NationStates Jolt Archive

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

Do you think that an army serves no use to a country?

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

Everybody knows that violence > sex. :p

Everybody knows that violence > sex. :p

You there!

Sex, or violence!!

Whats that?

It is?

Oh.

You there! Cake or Death!

Everybody knows that violence > sex. :p

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?

I don't know what's more disturbing; your train of thought or the fact that I approve of it. :)

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?

Yes

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?

Did I mention this reciept for a "Gimp Suit", I found in LG's trash?

You there! Cake or Death!

Cake please. :)

I don't know what's more disturbing; your train of thought or the fact that I approve of it. :)

Well, let's just call it even. And politely refrain from mentioning to my significant other that I said that.

Yes

Excellent. I'll mark you down in the "HotRodia is right" column.

Did I mention this reciept for a "Gimp Suit", I found in LG's trash?

Let's just add that to the list of reasons LG would be totally trashed in the media were he ever to run for President. And then add it to the list of reasons LG would be the most fun President ever.

are you suggesting that prostitutes should be trained as soldiers?

Did I mention this reciept for a "Gimp Suit", I found in LG's trash?

Bullshit! Mine is homemade... I mean....


...hah. Good joke. Gimp suit. Funneh.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?
George Carlin did a schtick about how we use the words "f***" and "kill" (and you can see which one needed the asterisks). He suggested substituting one for the other in famous movie line cliches, like "Alright, Sheriff, we're gonna kill you now, but we're gonna kill you slow."
No one has ever accused the patriarchy of being rational.

This thread has been officially: JACKED.

Bullshit! Mine is homemade... I mean....


...hah. Good joke. Gimp suit. Funneh.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

Frankly, I was more disturbed by the order for 30 gallons of peanut butter.

Chunky style...

Frankly, I was more disturbed by the order for 30 gallons of peanut butter.

Chunky style...

It isn't easy to fill a bathtub with that stuff. *nod*

This thread has been officially: JACKED.

Well then let's take it back.

I kinda wonder why there isn't more sympathy and respect for prostitutes. Their job is often an unpleasant one that entails a large amount of risk. They usually do it because they are poor or don't see any other way to get by. And they sacrifice a lot for the joy of others.

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

Most soldiers do not join-up for money (though they are paid). They do it "for their country." People who fight exclusively for money are often called "mercenaries," and are generally despised.

That said, I believe prostitution should be legal.

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

"Blessed are the criminals who pursue crime as a hobby,
As soldiers who kill the enemy for fun,
As hookers prostituting for joy!"

Serj Tankian. "Jeffery Are You Listening"

Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

We havn't protected freedoms since WW2??
My dad fought in the Falklands for freedom, I have fought in Bosnia, the Gulf, Sierra Leone and Afganistan all for the freedom of oppressed peoples.

Bosnia: Fought to save locals who were being oppressed and massacred
Gulf: Kuwait was invaded, we stepped in a sorted it out
Sierra Leone: People were being murdered and oppressed by militant groups which we fought
Afganistan: We were often told by the locals how they had hated the Taliban regime.


I find your original statement almost offensive. Almost becuase you clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I can slightly forgive your ignorance.

Most soldiers do not join-up for money (though they are paid). They do it "for their country." People who fight exclusively for money are often called "mercenaries," and are generally despised.

That said, I believe prostitution should be legal.

hallula brother!:p

hallula brother!:p

http://www.strategyteam.com/images/suspicious2.jpg

Because soldiers are trained make other people feel like they've failed at something via destroying everything they ever cared about, whereas prostitutes are 'trained' to give other people feelings of success via the fake orgasm.

Cheering people up with sex is easy, whereas making people give up by runing everything is somewhat hard. There you go.

I usually like to mix my sex & violence

Do you think that an army serves no use to a country?

Prostitutes serve a very important use as well.

I say we split Veterans Day into the morning for the Vets, and the afternoon for the hoors.

I usually like to mix my sex & violence

Do you pay for it?

We havn't protected freedoms since WW2??
My dad fought in the Falklands for freedom, I have fought in Bosnia, the Gulf, Sierra Leone and Afganistan all for the freedom of oppressed peoples.

Bosnia: Fought to save locals who were being oppressed and massacred
Gulf: Kuwait was invaded, we stepped in a sorted it out
Sierra Leone: People were being murdered and oppressed by militant groups which we fought
Afganistan: We were often told by the locals how they had hated the Taliban regime.


I find your original statement almost offensive. Almost becuase you clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I can slightly forgive your ignorance.

Vietnam: Dick-waving against the USSR. A country raped and many people killed.
Gulf: Saddam was helped into power by the USA.
Korea: We all can see how THAT turned out.
And so on.

Also, I myself am not American; the only army that attacked my country, Brazil, in the last 100 years was OUR OWN. In the 1964 coup. Supported by the US, mind you.

For that matter, you still did not answer to me the following question: What makes killing people a better action than having sex with people?

What makes killing people a better action than having sex with people?

Overpopulation.

Overpopulation.

o_O

I see.

So the most selfless action someone can commit is to suicide-bomb a place? :p

o_O

I see.

So the most selfless action someone can commit is to suicide-bomb a place? :p

By that logic, yes. :p

By that logic, yes. :p

Not really. The worst possible outcome of overpopulation is that it kills people.

Not really. The worst possible outcome of overpopulation is that it kills people.

Mmm...

Maybe this could be the new U.S. Army slogan.

"We kill people so you don't have to."

By that logic, yes. :p

And by that logic, Hitler was a very nice guy?

And by that logic, Hitler was a very nice guy?

So much so he got elected chancellor of Germany. :p

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?
This isn't a valid comparison. Sex for sale might be more fairly compared to guns for hire than to a standing army.

But look outside your little bit of experience. Prostitution is widely accepted in the south Pacific -- especially in places like Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, etc. Even Europeans and Americans have made it legal to practice that work in certain places.

See my sig.

Killing for your country is good because um.... errrr.... well Freedom man! We need Freedom and we must kill others to get it!

Prostitution goes against what the Bible says and so as a Christian Nation run by Christians for Christians we must stop the sex and up the killing of non-Christians for Freedom to be Christian!

Killing for your country is good because um.... errrr.... well Freedom man! We need Freedom and we must kill others to get it!

Prostitution goes against what the Bible says and so as a Christian Nation run by Christians for Christians we must stop the sex and up the killing of non-Christians for Freedom to be Christian!

Aaamen, lets go lny, I mean kill, those nig, I mean terrorists. Yea, that’s what I meant.

Rolling squid;13280344']Aaamen, lets go lny, I mean kill, those nig, I mean terrorists. Yea, that’s what I meant.

Nothing like the smell of napalm and barbecued brown person in the morning!

And by that logic, Hitler was a very nice guy?

No, nor was he very effective.
Me and my fellow Population Reductionists believe that he was a failure for limiting himself to certain groups. He could have been truly great, alas, he was not. :(

This isn't a valid comparison. Sex for sale might be more fairly compared to guns for hire than to a standing army.

But look outside your little bit of experience. Prostitution is widely accepted in the south Pacific -- especially in places like Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, etc. Even Europeans and Americans have made it legal to practice that work in certain places.

I said vilified, not necessarily illegal.

Also, would that mean that if the Government paid sex professionals it would be MORE socially acceptable than an army? I highly doubt that.

are you suggesting that prostitutes should be trained as soldiers?

Kinky!

You there!

Sex, or violence!!

Whats that?

It is?

Oh.

You there! Cake or Death!

I'll have the chicken.

I think the two professions need each other, they seem to go hand in hand :p

See my sig.

See my sig

See my sig

I like it!

This isn't a valid comparison. Sex for sale might be more fairly compared to guns for hire than to a standing army.

But look outside your little bit of experience. Prostitution is widely accepted in the south Pacific -- especially in places like Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, etc. Even Europeans and Americans have made it legal to practice that work in certain places.

Note that the countries you've named have this problem as a direct result of American Armies being stationed there.

Yes

Wow... a one word first post that is somehow... excellent.

Note that the countries you've named have this problem as a direct result of American Armies being stationed there.

Problem? :confused: It sounds like the American army actually did some good here.

Problem? :confused: It sounds like the American army actually did some good here.

To be fair, all countries have prostitution, the difference, and it applies to all armies as well, is that it leads to the sex trade, trafficking, in general. It's no coincidence that the hubs of trafficking correlate to where the American army is/was stationed.

