comforting? ;)

Can I go into hiding too?

they are jackass's an i did say i would shot they knee cap's out when i get my hands on a F88 Rifle

which they know i know how to use one

i just don't know how to pull it apart to clean it

Medical of course. If not for doctors I dont think I would be alive anymore.

I like one of my kids more than the other one.........*runs*

You do not!

You do not!

sure I do. It changes every year or so, which one is my favorite. I go to great lengths to conceal my true thoughts though.

It's bad to like one of them more. :(

sure I do. It changes every year or so, which one is my favorite. I go to great lengths to conceal my true thoughts though.

It's bad to like one of them more. :(

I get along with one better than the other, at any given time (with that fluctuating of course between them), or one may be up to something more interesting than the other, but I'd never say I like one over the other. But maybe when I say like, I actually mean love. And maybe when you say like, you mean what I mentioned earlier.

I get along with one better than the other, at any given time (with that fluctuating of course between them), or one may be up to something more interesting than the other, but I'd never say I like one over the other. But maybe when I say like, I actually mean love. And maybe when you say like, you mean what I mentioned earlier.

oh, I love them both the same, it's just "which one do I like to hang out with?" when I say like.

I get a surprising amount of alone time with each, and one of them is just cooler than the other right now.

Well you cant just ignore military medics for they have the toughest jobs of all. Not only do they treat injuries and save lives, many medics do so while under hostile fire.

So by that reasoning, you cannot ignore military medics. It is unusual for medics in this country to come under fire by hostile people. It has happened but they stay out of the way till it is safe for them to treat the wounded.

Military medics do not have such luxery. They have to treat wounded and evacute them while facing enemy fire and thus risk injury to themselves as well as death.

Therefor, I admire both the Military and the medical personnel.
Medics in the Military.
But Military over Medical personnel.

oh, I love them both the same, it's just "which one do I like to hang out with?" when I say like.

I get a surprising amount of alone time with each, and one of them is just cooler than the other right now.

Oh, well that's bound to happen. It's not bad, don't worry.

I admire them both, because they are one of the few jobs that can be truely called a 'profession.'

If you read Samuel P. Huntington's Officership as a Profession it lists several characteristics that make officers, judges, and doctors professionals - expertise, corporateness, and responsibility. One of the things about responsibility that truely defines profession is the fact that these jobs care for and answer to society, they are sworn to protect and serve society, and if they break that oath, they can no longer be considered that profession.

Huntington gives the example of a chemist - if a chemist chooses to use his knowledge for evil, he is still a chemist. If a doctor were to use his knowledge for evil, you can't really call him a doctor anymore.

In this respect, I don't think you can really say 'which is better?' Both serve a higher calling, both put others before themselves, and I admire people in both fields. I could not in good faith choose one over the other.

Huntington gives the example of a chemist - if a chemist chooses to use his knowledge for evil, he is still a chemist. If a doctor were to use his knowledge for evil, you can't really call him a doctor anymore.

Why not? He or she demonstrably remains a doctor until they are stripped of that by an administrative body.

For the interests of clarity we will ignore the existence of military medics.


I'm gonna echo the others that oppose ignoring their existence. My sis is a corpsman. They do some of the most noble work (saving peoples lives) in some of the worst places (war zones).

Other than that, I'd have to say I admire the medical profession more, simply because it takes more integrity to save someone's life than to kill them.

Medical. No question. My God, this isn't something I have difficulty reaching a decision about, there simply is no contest at all. None!
Big, huge.....DITTO!!

hmmmm....Do I admire the person whose purpose is to kill me or the person whose purpose is to save my life when the former shoots me?

hmmm....

Have to think about this. Such a tough decision.

Well you cant just ignore military medics
*can.....does

hmmmm....Do I admire the person whose purpose is to kill me or the person whose purpose is to save my life when the former shoots me?

hmmm....

Have to think about this. Such a tough decision.


Exactly ... I couldn't have said it better

Medical.

The medical profession. While they both may protect lives, the military tends to do it through killing, and often of civilians as well as other militaries. Also, in many cases the military doesn't serve for the purpose of saving lives, but furthering political agendas.

Of course, the ordinary soldier tends to not kill thinking that they are furthering political agendas, but the fact remains that they kill in the name of saving lives, while the people in the medical profession save lives in the name of saving lives (as well as other, less life threatening purposes).

