NationStates Jolt Archive

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

war sucks alright.

our involvement in iraq has stopped us from securing afghanistan, making it more dangerous for our military.

i hate it.

Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything turns out good for your friend

War sucks, indeed :(

War does suck. It always has and it always will. It won't stop though. I hate war. Even though I hate it, I am still considering joining the military after I graduate from college. I want to be a navy corpsman.

Iraq was a strategic blunder however tactically you must admit that we did kick Iraqi Military forces. We just miscalculated. BIG TIME. We weren't ready.

I agree that Afghanistan should have been secured first. Then we should have found some way to either subdue Saddam or get rid of him without all out invasion. Bush Sr. and Clinton should ahve helped the Kurds over throw Saddam. Then when a power vaccum ensues, an international force goes in.

My brother is off fighting in Iraq because he thinks it is a good idea. Needless to say, he is incorrect.

I rather hope your friend doesn't lose any of his limbs. :(

"War is hell" - General Sherman.

why didn't we just nuke Afghanistan and Iraq and be done with it.

why didn't we just nuke Afghanistan and Iraq and be done with it.

I don't think the rest of the nuclear bearing nations of the middle east would like that to much.. nor would Russia, europe or Asia for that matter...

Yes war sucks and i feel for your friend.

A mate of mine in one of the British regiments got back from a tour in Afghan the other week. His answer to me when asked how it was:

"Hell. We lost 2 guys to permanent disability after one stepped on a land mine."

I keep thinking everytime hes out there that he isn't going to be coming back.

Nuking Mecca and blaming China would be much more efficient.

why didn't we just nuke Afghanistan and Iraq and be done with it.

I think we'd have worse problems than we do now...

Anyway, I'm sorry about your friend and I hope for the best for him and the other soldiers serving across the globe. I support our men and women wherever they serve. It's hard to really convey any emotion through this post because I don't know you specifically or your friend, and to be honest I don't have any close ties to anyone currently in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I do watch news reports as often as I can and it makes me sad when I see good men or women get hurt.

I really don't know what you want to hear but I guess you just need to get this off your chest and tell someone.

your not alone though and I hope everything turns out alright :(

our involvement in iraq has stopped us from securing Afghanistan, making it more dangerous for our military.

this is always an odd claim I read, its as though Afghanistan is in fact some happy tree land and the Soviet war machine was stopped because they could not defeat the power of love

edit: pointless military banter this thread is not though

War does suck. It always has and it always will. It won't stop though. I hate war. Even though I hate it, I am still considering joining the military after I graduate from college. I want to be a navy corpsman.

Iraq was a strategic blunder however tactically you must admit that we did kick Iraqi Military forces. We just miscalculated. BIG TIME. We weren't ready.

I agree that Afghanistan should have been secured first. Then we should have found some way to either subdue Saddam or get rid of him without all out invasion. Bush Sr. and Clinton should ahve helped the Kurds over throw Saddam. Then when a power vaccum ensues, an international force goes in.

We are repeating the Imperial Japanese Army's mistakes. Japan cared more about tactics than overall stratagem during WWII. It was because the US military at the time focussed on both that the US won the pacific war. Now here we are about 60 years later in Iraq making the same mistake the Japanese did.

this is always an odd claim I read, its as though Afghanistan is in fact some happy tree land and the Soviet war machine was stopped because they could not defeat the power of love
They couldn't! *Hugs CTP*

I really don't know what you want to hear but I guess you just need to get this off your chest and tell someone.

your not alone though and I hope everything turns out alright :(

Thanks everyone for your support. If I sounded at all like I was asking for some specific kind of response or anything, then that was my mistake in communicating. I know there's really nothing that can be said at this point, but it is, as you guessed, because I needed to get it off my chest.

I planned on coming in here and being a prick and just saying "War sucks? No shit" but then I read your story and Id feel really bad.


I hope your buddy is ok. Id like to say he should be because of of miracles of modern medicine, but I dont know enough of the story to say that in good faith.

If I was a prayin man, Id be prayin for you.


Since I can do neither, well, Im hoping like crazy hes ok, for all thats worth.

They couldn't! *Hugs CTP*

*gives in to spam urges*

omg! hes wearing a backpack run!

Dulce bellum inexpertis

How true. :(

Actually, I wouldve supported nuking the hell out of Saddam, had our reason for going in not been "you have bombs, get rid of them or we will bomb you".

D: sounds kind of hypocritical to me

*gives in to spam urges*

omg! hes wearing a backpack run!
It has milk and cookies :(


Anyway, I hope your friend is okay. I feel bad for you.

That seems more like terrorism than war to me. In a war, you have battles, armies against armies, and even though you may use the element of surprise, suicide-bombing people by surprise seems like a very, very lowly war tactic, and people who use it do not deserve to be called soldiers IMO.

War is the worst creation of man. Although sometimes needed. With that said there is nothing like seeing burned out armor with bodies still in them. I have a lot of personal photos of the Gulf war. Wasn't shy with the pics that I was taking. Wasn't suppose to be taking them either, oh well. Maybe if I round them up and get permission to post them I can show you some of the crap I saw.

Edit: Sorry to hear about this story.

That seems more like terrorism than war to me. In a war, you have battles, armies against armies, and even though you may use the element of surprise, suicide-bombing people by surprise seems like a very, very lowly war tactic, and people who use it do not deserve to be called soldiers IMO.

War is armed conflict. End of story.

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

I have a very personal connection to the war, and I support aspects of it. I support the war in Afghanistan, where we had proof that our country was attacked by actions directly related to that country, but I refuse to support the retarded war in Iraq. My brother in law has been deployed several times and has missed many things that have happened in my nephews life. The last time he came home, he was full of shrapnel and had a new hole in his leg thanks to a 7.62 x 39 round. I also have several friends in Iraq and Afghanistan from my time in the Army. I am terribly sorry to hear about your family friend. I will pray for him. War is hell, but I am afraid, to quote the popular quote, that only the dead have seen an end to war.

If it weren't for war, you probably wouldn't be using a computer right now.

Major research advancements have come out of people trying to win wars. Like the germans invented the jet fighter in WW2 to help thme rule the skies, the romans built roads to move thier armies faster, the americans created nuclear technology to win WW2.

And also, war pulled america out of the great depression and made itself the most advanced and economic super-power for decades after WW2.

War isnt good, people die, people fight, lives are destroyed.

But there are advantages. Its how countries expand. Its how people influence others. Its how humans are.

And war wasnt made by humans. Gorillas have "tribal" wars all the time over territory (gorilla warfare)

Its how humans are.


That's not an advantage, merely a cheesy soundbite.

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

You clearly lack analytical thinking skills. I support war because, unfortunately, humans have not evolved the ability to be reasonable (on large enough scale for peace to be possible). It's realism, not belligerance. I do have personal connection's with soldiers, and I can tell you that I am proud of every single US serviceman (or woman) overseas, or right here at home, one of my best friends (and one of my two groomsmen) is a soldier, along with another friend, not to mention some family members.

I appreciate you friend's sacrifice in a way you probably couldn't understand, you wouldn't let yourself. First off, I don't 'pity' him, he volunteered to join a military agency, he no doubt understood the risk. I appreciate his sacrifice for his country, for my freedoms, and for the freedoms of people he has never met, and people that "shouldn't" concern him, IMO, that is one of the most selfless acts I can think of!

So, perhaps it is you, who would belittle his contribution, and make his sacrifice seem worthless, who would debase all that he fights for, that should, as you put it so peacefully, and lovingly (ideals you claim to support): STFU.

War does suck. It always has and it always will. It won't stop though. I hate war. Even though I hate it, I am still considering joining the military after I graduate from college. I want to be a navy corpsman.

I appreciate your concern for your fellow man. :fluffle:

That's not an advantage, merely a cheesy soundbite.

As true as that may be, war is in mans nature. People get greedy and want something that doesn't belong to them. The people who have it fight to keep it. On the streets its called a mugging, at the international level, it's called a war. People want power, money, resources, and a whole bunch of other things. War is very much human nature. Just look at every little incident going on around the world. I think you would be surprised at all the acts of violence done in the name of whatever.

My brother is off fighting in Iraq because he thinks it is a good idea. Needless to say, he is incorrect.

I rather hope your friend doesn't lose any of his limbs. :(

Why is he incorrect? It's a bad idea to be selfless? It's not good to commit such an act of love for fellow humans?

It seems you are the one who is incorrect (on a moral scale, of course).

You clearly lack analytical thinking skills. I support war because, unfortunately, humans have not evolved the ability to be reasonable (on large enough scale for peace to be possible). It's realism, not belligerance. I do have personal connection's with soldiers, and I can tell you that I am proud of every single US serviceman (or woman) overseas, or right here at home, one of my best friends (and one of my two groomsmen) is a soldier, along with another friend, not to mention some family members.

I appreciate you friend's sacrifice in a way you probably couldn't understand, you wouldn't let yourself. First off, I don't 'pity' him, he volunteered to join a military agency, he no doubt understood the risk. I appreciate his sacrifice for his country, for my freedoms, and for the freedoms of people he has never met, and people that "shouldn't" concern him, IMO, that is one of the most selfless acts I can think of!

So, perhaps it is you, who would belittle his contribution, and make his sacrifice seem worthless, who would debase all that he fights for, that should, as you put it so peacefully, and lovingly (ideals you claim to support): STFU.



Careful not to fall off that high horse of yours. Its a long fall down to the level of us unwashed anti-war advocates.

Why is he incorrect? It's a bad idea to be selfless? It's not good to commit such an act of love for fellow humans?

It seems you are the one who is incorrect (on a moral scale, of course).

Oooh thats a good twist on his words. Tell me, where did he say any of that?


Your opinion would be more valid if you didnt view yourself as morally superior to everyone who disagrees.

You clearly lack analytical thinking skills. I support war because, unfortunately, humans have not evolved the ability to be reasonable (on large enough scale for peace to be possible). It's realism, not belligerance. I do have personal connection's with soldiers, and I can tell you that I am proud of every single US serviceman (or woman) overseas, or right here at home, one of my best friends (and one of my two groomsmen) is a soldier, along with another friend, not to mention some family members.

