[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’ll take your somewhat rude request more seriously when you begin chiding Lixy for turning each and every thread here into an America-bashing festival.[/quote]
How does criticizing America’s wars of aggression equate with bashing America in your mind?
I said if air supperiority was 50/50.
It’s difficult to nigh impossible to determine a factual strength ratio.
For instance, Germany severly underestimated the russian’s numbers.
But as to your question, this is easy:
Ancient times-all of Alexander the Great’s big battles
Medieval age-pretty much all of Jan Zizka’s campaigns and battles had him outnumbered
Modern age- a lot of Napolepon’s battles
So you see, real T-Generals with determined soldiers and good equipment could beat their enemies from the offense time and again.
But for the sake of rainjack, let’s say if USA-Iraq was comparable to the Mexican-American War. (I looked the casualties up, they were about 2:1)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do not argue relativism if you don’t understand how to apply it. Relativism does not mean there is no truth or morality.[/quote]
My God, alert the authorities - you have been the victim of identity theft. Not so long ago, someone logged in as you wrote the following:
[i]Your morals are not only relative to what you know but also relative to how strong or weak you are. If I am stronger than you you will do what I say. I am the moral authority.
There is no universal truth independent of the observer.
If one holds that morals are attributed to how we value human action then one must necessarily understand them as being relative because that is what it means to make a value judgment. It is completely related to what one knows or believes to be correct action. How can there be a universal truth for that?
As a relativist I cannot advocate a universally true way of acting.
I might be immoral – but that is relative.
Morality is relative.[/i]
The first one is especially interesting - as it is the pure defense of the act of imperialism, which you now denounce as “immoral”.
No moral truths on Wednesday, the Golden Rule is a moral truth on Thursday - what will Lifticus believe on Friday?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I post here solely to express my opinion. And unless the rules have changed, or Biotest has put you in charge, you can keep your orders to yourself.
The irony of me being “chastised” for doing to Lixy what he incessantly does to others can’t possibly be lost on you.
I’ll take your somewhat rude request more seriously when you begin chiding Lixy for turning each and every thread here into an America-bashing festival.
And BTW, I’ve never had shots fired at me in anger, so I’ve preferred to refrain from pontificating one way or the other about your “myth.” But since you’ve asked, it seems to me that anyone who willingly risks his life in combat is, at a minimum, worthy of respect for his bravery.
[/quote]
As I’ve opened up the thread, I feel responsible for it.
I obviously won’t and can’t order you around, but I will at least point to unnecessary or distracting drivel.
You Lixy bashing had nothing to do with this thread.
Feel free to argue with him concerning the question, please.
As to Irony, you are right, sometimes he indeed changes the subject abruptly to his one favorite topic. But I think if you would engage him in a more civil manner, his alleged “agenda”, as you say, would be way more transparent, instead of going under in a wild exchange of insults.
Respect. I try to respect every man under the sun.
How do you see if someone fought in a (just) war? What if he endured way more hardships that aren’t visible through medals or aren’t easily retold with war stories? Would you respect the monk I spoke a few posts before if I told you he works in a ghetto where gunfights occur that often that it’s comparable to a war zone. Mind you, he gets no real pay, has no family and no “end of service”(don’t know how it’s called in english) looming a few months before him.
Would you respect him more,less?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
As I’ve opened up the thread, I feel responsible for it.
[/quote]
DO you take this much pride in far more important things you are responsible for? Like say your turds?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I said if air supperiority was 50/50.
It’s difficult to nigh impossible to determine a factual strength ratio.
For instance, Germany severly underestimated the russian’s numbers.
But as to your question, this is easy:
Ancient times-all of Alexander the Great’s big battles
Medieval age-pretty much all of Jan Zizka’s campaigns and battles had him outnumbered
Modern age- a lot of Napolepon’s battles
So you see, real T-Generals with determined soldiers and good equipment could beat their enemies from the offense time and again.
But for the sake of rainjack, let’s say if USA-Iraq was comparable to the Mexican-American War. (I looked the casualties up, they were about 2:1)
[/quote]
SO you have to go back almost 200 years to find something that supports your theory?
Try again. This time - maybe keep it within 100 years.
Irrelevant bullshit seems to be your strong suit.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do not argue relativism if you don’t understand how to apply it. Relativism does not mean there is no truth or morality.
My God, alert the authorities - you have been the victim of identity theft. Not so long ago, someone logged in as you wrote the following:
[i]Your morals are not only relative to what you know but also relative to how strong or weak you are. If I am stronger than you you will do what I say. I am the moral authority.
There is no universal truth independent of the observer.
If one holds that morals are attributed to how we value human action then one must necessarily understand them as being relative because that is what it means to make a value judgment. It is completely related to what one knows or believes to be correct action. How can there be a universal truth for that?
