Originally posted by Bunken Drum
More broadly, who is braver, the person who sees a threat & goes to fight, or the person who can live with the threat & seeks a negotiated solution?
Originally posted by Drexl
So, I was speaking to the knife weilding maniac that had just stabbed 5 innocents in a blood frenzy . Why'd you do it ? , I Said . He said the knife is to protect himself ," if i did not carry this knife , who is to say who would would attack me . It is a defence , by it's nature it is an object to deter assailants ' . But these people have never assailed you I said ? . ' No, but it could happen that in some certain situations, it could come to pass that this here knife is my protection could well save my life ' . So , how do you equate stabbing 5 innocents with your protection, I replied ? Well he said , I had the notion these people might have wanted to knife me too , but after I killed them , there was no knife on their bodies afterall , but it is for my protection , you see ? Oh , and they had a full wallet on them too , and I needed to pay my bills .
[edit on 21-6-2009 by Drexl]
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by jerico65Have you read the rest of this thread? We are talking about courage because mf_luder seems to be claiming that the military should be absolved of their responsibility for perpetuating the designs of an evil regime because they are courageous, whereas I am saying that whilst American troops may well be quite brave, they have little on those who oppose tyranny with whatever comes to hand & nothing @all on those who do so with nothing but their body & conviction that their willingness to be killed will eventually overcome those who would kill them's willingness to carry on their oppression. Furthermore, if courage is the yardstick by which we should measure whether a person is good or bad, since almost every enemy US troops have faced were either poorly equipped, badly fed &/or exhausted by prior conflict, we could conclude that those enemies were braver & thus more in the right. Dragon skin sucks? Better than a shirt tho, eh?
Originally posted by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
I tell ya, I'm darn proud if you go get your legs blown off for Bush, invading a country that never attacked the USA. Darn proud! keep up the good work.
Originally posted by Drexl
Originally posted by mf_luder
reply to post by Drexl
The US Army is trained to take cover when explosions start going off, especially if there is the off-chance it is artillery. Sure, those kids you found that video of were scared and cowering - but they were doing like they were supposed to... waiting for the explosions to end.
Theres no guarantee they have even come out yet . I feel sorry for their wives and girlfriends if they ever make it home . Shut that cupboard door too loudly , and you won't be getting this crew out from under the kitchen table for at least a week .
[edit on 24-6-2009 by Drexl]
Originally posted by Kombatt98
USA now(since 1870-) is evil and genocidal, so any soldier who protects it is evil .
Please quote where I've called names. I've been careful to talk about your posts, not you personally, for 2 reasons: 1) it's respectful, 2) ad hominem (@the man, rather than his argument) is often the 1st choice of those whose own position lacks substance. You however began by calling people fat, lazy, cowards etc. Yeah, how old are we?
Really, name calling? How old are we again?
It was for brevity. Indeed you did say, "For anyone who would etc." & what are we to take from that? That you simply posted your rant in this thread in the random hope that someone who does fit the stereotype might @some point pop in & read it? No. You were making a sweeping generalisation of those who criticise military personnel. The "for those" was just a very transparent veil over the insults. Perhaps this is why you went on to assume I was doing the same.
You're taking one piece out of my entire post and using that one piece to form the basis of your argument.
My reasons for debate & whether anyone else joins in are irrelevant, but I have already told you: I sincerely disagree. It is not malfunctional nor pissy to debate ideas, it's a cornerstone of freedom. Also irrelevant is what I feel when posting here, but if you must know, not "tingly giddiness": frustrated sadness. Still, if you feel it is relevant, did you get a nice ego-stroking from characterising yourself as a "BIG BAD US ARMY SOLDIER" (in caps no less)? Btw, I haven't said you shouldn't express your opinion. In fact, twice when you threatened to quit, I expressed my displeasure. But back to it: do you have any evidence to back up the claim of cowardice, even if the accused fits your stereotype?
So far, you're the only one who has directly called me on it - yet you keep insisting that you don't fit the stereotype I called out.
So what is your malfunction?
I used the word "murder" in relation to felons; "kill" where soldiers could be involved, but if it was ambiguous, I apologise. Certainly, killing during a legal war is not legally murder, but since we are focussed on Iraq, was the invasion & thus subsequent occupation legal? The UN Sec. Gen. @the time said not. So my comparison is "asinine"? Perhaps you could answer my earlier question then:
Soldiers don't murder in combat and comparing them to felons is asinine.
Any non-asinine comparison will do.
Re: felons - what other group that kills people in a collective exercise should I have used to compare to then?
Asinine again? & yet the principal of collective responsibility for the outcome of joint enterprise is a well established tenet of law. So what if some personnel are clearing up the mess made by others? If your country was invaded, how much care for the wounded would it take to make you forget the dead? How many schools & wells would buy-off your patriotism? Is the answer to both not, "None. No. Never. Not while I draw breath."?
Grouping [support personnel] all together with the triggerpullers is also asinine. And as I pointed out, those supporting are also doing a lot for the civilians in the region...
Are you serious? Let me: I sit here with an itch under my foreskin, not because... oh whatever. What does it add to the discussion? Are we supposed to take your blubbing as evidence that what you say is right? Or evidence that you're so emotionally invested in your opinion that you couldn't tell right from wrong if it handed you a handkerchief? I'll get to the rest shortly...
My big, tough, evil ass sits here typing this with tears in my eyes, not because of your opinion, but rather because of the memory of the men you malign.
I see. Well, in the last 60 years the USA has been without doubt the most belligerent nation on earth. If it wasn't fighting in a particular conflict, it was arming 1 or both sides & often fomented the trouble to further foreign policy. Therefore, by your logic, the other 19 out of 20 of humans should press for vastly more military spending & enlist so that we can end the threat by keeping the USA within its' borders. Or invade perhaps? In either case, the USA would nuke us, regardless of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is the threat we "live with". Are we fools, cowards or traitors, or is trying to peacefully reign the USA in both better & since we must live with the fear of further 'full spectrum dominance' whilst persevering, braver too?
The one who tries to 'get along' or 'live with' a threat is at best a fool, likely a coward, and at worst a traitor to his own kith and kin.