Then you're obviously not who I'm addressing, are you? Perhaps you lack critical reading comprhension skills, a fine match to the analytical skills I allegedly lack.

I appreciate you friend's sacrifice in a way you probably couldn't understand, you wouldn't let yourself. First off, I don't 'pity' him, he volunteered to join a military agency, he no doubt understood the risk. I appreciate his sacrifice for his country, for my freedoms, and for the freedoms of people he has never met, and people that "shouldn't" concern him, IMO, that is one of the most selfless acts I can think of!

Are you sure you're quoting the right post? None of these things have I contradicted or denied. Don't read between lines that aren't there.

So, perhaps it is you, who would belittle his contribution, and make his sacrifice seem worthless, who would debase all that he fights for, that should, as you put it so peacefully, and lovingly (ideals you claim to support): STFU.

Adorable. I make a claim that is essentially about how people who have no personal connection to a war or to the people whose lives are going to be at risk should not be so cavalier about the subject, and that somehow gets taken as an attack on the ideals he fought for?

As true as that may be, war is in mans nature. People get greedy and want something that doesn't belong to them. The people who have it fight to keep it. On the streets its called a mugging, at the international level, it's called a war. People want power, money, resources, and a whole bunch of other things. War is very much human nature. Just look at every little incident going on around the world. I think you would be surprised at all the acts of violence done in the name of whatever.

Fighting is in man's nature, not war. War is provoked by every man involved in it wanting to fight. It's every single soldier's fault if there IS a war. Unfortunetaly, it's sometimes for the better, such as when you are defending your country (for real).

And war is NOT necessarily because "someone's greedy". Believe it or not, many wars are fought because everyone thinks something belongs to them, and no one can prove it (sometimes because it doesn't belong to anyone). Many other wars are fought for what people think is trult good, such as Afghanistan (supposedly). To involve greed as a necessary condition is childish.

I don't think the rest of the nuclear bearing nations of the middle east would like that to much.. nor would Russia, europe or Asia for that matter...


other nuclear bearing nations in the mid east?
You mean Israel??
They would likely ask why we didn't let them do it before.

would Russia Asia and Europe do anything about it ?
UN condemnation would be about it. China might use the moment to take over Taiwan but thats seems to be the worst that could happen.

Oooh thats a good twist on his words. Tell me, where did he say any of that?


Your opinion would be more valid if you didnt view yourself as morally superior to everyone who disagrees.

Umm, in the post he (she?) said that his (her?) brother thought being a soldier was a good idea, but he (she?) said his (her?) brother was incorrect.

Meaning that there is not merit to be found in being a soldier, thats where he (she?) said it.

Fighting is in man's nature, not war. War is provoked by every man involved in it wanting to fight. It's every single soldier's fault if there IS a war. Unfortunetaly, it's sometimes for the better, such as when you are defending your country (for real).

And war is NOT necessarily because "someone's greedy". Believe it or not, many wars are fought because everyone thinks something belongs to them, and no one can prove it (sometimes because it doesn't belong to anyone). Many other wars are fought for what people think is trult good, such as Afghanistan (supposedly). To involve greed as a necessary condition is childish.

Somebody always profits from war, so to not accept greed as a motivating factor isn't completely honest. Money talks, and politicians always listen to those who contribute highly to their campaigns. So it isn't childish, it's a sad fact.

Careful not to fall of that high horse of yours. Its a long fall down to the level of us unwashed anti-war advocates.

Actually, I'm sitting in a military saddle, so it's an unlikely event that I would fall.

Also, it was an aggressive rebuttal to an aggressive attack. So me and him share the same 'high' horse... I bet that is one crowded horse. :p

Actually, I'm sitting in a military saddle, so it's an unlikely event that I would fall.

Also, it was an aggressive rebuttal to an aggressive attack. So me and him share the same 'high' horse... I bet that is one crowded horse. :p

Aggressive attack? Hardly. It was an emotional post created very soon after bad news had been broken. Poorly worded, perhaps. But given the circumstances I intend to offer no apology for them.

I stand by my statement that people who are not personally affected by the war should think long and hard before lending their support so easily. It's easy to throw lives away when you're disconnected from them.

And no, I'm not claiming a high horse as you are. You get to be holier-than-thou all by your lonesome.

Umm, in the post he (she?) said that his (her?) brother thought being a soldier was a good idea, but he (she?) said his (her?) brother was incorrect.

Meaning that there is not merit to be found in being a soldier, thats where he (she?) said it.

I wouldnt say being a soldier is a good idea. I wouldnt say there is a ton of merit in it. But thats my point of view. Other people may see a great attraction to it. One of my best friends from high school is a soldier. He was offered a full ride from 4 different schools, but he went to the military, because its what hes always wanted to do. I think hes fucking crazy. I think he made a poor choice. But to him, it was a good choice. Its all personal preferance and point of view. I always thought we were allowed to disagree with each other's choices. Guess Im been wrong.

Just because someone is a soldier doesnt mean Im obligated to worship the ground they walk on and think that the only thing I should be doing is enlisting myself.

Somebody always profits from war, so to not accept greed as a motivating factor isn't completely honest. Money talks, and politicians always listen to those who contribute highly to their campaigns. So it isn't childish, it's a sad fact.

You should have said you were speaking exclusively of today's wars. Of course no one does it without econimical justifications anymore.

Then you're obviously not who I'm addressing, are you? Perhaps you lack critical reading comprhension skills, a fine match to the analytical skills I allegedly lack.

Are you sure you're quoting the right post? None of these things have I contradicted or denied. Don't read between lines that aren't there.

Adorable. I make a claim that is essentially about how people who have no personal connection to a war or to the people whose lives are going to be at risk should not be so cavalier about the subject, and that somehow gets taken as an attack on the ideals he fought for?

The OP was very aggressive and the 'personal connection' statement seemed 'tacked on' if you will. What I got from the post was that there would be no reason to be pro-war, and anyone with a personal connection could not be pro-war, so, it was part misunderstanding on my part, and I do feel sympathetic for you, but if it consoles you to think of it in a different light, his sacrifice really was made for the betterment of the lives of others, and I can think of little better self-sacrifice than that.

Actually, I'm sitting in a military saddle, so it's an unlikely event that I would fall.

Also, it was an aggressive rebuttal to an aggressive attack. So me and him share the same 'high' horse... I bet that is one crowded horse. :p

Careful in that military saddle in a joust you can break your back. or atleast the high back medieval one.

And no, I'm not claiming a high horse as you are. You get to be holier-than-thou all by your lonesome.

:(

I don't like being lonely!

Actually, meh, it's ok sometimes.

Also, I never claimed my own high horse in any way other than jest... so, I guess the horse is all by his lonesome.

Careful in that military saddle in a joust you can break your back. or atleast the high back medieval one.

Right... but I won't fall out as easy.

Then again I use my back a lot... hmmm...

You've given me a lot to think about! :p

The OP was very aggressive and the 'personal connection' statement seemed 'tacked on' if you will. What I got from the post was that there would be no reason to be pro-war, and anyone with a personal connection could not be pro-war, so, it was part misunderstanding on my part, and I do feel sympathetic for you, but if it consoles you to think of it in a different light, his sacrifice really was made for the betterment of the lives of others, and I can think of little better self-sacrifice than that.

It was tacked on a bit. In fact my post even admits that I'm attempting to throw an Aesop into the post to turn it into more than just a blog entry. And as hastily worded and emotionally influenced as it was, I still agree with the general sentiment that was (trying to be) expressed.

People who have no personal connection to a war should STFU or at the very least think long and hard before adopting a pro-war stance for the very reason that it's easy to throw away lives that mean nothing to you. That's my opinion at least.

Well, i feel for your loss...

But, War in general can never be avoided, im not saying its good, im not even saying that its justified...

But, there will always come a time when you dont have a choice...

People who have no personal connection to a war should STFU or at the very least think long and hard before adopting a pro-war stance for the very reason that it's easy to throw away lives that mean nothing to you. That's my opinion at least.

Agreed.

I also feel that people with no connection should similarly think long and before adopting an anti-war stance.

It seems like there are a lot of young idealists who have too much faith in humanity, as it were. I understand some reasons for being anti-war, but it seems like a lot of the anti-war sentiment is little more than fad.

I do apologize if I offended you, I understand emotionality, and did not realize (or skimmed over that part) that the news was very recent, and still very emotionally effecting.

Agreed.

I also feel that people with no connection should similarly think long and before adopting an anti-war stance.

I need to think long and hard if I agree with sending young men off to die over suspect reasons?


I dont think so.

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life. If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.

I need to think long and hard if I agree with sending young men off to die over suspect reasons?


I dont think so.

Soldiers are sent over to death camps overseas? I was unaware.

I think they are sent there to help change the world for the better, the reasons were shoddy, which is too bad, because there were valid reasons for being over there, but I don't believe we are trying to kill our soldiers intentionally, if you can cite that claim, feel free.

Agreed.

I also feel that people with no connection should similarly think long and before adopting an anti-war stance.

It seems like there are a lot of young idealists who have too much faith in humanity, as it were. I understand some reasons for being anti-war, but it seems like a lot of the anti-war sentiment is little more than fad.

I do apologize if I offended you, I understand emotionality, and did not realize (or skimmed over that part) that the news was very recent, and still very emotionally effecting.

It was a single line, and it didn't specify an exact length of time between the news and the post, less than 20 minutes.

That said, I'm not sure I would agree that the inverse of my statement is also true. Mainly because I think that Anti-War should be the default, not because of the innate Goodness of Man but for the immeasurable cost of human life.

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life. If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.

Thank you for everything that you've done, and sacrificed for both myself, and this country, you are an American (I assume) hero.

To paraphrase a well-known quotation, war's awful, but that's the only thing that keeps us from getting to the end of a war and thinking, "We should do this more often!"

That said, I'm not sure I would agree that the inverse of my statement is also true. Mainly because I think that Anti-War should be the default, not because of the innate Goodness of Man but for the immeasurable cost of human life.I think you meant American life. The 2 Iraq wars are 2 of the only times in history when someone has actually attempted to prevent a genocide. (Spreading awareness doesn't count.)

To paraphrase a well-known quotation, war's awful, but that's the only thing that keeps us from getting to the end of a war and thinking, "We should do this more often!"