Thailand took off in the 70's, when it was the RnR of choice from Vietnam, Seoul's Itaewon district is a disgrace frankly, in the Philippines, customers are called Joes, after G.I. Joe, Wanchai in HK comes alive when US Naval ships dock in the harbour.

These areas become huge magnets for the industry and hubs of trafficking that reaches around the world.

Armies and prostitution are very much linked, though not in the way the OP suggests.

Armies and prostitution are very much linked, though not in the way the OP suggests.

I wasn't linking in that case, I was comparing.

Most of the time soldiers are disciplines, loyal and fight to to protect or fight when the nation/gov feels its necessary. fighting to preserve interests is necessary, a whore is just s necessity, a novelty. They don't selflessly risk their lives for others, they aren't highly disciplines and loyal.

Most soldiers do not join-up for money (though they are paid). They do it "for their country." People who fight exclusively for money are often called "mercenaries," and are generally despised.

That said, I believe prostitution should be legal.

That's about right. The money that we get paid in the military is a joke compared to what is to be done.

Most of the time soldiers are disciplines, loyal and fight to to protect or fight when the nation/gov feels its necessary. fighting to preserve interests is necessary, a whore is just s necessity, a novelty. They don't selflessly risk their lives for others, they aren't highly disciplines and loyal.

That's quite an idealized view of soldiers you've got there.

What about all those soldiers loyal to their general instead of their government? Ever hear of a military coup?

Most soldiers do not join-up for money (though they are paid). They do it "for their country." People who fight exclusively for money are often called "mercenaries," and are generally despised.

That said, I believe prostitution should be legal.

Really? Not because of conscription, or economic situation? Seems to me that patriotism may be the official excuse, but not always the real reason.

That's quite an idealized view of soldiers you've got there.

What about all those soldiers loyal to their general instead of their government? Ever hear of a military coup?

I don't think everyone believe all soldiers are good and noble.

I don't think everyone believe all soldiers are good and noble.

Well, he did say "most" which I dispute.

They don't selflessly risk their lives for others,

Stop paying soldiers, and see how many of them risk their lives for others. And every time a prostitute meets a client, there is an inherent risk to her life that the client may be the kind of scum that enjoys abusing women to death, or is a serial killer.

A soldier can typically fight back against someone who intends him/her direct harm. A prostitute is not normally equipped with the means for effective defense, and due to the nature of the profession, even if they were available, are not readily usable should the client turn out to be the murderous sort.

Really? Not because of conscription, or economic situation? Seems to me that patriotism may be the official excuse, but not always the real reason.

well as it applies to the US there is no conscription at the moment. Economic situation? Are you serious? One could work a couple jobs at McDonalds and get paid more. Patriotism/sense of duty is a big reason for the most part. There are a few instances of other reasons but they are few. Just speaking from the guys that were around me.

Stop paying soldiers, and see how many of them risk their lives for others. And every time a prostitute meets a client, there is an inherent risk to her life that the client may be the kind of scum that enjoys abusing women to death, or is a serial killer.

A soldier can typically fight back against someone who intends him/her direct harm. A prostitute is not normally equipped with the means for effective defense, and due to the nature of the profession, even if they were available, are not readily usable should the client turn out to be the murderous sort.


Soldiers are almost not paid or at least that is what it was like. As for prostitutes the best thing to do is legalize. When a place legalizes prostitution the risk is cut down because it is out in the open.

Soldiers are almost not paid or at least that is what it was like.

Unless the country is broke, soldiers, even conscripts, usually get paid.


As for prostitutes the best thing to do is legalize. When a place legalizes prostitution the risk is cut down because it is out in the open.

Netherlands legalized if I recall correctly. They aren't doing so well with the problems associated with prostitution.

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?
(A) Soldiers require more training in order to kill people better than the next country can do it; anyone with working sexual organs can be a prostitute. (B) Killing people is difficult and requires emotional justification and conditioning. Ok, you could say the same about prostitution, but murder is built much more strongly into our moral code than sexual promiscuity. (C) Soldiers are necessary and irreplaceable, whereas the function fulfilled by prostitutes can also be fulfilled by a significant other (where present) or various technological apparati (where not). I'm sure there are more differences, but for the record I really don't give a f*** about prostitution so I can't be bothered.

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?
At least in terms of ratings. Violence gets you a PG-13; sex makes it R; but few films involving S&M ever get below NC-17.

Unless the country is broke, soldiers, even conscripts, usually get paid.

Compared to the outside it was next to nothing.


Netherlands legalized if I recall correctly. They aren't doing so well with the problems associated with prostitution.

Because everyone and their brother comes there from all parts of the world. If other places legalized it then Amsterdam would slow down and could maybe get a handle on any problems they may have. Another issue that Amsterdam has that pops into my mind since I had seen this first hand. Drugs!

I said vilified, not necessarily illegal.

Also, would that mean that if the Government paid sex professionals it would be MORE socially acceptable than an army? I highly doubt that.
First, I believe I said "widely accepted". That's a little different that simply saying "legal" and much different that being "vilified".

I think we need to address what appears to be a false analogy a little more deeply. What I'm trying to say is that simply comparing prostitutes and soldiers doesn't make any more sense than comparing spaceships and submarines, then stating that submarines are less than spaceships because they can't achieve orbital velocity.

If we start to compare mercenaries with prostitutes, then, maybe, we have something more valid. With the exception of "Soldier of Fortune" subscribers, is there a significant portion of the population that actually lauds their profession? I'd claim it's the other way around.

Netherlands legalized if I recall correctly. They aren't doing so well with the problems associated with prostitution.

Really? Last thing I heard it's great for the tourism industry.
Germany not only legalised it, but recognised prostitution as a valid profession, with all the security and social net that comes with it. They're doing just fine.

First, I believe I said "widely accepted". That's a little different that simply saying "legal" and much different that being "vilified".

I think we need to address what appears to be a false analogy a little more deeply. What I'm trying to say is that simply comparing prostitutes and soldiers doesn't make any more sense than comparing spaceships and submarines, then stating that submarines are less than spaceships because they can't achieve orbital velocity.

If we start to compare mercenaries with prostitutes, then, maybe, we have something more valid. With the exception of "Soldier of Fortune" subscribers, is there a significant portion of the population that actually lauds their profession? I'd claim it's the other way around.


yep yep, i don't think prostituion nor prostitues are nesicarily vilified, well it's the first I have heard of it anyhoo!

yep yep, i don't think prostituion nor prostitues are nesicarily vilified, well it's the first I have heard of it anyhoo!
I think he's been reading too much Elmer Gantry... Besides, I'd have thought that the attitudes toward prostitution were a little more accepting in Brazil.

It should be noted that the term "prostitute" harkens back to the bible, in which it meant not just one who sold sexual services, but those who have sold their mind, body or soul for material gains. Morally it was just as bad to pursue money, power or pleasure as it was to sell sex. "...Every time you and I go after money, or power, or pleasures, we prostitute against God..." - book of Hosea. This is why prostitution is "villified". But, as one should take notice, the only people who truly villify prostitution are those who consider themselves to be on superior moral ground, ie the church. The majority of society, I think you will find, would consider prostitution, while maybe distasteful (like many would consider lawyers to be distasteful), to be an accepted fact of life - something that simply is.

Now a "soldier" on the other hand is a little harder to define. I belive that the definition of a soldier is one who serves an ideology out of a sense of obligation or duty. Now, that is not to say that the ideology being served is one that most would agree with. Hence, the concept of a soldier is often honored since it indirectly honors the ideology for which they serve. Thus, it is not uncommon to see that those who villify a particular ideology will likewise villify the soldiers who they believe represent it. This link between a soldier and an ideology is particularily manifest when considering the the phrase "acting under orders". This reason is universally accepted in all but the most egregious offenses, and only when there is no strong support for the ideology being served.

In short - the only thing that connects the two concepts of prostitutes and soldiers are the people seeking to find something wrong with either one.

yep yep, i don't think prostituion nor prostitues are nesicarily vilified, well it's the first I have heard of it anyhoo!I think he's been reading too much Elmer Gantry... Your mom is a Hoe!!

actually she isn't, I think.. This is just an experiment ;-)

Your mom is a Hoe!!

actually she isn't, I think.. This is just an experiment ;-)

I believe that's a Ho' in the vernacular... I think a Hoe is more like this...
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:LqTs0az28led1M:www.southernobserver.com/images/hoe.jpg

He wondered to hear me talk of such chargeable and expensive wars;
that certainly we must be a quarrelsome people, or live among very bad
neighbors and that our generals must needs be richer than our kings. He
asked what business we had out of our own islands, unless upon the score
of trade or treaty, or to defend the coasts with our fleet. Above all,
he was amazed to hear me talk of a mercenary standing army in the midst
of peace and among a free people. He said if we were governed by our own
consent, in the persons of our representatives, he could not imagine of
whom we were afraid, or against whom we were to fight; and would hear my
opinion, whether a private man's house might not better be defended by
himself, his children, and family, than by half-a-dozen rascals, picked
up at a venture in the streets for small wages, who might get a hundred
times more by cutting their throats?

