Chimera Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Well...I guess I opened up a big ole can of worms saying that soldiers are better people than most. I think you should all take note the use of the word MOST in that quote. I put Firefighters, Police Officers, SAR personnel, etc in that category. Essentially these are all people who are willing to put their lives at risk to help others. To me, that is very noble. The fact that you do not believe in the cause gives you no right to sh!t all over them and display pictures of their mangled corpses to the whole world. If all you love is money, then so be it. But do not assume that honourable men and women are lower than you because they believe in something bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Well...I guess I opened up a big ole can of worms saying that soldiers are better people than most. I think you should all take note the use of the word MOST in that quote. I put Firefighters, Police Officers, SAR personnel, etc in that category. Again, this doesn't address my point that any heroic and humane acts done by soldiers are, in my opinion, offset by the killing that they do. Civilian heroes don't kill people. In fact, I consider it better that one donates $10 to feeding Ethiopian children than if one donates $1,000 and then shoots a bunch of Arabs. The fact that you do not believe in the cause gives you no right to sh!t all over them I imagine you don't believe in the Nazi cause, but do you still feel obliged to show respect and deference for Nazis? If Heinrich Himmler or Josef Mengele walked in the room right now, would you be polite and respectful towards them? Would you defend them against anyone who called them 'monsters' or 'butchers?' If all you love is money, then so be it. But do not assume that honourable men and women are lower than you because they believe in something bigger. Nice, fraudulent ad hominem fallacy there. Anyway, I don't love money. I do like the things that money buys, but what I love is liberty, because that makes the pursuit of anything a person loves possible, whether it's money, friendship, excitement, enlightenment, or whatever. As Blackdog has noted, however, soldiers are the agents of those who destroy liberty and thus destroy the chance for so many people to do and pursue what they love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimera Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Again, this doesn't address my point that any heroic and humane acts done by soldiers are, in my opinion, offset by the killing that they do. Civilian heroes don't kill people. In fact, I consider it better that one donates $10 to feeding Ethiopian children than if one donates $1,000 and then shoots a bunch of Arabs. All right. That is your opinion. I think we can agree to disagree on that. I imagine you don't believe in the Nazi cause, but do you still feel obliged to show respect and deference for Nazis? If Heinrich Himmler or Josef Mengele walked in the room right now, would you be polite and respectful towards them? Would you defend them against anyone who called them 'monsters' or 'butchers?' By Nazis I am sure you understand that you are reffering to the political party. There are very few politicians that I respect. And Nazis would certainly not be among them. The German people were not evil, but circumstances resulting from the peace treaties of the first world war allowed the rise of evil men into power. For your individual examples, as I am sure you are well aware, there are exceptions to every rule. Himmler was more of a policy maker than a soldier though. Mengele was a sadistic monster, but he was also a doctor. Does this mean all doctors are evil too?? I'll even give you another name that has more relevance to North American soldiers: Clayton Matchee. He is not worthy of respect either. Nice, fraudulent ad hominem fallacy there. That honestly confuses me. A false lie? Does that mean it is true?? Anyway, I think you should realise that soldiers (I am speaking from my experience with Canadian soldiers, I cannot speak for the rest) generally do not want or like war. The only ones that desire combat are ones who have not yet been to a war zone and seen the results. Veterans of UN or NATO missions who have seen the devastation, would generally be quite happy assisting in emergency situations (eg - Red River Flood, Ice storms) here at home. These soldiers would be among the first in line if you ever found the Utopia you seem to be seeking. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and they are needed here. So again, I suggest that we can simply agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hugo: Are you telling me that Canadian and US soldiers haven't killed a single person in the Middle East? All these Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, Taliban fighters etc. shot themselves? Is that the story here? NO,and If they had we would not be over there would we,Your going to tell me what that Canada should not be involved in the War in terrorism....then tell me Sadam was an ok guy, a real party animal, and the US and the coalition forces have no right or no cause to be in Iraq....This is the impression that i get from reading your posts, Soldiers hand out candy to gather a crowd then spray them with bullets...all in the name of peace enforcement...Do you believe that the taliban forces were good, and should not have been removed from power... The point is this: you say soldiers give out candy and that makes them better people than the average civilian. I say that the