Besides, if the world had only soldiers instead of doctors, vast amounts of people would die, while if we had only doctors instead of soldiers, vast amounts of people woud be saved.

Medical: professional lifesavers

Military: professional killers

damn, can't decide

I think I have to go with Military, just for the fact that they leave their families and homes to go out and do things that I can't.
So do doctors, surely you know the kinds of hours they have to work?

Come to think of it, fishermen have it just as bad, as do a ream of other professions. But their job is clearly not as important as the soldiers' job. :rolleyes:

You should have added a both option.
While I sympathise with your position, that option would be pointless, as almost everyone would vote for it.

While I sympathise with your position, that option would be pointless, as almost everyone would vote for it.

Are you kidding me?? I hope so, because I would find seeing most people say they admired the military - without any qualifiers such as "in my country" mind you - just as much as they admired medical personell to be truly disapointing.

I mean seriously, look at the different militaries around the world today. There are a whole lot of them I find to be completely opposite from "admirable". But hey, feel free to admire the Chinese, German, Syrian, British, North Korean, Israeli, Iranian, Cuban, Serbian, Albanian, American AND the Sudanese military equally to medical personell from just about every corner of the globe. (Note: I'm not saying that these are all "bad" militaries. Just that I would never ever admire them all. Not the majority, not even half of them.)

I guess all I can do is shake my head and pity your values. Oh, and laugh at you behind your back. But you knew that was coming.

interesting question.

I find it fairly easy to imagine my life without the medical profession. Mainly because I have never been much of a burden on the NHS. Without doctors I would still have wonky teeth, a certain piece of skin, have had very bad hayfever when I was younger and that's about it. Maybe some terrible diseases would still be around, but my immune system is pretty good. I already had natural immunity to TB (almost as good as a Japanese friend who had already had the TB vaccination) before I was given the vaccine. I also didn't catch whooping cough (a very contagious airborne bacterial infection) when I had to sleep in the same room as my sisters who had it (due to circumstances). Hence my mum never believed me when I tried to fake illness to skip school.

Like without the military is much harder to imagine. And without their equipment is even harder to imagine. Even your barefists can be a lethal weapon with the right training.

Hence I believe that like without medicine is possible, whereas life without the military is not. It is generally very impractical for a state to not have a military for both international and domestic reasons. It is generally impractical for a state to not have an effcient medical industry/system.

As to whom I admire most. Both professions require training to help people deal with the most stressful part of that job, whether it be a combat situation or a medical emergency. State employess also take a lot of shit like low wages and poor conditions. The only major difference I can think of is that the military work as a team to harm someone they don't know and who can remain faceless. Whereas the medical profession can work as a team to help someone they've never met before and under stressful conditions. And for that reason I'd have to say I admire the medical profession more. Yes the military help to defend others, but they are also defending their friends and family, which is probably who they think of first, rather than some bloke they've never met before.

Medical. In an ideal world, there would be no need for either, of course, but we will probably quash humanity's stupid desire for conflict long before we manage to finally defeat illness.

You should have added a both option.

He should have added a "Neither" option.

Why the hell would I admire either of them?

I certainly don't admire soldiers and I have enough friends that are doctors to have lost any "half-god in white" delusions long ago. Don't get me wrong - from what I can tell, they are actually excellent doctors, the whole bunch of them, and their patients are in the best hands.
But I also have a friend who's an excellent civil engineer and another who's an excellent information system consultant and I certainly don't admire them for that.

So, what, just because someone spent their time at university cramming pharmaceutical latin and studying neurology instead of cramming maths and studying statics I should admire them?

Uh, no.

Doctors. They get better drugs. :)

Lets see, I admire a military person such as Romeo Dellaire who's entire career and mindset was based upon his inate desire to help and protect people as much as I admire a member of Doctors Without Borders.


Then again, I dispise a gung-ho, racist, grunt who got into the army as a way to legitimize their desire to inflict harm on others as much as I do some plastic surgeon who got into the profession entirely for the purposes of avarice and who's sole contribution to society is to suck fat out of abdomens or create bigger tits.

Which is to say, there are admirable and ignoble qualities to elements of both professions - and I'm a little too old for blind hero worship or any other such romanticized notions of human nature.

I admire individuals more than groups thereof. My closest friend and the most decent person I know drives a truck for a living. Who someone is and what they do for income are two very different things indeed.