-Gulliver's Travels.

I think he's been reading too much Elmer Gantry... Besides, I'd have thought that the attitudes toward prostitution were a little more accepting in Brazil.

Prostitution is about as much a crime and a stigma here as in the US. Soldiers aren't as "honored" as in the US but they have nowhere near the stigma prostitution carries.

Which even I find odd, given that not 50 years ago we were under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. But the average Brazilian has about as much a mind for history as the average American.

But regardless, do you think sexual workers would be less stigmatized ("Ho", "whore", "slut") than soldiers (I can't find one pejorative slang for them) were they FUCGing? (Fornicating Under Command of the Government) :p

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

It wasn't done during World War II, either. Operation Keelhaul, anyone? Or the mass internment of Japanese-, Italian-, and German-Americans?

Unless the country is broke, soldiers, even conscripts, usually get paid.

Not always. Ever heard of Zaire? Soldiers often went for months without pay. And what they did receive was next to nothing. They didn't get much in the way of rations, supplies, etc., either, due to most of those being sold on the black market by corrupt generals. Many soldiers were reduced to begging or turned to extortion to survive.

Not always. Ever heard of Zaire? Soldiers often went for months without pay. And what they did receive was next to nothing. They didn't get much in the way of rations, supplies, etc., either, due to most of those being sold on the black market by corrupt generals. Many soldiers were reduced to begging or turned to extortion to survive.

That's why I said usually. Not always, but usually.

It wasn't done during World War II, either. Operation Keelhaul, anyone? Or the mass internment of Japanese-, Italian-, and German-Americans?

Oh, yeah, forgot about that tidbit. My apologies.

Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

*Cough* Korea *Cough*
Ask a South Korean if they would rather live in North or South Korea.

*Cough* Desert Storm 1 *Cough*
Ditto with a Kuwati.

And please. Don't compare a sleazy whore with some one who puts their lives on the line (And yes prostitutes carry the risk of getting HIV:rolleyes:) every day, whether you agree with what they are doing or not, support the troops because it was not their choice to fight, they are merely obeying orders.

Oh, yeah, forgot about that tidbit. My apologies.

No worries.

Prostitution is about as much a crime and a stigma here as in the US. Soldiers aren't as "honored" as in the US but they have nowhere near the stigma prostitution carries.

Which even I find odd, given that not 50 years ago we were under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. But the average Brazilian has about as much a mind for history as the average American.

But regardless, do you think sexual workers would be less stigmatized ("Ho", "whore", "slut") than soldiers (I can't find one pejorative slang for them) were they FUCGing? (Fornicating Under Command of the Government) :p
You're probably a little young to remember, but look up Vietnam. Then look at how soldiers were treated during the late '60s and through the '70s. I think prostitutes had it far better in those decades.

Fortunately, that treatment didn't stick...

Still, you ignore my claim that comparing prostitutes to regular soldiers isn't valid. I'll wait...

Soldiers in a standing army are probably more honored for their sacrifice, than for any destruction that they may have done. Recalling my days in the Marines, I've found that if a nation truly wants a force in readiness, then that force has to train pretty hard. So even in peacetime, you see enormous sacrifices being made... Separations, dangerous training, even injury and death. A peacetime soldier doesn't even have the luxury of being lazy -- there are always deployments, exercises, duty sections...

*Cough* Korea *Cough*
Ask a South Korean if they would rather live in North or South Korea.

*Cough* Desert Storm 1 *Cough*
Ditto with a Kuwati.

And please. Don't compare a sleazy whore with some one who puts their lives on the line (And yes prostitutes carry the risk of getting HIV:rolleyes:) every day, whether you agree with what they are doing or not, support the troops because it was not their choice to fight, they are merely obeying orders.

1- The assertion that soldiers should be honored for "merely obeying orders" is asinine at best and dangerous at worst (Nuremberg).

2- When the prostitute in question actively hunts people to kill, I'll stop comparing.

3- Neither North nor South Korea would exist were it not for the dickwaving festival the US and the USSR decided to have at the expense of the Koreans. Ditto for Saddam being the dictator of Iraq.

You're probably a little young to remember, but look up Vietnam. Then look at how soldiers were treated during the late '60s and through the '70s. I think prostitutes had it far better in those decades.

Fortunately, that treatment didn't stick...

Still, you ignore my claim that comparing prostitutes to regular soldiers isn't valid. I'll wait...

Soldiers in a standing army are probably more honored for their sacrifice, than for any destruction that they may have done. Recalling my days in the Marines, I've found that if a nation truly wants a force in readiness, then that force has to train pretty hard. So even in peacetime, you see enormous sacrifices being made... Separations, dangerous training, even injury and death. A peacetime soldier doesn't even have the luxury of being lazy -- there are always deployments, exercises, duty sections...

I'm not ignoring. I'm saying this: Let's assume the comparison isn't valid. Do you think the stigma around hookers would be smaller if they were paid for by the taxpayer's money?

We can even make some other comparisons, if you wish, between soldiers and more palatable groups such as doctors (study hard, practice hard, to SAVE lives, not to destroy them; get nowhere near the praise soldiers get in the US; have shifts that can last for more than a day), firemen (train to, again, SAVE people; train hard, put their lives on the line as well; I have yet to hear of a ribbon with "support the firemen" on it) and so on. The fact remains that in the US soldiers are seen as honorable people, yet their job involves killing others; That gets even weirder when one realizes that the same people that oppose abortion tend to hold soldiers in even higher regard: "The unborn can't die, but the inhabitant of the country that did not attack us nor had WMDs can."

As for being honored for their sacrifice rather than for the destruction they sacrifice themselves to wreak, would that mean suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots should be honored?

The point here is: What exactly makes being a soldier that honorable a profession, given that what they train to do (kill) is morally unacceptable, especially when we consider unprovoked wars?

1- The assertion that soldiers should be honored for "merely obeying orders" is asinine at best and dangerous at worst (Nuremberg).

2- When the prostitute in question actively hunts people to kill, I'll stop comparing.

3- Neither North nor South Korea would exist were it not for the dickwaving festival the US and the USSR decided to have at the expense of the Koreans. Ditto for Saddam being the dictator of Iraq.

3) Actually, that would be "dickwaving" between the US and CHINA. The USSR didn't have much to do with the Korean war other than also being a communist country and thus interested in a favorable outcome. Also, a great many of the countries you currently see on the globe would not exist if not for the "dickwaving" tendencies of what you apparently consider to be irrational killers. Say, for example, all of Europe, most of the Americas, and large chunks of Asia. Basically, the world would be far different without people to wave their dicks around.

2) I'll allow that soldiers "actively" hunt people to kill,although they usually wait for orders to do so. Prostitutes on the other hand, actively hunt clients to cater to. They will do this regardless of whether they are infected with disease or not. And, they do this of their own will. So which is worse, knowingly trasmitting a potential death sentence and not caring, or killing someone because you were told to?

1) It is interesting that you should insist that honoring soldiers for doing their duty is a bad thing. The rest of the world seems to disagree with you quite vigorously. There are far more monuments to soldiers and soldiering than there are for prostitutes and prostituting. Infact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single country which does not honor its soldiers in some way.

While I was working one day, a higher ranking sailor and I struck up a conversation about his experiences in the Navy. He looked at me and said "You're not a true sailor 'till you've paid for sex". I stood there and allowed this wise saying to sink in. Sadly, I must not be a true sailor.

It is interesting that you should insist that honoring soldiers for doing their duty is a bad thing. The rest of the world seems to disagree with you quite vigorously. There are far more monuments to soldiers and soldiering than there are for prostitutes and prostituting. Infact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single country which does not honor its soldiers in some way.

They actually honor soldiers for just following orders? Even illegal, inhumane or otherwise repulsive orders?

Is that why the nice folks at the Nuremberg trials had statues made for them, rather than going to jail?

Also, "the rest of the world" disagreeing with me, even if it DID, doesn't make me wrong. Facts are not created through democratic means.