average civilian performs many acts of charity, most of them greater than giving out candy. However, the average civilian doesn't kill people. On balance, therefore, I judge soldiers to be worse human beings than civilians Your taking bits and peices from my posts to serve your own purpose...your using one example, you fail to mention the winnipeg floods,the ice storm ,forest fires, SAR, ...you also fail to mention the schools,hospitals,abulances,fire halls, wells, roads, that we build and much much more, the only one that sticks out in your mind is the candy that was handed out to kids that were begging in the streets, ...what i failed to mentioned was that same guy was later killed by a suicide bomber... Soldiers are better people because they put thier lives at risk, not only in the defense of our country, but ensuring that other countries that do not have the means to become free of War, free of those that bring war and destruction...free to make thier own decisions...they risk thier lives during hundrds of other operations SAR, search for lost children, fighting forrest fires(unless you think killing forrest fires are Bad)assist Canadians when they are in need.... we assist other countries in thier time of need by providing much needed medical, water, food during diasters, we fly in food and supplies into countries that are still at war providing direct link ups with the red cross and other NGO orgs, when nobody else will fly into those countries. We train civilains in war torn areas how to de-mine areas safely, we provide medical assistance to those in war torn countries, we dig wells irrigation ditchs for thier crops..... They do all this on a shoe string budget with equipment that desparatly needs to be replaced....we have never failed to answer a call from our goverment...we have always been thier for the people of Canada when they needed us, we have always projected everything that is good about Canada to other countries, and we have never asked for anything....in return...There is alot more to being a soldier than Combat... Here's a link. Doesn't take long on Google to find a lot more. Nice link, very educational...the study was done however over 10 years ago.... You did misunderstand the piont on (They had done all the studies, and found that generally the military encourages wife-beating to go no further than the offender's C/O.) you are forgetting that these soldiers have already been charged in a civilian court of law.... Because you can not charge a person twice for the same crime, thier CO has the powers to charge that individual for other service related offenses, ( note that this charges are automatic as stated by armed forces policy) plus take adminstrative action such as manatory courses or classes, such as Agression control, substance abuse,stress mangement, and many many more....(note that these to are automatic and are recommended by Doctor, or concilor )most of these courses or classes are outside of the military chain of command so the military has no influence ....and last until the problem is cured, or they overcome it. You also fail to mention that a service person can only be put on adminstrative action once for the same thing if the problem is repeated any time during thier carear it is an automatic release from the forces... So they are charged in a civlian court a military members must pay out of thier own pocket and fees occur,ie lawyer, court costs ,fines etc etc....plus do any other courses or class as mandated by the court...then when he reports into work he goes through the same process, the CO charges him for any service offenses, and applies all those adminstrative measures then sends him to a specialist to be evaluated , then that individual attends all the corrective courses and classes recommended...during all this the CO is kept informed of progress, attendance, etc...etc... I'm not going to tell you there are not repeat offenses...but thier are not a third as member is fired.... there is a Zero tolerance policy within DND...How many other organizations go this far in prevention or control. No, actually he was ordered to show up and put on a uniform, or go to prison as a traitor to his country. He hoped that he'd be sent to a non-combat unit. Of course, once he was in uniform, he was told he'd go to an infantry unit, and if you desert the penalty is death. So he felt that probably being killed by Germans was better than certainly being killed by his own government. There is a problem i think you may have been confused with the dates...you did state that your Grand father was on the Dieppe raid did you not....this happend AUG 1942 and Canada did not impliment conscription until Nov 1944 well after D-Day...So how could he have been ordered to show -up...The only way he could have been on the dieppe raid is if he volenteered on his own accord... You are still not answering the question. How is he a better person for being irreparably mentally scarred? I think that heroic people are heroic whether they're in the military or not. Think of firefighters, mountain rescue teams, etc. I don't see how taking heroic people and destroying their souls makes them "better people I did not say that the military had the market on better people or more heroic people I said that they were better than most ordinary citizens....Yes those that you have mention are better people adn they have there share of hero's as well...funny that police officers did not make your list...I guess they do nothing for you because they may have to take a live in the line of duty....to me they are