Lets see, I admire a military person such as Romeo Dellaire who's entire career and mindset was based upon his inate desire to help and protect people as much as I admire a member of Doctors Without Borders.


Then again, I dispise a gung-ho, racist, grunt who got into the army as a way to legitimize their desire to inflict harm on others as much as I do some plastic surgeon who got into the profession entirely for the purposes of avarice and who's sole contribution to society is to suck fat out of abdomens or create bigger tits.

Which is to say, there are admirable and ignoble qualities to elements of both professions - and I'm a little too old for blind hero worship or any other such romanticized notions of human nature.

I admire individuals more than groups thereof. My closest friend and the most decent person I know drives a truck for a living. Who someone is and what they do for income are two very different things indeed.
All very true, esp. the last sentence.

I could maybe admire (though I still cringe at the word) someone for being fantastic at their job, like say somebody is a fantastic teacher who's really good with and liked by his students - but that doesn't mean I "admire teachers".

i myself am a med student (1st year so it's entirely possible that i'm doing something else next year) and a pacifist so i guess i'll go with medical.


To answer the OP, I have no admiration for the planned destruction of lives, but a very high regard for the medical profession. As long as it is persued as profession and calling, rather than a way of making a lot of money.

i think i disagree. there are a lot of other professions you can do to make a lot of money so i think it's still better to do something like medicine wich i consider as something 'better' than lets say lawyer or ceo. (note: i realise better isn't the best word in this context, but i couldn't find anything better).
and maybe also because i don't study medicine because it's a calling. i took the decision a few months before i started the studies, so it surely isn't something i've always wanted to do. it's more because i think medicine is an interesting profession and interesting studies and because it almost guarantees a job. also i wanted to a job i find usefull and in wich i come in contact with a lot of people.

i hope that made sense because i'm still not really awake.


I admire individuals more than groups thereof. My closest friend and the most decent person I know drives a truck for a living. Who someone is and what they do for income are two very different things indeed.

QFT

Doctors. They get better drugs. :)

Are the soldiers not still issued with morphine?

i think i disagree. there are a lot of other professions you can do to make a lot of money so i think it's still better to do something like medicine wich i consider as something 'better' than lets say lawyer or ceo. (note: i realise better isn't the best word in this context, but i couldn't find anything better).
and maybe also because i don't study medicine because it's a calling. i took the decision a few months before i started the studies, so it surely isn't something i've always wanted to do. it's more because i think medicine is an interesting profession and interesting studies and because it almost guarantees a job. also i wanted to a job i find usefull and in wich i come in contact with a lot of people.


Well, the thing is I know a lot of doctors who practice medicine much like a lawyer would practice law or a ceo would practice... well, whatever.
They've set up practice, dealing with everyday issues and transfer everything else, and they're in the profession for the money.
On the other hand, I do know some dedicated lawyers who fight a large number of pro bono cases on environmental issues, or for people who couldn't afford the normal fees.

Are the soldiers not still issued with morphine?
Possibly, but I'm fairly sure they can't (legally) get their hands on medical-grade cocaine.

Well, the thing is I know a lot of doctors who practice medicine much like a lawyer would practice law or a ceo would practice... well, whatever.
They've set up practice, dealing with everyday issues and transfer everything else, and they're in the profession for the money.
On the other hand, I do know some dedicated lawyers who fight a large number of pro bono cases on environmental issues, or for people who couldn't afford the normal fees.

the lawyer thing was because i had kind of the same discussion last night, nothing against lawyers really, or any other profession.
and i can imagine there are a lot of doctors like that, but you don't know why they became doctors, maybe they just became demotivated after a while.
it's just that i don't know a lot of people who study medicine for the money but on the other hand i also don't know many for who it's only a calling. mostly it's a mix of different things. and then there are also a lot of people who's parents are doctors.

Are the soldiers not still issued with morphine?

Do they hand that to grunts, or only to field medics, the existence of which we are conveniently ignoring?

(I suppose the other exception would be pilots provided with amphetamines, but i'm not sure if that's commonplace or even done at all anymore.)

Do they hand that to grunts, or only to field medics, the existence of which we are conveniently ignoring?

(I suppose the other exception would be pilots provided with amphetamines, but i'm not sure if that's commonplace or even done at all anymore.)

i thought that most soldiers got some kind of amphetamines, but on the other hand, wht do i know about the military?

i thought that most soldiers got some kind of amphetamines, but on the other hand, wht do i know about the military?