I'm not ignoring. I'm saying this: Let's assume the comparison isn't valid. Do you think the stigma around hookers would be smaller if they were paid for by the taxpayer's money?

We can even make some other comparisons, if you wish, between soldiers and more palatable groups such as doctors (study hard, practice hard, to SAVE lives, not to destroy them; get nowhere near the praise soldiers get in the US; have shifts that can last for more than a day), firemen (train to, again, SAVE people; train hard, put their lives on the line as well; I have yet to hear of a ribbon with "support the firemen" on it) and so on. The fact remains that in the US soldiers are seen as honorable people, yet their job involves killing others; That gets even weirder when one realizes that the same people that oppose abortion tend to hold soldiers in even higher regard: "The unborn can't die, but the inhabitant of the country that did not attack us nor had WMDs can."

As for being honored for their sacrifice rather than for the destruction they sacrifice themselves to wreak, would that mean suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots should be honored?

The point here is: What exactly makes being a soldier that honorable a profession, given that what they train to do (kill) is morally unacceptable, especially when we consider unprovoked wars?

Doctors: study hard, practice hard, to SAVE lives, not to destroy them; get nowhere near the praise soldiers get in the US; have shifts that can last for more than a day.....have little chance of dying on a daily basis, get paid on average $200K a year, get slapped on the wrist when they accidentally kill someone, have WAY MORE respect than anyone else in the room at parties (there is a reason why you call someone witha PhD "Dr." and not "Mr/Mrs/Ms").

Firemen: (train to, again, SAVE people; train hard, put their lives on the line as well; I have yet to hear of a ribbon with "support the firemen" on it)...only work when something is burning down, make on average $55K a year, retire with full benefits before 50, very rarely ever laid off, endlessly lauded everytime they actually do their job.

Soldiers: on duty24/7, stand a chance of dying even when NOT fighting, get paid maybe $40K a year (being VERY generous here), have to suffer the indignity of doing what they're told whether they like it or not, and then being spat on by people who rather complain than take action to effect change. Oh yes, and command nowhere nears the same respect as that "unrespected" doctor being fawned over on the other side of the room.

Guess your high and mighty professions can be made to sound bad after all.

Point: soldiers aren't trained to simply kill, they are trained to end conflict. It just so happens that killing is involved because some people don't realize their dicks aren't as big as they thought.

Point: MURDER is morally unacceptable. As historical AND religious precedence, not all killing is murder.

Point: war is never unprovoked. You may simply not agree with the reason for it.

BTW, suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots ARE honored. The fact that most people choose to not do so is irrelevant to them.

I'm not ignoring. I'm saying this: Let's assume the comparison isn't valid. Do you think the stigma around hookers would be smaller if they were paid for by the taxpayer's money?

We can even make some other comparisons, if you wish, between soldiers and more palatable groups such as doctors (study hard, practice hard, to SAVE lives, not to destroy them; get nowhere near the praise soldiers get in the US; have shifts that can last for more than a day), firemen (train to, again, SAVE people; train hard, put their lives on the line as well; I have yet to hear of a ribbon with "support the firemen" on it) and so on. The fact remains that in the US soldiers are seen as honorable people, yet their job involves killing others; That gets even weirder when one realizes that the same people that oppose abortion tend to hold soldiers in even higher regard: "The unborn can't die, but the inhabitant of the country that did not attack us nor had WMDs can."

As for being honored for their sacrifice rather than for the destruction they sacrifice themselves to wreak, would that mean suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots should be honored?

The point here is: What exactly makes being a soldier that honorable a profession, given that what they train to do (kill) is morally unacceptable, especially when we consider unprovoked wars?
I think the kamikaze and suicide bombers were and are honored by their own cultures. That doesn't mean they should receive universal praise... In fact, you've pointed out that even the respect paid to soldiers is very regional and cultural.

A lot of this praise is cyclic... Most of the time, soldiers are largely ignored.

I think we're getting to the root of the argument, though. You don't like the United States because of certain military actions and we certainly should not upset that view. Right?

But as far as firemen and policemen go, remember a little thing Americans refer to as 9/11? The tributes to the firemen and policemen, NYPD and NYFD in particular, have been legendary and on-going. This has certainly spilled out into the regions away from NY and Washington and I think these groups are far more respected today than they were 6 years ago.

They actually honor soldiers for just following orders? Even illegal, inhumane or otherwise repulsive orders?

Is that why the nice folks at the Nuremberg trials had statues made for them, rather than going to jail?

Also, "the rest of the world" disagreeing with me, even if it DID, doesn't make me wrong. Facts are not created through democratic means.


Interesting you should keep harping on the Nazis. Let's try the thousands of memorials across Europe commemorating the allied effort. Why bother? I mean, they were "simply following orders". How about the warrior shrine in Japan? The Japanese were widely reviled by almost all of asia for decades after WWII, and for good reason. Their citizenry seem to have no problem visiting every year and honoring their soldiers despite the well documented crimes against humanity (rape of Nanking sound familiar?). How about those oh so popular military parades that communist Russia was so fond of? It was "only" the defense of the motherland. And ignoring the geneva conventions is not such a big deal, nor is causing famine among the civilians when it is obviously far more important to keep your soldiers, who are ONLY following orders, fed.

And actually, facts ARE created through democratic means. Even in the arena of science, in order for something to be accepted, there must bea concensus among the scientific community. Tyranny of the majority I'm afraid.

I think we're getting to the root of the argument, though. You don't like the United States because of certain military actions and we certainly should not upset that view. Right?

Ah, there it is. That nice, older than the putrid carcass of the lowest rat, "you hate America" argument that pops up whenever one dares to question its actions.

No, Myrmi, I do not hate America. I hate your current leadership, but that's also because of what it currently is doing to, yes, America. And this wasn't about America anyways. Where in the thread did I use AMERICAN soldiers as the only example? It's about soldiers everywhere, and the fact that, despite their immoral actions, they are praised as great men and their actions endorsed when they would land anyone else in jail.

Now can we please discuss this on a higher level than you calling me America-hater or "not liker" or so on?

And they sacrifice a lot for the joy of others.

Though I understand your sentiment, I think very little of it is explicitly for the joy of others....

Because promiscuous sex is often seen as a vice, prostitution would impart a vice upon the whole community. It is similar to why there are so few (in some places) casinos, and the reason that many look at casinos without favour.

No soldier has fought for any freedom since WWII? Hmm, regardless of underlying intent behind the military action, that is exaclty what the American soldiers are doing in Iraq, thats the idea behind the military action in Afganistan. Much of russias military conflict with Crimean terrorists has been the preservation of freedom for Russian citizens.

The Six-day War was another example of military action towards the point of retaining freedom. So was Vietnam, and Korea, and the first Persian Gulf War.

Soldiers are honoured because they offer up their lives (in many cases willingly) for their countrymen, the ideals of their state, adn the preservation of everything their country believes in.

I think the kamikaze and suicide bombers were and are honored by their own cultures. That doesn't mean they should receive universal praise... In fact, you've pointed out that even the respect paid to soldiers is very regional and cultural.

A lot of this praise is cyclic... Most of the time, soldiers are largely ignored.

I think we're getting to the root of the argument, though. You don't like the United States because of certain military actions and we certainly should not upset that view. Right?

But as far as firemen and policemen go, remember a little thing Americans refer to as 9/11? The tributes to the firemen and policemen, NYPD and NYFD in particular, have been legendary and on-going. This has certainly spilled out into the regions away from NY and Washington and I think these groups are far more respected today than they were 6 years ago.

Firefighters and police officers have absolutely gotten more respect (which is desered, definately), although they have never been a poorly repsected group (like soldiers being called 'babykillers' or spit upon by an ungrateful country after they served in hell for America).

We havn't protected freedoms since WW2??
My dad fought in the Falklands for freedom, I have fought in Bosnia, the Gulf, Sierra Leone and Afganistan all for the freedom of oppressed peoples.

Bosnia: Fought to save locals who were being oppressed and massacred
Gulf: Kuwait was invaded, we stepped in a sorted it out
Sierra Leone: People were being murdered and oppressed by militant groups which we fought
Afganistan: We were often told by the locals how they had hated the Taliban regime.


I find your original statement almost offensive. Almost becuase you clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I can slightly forgive your ignorance.

Uhh... he's talking about our freedoms... people say they support the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan now cause they are "protecting OUR freedoms"

We haven't been invaded (yet) so until that happens we aren't really protecting ourselves. Now if he were talkign about freedoms in general, I would support you.