That reminds me of a bunch of quotes.

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing
good in war. Except its ending."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a
crime."
- Ernest Hemingway

"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
- Ulysses S. Grant

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."
- Robert E. Lee

"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's
country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying.
You will die like a dog for no good reason."
- Ernest Hemmingway

"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is
all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations yet to come. I look
upon war with horror."
- General William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is delightful to those who have not experienced it."
- Erasmus

[The Erasmus quote alludes to the view I've expressed earlier]

And here's one by Edison that is both hopeful and disturbing all at once.

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so
fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the
fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death,
will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."
- Thomas A. Edison

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life. If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.
I can tell you right now my dad would totally agree. He is Army Special Forces, which I hope to be as well.
He loves his job, even though he makes huge sacrifices for it.
As for THIS war, well, that's a different topic. But I can tell you that almost all of the soldiers I have met are for it.

Beat me to just about all those quotes...

I think you meant American life. The 2 Iraq wars are 2 of the only times in history when someone has actually attempted to prevent a genocide. (Spreading awareness doesn't count.)

It was for this reason that I feel that a pro/anti war basis should be decided by an educated opinion on the direct circumstances. Am I pro-WWII? Yes... erm, kinda, I'm not pro-Germany's side of WWII, but I realize that we Americans needed to do what needed doing.

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life.

Please tell me how this is so. I'm not trying to be a bastard. This is really an honest and sincere question. I don't get the connection between your fighting thousands of miles away and my personal safety here in the US. If there were an invasion of the US and you fought defending New York City, I could see it. Or if you were thousands of miles away fighting a powerful state (like that of Nazi Germany back in the day) whose stated intention was to invade the US, I could definitely see it.

But Panama and the Gulf War? I just don't see it.


If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.

I am definitely privileged not to have been to or live in a Third World country. I really hope the situation can improve over there. But I can't help but wonder whether what the US has done sometimes (and I'm not saying you support these things necessarily) has harmed the Third World and helped to make it as unstable as it is right now.

Our involvement in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and Indonesia/East Timor kind of spring to my mind.

Do you think the world might be a better place if instead of having so many wars we just supported popular revolutions for just causes (rather than blowing up the infrastructure as in Iraq or supporting fascist military coups in the Third World)?

It was for this reason that I feel that a pro/anti war basis should be decided by an educated opinion on the direct circumstances. Am I pro-WWII? Yes... erm, kinda, I'm not pro-Germany's side of WWII, but I realize that we Americans needed to do what needed doing.

That's a defensive war though. I never did specify in the OP, but a defensive war is IMO justified by its nature.

Well, I'm tired, and so, I'm going to bed.

G'night.

To be pro-war is to be for one of the greatest evils of all time. I am entirely anti-war; I cannot condone killing.

War is, however, sometimes the least of evils. Look at the Allies in World War II. I maintain that the war was still a great evil. However, the alternative, not opposing Nazi Germany, was far worse.

War is never good-- but sometimes all the other options are even worse.

To be pro-war is to be for one of the greatest evils of all time. I am entirely anti-war; I cannot condone killing.

Yikes, don't put yourself in the pacifist box. You don't have to be a pacifist to be a principled opponent of war.


War is, however, sometimes the least of evils. Look at the Allies in World War II. I maintain that the war was still a great evil. However, the alternative, not opposing Nazi Germany, was far worse.

Yes, and this is why the war may have been evil, but violent resistance (up to and including a LOT of killing) is not only good but also highly desirable.

If I could go back and change history, I would have had all the German workers say "fuck you" to Hitler, call a general strike and take Hitler's whole regime down and the State while they were at it. (It would have involved a lot of killing, but at least it would not have been war.)


War is never good-- but sometimes all the other options are even worse.
Maybe, but then I can't help but think what would have happened had all the workers folded their arms before World War I. Then the dumbest war in history would never have happened.

...I support the war in Afghanistan, where we had proof that our country was attacked by actions directly related to that country,...

If that's the case, you should be attacking KSA and Pak.

If that's the case, you should be attacking KSA and Pak.

Im not entirely sure what KSA stands for...but, we fear Pakistan's nuclear arsenal...so we refuse to piss them off...

Im not entirely sure what KSA stands for...but, we fear Pakistan's nuclear arsenal...so we refuse to piss them off...
Interesting that we don't mess with countries that have nukes, no matter their human rights record (*ahem* China... Or indeed, *ahem* US.)

At the same time, we don't want anyone else to get nuclear weapons.

Call me cynical, but I think that suggests a penchant for world domination.

I read the title to the thread and I instantly had a thought form in my head:

"Well, duh!!"

I know what you mean, OP. My best friend is a Corpsmen with the 2nd Marine Division, and he was deployed for his first tour on land just a few weeks ago.

Yikes, don't put yourself in the pacifist box. You don't have to be a pacifist to be a principled opponent of war.

I don't follow. Certainly, to be against war is to be for peace, no?

Whenever war must be waged, peace should be the ultimate goal.


Yes, and this is why the war may have been evil, but violent resistance (up to and including a LOT of killing) is not only good but also highly desirable.

If I could go back and change history, I would have had all the German workers say "fuck you" to Hitler, call a general strike and take Hitler's whole regime down and the State while they were at it. (It would have involved a lot of killing, but at least it would not have been war.)

The killing itself would certainly not be desirable. However, it would be a lesser evil, in theory.

In theory, because killing Hitler would, in reality, accomplish little. With the state Germany was in at the time, somebody would have arisen. If it wasn't Hitler, it would have been somebody else-- maybe somebody a bit more intelligent, who might have crushed the British at Dunkirk, or who might not have attacked the Soviet Union, or who might not have fallen for the ruse that led Hitler to believe that the landing at Normandy was a distraction to keep his sights off of Calais.

Or maybe something worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Red_Alert_series)would happen. But I digress.


Maybe, but then I can't help but think what would have happened had all the workers folded their arms before World War I. Then the dumbest war in history would never have happened.

Unless I misunderstand you, you say that like it's a bad thing.


Perhaps I should explain a big part of why I find killing to be so horrible.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. When you kill somebody, that's it for them. So you better have a damn good reason to be doing it. Even then, killing might simply be the lesser evil. It might be a necessary evil. But it's still not a good thing.


"Remember, the true object of war is peace. "

"In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidly bringing it to a close."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Interesting that we don't mess with countries that have nukes, no matter their human rights record (*ahem* China... Or indeed, *ahem* US.)

At the same time, we don't want anyone else to get nuclear weapons.

Call me cynical, but I think that suggests a penchant for world domination.

I agree, ive always said that the best way to help America in the 21st Century is to completely Disarm all Nuclear Weapons...

They serve no purpose, no longer as a deterrent, for current enemies dont fear death, and we cannot use them for fear of Nuclear Armageddon...

We need to finish programs like 'Star Wars' that can disarm or disable Nuclear weapons before they can reach our shores...

Then, we can tell the rest of the world not to pursue Nuclear Weapons...

Its allot like the Alcoholic that tells you not to Drink...

I agree, ive always said that the best way to help America in the 21st Century is to completely Disarm all Nuclear Weapons...

They serve no purpose, no longer as a deterrent, for current enemies dont fear death, and we cannot use them for fear of Nuclear Armageddon...

We need to finish programs like 'Star Wars' that can disarm or disable Nuclear weapons before they can reach our shores...

Then, we can tell the rest of the world not to pursue Nuclear Weapons...

Its allot like the Alcoholic that tells you not to Drink...

The problem comes from opportunism. The situation where a few countries only have nuclear weapons have "stabilized" the arms race a bit. If more people get the nuclear bomb, those who actually have it will be forced to seek a more powerful weapon, to avoid that their people lose faith even more in their government.

Also, in a world of guns, would you be the sucker that downgrades to a knife first?

I don't follow. Certainly, to be against war is to be for peace, no?

Whenever war must be waged, peace should be the ultimate goal.

I was under the impression that when you said "I cannot condone killing," you were opposing war on pacifist grounds. I think that the sentiment is wonderful, but the moral theory is misplaced. Sorry if I misunderstand you.


The killing itself would certainly not be desirable. However, it would be a lesser evil, in theory.

No. I think killing can be good. The reasons why we kill are what really count. For example, if somebody has stated an intention to kill a loved one or my neighbor, and I have reason to believe this person can actually make good on his pronouncement, I would smile as I blow his brains out.


In theory, because killing Hitler would, in reality, accomplish little. With the state Germany was in at the time, somebody would have arisen. If it wasn't Hitler, it would have been somebody else-- maybe somebody a bit more intelligent, who might have crushed the British at Dunkirk, or who might not have attacked the Soviet Union, or who might not have fallen for the ruse that led Hitler to believe that the landing at Normandy was a distraction to keep his sights off of Calais.

Quite so. I am aware of that. I don't think shooting Hitler would have solved all of the world's problems, but it would have been a good thing. Incidentally, someone did actually shoot Lenin, and that was a moral thing to do. Too bad he lingered about another month before he finally died.

I was merely musing at how I wish history had turned out. I wish the German workers would have gotten together and called a general strike (which is decidedly less violent than putting a bullet through Hitler's brain) and brought down production to make war impossible.




Unless I misunderstand you, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Yes, you do misunderstand me. I am saying that World War I was the most asinine and stupid war in history, and that it's too bad that syndicalists and workers did not call a general strike and halt production so that the war would not have happened.


Perhaps I should explain a big part of why I find killing to be so horrible.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. When you kill somebody, that's it for them. So you better have a damn good reason to be doing it. Even then, killing might simply be the lesser evil. It might be a necessary evil. But it's still not a good thing.

It's good to see another nonbelieving comrade. (I'm a strong agnostic.) I guess I come at killing from a different angle. I'm grounded in a humanist view, and for me, that means that my purpose is to figure out what it means to be a human being and live humanity to its fullest. I should go out and actively make the world a better place. When I have agency to prevent or minimize human suffering, it is morally imperative for me to do it. Not only is it morally imperative, but it is life-serving, and therefore virtuous and desirable.