*shrugs*

Hm, well. Assuming you're correct, I can continue to argue my case...

Doctors give other people drugs, whilst the military keeps them to itself...

There. Argument twisted. *whistles nonchalantly*

So do doctors, surely you know the kinds of hours they have to work?

Come to think of it, fishermen have it just as bad, as do a ream of other professions. But their job is clearly not as important as the soldiers' job. :rolleyes:

don't roll your eyes at me[/mom voice]

I work a lot too, people who "work a lot" don't get any sympathy from me. I do however have 6 Marines (and 4 doctors btw for full disclosure) in my family and what they do, isn't something the everyday person signs up for, my brother in law is on his second trip overseas, he missed the birth of his first child, and he missed her death, he puts his life on the line for his family and everyone else, everyday of his life. :mad: [/rant over]

don't roll your eyes at me[/mom voice]

I work a lot too, people who "work a lot" don't get any sympathy from me. I do however have 6 Marines (and 4 doctors btw for full disclosure) in my family and what they do, isn't something the everyday person signs up for, my brother in law is on his second trip overseas, he missed the birth of his first child, and he missed her death, he puts his life on the line for his family and everyone else, everyday of his life. :mad: [/rant over]

Don't get me wrong... but how does him being overseas profit anyone?

Don't get me wrong... but how does him being overseas profit anyone?

well, according to shrub it keeps the terrorists from bothering us over here.

I only used my brother in law as the most recent, what I think about the current war doesn't really affect my respect for the military in general.

[completely ignores most of the thread]

SNIP

Yay go me :D (though please don’t admire me I don’t like it)

I say medical though guy nurses have balls of steel

well, according to shrub it keeps the terrorists from bothering us over here.

I only used my brother in law as the most recent, what I think about the current war doesn't really affect my respect for the military in general.

Ah well. What I think about wars in general does affect what I think of the military.

Ah well. What I think about wars in general does affect what I think of the military.

war is sometimes a necessary evil.

war is sometimes a necessary evil.

Defense, maybe. War, no.

Defense, maybe. War, no.

So do you feel Englands and USA's participation in WW1 and 2 was defence, or unjustified?

Do they hand that to grunts, or only to field medics, the existence of which we are conveniently ignoring?

Only medics get anything of that sort. Not even those who are qualified as "combat lifesavers" get morphine.

i thought that most soldiers got some kind of amphetamines

Nope. The only drugs I was issued while in Iraq were mefloquine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefloquine) and doxycycline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxycycline). The doxy was because mefloquine isn't good to take for an extended period of time.

edit: As a note this is all US military procedure. I haven't the slightest idea what other militaries do.

Honestly, I have no idea where you people hear strange things like this.

So do you feel Englands and USA's participation in WW1 and 2 was defence, or unjustified?

In both cases, it was the result of their previous inaction or even support of the regimes they later fought.
As such, I would say it was unjustified.

Honestly, I have no idea where you people hear strange things like this.

the liberal media ;)

i think i picked it up from a thread a few months ago or totaly made it up but forgot about that.

In both cases, it was the result of their previous inaction or even support of the regimes they later fought.
As such, I would say it was unjustified.

So you would have prefered it if Nazi Germany would have reigned supreme in europe, commiting much more mass genocide?

So you would have prefered it if Nazi Germany would have reigned supreme in europe, commiting much more mass genocide?

I would have preferred if WW I would have been avoided by diplomacy, thereby avoiding the Versaille treaty, thereby giving Hitler no grounds to become chancellor in the first place.
The fact that countries such as the UK and the USA failed at preventing the Nazi regime in the first place, and even supported it vastly in the 1930s, does not provide justification for the war they were later forced to fight.

I would have preferred if WW I would have been avoided by diplomacy, thereby avoiding the Versaille treaty, thereby giving Hitler no grounds to become chancellor in the first place.
The fact that countries such as the UK and the USA failed at preventing the Nazi regime in the first place, and even supported it vastly in the 1930s, does not provide justification for the war they were later forced to fight.