Interesting you should keep harping on the Nazis. Let's try the thousands of memorials across Europe commemorating the allied effort. Why bother? I mean, they were "simply following orders". How about the warrior shrine in Japan? The Japanese were widely reviled by almost all of asia for decades after WWII, and for good reason. Their citizenry seem to have no problem visiting every year and honoring their soldiers despite the well documented crimes against humanity (rape of Nanking sound familiar?). How about those oh so popular military parades that communist Russia was so fond of? It was "only" the defense of the motherland. And ignoring the geneva conventions is not such a big deal, nor is causing famine among the civilians when it is obviously far more important to keep your soldiers, who are ONLY following orders, fed.

And actually, facts ARE created through democratic means. Even in the arena of science, in order for something to be accepted, there must bea concensus among the scientific community. Tyranny of the majority I'm afraid.

So, since the democratic (world) consensus should be that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, that means the US shouldn't have invaded? Good to know.

Also, you're claiming that they should be praised regardless of everything you just quoted? Due to, yes, mindlessly following orders? Wow.

Ah, there it is. That nice, older than the putrid carcass of the lowest rat, "you hate America" argument that pops up whenever one dares to question its actions.

No, Myrmi, I do not hate America. I hate your current leadership, but that's also because of what it currently is doing to, yes, America. And this wasn't about America anyways. Where in the thread did I use AMERICAN soldiers as the only example? It's about soldiers everywhere, and the fact that, despite their immoral actions, they are praised as great men and their actions endorsed when they would land anyone else in jail.

Now can we please discuss this on a higher level than you calling me America-hater or "not liker" or so on?

He was saying that it sure seems like your reason (whether prior mentioned specifically or not) for this thread was anti-american... your rather harsh reaction against him would seem somewhat like a right out denial... which suggests to me that it may be a large factor (not 'anti-american'ism, but rather your hatred of Bush, and therefor your inability to see why we are in Iraq, and why it didn't matter whether or not they actually had WMD's)

What exaclty is this 'higher point' that you are trying to make? That all killing ever, done by anyone for any reason is wrong? If that is the case, say so that everyone may simply dismiss your opinion on the matter of soldiers outright as overly extremist. People are given valid reasons to kill. When the seventh commandment says not to (according to the King James Version) 'kill' it comes from the Hebrew to mean a premeditated and deliberate act, or you could equate it to the english use of the word 'muder' which soldiers infrequently do (regardless of which side they are on).

Uhh... he's talking about our freedoms... people say they support the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan now cause they are "protecting OUR freedoms"

We haven't been invaded (yet) so until that happens we aren't really protecting ourselves. Now if he were talkign about freedoms in general, I would support you.

Iraq wasn't about freedoms, it was about WM... Sadd... free... oh, whatever the fuck Bush wants. OIL!

The topic title here just keeps blowing my mind. Coz of my dyslexcia, I keep reading it a 'Old soldiers and prostitution'

So, since the democratic (world) consensus should be that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, that means the US shouldn't have invaded? Good to know.

Ummm, he did not say that democratic countries decide what fact is. Had you applied any attempt to read to his sentence, you have noticed he was saying the majority decides what is fact. 'Fact' in this case might not always be correct, it is merely what is generally understood to be correct. Earth was, in point of 'fact', the center of the universe for most of the existence of humanity. General consensus did not make that true.

He was saying that it sure seems like your reason (whether prior mentioned specifically or not) for this thread was anti-american... your rather harsh reaction against him would seem somewhat like a right out denial... which suggests to me that it may be a large factor (not 'anti-american'ism, but rather your hatred of Bush, and therefor your inability to see why we are in Iraq, and why it didn't matter whether or not they actually had WMD's)

What exaclty is this 'higher point' that you are trying to make? That all killing ever, done by anyone for any reason is wrong? If that is the case, say so that everyone may simply dismiss your opinion on the matter of soldiers outright as overly extremist. People are given valid reasons to kill. When the seventh commandment says not to (according to the King James Version) 'kill' it comes from the Hebrew to mean a premeditated and deliberate act, or you could equate it to the english use of the word 'muder' which soldiers infrequently do (regardless of which side they are on).

My inability to "see why you are in Iraq"? I could easily tell why you were in Iraq from the get-go; Why do you think I was always, and always will be, along with everyone in the clear-minded world, against it?

Also, killing in self-defense is okay. Killing to invade a country with no provocation isn't. Killing someone that wasn't trying to kill you isn't. And so on. I don't care about what the Bible says, killing is wrong unless it's in self-defense. And no, it doesn't count as self-defense when it's "he was trying to kill me for invading his country".

Finally, my "rather harsh" reaction against him is due to the fact that I, being against this thrice-accursed bloodshed from the beginning, got labeled as an "America-hater" by people that, like him, were trying to silence me with this label.

Iraq wasn't about freedoms, it was about WM... Sadd... free... oh, whatever the fuck Bush wants. OIL!

Actually it was about Saddam's tyrrany, and the fact that Iraq had broken like 17 different UN resolutions... the US decided that action was preferable to continuing to not inforce the rules... which the UN wanted to do, yet again. It was actually the UNs job to go into Iraq, but we have glorious countries like France, and China, and Russia that would rather cut illegal deals with Saddam and look the other way about whether he is violating international law, or oppressing his people.

Ummm, he did not say that democratic countries decide what fact is. Had you applied any attempt to read to his sentence, you have noticed he was saying the majority decides what is fact. 'Fact' in this case might not always be correct, it is merely what is generally understood to be correct. Earth was, in point of 'fact', the center of the universe for most of the existence of humanity. General consensus did not make that true.

I'm waiting and seeing on this one. If he described what happens in practice it's fine, if he described it as moral it isn't.

Actually it was about Saddam's tyrrany, and the fact that Iraq had broken like 17 different UN resolutions... the US decided that action was preferable to continuing to not inforce the rules... which the UN wanted to do, yet again. It was actually the UNs job to go into Iraq, but we have glorious countries like France, and China, and Russia that would rather cut illegal deals with Saddam and look the other way about whether he is violating international law, or oppressing his people.

funny, you know, I could have sworn I heard something about "yellow cake" when this whole mess started.

Guess not.

Actually it was about Saddam's tyrrany, and the fact that Iraq had broken like 17 different UN resolutions... the US decided that action was preferable to continuing to not inforce the rules... which the UN wanted to do, yet again. It was actually the UNs job to go into Iraq, but we have glorious countries like France, and China, and Russia that would rather cut illegal deals with Saddam and look the other way about whether he is violating international law, or oppressing his people.

The UN itself, the organ that had the jurisdiction to decide what to do, was against the invasion. Because it knew that this cluster-fuck would be its aftermath.

funny, you know, I could have sworn I heard something about "yellow cake" when this whole mess started.

Guess not.

I think Bush meant yellow cake the same way someone means it when they say "yellow snow".

Ah, there it is. That nice, older than the putrid carcass of the lowest rat, "you hate America" argument that pops up whenever one dares to question its actions.

No, Myrmi, I do not hate America. I hate your current leadership, but that's also because of what it currently is doing to, yes, America. And this wasn't about America anyways. Where in the thread did I use AMERICAN soldiers as the only example? It's about soldiers everywhere, and the fact that, despite their immoral actions, they are praised as great men and their actions endorsed when they would land anyone else in jail.

Now can we please discuss this on a higher level than you calling me America-hater or "not liker" or so on?

Of course you in no way meant to imply american soldiers or in any way sought to critizing the current american military policy. There are plenty of other countries in the business of conducting unprovoked wars over WMD that also happen to have anti-abortionists heap praise upon their soldiers...I just can't think of any right now. But nevermind that, let us continue our discussion of the moral ambiguity of soldiers of unspecified national allegiance participating in an unpopular, AND unspecified, military action in a part of the world, the location of which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, in an unknown timeframe.

And obviously at no point in time did you explicitly or implicitly indicated american soldiers or american military policy as support for your arguments. Which is rather interesting, because other than using the boiler plate Nazi references, you seem to be unable to find any other support for your statements. Unless of course, there IS some modern day relationship you wish to make?

My inability to "see why you are in Iraq"? I could easily tell why you were in Iraq from the get-go; Why do you think I was always, and always will be, along with everyone in the clear-minded world, against it?

Also, killing in self-defense is okay. Killing to invade a country with no provocation isn't. Killing someone that wasn't trying to kill you isn't. And so on. I don't care about what the Bible says, killing is wrong unless it's in self-defense. And no, it doesn't count as self-defense when it's "he was trying to kill me for invading his country".