"Remember, the true object of war is peace. "

For some wars, I would not deny the truth of what you say. Particular when it comes to those who wage war in defense (poor them)! But war which is started is generally started for conquest. When I look back at US engagements and meddling, sure, I see World War II, but that's kind of a favorite refrain of war hawks (how can you oppose World War II???). But what I really see is the US supporting a bunch of quasi-fascists around the world. From Chile, to East Timor, I see a bunch of capitalist cruelty. Thus I tend more to formulate this:

"Remember, the true object of war is conquest."


"In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidly bringing it to a close."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's not the point. A few specific people are supposed to benefit from war. Profiteers, for example. Everybody else is supposed to suffer, and (for them), who cares?

EDIT:

I agree, ive always said that the best way to help America in the 21st Century is to completely Disarm all Nuclear Weapons...

They serve no purpose, no longer as a deterrent, for current enemies dont fear death, and we cannot use them for fear of Nuclear Armageddon...

We need to finish programs like 'Star Wars' that can disarm or disable Nuclear weapons before they can reach our shores...

Then, we can tell the rest of the world not to pursue Nuclear Weapons...

Its allot like the Alcoholic that tells you not to Drink...
I hate to be picky and seem like I'm disagreeing just for the sake of arguing, but I have a few worries about Star Wars.

1) It's unlikely to work.
2) Given that it's unlikely to work, and much of the world is starving (hell, people are starving in the US right now) it seems like a positively criminal and inhumane waste of resources.
3) Even if it could reasonably be expected to work without costing enough money to feed the whole planet for a few weeks, in a perverse way, MAD provides the kind of stability that Star Wars threatens to render a moot point. If I'm China, I'm thinking, "Hell, the US is developing the technology to render our nuclear deterrent useless; Oh well, might as well launch everything we've got."

I suggest as an alternative the idea that we need a radical realignment of priorities. Honestly, it seems so simple to me. We spend billions of dollars on planes, bombs, infrastructure, guns, soldiers and ships, whose purpose, really, is just to kill people for the rulers. And that's going to take the whole of society to come to a realization that military spending is insane both in mathematical and human terms.

I agree, ive always said that the best way to help America in the 21st Century is to completely Disarm all Nuclear Weapons...

They serve no purpose, no longer as a deterrent, for current enemies dont fear death, and we cannot use them for fear of Nuclear Armageddon...

We need to finish programs like 'Star Wars' that can disarm or disable Nuclear weapons before they can reach our shores...

Then, we can tell the rest of the world not to pursue Nuclear Weapons...

Its allot like the Alcoholic that tells you not to Drink...

we need to nuke a country totally to obliteration before we disarm at least one Iran is a good candidate.

The are those in the right who will try and point to the left and say they are unpatriotic. They say this forgetting that north-eastern states gave some of the most troops per capita to this war, that is democrats who are interesting in serving our veterans in the battlefield (through proper equipment, and deployment only when necessary) and at home (through better veterans health care, psychological care, and assistance with re-integration; there is nothing unpatriotic of saying "I will not ask a man to put himself in harms way unless absolutely necessary, and then he deserves the respect and treatment that reflect his heroism".

Our thoughts and hopes are with you are your family in this time (I am sure I speak of most of NSG when I say that).

we need to nuke a country totally to obliteration before we disarm at least one Iran is a good candidate.
I'm not going to flame straight out of the gate, favoring instead to let you know forcefully that I find this sentiment entirely unacceptable.

If we want to obliterate Iran (as that bitch Hillary Clinton suggested she might do, in fact, that was the word she used), we have to believe that nobody in Iran is innocent. Not everyone is saying "death to Israel; death to the Jews; death to America." It's just a despotic dictatorship, and if you're either unwilling or unable to separate the sentiments of a ruled people from those of the rulers, then I don't think we really have anything to say to each other.

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

If you want to make a fortune invent something that will enable the European's to cut their throats' with greater facility.

Adversity breeds inovation.

Peace is boring. War is exciting.

War rocks! Go War!

I'm not going to flame straight out of the gate, favoring instead to let you know forcefully that I find this sentiment entirely unacceptable.

If we want to obliterate Iran (as that bitch Hillary Clinton suggested she might do, in fact, that was the word she used), we have to believe that nobody in Iran is innocent. Not everyone is saying "death to Israel; death to the Jews; death to America." It's just a despotic dictatorship, and if you're either unwilling or unable to separate the sentiments of a ruled people from those of the rulers, then I don't think we really have anything to say to each other.

Not everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were guilty but i would definitely do those again.
And we could likely skip some of the more desolate parts where the oil is (send 3rd word workers to extract it and pay them extra for the cancer they will like get.)


P.S. drunk right now so i tend to be a little extreme, just to be inflammatory.

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

*is sad for your friend!!*

War is horrid. Just horrid. You kill one person in peacetime and get thrown in jail. You kill one hundred in war and get a shiny medal pinned on your chest. Go figure.

*is sad for your friend!!*

War is horrid. Just horrid. You kill one person in peacetime and get thrown in jail. You kill one hundred in war and get a shiny medal pinned on your chest. Go figure.
Translation: So you wish Keiko was a man?

Exactly! Exactly!

srsly, what's so bad about killing? It's how life works. Things do what they need to do to survive and thrive even if that means killing. It's not a bunch of Disney bullshit where lions, wild pigs and merekats get together and sing songs. Violence is the oldest form of conflict resolution and remains one of the most effective.

*is sad for your friend!!*

War is horrid. Just horrid. You kill one person in peacetime and get thrown in jail. You kill one hundred in war and get a shiny medal pinned on your chest. Go figure.

War is just...barbaric, it's ludicrous.

And to anyone who says it's just part of human nature - so is murder, so is rape, but we acknowledge and criminalise those things.

War is appalling but powerful people stand to make a lot of money out of it. And when money is what drives someone over respect for human life, that's when things fuck up.

You look at all the huge arms dealing companies selling to warring third world nations, it's sick.

srsly, what's so bad about killing? It's how life works. Things do what they need to do to survive and thrive even if that means killing. It's not a bunch of Disney bullshit where lions, wild pigs and merekats get together and sing songs. Violence is the oldest form of conflict resolution and remains one of the most effective.

Are you actually asking "what's so bad about killing?"

The point is we now live in a civilised society where we DON'T NEED TO KILL TO SURVIVE.

And yet we still do, apparently just for the hell of it.

And you're in favour of this?

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

If you want to make a fortune invent something that will enable the European's to cut their throats' with greater facility.

Adversity breeds inovation.

Peace is boring. War is exciting.

War rocks! Go War!

Isn't rule 35 "Peace is good for business"?

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

If you want to make a fortune invent something that will enable the European's to cut their throats' with greater facility.

Adversity breeds inovation.

Peace is boring. War is exciting.

War rocks! Go War!


I was thinking of a time to place you. I think the late 19th century is appropriate because at the time the European powers and fighting themselves crazy for colonies and profit.

Wake up. We're in the 21st century. War no longer brings profit. Trade is good for business. Consumption is good for business. Competition is good for innovation.

If you haven't noticed it has been around 60 years since the last major European war, the longest stretch of peace in Europe since...a long time ago.

I was thinking of a time to place you. I think the late 19th century is appropriate because at the time the European powers and fighting themselves crazy for colonies and profit.

Wake up. We're in the 21st century. War no longer brings profit. Trade is good for business. Consumption is good for business. Competition is good for innovation.

If you haven't noticed it has been around 60 years since the last major European war, the longest stretch of peace in Europe since...a long time ago.

I sense Indri might be trolling us. But my troll-o-meter has been a bit off lately.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

No one supports war nor craves it (except maybe bloodthirsty fools).

Then you're obviously not who I'm addressing, are you? Perhaps you lack critical reading comprhension skills, a fine match to the analytical skills I allegedly lack.

Oy ve. He's the very person you are addressing. YOu said and I quote "unless you have a personal connection, STFU"

Obviously he has a personal connection to war. As do I as my dad served in both Iraq and Afghanistan before retiring. Not to mention all the other combat zones he's been in.

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life. If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.

Well said and thanks for all you have done and for your service.

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?
I've been there, lost friends, and killed strangers. War does suck. There's nothing to make it better. Devastating injuries like your friend suffered are just part and parcel of war. It's all part of trying to defeat the other guy. The only way to do that is to make the losses so bad that the other side no longer has any will to fight.

Is the current fight in SWA worth it? I think so. I'd go back. I've got a nephew that will be going back to Ashcanistan in a few months and I hate like hell to see him go. But it's his choice and he believes that the effort is worth his life or limb.

You know, we fight and die in such crappy places. Why couldn't we have a war on the Riviera or down in South Beach?

That reminds me of a bunch of quotes.

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."
- Robert E. Lee

This is the one I was thinking of, but the others are good too.

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

If you want to make a fortune invent something that will enable the European's to cut their throats' with greater facility.

Adversity breeds inovation.

Peace is boring. War is exciting.

War rocks! Go War!

#35: Peace is good for business. :p

I was under the impression that when you said "I cannot condone killing," you were opposing war on pacifist grounds. I think that the sentiment is wonderful, but the moral theory is misplaced. Sorry if I misunderstand you.

It's possible that we're going off different definitions of pacifism. To me, pacifism is any opposition to war-- it doesn't mean that you're so unreasonable that you think war can always be avoided, or that you think we should never go to war. I recognize that war is, at times, a necessary evil, if it is the only way to accomplish a far greater good.

No. I think killing can be good. The reasons why we kill are what really count. For example, if somebody has stated an intention to kill a loved one or my neighbor, and I have reason to believe this person can actually make good on his pronouncement, I would smile as I blow his brains out.

I would argue that the good thing you're doing there is saving the neighbor or loved one, not the killing itself. The killing is a means to doing a good act, but it is not good itself.
However, it's unlikely you'd need to kill him to save your loved one. If you could restrain him with nonlethal force, I would argue that you should.

Quite so. I am aware of that. I don't think shooting Hitler would have solved all of the world's problems, but it would have been a good thing. Incidentally, someone did actually shoot Lenin, and that was a moral thing to do. Too bad he lingered about another month before he finally died.

I was merely musing at how I wish history had turned out. I wish the German workers would have gotten together and called a general strike (which is decidedly less violent than putting a bullet through Hitler's brain) and brought down production to make war impossible.