That sounds pretty insane to me: oh crap we accidently got Hitler in charge of germany, now because of that we should just let Hitler murder millions and millions of innocents to teach us a lesson, because it would be unjustified for us to stop him.:rolleyes:

I agree with some posters - I don't go around and admire people simply for their professions, if anything it's individual people I admire. But given the question of the OP, I stand by my previous posts - Still medical ;)

That sounds pretty insane to me: oh crap we accidently got Hitler in charge of germany, now because of that we should just let Hitler murder millions and millions of innocents to teach us a lesson, because it would be unjustified for us to stop him.:rolleyes:

"Oh crap, we helped Hitler into power and stabilised his regime, now because of that let's murder millions and millions of innocents to correct our mistake" sounds saner to you then?

"Oh crap, we helped Hitler into power and stabilised his regime, now because of that let's murder millions and millions of innocents to correct our mistake" sounds saner to you then?

So you admit that you would rather have europe under Nazi rule, given the situation that England and the USA may have accidently helped Hitler into power. Also given the fact that when you sign up for the army, you expect to be killed and any soldier you do kill is not an unlawful kill so it is not murder.

So you admit that you would rather have europe under Nazi rule, given the situation that England and the USA may have accidently helped Hitler into power. Also given the fact that when you sign up for the army, you expect to be killed and any soldier you do kill is not an unlawful kill so it is not murder.

No, I wouldn't. I would rather have seen the regime prevented, not fought.
I never said it was murder, I'm well aware of the legal situation. I said they kill.

No, I wouldn't. I would rather have seen the regime prevented, not fought.
I never said it was murder, I'm well aware of the legal situation. I said they kill.

But in the situation that the regime was not prevented, do you still think it would be unjustified to stop them?

But in the situation that the regime was not prevented, do you still think it would be unjustified to stop them?

That case is a bit like the situation in Iraq now... and unjustified war. The only thing less justified would be to stop it before the situation is stable.
Same with the Nazi regime : the war was unjustified, and could have been prevented. But the people who got to decide decided against that.

That case is a bit like the situation in Iraq now... and unjustified war. The only thing less justified would be to stop it before the situation is stable.
Same with the Nazi regime : the war was unjustified, and could have been prevented. But the people who got to decide decided against that.

I don't see how WW2 was unjustified, Iraq yes, WW2 no. WW2 is basically a case study for a justified war. it stopped fascism and imperialism in its tracks. Until you know, Bush came in to office;)

I don't see how WW2 was unjustified, Iraq yes, WW2 no. WW2 is basically a case study for a justified war. it stopped fascism and imperialism in its tracks. Until you know, Bush came in to office;)

It would have been possible to stop fascism and imperialism well before WW II, therefore I don't see the justification. That war became necessary due to very bad decisions in international politics.

It would have been possible to stop fascism and imperialism well before WW II, therefore I don't see the justification. That war became necessary due to very bad decisions in international politics.

I suppose we have different definitions of justified. To me a justified war is one where there is a legitmate purpose and reason behind the war, regardless of what happened leading up to it.

It would have been possible to stop fascism and imperialism well before WW II, therefore I don't see the justification. That war became necessary due to very bad decisions in international politics.

Your logic is very confusing, say person A was bullying person C. Person B could have prevented A from bullying person C by asking him to his hosue rather then letting him go to the park, but because person A went to the park he bullied person C (WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN), so by your logic, it is now unjustified to stop person A from bullying person C. That makes absolutely no sense.

I suppose we have different definitions of justified. To me a justified war is one where there is a legitmate purpose and reason behind the war, regardless of what happened leading up to it.

To me justified would mean you had no means of preventing it beforehand, you never had any other option.
If you had other options but ignored them, then a war might become a necessity, but it no longer has a justification.

SNIP

WWI couldn't of been avoided instability in the political climate caused the war new empire vs. old is the mark of the 20th century and most likely 21st century

As such trying to give WWI, WWII or any war a rating of good or bad doesn’t just come about as idiotic it drifts on insanity, think of the concept of international police ”wars happen over there so they don’t happen over here”

SNIP

1) war for what goes on in a nations borders is always unjustified even in genocide
2) please stop using “England” its just sad

edit: that took rather long to write

WWI couldn't of been avoided instability in the political climate caused the war new empire vs. old is the mark of the 20th century and most likely 21st century

As such trying to give WWI, WWII or any war a rating of good or bad doesn’t just come about as idiotic it drifts on insanity, think of the concept of international police ”wars happen over there so they don’t happen over here”


Good point.. but I think the problem was that war at the time was seen as a way of stabilising the political climate. So none of the nations involved were very keen on avoiding it. The situation back then has been compared to a powder keg, with all European nations just waiting for an excuse to light the fuse.

