Sikkario, this post is another example of what I was talking about over on the “Do You Believe in God” thread. The fact that you don’t understand a thing doesn’t prove that the thing is wrong.
In fact a great number of people who are not fucking stupid in the least have written some very good justifications for war. Perusing a copy of Sun Tzu or Clausewitz sometime may expand your perspective.
War may be horrible, but it is not unjustifiable.
Dog, I read Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nietzche, Yamamoto Tsunetomo and Mishima for fun.
I consider myself a warrior, and what I have said, doesn’t change my convictions. War is never justifiable.
I love MARCUS AURELIUS.
What I am saying is war is never justifiable.
If you want to kill be a killer, you think Genghis Khan, thought he was anything other than a dude who liked to split skulls and take shit.
When you try to pretty up murder and put other names on it, or slough responsibility for the chaos you bring, you just show what an epic pussy you are and how weak you’re spirit is.
If George Bush wanted to conquer Iraq, because he hated Saddam, Saddam told him he would sword fight his ass one on one. Let the best man win.
Bush never replied, and like a little bitch, hid behind his army men, like any other corrupt cowardly prince in history.
Bush is some awol ass draft dodger coke user who tried to turn a personal vendetta, small dick compensation, psychological flaw into the epic crusade of our time against UNKNOWN ISLAMIC MILITANTS IN AN AXIS OF EVIL.
While dragging a bunch of other dumbasses with him.
I never said I was against violence or murder, but I think justifying war is the most cowardly thing a person can do.
George Washington agreed to, he said the Department Of War should be inscribed with “Here lies the path to butchery and murder, nothing more and nothing less.” If I remember the quote correctly.
If you try to play it off like something else you’re lying.
Murder is murder, killing is killing. Or for example when you try to say, that bush isn’t a mass murderer because his pretenses are guised in good intentions.
You’re just a spiritless liar.
Schwartz you have some wierd ideas about soldiers. What you lableing as awe is actually gratitude.
I personally am very grateful for those who are willing to put their ass on the line so we can enjoy our way of life.
To serve others so selflessly is noble.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here’s my take, which I don’t think is that cynical:
Nations fight to obtain land, resources, and political influence, or else to keep other nations from obtaining these things at their expense.
Individual men are told (and tell themselves) that they fight for duty, honor and country, but what they really fight for is money, personal glory, revenge, camaraderie and survival, and most of all because men like to fight.
Meanwhile, everyone who is not actually fighting thinks it’s about freedom. On all sides of the conflict.[/quote]
agreed
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Schwartz you have some wierd ideas about soldiers. What you lableing as awe is actually gratitude.
I personally am very grateful for those who are willing to put their ass on the line so we can enjoy our way of life.
To serve others so selflessly is noble. [/quote]
Your last sentence is what bugs me.
Most of them aren’t selfless. Not even a little. Zero.
A while ago I read about a young italian who was very successful, some kind of manager or stock market guy. He looked good, had tons of money and a great future.
Abruptly he threw everything away and wears now the robes of a Franciscan, helping the poorest of the poor. He looked very calm and, friendly and at peace with himself.
THIS guy is selfless; he owns his filthy robes and I’m not even sure if he was barefoot (by choice) or had a pair of sandals. he lives to help street urchins, bums and run-down prostitutes.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
War may be horrible, but it is not unjustifiable.[/quote]
I totally agree with this statement and that’s no contradiction at all.
You misunderstand me, Sikkario.
I don’t argue that war is good, or glorious, or moral.
In fact, it is as you say: armed robbery and murder.
Nevertheless, nations waging it have justifications for doing so. These justifications include obtaining new territory and resources for their people, opening up new trade routes and markets for their industries, preventing rival nations from gaining an advantage by doing the same, or to prevent becoming victimized by a rival nation which covets their own land and resources.
Whether these are “good” or “bad” justifications may depend on which side you’re on, and whether you’re a beneficiary or a victim of the war.
Nobody, I think, is denying the horrific cost of war, in terms of human suffering, expended treasure and damaged property. However, acknowledging that justifications for war exist (and therefore, that war is by definition justifiable) makes one neither a coward, a spiritless liar, nor “fucking stupid,” any more than denying that such justifications may exist make one brave, honest or fucking smart.