Of course, a very plausible downside is that Germany would still be an economic hellhole as a result of the horribly unjust Treaty of Versailles. But it certainly would be nice to have no Holocaust. Though the best option would be for there to be no WWI in the first place, seeing as the ToV was largely responsible for WWII. Really, I think the people who drafted the treaty were complete dumbasses for not foreseeing what would eventually happen.


Yes, you do misunderstand me. I am saying that World War I was the most asinine and stupid war in history, and that it's too bad that syndicalists and workers did not call a general strike and halt production so that the war would not have happened.

Even better would have been if the people in charge were responsible, of course.


It's good to see another nonbelieving comrade. (I'm a strong agnostic.) I guess I come at killing from a different angle. I'm grounded in a humanist view, and for me, that means that my purpose is to figure out what it means to be a human being and live humanity to its fullest. I should go out and actively make the world a better place. When I have agency to prevent or minimize human suffering, it is morally imperative for me to do it. Not only is it morally imperative, but it is life-serving, and therefore virtuous and desirable.

I don't actually think our ultimate viewpoints are that different, really, but our interpretation of them is. For example, I agree that the "net morality" of stopping Hitler was good-- because if you compare the good of stopping Hitler to the evil of war, then it works out that it was, overall, a just action.

Similarly, shooting a suicide bomber just before he manages to blow up a town square would have a positive net morality-- yes, you've killed somebody, but all the people you've saved more than balance that out.


For some wars, I would not deny the truth of what you say. Particular when it comes to those who wage war in defense (poor them)! But war which is started is generally started for conquest. When I look back at US engagements and meddling, sure, I see World War II, but that's kind of a favorite refrain of war hawks (how can you oppose World War II???). But what I really see is the US supporting a bunch of quasi-fascists around the world. From Chile, to East Timor, I see a bunch of capitalist cruelty. Thus I tend more to formulate this:

"Remember, the true object of war is conquest."


That's not the point. A few specific people are supposed to benefit from war. Profiteers, for example. Everybody else is supposed to suffer, and (for them), who cares?

Yeah, I'm saying ideally, not in practice. War can benefit certain parties, but benefit to a select few parties at the expense of the common good is not, I would think, a good thing.

Oy ve. He's the very person you are addressing. YOu said and I quote "unless you have a personal connection, STFU"

Obviously he has a personal connection to war. As do I as my dad served in both Iraq and Afghanistan before retiring. Not to mention all the other combat zones he's been in.

Right. And sense he has a personal connection to the war, no STFU. Therefore that part of my original post was not aimed at him.

My brother is off fighting in Iraq because he thinks it is a good idea. Needless to say, he is incorrect.


I bet he says the same about you.

Im not entirely sure what KSA stands for...but, we fear Pakistan's nuclear arsenal...so we refuse to piss them off...

KSA - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Given that 16/18 hijackers were Saudis, and the plan was masterminded by a Saudi aided by Pakistani intelligence, it makes perfect sense to have them as "allies". Afghanistan's crime was that it was occupied by taliban, a then Pakistani proxy. And instead of routing them right there, USA allowed it to escape (Kunduz airlift etc)..I could go on and on...seriously, the mismanagement of the whole thing just boggles the mind..numb as it is from the endless mismanagements..

Isn't rule 35 "Peace is good for business"?
#35: Peace is good for business. :p
Not if you're an arms merchant.

I admit there was a bit of trolling there but you peaceniks need to understand something. Getting rid of war would be more difficult than FTL travel. It demands at least one, and probably two, psychological developments radical enough to be called breakthroughs. The really necessary advance would involve some method of eliminating the almost universal human attitude that one's own rights are as important as anyone else's.

Not more important. As important.

I am not saying that people shouldn't feel that way, or don't have a right to feel that way, or that it's immoral or even unreasonably selfish. I simply say that unless and until it changes, conflicts of interest will continue to lead to violence in the name of right, freedom, and The People.

What specific situation starts things off is trivial beside the general principle that my right is as important as yours. If a way were actually discovered to alter this bit of human nature there would be screams against the dangers of psychological research; and if a government or some other group tried to apply the techniques, plenty of people (myself included) would fight for the right to their own minds.

Please note that death, destruction, and mayhem are not primary aims of war. They may be secondary ones, as when a cannibal tribe attacks its neighbors for meat, but more usually they are just inconvenient by-products. The aim and end of war is to impose one's will on an opponent.

Unfortunately, imposing one's will on another includes the situation in which your will is merely that he not impose his on you.

Obvious war thread is obviously correct.
War sucks.
I'm pretty sure most folks would agree here, unless they happen to have some bizzare logic, or intend on being an upcoming sadist.

Saudi Arabia is not at fault for it's citizens being terrorists, in fact, SA ordered Osama out of SA. The government does not harbor terrorists. Saying we should have gone after them is kinda wasteful.
Does not mean there are no terrorists there, and that we should not get them too.

Obvious war thread is obviously correct.
War sucks.
I'm pretty sure most folks would agree here, unless they happen to have some bizzare logic, or intend on being an upcoming sadist.
Didn't you read my last post? I don't have some bizzare logic, I'm just pesimistic.

Of course war sucks. Everybody with an ounce of reason understand this.

The real question, when deciding on how you feel about a war, isn't whether it was a good thing, but whether it was NECESSARY. However you feel about Iraq, Afganistan or WWII for that matter, you don't weigh the decision on the goodness or badness of war, but whether or not it had to be done.

And I take exception to the idea that only those who have been personally impacted by Afganistan get to talk about it. (Or who agree with the OP, which is apparently just as good.) Soldiers don't decide policy. The family and friends of soldiers don't decide policy. We respect and admire soldiers because they do what they have to do REGARDLESS of personal feelings. Anybody can be brave when they're enthusiastic about something. It's the ones who grit their teeth and do it despite their feelings that truly demonstrate courage.

So to the OP: understand that while we all feel badly for your friend, and all hope for his recovery, we do still have our opinions on whether the war in Afganistan is necessary and your friend went into battle and fought for our right to express it. It seems to me that honors him more than your juvenile-sounding 'STFU.'

Didn't you read my last post? I don't have some bizzare logic, I'm just pesimistic.
Sorry i didn't read it before i posted.
ah...yep that comes under bizzare logic.

Of course war sucks. Everybody with an ounce of reason understand this.

The real question, when deciding on how you feel about a war, isn't whether it was a good thing, but whether it was NECESSARY. However you feel about Iraq, Afganistan or WWII for that matter, you don't weigh the decision on the goodness or badness of war, but whether or not it had to be done.

And I take exception to the idea that only those who have been personally impacted by Afganistan get to talk about it. (Or who agree with the OP, which is apparently just as good.) Soldiers don't decide policy. The family and friends of soldiers don't decide policy. We respect and admire soldiers because they do what they have to do REGARDLESS of personal feelings. Anybody can be brave when they're enthusiastic about something. It's the ones who grit their teeth and do it despite their feelings that truly demonstrate courage.

So to the OP: understand that while we all feel badly for your friend, and all hope for his recovery, we do still have our opinions on whether the war in Afganistan is necessary and your friend went into battle and fought for our right to express it. It seems to me that honors him more than your juvenile-sounding 'STFU.'

And once again, note the timing and point of my post.

That said, it's pretty easy to talk about honor when it's not your life on the line, isn't it?

true, and i feel very sorry for your friend, to be honist im not behind iraq or ahpganistan( sorry about the spellings)

You clearly lack analytical thinking skills. I support war because, unfortunately, humans have not evolved the ability to be reasonable (on large enough scale for peace to be possible). It's realism, not belligerance. I do have personal connection's with soldiers, and I can tell you that I am proud of every single US serviceman (or woman) overseas, or right here at home, one of my best friends (and one of my two groomsmen) is a soldier, along with another friend, not to mention some family members.

I appreciate you friend's sacrifice in a way you probably couldn't understand, you wouldn't let yourself. First off, I don't 'pity' him, he volunteered to join a military agency, he no doubt understood the risk. I appreciate his sacrifice for his country, for my freedoms, and for the freedoms of people he has never met, and people that "shouldn't" concern him, IMO, that is one of the most selfless acts I can think of!

So, perhaps it is you, who would belittle his contribution, and make his sacrifice seem worthless, who would debase all that he fights for, that should, as you put it so peacefully, and lovingly (ideals you claim to support): STFU.

You're an asshole. Clearly humanity has never touched your heart, may you live with shame and die poor and alone. No one ever belittled his contribution. Does that mean you're allowed to step in and call a grieving person stupid, much less tell them to stfu? Your friends haven't died there- my father was in that war. He shot a US soldier, his friend, on accident, and unable to control the grief, shot himself.
So until you REALLY understand the loss that comes from war, you should be the one to STFU. Right now, before you wind up saying something stupider than you already have.

Sorry i didn't read it before i posted.
ah...yep that comes under bizzare logic.
It's not bizzare logic, just a pessimistic or even cynical view of humanity. And I'm not alone in my analysis.

we all seem to have very different opinions depending on wheather we have lossed a loved one in war or just have an opinion.

true, and i feel very sorry for your friend, to be honist im not behind iraq or ahpganistan( sorry about the spellings)

Why not Afghanistan if I may ask?

It's not bizzare logic, just a pessimistic or even cynical view of humanity. And I'm not alone in my analysis.

heh (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/02/12/oh-lawd/)
even if other people agree with you it doesn't mean you're correct.
I count it as bizzare, and it stay's that way unless i receive a good payment for my trouble.
dune. (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/02/07/the-spice-must-flow/)
:)

KSA - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Given that 16/18 hijackers were Saudis, and the plan was masterminded by a Saudi aided by Pakistani intelligence, it makes perfect sense to have them as "allies". Afghanistan's crime was that it was occupied by taliban, a then Pakistani proxy. And instead of routing them right there, USA allowed it to escape (Kunduz airlift etc)..I could go on and on...seriously, the mismanagement of the whole thing just boggles the mind..numb as it is from the endless mismanagements..