better people because risking thier lives daily for you and me makes them that way.... (It proves that, contrary to your previous accusations, I do actually know something about death camps. Are you going to apologise now, or just try and pretend it never happened?) Do you mean the statement i posted below, can you piont out to me just what part of that statement you have taken offence to....What accusation did i make...and why you feel you need an apology.... i take it was the Nazi's and they were not protecting any interests but cleansing Europe of the unwanteds....through chemical warfare,shooting straving, being worked to death, or beaten....If you can not clearly see the difference you really need to look at a history book ......or go to goggle and search death camps... And yet you defend this system. It makes me think you have no problem with politicians picking fights and drafting young men to fight their battles for them. Yes i do defend this system it may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of other forms of goverment such as communism, or dictatorship...because with out do you honestly believe that the 33 million people of Canada would be one nation, do you believe we would be as well off as we are now....do you believe you and i would have the rights we have now... Without it North america would be like the wild west no law ,every person for thier selfs...sounds fun...great place to raise kids....Oh i forgot your agains't taking lives would you take a live if it meant protecting your family, or friends... Do you have a better system of goverment... Again you fail to answer my point. What freedoms and rights do corpses have? How does killing people defend rights and freedoms? How does it not completely violate the right and freedom to live free from aggression? Why is it that almost every nation has a military or personal in a military......to defend thier nations from other hostile nations (note i said hostile) that might want to sieze thier lands and impose thier will on those people ....(history is full of examples including most recently) Do you honestly believe they would do that with out a shot fired...and could you defend a nation without a shot fired....maybe we could arm wrestle for it... Someone has to stand-up and fight or the people have to sit down and take what the hostile nation dishes out... Having a standing army is a deterant it makes hostile nations think twice about invading perserving a life free from aggression..however with out a standing army those citizens have to take what ever the world hands out...it makes them more vunerable to hostile nations ....someone has to stand-up and enforce that right to be free from aggresion and that is where the soldier comes in.... The "rules of war". How quaint. It takes a special kind of mind to take ritualized mass murder and apply rules to it, to decide what is honourable and what is not - as if there could be anything honourable about mass murder and human butchery. The human race has developed rules,instructions, and directions for everything we do from building a peanutbutter,jam sandwich to Space travel they are there to assist us, ensure the jobs gets done quicly and effieciently, or for safety reasons. The Rules of war are designed to prevent or minimise unnessicary civilian caus, to stop War crimes, to minimise the effects of war....There is nothing honourable about War...or it's conduct... Not to mention that the Geneva Convention effectively legitimizes murders and thus fails to protect the rights and freedoms of a very large number of "the enemy". Very silly, come to think of it, to decide an entire people is your enemy. The greatest evils in history came about because people judged others as members of a group, not as individuals. The convention does more than any oother document to protect everyones rights and freedom, before the convention warfare was conducted however they wanted, or by an unwritten code of conduct, dating back before Knights.etc... (The greatest evils in history came about because people judged others as members of a group, not as individuals) the history of warfare begins with the history of Man ...War will be part of mans history for a long time to come... I have the right to judge anyone I feel like. You don't have to respect it, and I imagine you won't. However, I advise you that one morning in old age you're going to wake up and realise there's blood on your hands you can never wash off. If you are unwilling to defend what is yours and are willing to allow others to defend you and yours then you forfiet that right to judge them... I have been on 6 different operations in my carear, myself and those that were with me have done nothing to embrass my country ,our unit, or ourselfs...and when i'm old a grey reflecting back on my military time, there won't be a need to wash anything off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 That honestly confuses me. A false lie? Does that mean it is true?? Ad hominems are logical fallacies, which are is a statement based on flawed reasoning or illogic. They are flaws in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises or conclusions. In other words a fallacy is not the same a as lie, which is a false statement. Speaking of fallacies... Well...I guess I opened up a big ole can of worms saying that soldiers are better people than most. I think you should all take note the use of the word MOST in that quote. I put Firefighters, Police Officers, SAR personnel, etc in that category. Essentially these are all people who are willing