1) war for what goes on in a nations borders is always unjustified even in genocide


It wasnt just going on in Germany's boarders though was it.


2) please stop using “England” its just sad


I use the USA and England as examples as they were countries who wern't originally under any immediate threat from Germany, unlike say Russia or Belgium. So what is so sad about using England?

No, I wouldn't. I would rather have seen the regime prevented, not fought.

so how would you go about this without violating national sovereignty and also realising that such a rise was inevitable as the tide?

so how would you go about this without violating national sovereignty and also realising that such a rise was inevitable as the tide?

Two options, in my opinion :

1) The Versaille treaty should not have been ratified in its final version, but should have had fairer treatment of both Germany and Austria.

2) As it was ratified the way it was, it should have been enforced. Germany didn't have the right to re-militarise, according to the treaty.

Good point.. but I think the problem was that war at the time was seen as a way of stabilising the political climate. So none of the nations involved were very keen on avoiding it. The situation back then has been compared to a powder keg, with all European nations just waiting for an excuse to light the fuse.

Ah but this wasn’t without reason WWI can be compared to the scramble of Africa (and IMHO is an extension of it) only this time Britain and Germany where directly opposed to each other in policy

Germany was out for imperialism, the entente was out for there very survival Africa had shown that such a conflict was inevitable no matter how much politics was used (in particular look at Germanys involvement in the Boer war)

It wasnt just going on in Germany's boarders though was it.

Your point is?

So what is so sad about using England?

Clue: please point to me the English seat in the U.N last time I checked it wasn’t there hmmmm

Your point is?


Since Nazi Germany was about to seize europe, it was fully justified to stop them.


Clue: please point to me the English seat in the U.N last time I checked it wasn’t there hmmmm

Totally and utterly irellevant.

1) The Versaille treaty should not have been ratified in its final version, but should have had fairer treatment of both Germany and Austria.

impossible the November criminals had to answer to there people and the realisation that Germany was going to rise again so the vain idea was to cripple Germany so much that it would never rise again this hope was briefly realised however what happened was a power vacuum that sucked in communist Russia

2) As it was ratified the way it was, it should have been enforced. Germany didn't have the right to re-militarise, according to the treaty.

the common perception at the time was that Germany had suffered enough no doubt part of the apathy and lack of will of the time the pattern around the world is that the allies would take a strong stance but once it came to actually using force the allies would quickly make a hasty concession followed by another concession

Since Nazi Germany was about to seize europe, it was fully justified to stop them.

Nazi Germany didn’t want Europe this was well and clear

Totally and utterly irellevant.

Not really England didn’t exist and it still doesn’t thus using England in your posts just comes across as you being an dim-witted nationalist

Nazi Germany didn’t want Europe this was well and clear


Germany didn't want to at first, but it wanted to take a large chunk of it. But eventually the regime would have to advance into most of europe just so it can maintain it's power.


Not really England didn’t exist and it still doesn’t thus using England in your posts just comes across as you being an dim-witted nationalist

It's just a word, i'm not making any political point out of it. If you would rather I use the UK then I will if you really are offended, but it's really just a force of habbit.

Germany didn't want to at first, but it wanted to take a large chunk of it. But eventually the regime would have to advance into most of europe just so it can maintain it's power.

no Germany was following Americas westward expansion policy only to the east simply put Hitler wanted Poland and Russia for the same reasons the U.S wanted the west

It's just a word, i'm not making any political point out of it. If you would rather I use the UK then I will if you really are offended, but it's really just a force of habbit.

Actually its British empire and it doesn’t it offend it just looks incredibly sad

Simple question. I won't prejudice the results any more than necessary by putting excess blurb in the first post.


For the interests of clarity we will ignore the existence of military medics.

Medical. Killing and war and massacre is engrained in primal, evil human nature and could be done without any help from society. Kindness and helping others cannot so easily come from human nature. I do not admire the Jacks going out to hunt.

no Germany was following Americas westward expansion policy only to the east simply put Hitler wanted Poland and Russia for the same reasons the U.S wanted the west


I can't comprehend what you are saying? What do you mean the U.S wanted the west? They were not about to invade neighbouring countries.