Just because the terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia doesnt mean that Saudia Arabia supports or harbors terrorists. As somebody before me stated, they actually kicked out Osama. The hijackers were aided with Pakistani intelligence, so should we start a war with Pakistan, too? I'm pretty sure that a war with either would be much more unpopular than Iraq or Afghanistan now.

heh (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/02/12/oh-lawd/)
even if other people agree with you it doesn't mean you're correct.
I count it as bizzare, and it stay's that way unless i receive a good payment for my trouble.
dune. (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/02/07/the-spice-must-flow/)
:)
Well you haven't shown anything to contradict it and there is evidence to support it so it must be true. The only way for there to be an end to war without this change in humanity is maybe to give everyone everything they could ever need or want without any cost but even that might not work out because some people are just assholes and want to shit on everyone else's parade.

Well you haven't shown anything to contradict it and there is evidence to support it so it must be true. The only way for there to be an end to war without this change in humanity is maybe to give everyone everything they could ever need or want without any cost but even that might not work out because some people are just assholes and want to shit on everyone else's parade.

:confused:
um okay, you can sit down now.

It's a bad idea to be selfless? It's not good to commit such an act of love for fellow humans?

WTF??? Which fellow humans, exactly, are being "loved" here?

:confused:
um okay, you can sit down now.
NEVAH! Sop, yeld, there is only won vay.

And once again, note the timing and point of my post.

That said, it's pretty easy to talk about honor when it's not your life on the line, isn't it?

So you want to judge me because you assume I've never been to war? That's hypocrisy if ever I've seen it. You haven't been to war yet you presume the moral highground because of what happened to your family friend.

Newsflash: It happened to HIM not to YOU.

I wonder what he would think of you going around playing the martyr and telling people they can't have an opinion unless they've had an experience like yours.

I want you to notice something: I have deliberately avoided discussing whether I know people who have/are served/serving or whether I've lost family. Know why? Not because I don't have any, but because it doesn't MATTER. I get an opinion either way.

Quit playing the martyr. You're not honoring your friend's sacrifice one bit.

So you want to judge me because you assume I've never been to war? That's hypocrisy if ever I've seen it. You haven't been to war yet you presume the moral highground because of what happened to your family friend.

Newsflash: It happened to HIM not to YOU.

I wonder what he would think of you going around playing the martyr and telling people they can't have an opinion unless they've had an experience like yours.

I want you to notice something: I have deliberately avoided discussing whether I know people who have/are served/serving or whether I've lost family. Know why? Not because I don't have any, but because it doesn't MATTER. I get an opinion either way.

Quit playing the martyr. You're not honoring your friend's sacrifice one bit.

Nor are you. Are you really foolish enough to claim that there is a stark difference between how a war is treated by a person without a personal connection to the war as opposed to one with?

The OP was an emotional post because I had quite literally just heard the news. As I have clarified time and time again, the statement was meant to express that people who have no personal connection to a war are often far too quick to suggest that soldiers throw their lives away for an often vaugely defined concept of "justice".

This particular tragedy is, well, tragic though I still somewhat think the war in Afghanistan is regrettably necessary. The issue is when you turn to things like the Iraq war which was most certainly not.

Tell me, when something like that happens in Iraq, how does one honor their sacrifice? Am I to be led to believe that honoring their sacrifice is done by "staying the course"? This is no different than labeling any anti-war sentiment by calling it "unpatriotic".

"In war there are no winners... Only losers."

"Soldiers are as important to end the war as politicians are to begin one..."

I guess that sums it all

Nor are you. Are you really foolish enough to claim that there is a stark difference between how a war is treated by a person without a personal connection to the war as opposed to one with?


Of course there's a difference. The point is that neither's opinion outweights the other.


The OP was an emotional post because I had quite literally just heard the news. As I have clarified time and time again, the statement was meant to express that people who have no personal connection to a war are often far too quick to suggest that soldiers throw their lives away for an often vaugely defined concept of "justice".


Maybe they are too quick, but then, before a war even begins NOBODY has a personal connection to it. And after it's begun, well it's understandable that someone in your position might chafe at the words of a war hawk, but it doesn't make their opinion less valid. It just means you're more emotionally involved, which if anything would tend to affect your objectivity.


This particular tragedy is, well, tragic though I still somewhat think the war in Afghanistan is regrettably necessary. The issue is when you turn to things like the Iraq war which was most certainly not.

Tell me, when something like that happens in Iraq, how does one honor their sacrifice? Am I to be led to believe that honoring their sacrifice is done by "staying the course"? This is no different than labeling any anti-war sentiment by calling it "unpatriotic".

I'm not going to debate with you on the proper policy for Iraq. It's beside the point and frankly, I'm undecided on the issue.

Your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you are out of line telling others they aren't allowed to disagree with you unless they've experienced what you have. By that logic, I should invalidate your opinion because you haven't been to war at all, as opposed to people I know who not only have served in Iraq but believe in the cause. Should their opinion weigh more than yours?

By your logic: yes.
By my logic: not necessarily.

Soldiers are sent over to death camps overseas? I was unaware.

You put words in everyones mouth, or am I just special?

Of course there's a difference. The point is that neither's opinion outweights the other.

Why should the person who stands to lose nothing have equal say with people who do stand to lose?

Maybe they are too quick, but then, before a war even begins NOBODY has a personal connection to it. And after it's begun, well it's understandable that someone in your position might chafe at the words of a war hawk, but it doesn't make their opinion less valid. It just means you're more emotionally involved, which if anything would tend to affect your objectivity.

This is certainly true. But it's also true that without a personal connection to the "price", it's a hell of a lot easier to sign that check so to speak.

Your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you are out of line telling others they aren't allowed to disagree with you unless they've experienced what you have. By that logic, I should invalidate your opinion because you haven't been to war at all, as opposed to people I know who not only have served in Iraq but believe in the cause. Should their opinion weigh more than yours?

By your logic: yes.
By my logic: not necessarily.

I agree that their opinion should count for more than mine. It's their lives, right?

you are out of line telling others they aren't allowed to disagree with you
That's not what he was saying. He was, and probably still is, in severe emotional turmoil over this tragedy, and was saying that he has no interest right now in hearing from people who don't know WTF they are talking about. I'm sure that right now, assholes like you and Teutoniker are the last thing he needs to hear from, either, whether you have experience with friends who suffered combat injuries or not.

Why should the person who stands to lose nothing have equal say with people who do stand to lose?


Because none of us get a say. This is a question of opinion, not policy. We can run around all day long sharing our opinions with each other but none of us gets to decide when and how the war will end.

And even if we did, are you suggesting that a national leader may only lead an army to war if and ONLY if he/she has friends/family fighting? It's a romantic idea but not very practical.


This is certainly true. But it's also true that without a personal connection to the "price", it's a hell of a lot easier to sign that check so to speak.


Of course it is. But you don't have to be close to a situation to form an opinion in it, even an educated one.


I agree that their opinion should count for more than mine. It's their lives, right?

Naturally, but would it be right for them to tell you not to express yours? I say no, it wouldn't. The only difference is that if I were undecided, I'd probably take the soldier's perspective over yours, but that's not personal, it's just a matter of credibility. Either way, both opinions must be freely expressed.

That's not what he was saying. He was, and probably still is, in severe emotional turmoil over this tragedy, and was saying that he has no interest right now in hearing from people who don't know WTF they are talking about. I'm sure that right now, assholes like you and Teutoniker are the last thing he needs to hear from, either, whether you have experience with friends who suffered combat injuries or not.

Then posting it on a public forum probably wasn't a good move, eh?

And by the way, being called an asshole by you really doesn't mean much to me. Save your flames.

Because none of us get a say. This is a question of opinion, not policy. We can run around all day long sharing our opinions with each other but none of us gets to decide when and how the war will end.

And even if we did, are you suggesting that a national leader may only lead an army to war if and ONLY if he/she has friends/family fighting? It's a romantic idea but not very practical.



Of course it is. But you don't have to be close to a situation to form an opinion in it, even an educated one.



Naturally, but would it be right for them to tell you not to express yours? I say no, it wouldn't. The only difference is that if I were undecided, I'd probably take the soldier's perspective over yours, but that's not personal, it's just a matter of credibility. Either way, both opinions must be freely expressed.

I later expanded the STFU in another post to "STFU or at least think long and hard first". I just don't think that it's right for someone to claim that the war should be fought when they will never feel anything whatsoever as to the cost.

And national leaders are specifically tasked with the the duty of this nature, so I'd expect them to damn well know the cost regardless of personal investment.

And even if we did, are you suggesting that a national leader may only lead an army to war if and ONLY if he/she has friends/family fighting? It's a romantic idea but not very practical.
On the contrary, it was taken for granted that this was the case, for most of human history. The national leader was EXPECTED to be at the front, personally, unless very young or very old, in which case his next-of-kin would be. Even into modern times, naturally there were family members of Roosevelt etc. fighting in WWII; it would have been thought very cowardly if this were not the case.
Then posting it on a public forum probably wasn't a good move, eh?
Probably not, no. I don't think you were making a great move exposing yourself on a public forum, either, but that's just my opinion.

I later expanded the STFU in another post to "STFU or at least think long and hard first". I just don't think that it's right for someone to claim that the war should be fought when they will never feel anything whatsoever as to the cost.

And national leaders are specifically tasked with the the duty of this nature, so I'd expect them to damn well know the cost regardless of personal investment.

Fair enough.

On the contrary, it was taken for granted that this was the case, for most of human history. The national leader was EXPECTED to be at the front, personally, unless very young or very old, in which case his next-of-kin would be. Even into modern times, naturally there were family members of Roosevelt etc. fighting in WWII; it would have been thought very cowardly if this were not the case.

Probably not, no. I don't think you were making a great move exposing yourself on a public forum, either, but that's just my opinion.

But we're not talking ancient history, or WWII for that m atter, are we? We're talking about Afganistan and Iraq, now, in 2008.

Exposing what? What are you even talking about? My opinion that everybody gets an opinion? The fact that I chafe at the idea of censorship? What a criminal I am. :rolleyes:

Geniasis and I seem to have reached an understanding. What's your excuse?

I'd just like to point out that this is a private forum run by people who can alter or delete you posts and suspend or ban your account at will. It's not a violation of your free expression at all. For you to assert you can say whatever you want here is a violation of the free association of the maintainers of this forum.

Neither is someone telling you to shut the fuck up. That's just somebody expressing their desire that you not say certain things. You are still within your rights to say them, and others are still within their rights being pissed at you.