to put their lives at risk to help others. To me, that is very noble. The fact that you do not believe in the cause gives you no right to sh!t all over them and display pictures of their mangled corpses to the whole world. Yet later you point out indiviuals (such as ex-Airborne Clayton Matchee) who do not deserve respect. Why is that? He meets all the criterea you set down for being a "better person than most" in that he volunteered to put his life at risk to help others. Yet because of his actions in the torture and beating death of another human being, he is not deserving respect? Why is this individual censured for his actions, while others whose actions have similar results (ie: dead human beings) are praised and indeed, deemed "better individuals than most"? I think the problem here is that the military boosters seemed divorced from the unpleasant fact that "protecting our rights and freedoms" results in the abrogation of other's rights and freedoms. In other words: our freedoms are built on the corpses of others. Which raises the question: why are our freedoms so much more valuable than those of the "others"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black Dog: AG, simply repeating a opinion (ie. "soldiers fight for our rights and freedoms") over and over again does not a convincing argument make. Obviously we don't buy it. So why not try to demonstrate how soldiers, in your view, defend freedom. What do you think would happen to a state or nation like Israel today, if they had 0 military forces, what would you think would happen to Iran or kuwait, if the had no military forces hence no soldiers...that those nations had decided not to have soldiers or were unwilling to fight or defend thier nation...or they were unwilling to kill or harm anyone...Who would defend thier rights or freedom..what rights and freedoms would they have. I maintain that soldiers are the insturments by which the elite maintain their hegemony and prevent challenges to the established order. You haven't really shown otherwise. If anything, your statement that "politicians start wars...and have their citizens fight them" proves my point. Again, having a military force in todays world is a must if not just as a deterrance to other hostile nations...The military does prevent challages to the establish order...it is part of the military (defending Canada and her interests both at home and abroad) part of the oath of alligence...You are forgetting that this evil goverment you are talking about that will invoke this measures is the one the most Canadians voted in...we the people chose...and if you are not satisfied with decisions they make ....then lobby to have those decisions changed...The country belongs to the people not the ruling party at the time.... That being said yes history is full of examples of the many militaries being used for other reasons but gentlemen this is Canada we are talking about not some third world country....and the chances of the military getting out of hand are unlikely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 What do you think would happen to a state or nation like Israel today, if they had 0 military forces, what would you think would happen to Iran or kuwait, if the had no military forces hence no soldiers...that those nations had decided not to have soldiers or were unwilling to fight or defend thier nation...or they were unwilling to kill or harm anyone...Who would defend thier rights or freedom..what rights and freedoms would they have. Interesting that all these are examples of nations where the military is used to control the doemstic population. You are forgetting that this evil goverment you are talking about that will invoke this measures is the one the most Canadians voted in...we the people chose...and if you are not satisfied with decisions they make ....then lobby to have those decisions changed...The country belongs to the people not the ruling party at the time.... My options ar elimited. I can vote, I can lobby, I can advocate change, but there's no guarantee theose actions wil have any affect on policy, nor is the government under any obligation to listen. In fact, the government is the only body with the power to use violence and force to shut down opposition and to push its policies. That option is not available to me. So really, what little power we have is granted to us by the state and can just as easily be revoked by the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black dog: Yet later you point out indiviuals (such as ex-Airborne Clayton Matchee) who do not deserve respect. Why is that? Because he has dishonoured Himself, his unit, and the other soldeirs past and present...he has tarnished what being a soldier is all about.... Yet because of his actions in the torture and beating death of another human being, he is not deserving respect? Why is this individual censured for his actions, while others whose actions have similar results (ie: dead human beings) are praised and indeed, deemed "better individuals than most"? Unfortunately War is about attrition ...politions and the people of that country decide when the price of loss of life, Loss of land etc ... is worth the cost of what ever the are fighting over....when they have reached that cost they will sue for peace or surrender... It is a soldiers job to perform that job as honorable as possiable... I think the problem here is that the military boosters seemed divorced from the unpleasant fact that "protecting our rights and freedoms" results in the abrogation of other's rights and freedoms. In