As a relativist I cannot advocate a universally true way of acting.
I might be immoral – but that is relative.
Morality is relative.[/i]
The first one is especially interesting - as it is the pure defense of the act of imperialism, which you now denounce as “immoral”.
No moral truths on Wednesday, the Golden Rule is a moral truth on Thursday - what will Lifticus believe on Friday?[/quote]
Lol.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…and throw cute puppies off cliffs.[/quote]
Ever see the video of the Taliban using nerve gas to kill dogs? 2 wrongs do not make a right, but aren’t dogs seen as unpure to Muslims and doesn’t that justify their neglect and abuse?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ever see the video of the Taliban using nerve gas to kill dogs? 2 wrongs do not make a right, but aren’t dogs seen as unpure to Muslims and doesn’t that justify their neglect and abuse?[/quote]
I don’t know what you mean by “unpure”, but let me tell you that besides God, angels and other extraordinary beings, nobody down here can pretend to the title of pure. And in case you haven’t noticed, the Talibans were killing a lot more than dogs. I never heard of the Taliban regime exterminating canines though. If you have any credible references, I would encourage you to share.
Now, I don’t know where you got the idea that Muslims neglect or abuse dogs, but I do know that both the Quran and the prophet were adamant about good treatment of animals. Dogs appear in a number of occasions in the Quran, and nowhere does God give any indication whatsoever that they are anything but “Man’s best friend”.
I was looking for that video you mentioned and run across this.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If you have any credible references, I would encourage you to share.
[quote]
I saw the video on the news right after the invasion of Afghanistan. It was horrifying. I tried to look it up on line, but could not find it.
Does anyone else remember seeing this?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I said if air supperiority was 50/50.
It’s difficult to nigh impossible to determine a factual strength ratio.
For instance, Germany severly underestimated the russian’s numbers.
But as to your question, this is easy:
Ancient times-all of Alexander the Great’s big battles
Medieval age-pretty much all of Jan Zizka’s campaigns and battles had him outnumbered
Modern age- a lot of Napolepon’s battles
So you see, real T-Generals with determined soldiers and good equipment could beat their enemies from the offense time and again.
But for the sake of rainjack, let’s say if USA-Iraq was comparable to the Mexican-American War. (I looked the casualties up, they were about 2:1)
SO you have to go back almost 200 years to find something that supports your theory?
Try again. This time - maybe keep it within 100 years.
Irrelevant bullshit seems to be your strong suit.
[/quote]
Ah, the Extension, Schopenhauers first stratagem.
An obvious fallacy.
But that wasn’t Schwarz’ question in the first place, Chushin.
Whether civilians should show respect for soldiers or not is not under dispute.
The question was why are so many people in such awe of military people.
Schwarz was in the Bundeswehr himself, and people are not as impressed in Germany with people in military uniforms now as in times past, whereas currently in America they are.
It’s a cyclical thing. In the 1960s and 70s, of course, the polar opposite was true: the US military was hated by its own people more than at any time in history. Vietnam was an unpopular war, fought for reasons the average civilian didn’t fully comprehend, and likely didn’t agree with even if he did comprehend them.
This war is different. This is the most popular war the US has waged since World War II. And it’s obvious why: however tenuous the reasoning, this war is inextricably tied in the minds of civilians with the September attacks. The plumes of smoke and the horrifying spectacle of the two tallest towers in Manhattan tumbling down, snuffing out thousands people, made an indelible mark on the minds of most American civilians.
This war is not being fought over abstract principles like democracy or liberty, but rather to assuage the palpable deep-seated fear that another, more serious attack may be forthcoming against another civilian target if the soldiers fail in their mission.
Thus, in the minds of many Americans, the servicemen form the thin green line (or khaki, I suppose) between civilization and barbarity, good and evil.
And that, whether true or not, is pretty fucking awesome.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I said if air supperiority was 50/50.
It’s difficult to nigh impossible to determine a factual strength ratio.
For instance, Germany severly underestimated the russian’s numbers.
But as to your question, this is easy:
Ancient times-all of Alexander the Great’s big battles
Medieval age-pretty much all of Jan Zizka’s campaigns and battles had him outnumbered
Modern age- a lot of Napolepon’s battles
So you see, real T-Generals with determined soldiers and good equipment could beat their enemies from the offense time and again.
But for the sake of rainjack, let’s say if USA-Iraq was comparable to the Mexican-American War. (I looked the casualties up, they were about 2:1)
SO you have to go back almost 200 years to find something that supports your theory?
Try again. This time - maybe keep it within 100 years.
Irrelevant bullshit seems to be your strong suit.
Ah, the Extension, Schopenhauers first stratagem.
An obvious fallacy.
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist01.htm
[/quote]
Can you fucking read you idiot? Your friend assumed 50/50 air superiority.
How many planes were there in the Spanish-American war?