So stop crying censorship.

But we're not talking ancient history, or WWII for that m atter, are we? We're talking about Afganistan and Iraq, now, in 2008.
And this differs from the rest of human history how, exactly? You expressed the opinion that it would be "romantic" and "impractical" to expect national leaders to expose their families and friends to sacrifices if they ask such sacrifices of everyone else; I pointed out that this has almost always been the expectation. Taking away that expectation is a step for the worse, in my opinion.
Exposing what? What are you even talking about?
Your behavior was, to take an extreme example from the opposite direction, like spitting on an injured vet in a wheelchair and mocking his wounds, to "express" anti-war opinions. The OP is not hurting to the same extent that his friend in the hospital is, to be sure, but he IS hurting right now. That you deliberately chose to kick him while he was down, I found despicable; that you need to have this explained to you, I find sad.

And this differs from the rest of human history how, exactly? You expressed the opinion that it would be "romantic" and "impractical" to expect national leaders to expose their families and friends to sacrifices if they ask such sacrifices of everyone else; I pointed out that this has almost always been the expectation. Taking away that expectation is a step for the worse, in my opinion.

I think so too but it is what it is. Expecting that sort of thing now is as romantic an idea as expecting army units to ride into battle on horses, led by their general in the front. Makes for great history, makes for great storytelling, doesn't happen in real life anymore.


Your behavior was, to take an extreme example from the opposite direction, like spitting on an injured vet in a wheelchair and mocking his wounds, to "express" anti-war opinions. The OP is not hurting to the same extent that his friend in the hospital is, to be sure, but he IS hurting right now. That you deliberately chose to kick him while he was down, I found despicable; that you need to have this explained to you, I find sad.

You're talking as if I somehow glorified the war, or somehow expressed delight at his situation or his friend's. Tell you what, take your hyperbole and cram it. I took exception to the OP, I stated clearly why, it sailed over your head. The OP and I have reached an understanding and you're still whining about it.

THAT I find rather sad but hey, whatever gets you through the night...

NEVAH! Sop, yeld, there is only won vay.

I have a new way, a middle way.
It involves the mind, a circus act and a crudely shaped football from a watermelon.

Expecting that sort of thing now is as romantic an idea as expecting army units to ride into battle on horses, led by their general in the front.
I disagree. Utter contempt for "chicken hawks" who put others into harm's way while making sure none of their own get hurt in any way is a perfectly natural feeling. Allowing ourselves to get dragged into a war by that kind was, I hope, a recent aberration, not a trend that will continue.
You're talking as if I somehow glorified the war, or somehow expressed delight at his situation or his friend's.
I'm talking about the way you started out the conversation by expressing contempt for him for being emotional.
The OP and I have reached an understanding and you're still whining about it.
You're still "whining" about my "whining", aren't you?

I disagree. Utter contempt for "chicken hawks" who put others into harm's way while making sure none of their own get hurt in any way is a perfectly natural feeling. Allowing ourselves to get dragged into a war by that kind was, I hope, a recent aberration, not a trend that will continue.


Then maybe you suggest an ammendment to the Constitution that demands that any candidate for President have family who are on active duty?

Wake up.


I'm talking about the way you started out the conversation by expressing contempt for him for being emotional.


Actually, that isn't what I did, but whatever reality keeps you warm...


You're still "whining" about my "whining", aren't you?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

Then maybe you suggest an ammendment to the Constitution that demands that any candidate for President have family who are on active duty?

Wake up.
Actually, that isn't what I did, but whatever reality keeps you warm...
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

awww don't worry i think you're doing a grand job of whining, unlike those amateurs in those religious threads.
:)
I find making your own reality is the warmest and most comforting type of reality, NSG helps in creation of this.

I disagree. Utter contempt for "chicken hawks" who put others into harm's way while making sure none of their own get hurt in any way is a perfectly natural feeling. Allowing ourselves to get dragged into a war by that kind was, I hope, a recent aberration, not a trend that will continue.

I'm talking about the way you started out the conversation by expressing contempt for him for being emotional.

You're still "whining" about my "whining", aren't you?

*barges into debate*
what's this i hear of chicken hawks? eh answer me that!
better nobody touches my chickens.
*guards chickens protectively*
whining is what NSG is all about, now wineing is even better, ahh i'll have to make do with whatever's left of my Whisky.
remember reality is what you make of the circumstances you're in, so it can change with whatever flux of your mind you so wish, provided you're determined to change it.
;)

Then maybe you suggest an ammendment to the Constitution that demands that any candidate for President have family who are on active duty?
Now THAT would be "romantic" and "impractical". But getting the public to recognize the galling hypocrisy of a Dubya or a Cheney wanting to throw other people into the meatgrinder? If we cannot accomplish that much, this country is doomed.
Actually, that isn't what I did
Actually, it is. If "juvenile", "fucking martyr", etc. is not expressing contempt, I don't know what is.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. :rolleyes:
Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. For somebody who has such disrespect for emotional venting from others, you're showing a lot of it yourself.

That reminds me of a bunch of quotes...

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so
fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the
fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death,
will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."
- Thomas A. Edison

While Thomas Edison is a brilliant man, I must disagree with this quote. If a "force" from science like the nuclear bomb could not stop war, then I do not think any weapon can.

Now THAT would be "romantic" and "impractical". But getting the public to recognize the galling hypocrisy of a Dubya or a Cheney wanting to throw other people into the meatgrinder? If we cannot accomplish that much, this country is doomed.

Actually, it is. If "juvenile", "fucking martyr", etc. is not expressing contempt, I don't know what is.

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. For somebody who has such disrespect for emotional venting from others, you're showing a lot of it yourself.

Please quote the part where I said "fucking martyr."

In fact, while you're at it, show me, in the first post where you're accusing me of saying that, where I said the word "martyr" at all. (I did say he was playing the martyr in subsequent posts, but i never said "fucking martyr" and you were referring to the first anyway.) I said the 'STFU' was juvenile (and it is.) So it would seem your imagination is running off with you.

Come back after the high wears off.

Please quote the part where I said "fucking martyr."
Pardon. All you said was that he was "playing martyr". It was an expression of contempt, however, most definitely.
you were referring to the first anyway.
Not exclusively, no. I said you started off the conversation by expressing your contempt. I did not imply that you failed to continue expressing contempt, which you did.
I said the 'STFU' was juvenile (and it is.)
It was emotional. He expressed a strong desire not to hear from guys just wanting to score debating points who don't know anything about this kind of pain.

I said that calling it "juvenile" was contemptuous. And it is.

Of course War sucks, but uhh guess what buddy? WAR is a fact of life, people will always get hurt thats how it works and thats why we need to kill them first

Of course War sucks, but uhh guess what buddy? WAR is a fact of life, people will always get hurt thats how it works and thats why we need to kill them first

See, the OP's STFU is directed at 13 year old little punks like you, who think you know a lot about the world and such, but dont know jack.

Thanks guys, for a perfect example. When Knights calls Right-Wing a "13 year old little punk", that is what I mean by "expressing contempt". I'm sure Knights would not disagree with me that this was "expressing contempt": quite obviously that was his intent. The contempt which Brettonia expressed was not as extreme, but it irked me because I thought it uncalled-for. Are we done here?

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?

No matter who´s in favor or who´s against, war is always an unacceptable choice because of all the lives that it touches, changes and ultimately destroys.

I´m sorry your family friend is going through such a hard time and I only wish he regains his health as soon as it´s possible and that he doesn´t lose his limbs. War touched my family during the Spanish Civil War badly, so I kind of know how you feel.

War is simply an extension of politics through other means.
And vice versa.

To be pro-war is to be for one of the greatest evils of all time. I am entirely anti-war; I cannot condone killing.

War is, however, sometimes the least of evils. Look at the Allies in World War II. I maintain that the war was still a great evil. However, the alternative, not opposing Nazi Germany, was far worse.

War is never good-- but sometimes all the other options are even worse.

On the contrary, did that make just about the majority of mankind prior to the 20th century the most evil there was? Prior to the twentieth century the majority was pro-war and proud of it. In fact warriors at the time represented manhood. Though being pro-war basically lowers one to the level of a pretentious savage there are evils waay worse out there.

On the contrary, did that make just about the majority of mankind prior to the 20th century the most evil there was? Prior to the twentieth century the majority was pro-war and proud of it. In fact warriors at the time represented manhood. Though being pro-war basically lowers one to the level of a pretentious savage there are evils waay worse out there.

Not saying it was better, but War was a different beast before World War I. That changed everything.

My brother is off fighting in Iraq because he thinks it is a good idea. Needless to say, he is incorrect.

I rather hope your friend doesn't lose any of his limbs. :(
Needless to say, you are incorrect. At least he's got the balls to fight.

Not if you're an arms merchant.

Well, yes. You might have to change your business, but I think the overarching point of rules 34 and 35 is that not that either war or peace is particularly good for business, but that there's opportunity everywhere. (That's reinforced in rule 162: Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit.) ;)

<the rest>

No strong disagreements here, and if I've given the impression of being a peacenik... well, I've given the wrong impression.

did someone just figgure all this out for the first time? again?

wars are fought by the many for the few,
and when the fighting's over
the many still get screwed.

them's the simple basic facts.

=^^=
.../\...

Thanks guys, for a perfect example. When Knights calls Right-Wing a "13 year old little punk", that is what I mean by "expressing contempt". I'm sure Knights would not disagree with me that this was "expressing contempt": quite obviously that was his intent. The contempt which Brettonia expressed was not as extreme, but it irked me because I thought it uncalled-for. Are we done here?

Yep. You were irked. Got it.

Needless to say, you are incorrect. At least he's got the balls to fight.

Needless to say it is not easy deciding who is right or wrong in such a situation.

I could contest the 'balls to fight' thing as well, but I won't.

Not if you're an arms merchant.
But it is if you're almost any other kind of businessman in the conflict area.

Blah blah peacenik blah blah war is probably never going away blah blah blah

Word of advice, don't try to respond to an argument someone hasn't made.