Finally, my "rather harsh" reaction against him is due to the fact that I, being against this thrice-accursed bloodshed from the beginning, got labeled as an "America-hater" by people that, like him, were trying to silence me with this label.

Your assessment that killing is only ok in self defense is not standard. What is your basis for thinking that you have the only one possible truth out there to be had?

It does not make it ok if I kill someone because they are trying to kill my family? (its not self defense)

What about if they are trying to kill my friends?

What about people that live down the street?

What about anybody? Waht if they were trying to kill complete strangers, and I had the power to stop them? Thats not right? Because that is exactly what the US is doing in Iraq, they are laying their lives down for the lives, and freedom of people they may never have met before, for people that would otherwise not affect them in the least... that is one of the most glorious, and blessed things one can do. JEsus taught 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' if it is, then, right to kill in self defense, and I practice this love for others, than surely I can kill on their behalf, should they be oppressed or threatened.

PWNED

Of course you in no way meant to imply american soldiers or in any way sought to critizing the current american military policy. There are plenty of other countries in the business of conducting unprovoked wars over WMD that also happen to have anti-abortionists heap praise upon their soldiers...I just can't think of any right now. But nevermind that, let us continue our discussion of the moral ambiguity of soldiers of unspecified national allegiance participating in an unpopular, AND unspecified, military action in a part of the world, the location of which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, in an unknown timeframe.

And obviously at no point in time did you explicitly or implicitly indicated american soldiers or american military policy as support for your arguments. Which is rather interesting, because other than using the boiler plate Nazi references, you seem to be unable to find any other support for your statements. Unless of course, there IS some modern day relationship you wish to make?


:) I like you.

Of course you in no way meant to imply american soldiers or in any way sought to critizing the current american military policy. There are plenty of other countries in the business of conducting unprovoked wars over WMD that also happen to have anti-abortionists heap praise upon their soldiers...I just can't think of any right now. But nevermind that, let us continue our discussion of the moral ambiguity of soldiers of unspecified national allegiance participating in an unpopular, AND unspecified, military action in a part of the world, the location of which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, in an unknown timeframe.

And obviously at no point in time did you explicitly or implicitly indicated american soldiers or american military policy as support for your arguments. Which is rather interesting, because other than using the boiler plate Nazi references, you seem to be unable to find any other support for your statements. Unless of course, there IS some modern day relationship you wish to make?

By all means, I can use my own country as an example: There was a fucking COUP here in recent history and yet soldiers aren't called on not only the serious moral ambiguity of the actions of any soldiers but also our own dictatorship.

funny, you know, I could have sworn I heard something about "yellow cake" when this whole mess started.

Guess not.

Oh, WMD's were suspect, in fact it was over the weapon inspections that we had the right ('we' being 'UN'), and duty to invade Iraq, to enforce UN resolutions. Whether or not there were WMD's didn't matter, merely that there might have been, and Iraq was not allowing us the total access that we (again, 'we' meaning UN) demanded by way of international law.

By all means, I can use my own country as an example: There was a fucking COUP here in recent history and yet soldiers aren't called on not only the serious moral ambiguity of the actions of any soldiers but also our own dictatorship.

Your post is incoherent, please retype it to make better use of grammar, I have no idea what you are attempting to explain. Thanks! :)

Your assessment that killing is only ok in self defense is not standard. What is your basis for thinking that you have the only one possible truth out there to be had?

It does not make it ok if I kill someone because they are trying to kill my family? (its not self defense)

What about if they are trying to kill my friends?

What about people that live down the street?

What about anybody? Waht if they were trying to kill complete strangers, and I had the power to stop them? Thats not right? Because that is exactly what the US is doing in Iraq, they are laying their lives down for the lives, and freedom of people they may never have met before, for people that would otherwise not affect them in the least... that is one of the most glorious, and blessed things one can do. JEsus taught 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' if it is, then, right to kill in self defense, and I practice this love for others, than surely I can kill on their behalf, should they be oppressed or threatened.

PWNED

1- They CAUSED the whole mess in Iraq by, guess what, INVADING it. After Saddam was helped into power by the US.

2- Fine, make that "self defense or defense of others".

3- "Defense of others" does NOT COUNT if you got the other attacked in the first place.

You are so easy to PWN and yet claim I was PWNED. Poor thing.

I think Bush meant yellow cake the same way someone means it when they say "yellow snow".

right right, obviously it had to do with protecting freedoms, nothing at all to do with alleged WMDs. nope nope.

Oh, WMD's were suspect, in fact it was over the weapon inspections that we had the right ('we' being 'UN'), and duty to invade Iraq, to enforce UN resolutions. Whether or not there were WMD's didn't matter, merely that there might have been, and Iraq was not allowing us the total access that we (again, 'we' meaning UN) demanded by way of international law.

The inspectors wanted more time. That was refused to them. By Bush.

You're easy.

Oh, WMD's were suspect, in fact it was over the weapon inspections that we had the right ('we' being 'UN'), and duty to invade Iraq, to enforce UN resolutions. Whether or not there were WMD's didn't matter, merely that there might have been, and Iraq was not allowing us the total access that we (again, 'we' meaning UN) demanded by way of international law.

ahh, so it was the UN who decided to invade?

No...wait, that's wrong. In fact, the UN never authorized any invasion due to alleged violations of UN resolutions.

Your post is incoherent, please retype it to make better use of grammar, I have no idea what you are attempting to explain. Thanks! :)

I was pointing out that even my own country (Brazil) can be used as an example for the points I made in this thread. Was that beyond your grasp?

I'm waiting and seeing on this one. If he described what happens in practice it's fine, if he described it as moral it isn't.

It is both what happens in practice and moral. Because, quite simply, morality is determined by the majority, like everything else. At one point in time, it was quite alright to own slaves; that practice seems to be frowned upon now. In certain cultures, it is understandable to beat your own wife when she fails her duties; not so much in others. It used to be in some places, that you cared for your parents in their old age; the youth is quite ungrateful nowdays. Being a virgin until marriage also doesn't seem to be such a stickler anymore either.

The point is, morality is determined by the people around you. It is a vaiable societal gauge of what is right and wrong. Of course, there is always the route of saying that one specific moral compass is absolute - the roman catholic church seems to still have trouble iron out the details of that one. Of course, maybe they should take some ques from Stalin or Pol Pot.

It is both what happens in practice and moral. Because, quite simply, morality is determined by the majority, like everything else. At one point in time, it was quite alright to own slaves; that practice seems to be frowned upon now. In certain cultures, it is understandable to beat your own wife when she fails her duties; not so much in others. It used to be in some places, that you cared for your parents in their old age; the youth is quite ungrateful nowdays. Being a virgin until marriage also doesn't seem to be such a stickler anymore either.

The point is, morality is determined by the people around you. It is a vaiable societal gauge of what is right and wrong. Of course, there is always the route of saying that one specific moral compass is absolute - the roman catholic church seems to still have trouble iron out the details of that one. Of course, maybe they should take some ques from Stalin or Pol Pot.

Which would mean that 9/11 was justified because it was accepted by a given group? You do realize what kind of world you're advocating, right?

Allow me to repost something I stated in another tread some time back, basically a timeline of the war:

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.

In 1990 The UN security council originally passed UN Resolution 678, authorizing military intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In 1991 the UN passed UN Resolution 687. Resolution 687 ("the cease fire resolution") declared a conditional ceasefire and end to authorized military force authorized in UN Resolution 678.

The case fire resolution carried several conditions that Hussein and Iraq were required to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such conditions could result in a material breach of the terms of Resolution 687, and a revocation of the cease fire, thus returning us to the state of legal hostilities articulated in Resolution 678

In 2002 the UN issued Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements articulated in Resolution 687. It also stated that this was the last opportunity for Hussein and Iraq to comply with the cease fire conditions, or the cease fire would be considered null and void.

Following Resolution 1441, the US and the UK declared that Iraq was in continued violation of the cease fire terms articulated in Resolution 687 and, as Resolution 1441 stated this was the last opportunity to comply and that Hussein failed to comply, the cease fire was now null and void and Resolution 678 returned to force.

Here's the problem. This was the position of the US and the UK. It was never adopted by the security council as a whole. It remains...highly unclear whether individual nationstates can declare another nationstate in violation of a security council resolution, or if it takes the entire coucnil to do so. Resolution 1441 stated Hussein was on his final change, or the cease fire would be revoked. But it never actually revoked the cease fire. The US and the UK claimed it was revoked, but the council never reached its final position.