I can't comprehend what you are saying? What do you mean the U.S wanted the west? They were not about to invade neighbouring countries.

*sigh* America as the original 13 states in 1800 had expanded west in a policy of land grab caused by the need for expansion caused by population constraints and the quest for wealth

As you can see by any western this worked

And so Hitler looked at this and thought “well I can copy this and use it against the Slavs” (as opposed to Indians) hence why such a emphasis was placed on moving Germans into the conquered territories

*sigh* America as the original 13 states in 1800 had expanded west in a policy of land grab caused by the need for expansion caused by population constraints and the quest for wealth

As you can see by any western this worked

And so Hitler looked at this and thought “well I can copy this and use it against the Slavs” (as opposed to Indians) hence why such a emphasis was placed on moving Germans into the conquered territories

A very crude comparisson to the USA's actions a century before hand does not justify Nazi Germany's actions.

A very crude comparisson to the USA's actions a century before hand does not justify Nazi Germany's actions.

in case you hadn't noticed I'm showing you how Nazi Germany didn’t want Europe do try to keep up

in case you hadn't noticed I'm showing you how Nazi Germany didn’t want Europe do try to keep up

And I had already said, they did want a large chunk of it, which you already confirmed for me. What is your point anyway, do you think it was justified for the allied powers to stop Nazi Germany or not?

Man, don't make me choose.

The best of both careers deserve much respect. Doctors and many other health professionals spend years of their lives training extensively, and in many cases sacrifice their own personal lives in order to help other. In military, they similary train extensively to get where they are, and similarly sacrifice years of their lives away from home and loved ones to get the job done.

I decline to answer such a question.

While the medical industry is clearly much more important than militaries in the big scheme of things, the question is who do you admire more. People in the military put their lives at risk for the sake of their country. Doctors have nurses and secretaries and make a lot of money. Most anybody can go to medical school. That doesn't take courage. What does take courage is joining the army, and I admire raw courage more than people working to make a living like everyone else.

And I had already said, they did want a large chunk of it, which you already confirmed for me. What is your point anyway, do you think it was justified for the allied powers to stop Nazi Germany or not?

of course Britain and France where justified in there war however I only jumped in to correct your massive inaccuracies and ultimately crush yours and cobra wests arguments

of course Britain and France where justified in there war however I only jumped in to correct your massive inaccuracies and ultimately crush yours and cobra wests arguments

Your first "correction", was : war for what goes on in a nations borders is always unjustified even in genocide. But you have already admitted that it wasn't just going on within Germany's boarders, making your point invalid.

Your second correction about me saying England is pointless semantics.

Your first "correction", was : war for what goes on in a nations borders is always unjustified even in genocide. But you have already admitted that it wasn't just going on within Germany's boarders, making your point invalid.

and this was correcting your view that the war was justified by genocide which it very much isn’t genocide was ignored by the allies very much until Russia published films of concentration camps

Your second correction about me saying England is pointless semantics.

It’s the equivalent of saying the Dutch are responsible for all European imperialism as you can see quite silly to say the least

and this was correcting your view that the war was justified by genocide which it very much isn’t genocide was ignored by the allies very much until Russia published films of concentration camps


When did I say that?


It’s the equivalent of saying the Dutch are responsible for all European imperialism as you can see quite silly to say the least

But when I said England, I didn't actually mean that England was the only single nation of the British empire to take part, you just thought I did.

While the medical industry is clearly much more important than militaries in the big scheme of things, the question is who do you admire more. People in the military put their lives at risk for the sake of their country. Doctors have nurses and secretaries and make a lot of money. Most anybody can go to medical school. That doesn't take courage. What does take courage is joining the army, and I admire raw courage more than people working to make a living like everyone else.

Courage is not a man with a gun. Courage is doing something even though you know from the start that you're screwed and can't succeed, but you do it anyways because it's right, and sometimes, you do win.

The difference between joining the army and courage is that being in the army cannot allow for courage because one does what they are told to do whether they think it right or not, and are faced with harsh penalties if they do not do what they are ordered. One cannot know from the start that they are screwed if they join the army, and one does not know if everything they're going to be ordered to do is right in their minds. Men in the army kill because they are told to kill, not because they think it is right and they know from the begining that they will die (it's not that deadly to be in the army), but because it's good for the country no matter what it does to hurt others. Killing for nationalist purposes is not courage.