Yep. You were irked. Got it.
Because your behavior was uncalled-for, got it?
Jesus, you can't let this go, can you?
The OP just had an old friend horribly mutilated, and you want to kick him for being a crybaby because he doesn't want to hear from ignorant fuckwits right now. Yes, I found that repugnant, and if you're determined to keep up the Ping-Pong until I apologize for finding you repugnant, or whatever the hell it is you're after, it's going to be a long wait.

Because your behavior was uncalled-for, got it?
Jesus, you can't let this go, can you?
The OP just had an old friend horribly mutilated, and you want to kick him for being a crybaby because he doesn't want to hear from ignorant fuckwits right now. Yes, I found that repugnant, and if you're determined to keep up the Ping-Pong until I apologize for finding you repugnant, or whatever the hell it is you're after, it's going to be a long wait.

LOL this is getting amusing. Do you have, like, a complex or something?

My last post was 6 words. 6 words in acknowledging what you said with no further comment. Then you accuse me of not being able to let it go and go on a tirade restating all the nonsense that has come before...

And you say I can't let it go. OMG please, like I asked you before, come back when the high wears off. Let it go. Even the OP whom you're pretending to defend has let it go after we talked about it. We get it. You were irked.

Sheesh.

My last post was 5 words. 5 words in acknowledging what you said
No, only acknowledging part of what I said, giving the impression you think I was just "irked" for no reason whatsoever. You basically confirm that that is what you meant when you call it all "nonsense" and say:
please, like I asked you before, come back when the high wears off.
You think it takes drugs to be repelled by behavior like yours? If you are waiting for me to get off my "high" of thinking you should not kick people in pain, as I told you that will be a long wait. Do you picket funerals, too?

If you don't want to talk about it anymore, fine: then just don't. Don't come back with a post saying that you were totally in the right and I'm just a deranged druggie and expect that to be the last word.

No, only acknowledging part of what I said, giving the impression you think I was just "irked" for no reason whatsoever. You basically confirm that that is what you meant when you call it all "nonsense" and say:

You think it takes drugs to be repelled by behavior like yours? If you are waiting for me to get off my "high" of thinking you should not kick people in pain, as I told you that will be a long wait. Do you picket funerals, too?

If you don't want to talk about it anymore, fine: then just don't. Don't come back with a post saying that you were totally in the right and I'm just a deranged druggie and expect that to be the last word.

Please quote the part of my 6 word post where I said those things. (Thus justifying your over-reaction) I'm not interested in what impression you got. That all came form your head, not my keyboard.

Here's what I'm getting at: You seem to derive a lot of meaning from phrases which may have contained no such meaning to begin with. You've done this all through our little pissing match. You're casting me as some bully and yourself as some kind of defender of the helpless, all the while having utterly missed the fact that the very same person you claim to be watchin out for and I have talked it through and reached an understanding. This is what adults, sane people, and people who are sober do.

Meanwhile you can't seem to let it drop, even when my reply was nothing but a closing acknowledgement. (Whishh apparently wasn't enough to satisfy you) and now you want to cast ME as the asshole.

I like you. You're alright. You provide me with entertainment and reassure me, yet again, that there are some people in the world who just... won't... be... rational.

It's lunchtime now. You can have the last word if you want it. I don't mind.

I'm not interested in what impression you got.
Well, I am not the LORD YHWH to know the secrets in men's hearts. If you say you did not intend to be offensive, how can I dispute that? You gave the strong impression of intending offense, and if you cannot understand why you conveyed offense, I certainly cannot make you understand.
all the while having utterly missed the fact that the very same person you claim to be watchin out for and I have talked it through and reached an understanding.
I did notice that you had decided to stop being an asshole to the OP, and I suppose I should have given you credit for that. But you wanted to be a meta-asshole about the issue of whether you had ever been an asshole in the first place, insisting that you were so far from being an asshole that only drug-derangement could explain anyone perceiving you as an asshole.
This is what adults, sane people, and people who are sober do.
Like this, for example. For your information, I am considerably older than you and have not for many years drunk anything or taken drugs. The insinuation that I am insane, as well as juvenile and drug-addled, is a novel one from you: do you understand why such baseless accusations create an "impression" that you are an asshole?

Meanwhile you can't seem to let it drop, even when my reply was nothing but a closing acknowledgement.
Hardly. You were claiming to "get it" when obviously you just don't get it and never will. Well fine, I can't make you understand.

You can have the last word if you want it. I don't mind.
Whatever. If you come back and feel the need to respond again, I won't call you a word-breaker, and I may or may not respond depending on whether I feel like it. At least I hope we can avoid taking this to the next level, a meta-meta-asshole argument about who is being a meta-asshole in prolonging the argument about who was the asshole.

Heres an idea. Hows about you both be big people and stop trying to get the last word.



Geez. Neither of you are ass hats. Im rather fond of both of you. There. Now start playing nice.

Heres an idea. Hows about you both be big people and stop trying to get the last word.



Geez. Neither of you are ass hats. Im rather fond of both of you. There. Now start playing nice.

Dammit it's Friday. Why should anybody be mature on a Friday?

Dammit it's Friday. Why should anybody be mature on a Friday?

Holy hell its friday?


Wow. You know its been a long week when you dont even know what day it is. Jesus. I need to go out tonight...

Hows about you both be big people and stop trying to get the last word.

We've gotten past that: now he's trying to be the big person and let me have the last word, and I'm saying oh no, you go on and respond again (I'm saying that because, of course, *I* want to be the big person, but he snuck it in ahead of me, that bastard...)

(This is not a "last word" post.. Honest... It's light-hearted.)
<truce>

I did notice that you had decided to stop being an asshole to the OP, and I suppose I should have given you credit for that. But you wanted to be a meta-asshole about the issue of whether you had ever been an asshole in the first place, insisting that you were so far from being an asshole that only drug-derangement could explain anyone perceiving you as an asshole.


Whatever. If you come back and feel the need to respond again, I won't call you a word-breaker, and I may or may not respond depending on whether I feel like it. At least I hope we can avoid taking this to the next level, a meta-meta-asshole argument about who is being a meta-asshole in prolonging the argument about who was the asshole.

Dude... "meta-asshole?" That's Awesome :) I am totally gonna steal that word. Now I just have to find somebody to call a meta-asshole.

We've gotten past that: now he's trying to be the big person and let me have the last word, and I'm saying oh no, you go on and respond again (I'm saying that because, of course, *I* want to be the big person, but he snuck it in ahead of me, that bastard...)

Let's both be big people. I'll be big because... well because I'm overweight and you can be big by letting me steal 'meta-asshole' from you :D

Holy hell its friday?


Wow. You know its been a long week when you dont even know what day it is. Jesus. I need to go out tonight...

Dude, man... there's just no excuse for not knowing it's Friday unless you're unemployed... ('cause then it doesn't matter.)

Dude, man... there's just no excuse for not knowing it's Friday unless you're unemployed... ('cause then it doesn't matter.)

Does being a college student count as being unemployed?;)

Let's both be big people. I'll be big because... well because I'm overweight and you can be big by letting me steal 'meta-asshole' from you :D
Done. [hands over rights to the term "meta-asshole"; buries hatchet 6 feet deep]

Does being a college student count as being unemployed?;)

Technically, no... But...........

Done. [hands over rights to the term "meta-asshole"; buries hatchet 6 feet deep]

Sweet! now when I say Meta-Asshole I can add the (TM)

:D

So this close family friend of ours was in the military in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror. He's a commanding officer and calls in an airstrike, which the Taliban later learns. They attach an explosive device to the bottom of his transport (as I understand at least, I'm not entirely clear on the details) and long story short, he's in the hospital with many shattered bones and may end up losing all four of his limbs. Ain't that lovely?

Why am I telling you, NSG? I dunno. I just learned about it and I need to say something, I feel. But let's see if I can attach an Aesop to this while I'm here.

If you support war or think it's a good idea, STFU unless you have a personal connection to it. It's always easier when it's distant, m'kay?




I am so very sorry to hear about your friend. The risk people take in their chosen career can often have some devastating turns, and it saddens me to hear that he is suffering. I shall be praying that he makes as wholesome of a recovery as possible.

Please tell him thank you for his sacrifice, because of it, someone else (perhaps a woman or child) will not be suffering in his place. Please tell him thank you for defending his nation, for standing up for the rights of others, and most of all, thank you for giving his all to stand between us and the atrocities of war.

It is because of fine soldiers such as himself that I do not have to fear such a device under the vehicles that I ride in. And I am most thankful. Please tell him that for me. Let him know that it was not all for nothing.

My husband recently returned for Iraq, and is on hold waiting to see if he shall be redeployed. We think it is very likely. And while I have nightmares everynight, and panic attacks everyday, fearing to hear news like you just have had to bear..I could never ask him to put what he believes in aside just to avoid the risk. I could never ask him to betray that code of honor.

He knew the risk when he signed that piece of paper, and I knew what I might be facing someday..and while it is hardly easy, I am proud to be a soldier's wife, and I am proud of your friend for fighting the good fight.
May his every breath from this day forward be blessed for his sacrifice! Gods bless our soldiers for all that they do!

And Gods bless you for standing by him and being there for him. It is never easy to see a loved one get hurt. It will be tough for him, and it is good to hear that he has loved ones to help him through. Gods bless the Family and Friends that stand by him!

After fighting in Panama in '89, The Gulf War in '90-'91, Operation "Provide Comfort" and 4 tours during the Global War on Terrorism(wounded 3 separate times). I can say without a doubt in my mind that what we(America and our allies) are doing over there, and around the world is making it safer for you to go about your daily life. If you have never been to a 3rd world country, or a country that is run by sadistic dictators, then you have no idea what it means to feel safe enough to walk down the street with out your face covered, or being gang raped, because you got into the wrong car. I hope you get my point. War IS hell, but it is necessary.

I was born and live in a third world country. My parents were born in a different third world country. They had to leave it because of the sadistic dictator that ruled it... WITH USA BACKUP. As far as I know everytime USA troops arrive at a third world country things get WORSE.

Interesting that we don't mess with countries that have nukes, no matter their human rights record (*ahem* China... Or indeed, *ahem* US.)

At the same time, we don't want anyone else to get nuclear weapons.

Call me cynical, but I think that suggests a penchant for world domination.

No...that means that the USA only respects power...nuclear power.

One of the reasons why Iran wants nuclear weapons.