Whether the US and the UK could declare Hussein in violation of Resolution 687 and thus the termination of the ceasefire, without the rest of the security council is...highly questionable. Several high ranking current and former members of the UN said they could not, and it required the entire consensus of the council to do so.

Ergo, if that is true, the council never declared the ceasefire null and void, and is therefore still in place. Which would mean the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

A thought occurred to me.

Prostitutes have sex for money. They pleasure people for - again - money. Their profession is vilified.

Soldiers kill people for money. That's not pleasure, that's, well, killing people. Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

Anyone else sees the incoherency here?

"Men grow tired of sleep, love, and drinking sooner than war."

-Homer

Or some well-known Greek dude, but regardless, there is a ring of truth to it.

Ah, there it is. That nice, older than the putrid carcass of the lowest rat, "you hate America" argument that pops up whenever one dares to question its actions.

No, Myrmi, I do not hate America. I hate your current leadership, but that's also because of what it currently is doing to, yes, America. And this wasn't about America anyways. Where in the thread did I use AMERICAN soldiers as the only example? It's about soldiers everywhere, and the fact that, despite their immoral actions, they are praised as great men and their actions endorsed when they would land anyone else in jail.

Now can we please discuss this on a higher level than you calling me America-hater or "not liker" or so on?
If this is the really about soldiers _everywhere_, then didn't you settle your own question with the example of Brazilian soldiers? That they "...aren't as 'honored' as in the US..." kind of implies a regional, or local reaction to soldiering. Do you think Mexican Federales are as "honored" as American soldiers? Are the soldiers in Sudan, Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc "honored".

Even here, it's cyclic. From parades after WW2, to invisibility in Korea, to hatred in Vietnam. We've just run through another cycle. And now we're on the high point. Given this disparity in one nation, I don't think you can categorize soldiers _everywhere_ as being "honored".

Whether you hate America or Americans doesn't really matter to me. It just looks like your frame of reference is the respect that is currently being paid to soldiers in the United States. If that's not the case, then show me an example of how this phenomenon occurs _everywhere_. Please.


Now if we want to talk about something that the government does that would land any individual in jail, let's talk taxes... Could anyone else help themselves to another's property as easily?

Snip.

Having a lawyer in a debate team is akin to having a swordsman in a fighting team. :p

The inspectors wanted more time. That was refused to them. By Bush.

You're easy.

'More time' would have changed nothing. Whether technically correct or not according to UN authorization, Bush was doing his UN duty, it is the security council that failed in their duties.

Ergo... the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

I think that's probably right. But who cares? It's not like anybody is going to sue them! Would be funny if someone tried though; they'd probably get arrested, vilified, or suicided. :mp5:

You need more than laws to make people do the right things. I've complained about it, but hey.

About the prostitutes; they should be legalized; then they could be controlled! :)

also, it's worth pointing out that numerous delgates said that resolution 1441 was not self actualizing. Which means that it was not automatically triggering. The resolution warned that a revocation of the ceasefire was imminent if Iraq and Hussein did not alter course, however did not, in any way, set a "trigger" for that revocation to occur.

On that note, the comments of one specific delegate is worth pointing out:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

John Negroponte, ambassador to the United Nations from the United States

Now if we want to talk about something that the government does that would land any individual in jail, let's talk taxes... Could anyone else help themselves to another's property as easily?

You can if it's as a means of paying for a product the ones helping themselves offer. So, sorta yes, seeing as the transaction is "you get (for instance) asphalt streets to walk on, we get money to pay for them". Not unlike "you get food, I get money" deals in any supermarket. One can argue that since you're helping yourself to the (government-owned) asphalt...

'More time' would have changed nothing. Whether technically correct or not according to UN authorization, Bush was doing his UN duty, it is the security council that failed in their duties.

No. The UN was doing its duty of carrying out the inspections. Bush failed in the duty of FOLLOWING THE UN'S LAW.

The modern nation state could be defined as an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. War is basically a highly organised form of theft. The soldier is the adolescent violent impulse of the tribe given form and legitimacy by the community.

The warrior claims to defend the people against the enemy; in reality he defends the tribe against people exactly like himself; it is the warrior who is the enemy of the people.

"The monomaniac culture of conquest; the predator posing as a hero because he rides the whirlwind. But the whirlwind is empty. Horse or tank, Genghis Khan or Hitler or Stalin, it can only feed on the labours of other men." - J. Bronowski.

'More time' would have changed nothing. Whether technically correct or not according to UN authorization, Bush was doing his UN duty, it is the security council that failed in their duties.

the duty to the UN is to follow the resolutions of the UN.

Bush failed in the duty of FOLLOWING THE UN'S LAW.

Yuppie... and? You gonna sue him? How much for? I mean if each life is valued at say even $1,000,000, that's a lot of money to ask from one President...

Yuppie... and? You gonna sue him? How much for? I mean if each life is valued at say even $1,000,000, that's a lot of money to ask from one President...

But not a lot to ask from one state. Or a few states.

By all means, I can use my own country as an example: There was a fucking COUP here in recent history and yet soldiers aren't called on not only the serious moral ambiguity of the actions of any soldiers but also our own dictatorship.

I assume you speak of the 1964 coup? What of the soldiers who were purged because they actually tried stop the coup? Or how about those who remained that tried to influence a change for the better? Perhaps I give too much credit.

However, what about the efforts of the "helpless" nation? As harsh as this may sound, why did the populous not raise up against the coup plotters? Was it because they had no choice? Because they didn't know? Or even that they were afraid of being purged? Those excuses didn't seem to work for the German citizens who were overlooking the jews being exterminated in their backyards. And they had much less at stake than losing a country to an upstart dictator. Such threats to personal safety also didn't seem to be much of a deterrant to other countries that underwent coups, only to have them defeated by loyalist soldiers and/or a population with more backbone.

Fact: successful regime changes don't happen without some degree of popular support from the majority. And when the masses finally realize that it wasn't such a good idea, its already too late.

The fact that there was military support behind the Brazilian coup does not by any means make the military the reason why the coup happened. They happened to be the means by which it happened. If you want to blame the brazilian military for moral deviance, by all means do so - it is a classic example of good soliders gone bad due to lack of a moral compass provided by those they are supposed to serve.

The modern nation state could be defined as an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. War is basically a highly organised form of theft. The soldier is the adolescent violent impulse of the tribe given form and legitimacy by the community.

The warrior claims to defend the people against the enemy; in reality he defends the tribe against people exactly like himself; it is the warrior who is the enemy of the people.

"The monomaniac culture of conquest; the predator posing as a hero because he rides the whirlwind. But the whirlwind is empty. Horse or tank, Genghis Khan or Hitler or Stalin, it can only feed on the labours of other men." - J. Bronowski.

Nice first post, that one. o_O

But not a lot to ask from one state. Or a few states.

Excellent... we'll just piss off a load of economies, thus states, and then have a new war to settle it. Anyone see a pointless cycle emerging here?

It happened, better luck to humanity next time.

I assume you speak of the 1964 coup? What of the soldiers who were purged because they actually tried stop the coup? Or how about those who remained that tried to influence a change for the better? Perhaps I give too much credit.

However, what about the efforts of the "helpless" nation? As harsh as this may sound, why did the populous not raise up against the coup plotters? Was it because they had no choice? Because they didn't know? Or even that they were afraid of being purged? Those excuses didn't seem to work for the German citizens who were overlooking the jews being exterminated in their backyards. And they had much less at stake than losing a country to an upstart dictator. Such threats to personal safety also didn't seem to be much of a deterrant to other countries that underwent coups, only to have them defeated by loyalist soldiers and/or a population with more backbone.

Fact: successful regime changes don't happen without some degree of popular support from the majority. And when the masses finally realize that it wasn't such a good idea, its already too late.

The fact that there was military support behind the Brazilian coup does not by any means make the military the reason why the coup happened. They happened to be the means by which it happened. If you want to blame the brazilian military for moral deviance, by all means do so - it is a classic example of good soliders gone bad due to lack of a moral compass provided by those they are supposed to serve.

They were supposed to serve the people, represented in that case by João Goulart - deposed.

Yuppie... and? You gonna sue him? How much for? I mean if each life is valued at say even $1,000,000, that's a lot of money to ask from one President...

*shrug* he has a lot of money!

Which would mean that 9/11 was justified because it was accepted by a given group? You do realize what kind of world you're advocating, right?

Actually, by my explanation, 9/11 was justified by a certain given group. Which it was. The examples I gave simply demonstrated the variablility of morality when moving from one group to another. If you weren't so busy deliberately misinterpreting my statements, you would have understood that. The world I described is the one we live in right now. The world I would advocate is one in which I determined the moral compass by which everyone would have to abide by. One that you would most certainly agree with, except "I" would be replaced by "you".