Why is thuggery justifiable while warfare is not?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why is thuggery justifiable while warfare is not?[/quote]
It is justifiable… if you happen to be a thug.
Wait… did you mean to say the opposite of what you wrote?
It takes soldiers to keep the peacemakers alive long enough to make peace. Ooooh, I’m so writing that down.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It takes soldiers to keep the peacemakers alive long enough to make peace. [/quote]
Blessed are the Peacemakers.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Why is thuggery justifiable while warfare is not?
It is justifiable… if you happen to be a thug.
Wait… did you mean to say the opposite of what you wrote?[/quote]
I wasn’t speaking of myself.
(I guess, I’m just a dude who likes to split skulls and take shit.)
lol.
P.S. I think some wars are totally justifible.
I joined the Army because there are a bunch of radical Islamist’s who want to destroy everything that America stands for. I didnt do it for the money, as a matter of fact I was making less money than I was as a civialian until I started getting havardous duty pay AND got promoted from my last deployment.
Here’s somthing I dont understand about you left wing types. You don’t like the military or the police. Most of you would LOVE to cut our funding and use it help out some illegal’s from Mexico. I also notice that alot of the libs want US forces to go to Darfur.
How would we be able to accomplish our mission without the things that we need due to shitty funding? And how many liberals would actually join the military to help? Yeah, thats what I thought. I really do hope you enjoy the freedom that you dont have the balls to fight for.
Which left wing types are you talking to, Jawara? Anyone on this thread?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Which left wing types are you talking to, Jawara? Anyone on this thread?[/quote]
Ah…the elusive left wing specimen. The same one TB speaks of in his three volumes work “Voyages in black and white”.
Surely, you must have figured out by now that anyone critical of the war on Iraq has to be an unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing leftie who is looking to turn American into a communist country run by Sharia with a black woman in the White House and no army to defend US borders because all the able-bodied will be required to build giant blocks of ice to counter global warming…
…and throw cute puppies off cliffs.
Lixy, isn’t that exactly the stereotyping you denigrate?
“Logical fallacy #41”
It would make discussion easier on this website if we could agree to use the index in the link.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Lixy, isn’t that exactly the stereotyping you denigrate?
“Logical fallacy #41”
It would make discussion easier on this website if we could agree to use the index in the link.
[/quote]
You make the mistake of assuming the little pedophilic ass raper would know logic if it came flying out of her vagina.
She wouldn’t. She has proved it over and over.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Lixy, isn’t that exactly the stereotyping you denigrate?
“Logical fallacy #41”
It would make discussion easier on this website if we could agree to use the index in the link.
Fallacies - Nizkor [/quote]
Hmmm…not really. It was an attempt at humor.
Technically, and if I was arguing a point, what I did would be considered a reductio ad absurdum.
If anything, I was slamming the use of generalizations and silly labels.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
TQB wrote:
Lixy, isn’t that exactly the stereotyping you denigrate?
“Logical fallacy #41”
It would make discussion easier on this website if we could agree to use the index in the link.
You make the mistake of assuming the little pedophilic ass raper would know logic if it came flying out of her vagina.
She wouldn’t. She has proved it over and over.
[/quote]
It’s funny. I had just deleted “Then we could simply reply #1 or #32 to Rainjack’s posts” before I uploaded my last post as I thought it might detract from my point…
PS. Lixy’s statement is not a reductio ad absurdum, but a straw man. A reductio ad absurdum would require a logical link of arguments leading up to an impossible outcome.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Morally, it is wrong; economically, it is suicide.
Incorrect - by your own standard, imperialism and colonialism are just as “right” as non-aggression and minding your own business. If a country wants to invade and dominate another, there is no moral claim that it is wrong - just an equally valid difference in personal opinion.
No moral truths, recall. Or is this another instance when you have opened your mouth only to switch feet?[/quote]
Do not argue relativism if you don’t understand how to apply it. Relativism does not mean there is no truth or morality.