[QUOTE=Heikoku;13279955]A thought occurred to me.

Their profession is lauded as "protecting freedoms", being that they haven't done that since WWII.

QUOTE]

Visit Korea. Check out both sides of the DMZ. South of the DMZ, wander around through the streets of small towns. North of the DMZ, ditch your official hosts, and do the same.

After you see the things you will see, consider that the Korean people are ethnically and culturally homogenous to a degree higher than most other nations- the only difference between the life you saw in the South, and the life you saw in the north, is where soldiers managed to hold the line, at indescribable cost. It will sink into your gut and stay there. You will never put the words Protecting Freedom in quotes again. You can question whether it was worth it- ask some young fashionable Korean girl in giggling into her cell phone in Seoul, would she rather be an 11th century serf, and was it OK for so many people to die, so she can have wifi internet access and a Prada bag and worry about losing weight instead of struggling just to eat enough to stay alive- but the question has too many different meanings to be of any use.

And still we only see it through the perspective of the long view. Back then, when things were raw, Hyundai was a single repair shop. And when the war was over, both sides lived under dictatorships and people on both sides bent their backs in the same kinds of rice paddies. But in the south, something was different, something was alive and squirming that wasn't there before, and half a century changes things. Is it possible that the Korean War protected freedom, but not until the 80's?

Sometimes, protecting freedom is only planting a seedling. Freedom might have been just a seedling in Korea in 1953, invisible, lost in mud and gloom, but it was there, and it was protected.

They were supposed to serve the people, represented in that case by João Goulart - deposed.

And where was the popular uprising in an attempt to reinstate him? The lack thereof indicate to me that perhaps he wasn't the manifest representation of the people. Those truly supported by the populace tend to have a pesky penchant for coming back, even after death. One such modern day example that comes to mind would be the return of Bhutto and Sharif despite best attempts of Musharraf. Of course, it is debatebly whether or not they are truly representative of the people's will, but the fact remains that they are rather popular.

Allow me to repost something I stated in another tread some time back, basically a timeline of the war:
Ergo, if that is true, the council never declared the ceasefire null and void, and is therefore still in place. Which would mean the US and the UK violated the ceasefire, and acted illegally.

Very accurate, Neo, but missing one piece. Saddam himself declared the ceasefire null and void (2000), prior to OIF. So the US and UK and Poland and Australia acted legally when they intervened in the already ongoing Iraqi Civil War. Opinions may differ, but this is the real world: opinions don't matter.

Further, even if Saddam had not declared the ceasefire null and void, the Security Council rendered the issue moot by not declaring OIF to be in breach of it.

Very accurate, Neo, but missing one piece. Saddam himself declared the ceasefire null and void (2000), prior to OIF.

Which is about as relevant as Canada declaring the Constitution of the United States null and void.

Or, to put it more directly, the ceasefire governed actions of the United Nations and its member states. Iraq could no more easily void a UN resolution than the United States. A UN resolution is binding on the UN, only a withdrawl of the ceasefire by the UN would have made an aggressive act legal under the UN. Iraq can't withdraw a UN resolution, only the UN may do that.

Further, even if Saddam had not declared the ceasefire null and void, the Security Council rendered the issue moot by not declaring OIF to be in breach of it.

Ummm...no.

Fail.

the Security Council rendered the issue moot by not declaring OIF to be in breach of it.The Secretary General did say the War+occupation was not legal.

Any Security Council declaration against the US Bombing of Iraq was -100% for sure- to be vetoed by Bush.

Having a lawyer in a debate team is akin to having a swordsman in a fighting team. :pOK. so now you have the indestructible Swordsman(NeoArt).. and the Dragon(##) on your side.
--Welcome to the Wold of Warcraft-NSG--

This is starting to look terribly unfair for the other side.


:D :D :p :D

You can if it's as a means of paying for a product the ones helping themselves offer. So, sorta yes, seeing as the transaction is "you get (for instance) asphalt streets to walk on, we get money to pay for them". Not unlike "you get food, I get money" deals in any supermarket. One can argue that since you're helping yourself to the (government-owned) asphalt...

Good arguments for another day. How about the rest of the post?

Good arguments for another day. How about the rest of the post?

Eh. I don't think I have much of a problem with the rest of the post.

As for the "hating" part, the reason this kind of claim infuriates me is that I got banned from an IRC channel back when the bloodshed was popular due to a son of a bitch that made that claim in order to, yes, shut me up.

Iraq wasn't about freedoms, it was about WM... Sadd... free... oh, whatever the fuck Bush wants. OIL!

If we didn't fight them there, we'd be fighting them here.

:p

If we didn't fight them there, we'd be fighting them here.

:p

Now, where have I heard that line bef...

[Bush]IRAQ IS IN NO WAY LIKE VIETNAM!!!

o_O

Eh. I don't think I have much of a problem with the rest of the post.

As for the "hating" part, the reason this kind of claim infuriates me is that I got banned from an IRC channel back when the bloodshed was popular due to a son of a bitch that made that claim in order to, yes, shut me up.

And your banning wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that maybe some people got upset that you are basically painting an entire profession as a bunch of good for nothing dirty mongrels because a few bad apples? The statements that you have made in regards to soldiers is akin to saying that the entire priesthood should burn in hell because you had a handful of dirtbags. Or maybe that all New York cops are dirty cops because there were a few that got caught being on the take.

I couldn't care less about what your opinions regarding past, current or future US policies are. Or any national policy for that matter. And it is even immaterial to mne that it just so happens that many of your "supporters" seem to find it necessary to mention certain irrelevant policies of a certain unspecified country. Which, by the way, is probably the reason why people assume your arguments are distinctly anti american.

What I do have a problem with is you thinking that it is somehow ok to brand a group of people who are generally very nice and hardworking people as scum of the earth. I happen to be good friends with a geat many of these professionals, come from a family with a history of serving their country and almost became one myself (I ended up deciding that I only liked the color green when it was in my wallet).

You also seem to think that it is ok to deride soldiers because of the piddling excuse that they are responsible for military coups. Perhaps the dozens of failed coups for every one successful coup as a result of military intervention doesn't mean anything?

It seems odd to me that you would not choose to hold accountable all the leaders of the soldiers who have committed atrocities. You speak of wars and how only soldiers are responsible for killing people. What of the leaders who decided that war was the answer? Soldiers merely prepare for war. The people who decide to make war are politicians - the very same people that supposedly represent the "will of people" you are so fond of saying that soldiers trample.

You attempt to conceal your true atatement by making an unrelatd argument regarding the immorality of military power in today's world and then trying to degrade by directly comparing it to something that you know would be considered distasteful. This thread had nothing to do with soldiers or prostitutes. I think has everything to do with you trying to make a statement about the role of the US in current events. So why don't you call it what it really is? Make your statement and be done with it. There's plenty of people who would be more than happy to discuss with you why "staying the course"was well and good, and plenty that would nod their heads sagely while agreeing with you.

What you're doing right now is petty, childish and quite insulting to all those who serve and have served.

So if that's the case, and we assume that sex is better than everything except violence...

violence + sex = BDSM = greatest?

I'm Allanea and I approve that message.

And your banning wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that maybe some people got upset that you are basically painting an entire profession as a bunch of good for nothing dirty mongrels because a few bad apples? (And snip)

No, my banning had to do EXCLUSIVELY with the fact that I was against the Iraq bloodshed. No more, and no less.

Also, what I do question is why exactly are people who fuck people for a living less honorable than people who kill people (not in self-defense or defense of others) for a living. I don't HAVE to point out the obvious guilt of the leaders in this case because that's not what this thread is about.

Now, where have I heard that line bef...

[Bush]IRAQ IS IN NO WAY LIKE VIETNAM!!!

o_O
Well considering Vietnam (1965-1971)?? cost 57,000 some odd American lives and the Iraq war (2002-2007) has cost what 4000? Now im not saying that lives aren't valuable but as far as casualties and carnage is concerned, Vietnam isn't like Iraq.

Well considering Vietnam (1965-1971)?? cost 57,000 some odd American lives and the Iraq war (2002-2007) has cost what 4000? Now im not saying that lives aren't valuable but as far as casualties and carnage is concerned, Vietnam isn't like Iraq.

Try and let Bush have his way so you spend another 10 years there and let's see how it turns out. Vietnam lasted longer than '65-'71.