other words: our freedoms are built on the corpses of others Freedom has a cost not just monitary, Freedom has always cost a nation..lives ...both civilian and military...with out freedom there would be no rights or other freedoms... What price do you put on all your current rights and freedoms...would you just hand them over with out a fight to a hostile nation....or would you fight... Which raises the question: why are our freedoms so much more valuable than those of the "others"? They are not, however...what right does another nation have in taking your rights.. As for Canada getting involved in peacekeeping or peacemaking it is our values and morals that every Canadian has that dictates why we should help other nations in achieving the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black dog: Interesting that all these are examples of nations where the military is used to control the doemstic population. Regardless pick any nation that suits you...it picked nations that not having a military would more in likely mean the collaspe of the state...the question remains the same. My options ar elimited. I can vote, I can lobby, I can advocate change, but there's no guarantee theose actions wil have any affect on policy, nor is the government under any obligation to listen. In fact, the government is the only body with the power to use violence and force to shut down opposition and to push its policies. That option is not available to me. So really, what little power we have is granted to us by the state and can just as easily be revoked by the state If you had a large group of the population that agreed with you...do you not think they would not affect change...No they are not obliged to listen...unless they don't care to get re-elected...at least under our current system the possiabilty to effect change is there...Very rarely in Canada's history has it used violence and force to shut down opposition or the PC would off declared open season on liberals...(joke) Yes the state has the power, but ultimateily it's the people that have the power...be it through the election process or through revolt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Unfortunately War is about attrition ...politions and the people of that country decide when the price of loss of life, Loss of land etc ... is worth the cost of what ever the are fighting over....when they have reached that cost they will sue for peace or surrender... It is a soldiers job to perform that job as honorable as possiable... What a ridiculous and outdated concept is honour. What's honourable about killing someone? Freedom has a cost not just monitary, Freedom has always cost a nation..lives ...both civilian and military...with out freedom there would be no rights or other freedoms...What price do you put on all your current rights and freedoms...would you just hand them over with out a fight to a hostile nation....or would you fight... Again with the spurious and unproven statements that war is about preserving rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms (such as my right to exist and to do what I wish with my own self) are not products of the government, yet only the government is able to take those rights and freedoms away. As for Canada getting involved in peacekeeping or peacemaking it is our values and morals that every Canadian has that dictates why we should help other nations in achieving the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy.... In other words, as Canadians , our way of life is superior to othes and therefore any abrogation of those others' rights is acceptable because we're doing it for their own good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black dog: What a ridiculous and outdated concept is honour. What's honourable about killing someone? It may sound outdated and ridiculous to you, it is honour that soldiers are taught as a value...it keeps a soldier from commiting war crimes, it creates unit cohesiveness Knowing that you will not be left behind for example...it reinforces the rules of war...There is no honour in killing i've said that many times ....Honour is the HOW a soldier carry's out his duties on the battle field... Again with the spurious and unproven statements that war is about preserving rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms (such as my right to exist and to do what I wish with my own self) are not products of the government, yet only the government is able to take those rights and freedoms away. Yes they are products of the goverment. They were designed and given to you by the goverment. formed by the people so that we could co exist together in a large group........and yes the goverment can take those away...rights and freedoms are not garenteed by anyone else other than the goverment... In other words, as Canadians , our way of life is superior to othes and therefore any abrogation of those others' rights is acceptable because we're doing it for their own good? I did not say that, but implied that our values and morals push us to help other nations that have either asked for it, or the situation dictates....whom may inspire to have some of the rights and freedoms we have...they also push us to act when others are not being treated fairly or what we proclude to be fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 By Nazis I am sure you understand that you are reffering to the political party. There are very few politicians that I respect. And Nazis would certainly not be among them. The German people were not evil, but circumstances resulting from the peace treaties of the first world war allowed the rise of evil men into power. Alright, so if you aren't willing to show respect for your enemies, what right do you have to insist that Blackdog and I show respect for ours? That honestly confuses me. A false lie? Does that mean it is true?? No. It's called the ad hominem fallacy. It's fraudulent because it ascribes things to me that I never said. In short, it's a personal attack (fallacy) made on a fraudulent basis. Just like if I had said, "You're just stupid because you're a Communist." Firstly, "you're stupid" isn't a valid rhetorical gambit. Secondly, it's not even been proven that you're a Communist. These soldiers would be among the first in line if you ever found the Utopia you seem to be seeking. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and they are needed here. They are not needed. They perpetuate the system you allege they would like to see abolished. There can't be a "war to end war". I'll quote Judge Judy: if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true. Violence to end violence does not make sense. All right. That is your opinion. I think we can agree to disagree on that. Whatever, but hey, it's easier than actually putting up a rebuttal, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 "O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!" Paraphrase slightly for Georhr Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Your going to tell me what that Canada should not be involved in the War in terrorism....then tell me Sadam was an ok guy, a real party animal, and the US and the coalition forces have no right or no cause to be in Iraq If the USA had not backed Saddam he wouldn't be a problem. If the British hadn't carved the Middle East up into a Royal mess (pun intended) there wouldn't even be an Iraq. If the USA didn't insist on putting troops all over the place Al-Queda wouldn't be bombing anyone. The "they hate our way of life" argument is just crap. If they hate secular capitalism so much, why don't they bomb Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan? If they hate democracy, why don't they bomb Sweden or Switzerland? If they hate Christians, why aren't they bombing the Vatican? Your taking bits and peices from my posts to serve your own purpose No, I'm really not. You just keep refusing to answer the question. If you say that soldiers are better people than civilians because they give out candy as well as kill people, I say, non sequitur! Soldiers are better people because they put thier lives at risk Like firemen, mountain rescue teams, or just ordinary people who do extraordinary things? What is special about a soldier? not only in the defense of our country What is "our country"? I'll tell you: a big lie concocted by a ruling elite to try and convince 30 million very diverse individuals that they could ever possibly form a homogenous group. we assist other countries in thier time of need by providing much needed medical, water, food during diasters, we fly in food and supplies into countries that are still at war providing direct link ups with the red cross and other NGO orgs Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you are still not answering the question. You just keep repeating the same pap over and over again. Nice link, very educational...the study was done however over 10 years ago.... Then I expect you have hard evidence that things are very different now. I'll wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 What accusation did i make...and why you feel you need an apology.... You stated that I knew nothing about death camps. I told you that I did. You basically said, "Whatever, it means nothing anyway." If it meant nothing why did you bring it up? If it was so important to you, I think you owe me an apology for your false accusation. Yes i do defend this system it may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of other forms of goverment such as communism, or dictatorship What about no government? Why is it that almost every nation has a military or personal in a military Because every nation is governed by a ruling elite that needs to defend its own interests. The human race has developed rules,instructions, and directions for everything we do from building a peanutbutter,jam sandwich to Space travel Yes, but none of those things involve killing people! The convention does more than any oother document to protect everyones rights and freedom, before the convention warfare was conducted however they wanted, or by an unwritten code of conduct, dating back before Knights.etc... This does not answer my point at all. It's just noise. the history of warfare begins with the history of Man ...War will be part of mans history for a long time to come... More noise. If you are unwilling to defend what is yours I am willing to defend what's mine. I'd defend my property, and my family and my friends if they asked me to. I don't believe I have a rightful claim to anything else, so I don't see how I would even be able to defend it unless I wanted to and the owner consented. If I'm to defend Blackdog, for instance, since I don't own him I submit that we must both consent to the defence. Otherwise, either I'm rendering a 'service' he doesn't want, or he's forcing me to render a service I don't want to perform. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hugo: You stated that I knew nothing about death camps. I told you that I did. You basically said, "Whatever, it means nothing anyway." If it meant nothing why did you bring it up? If it was so important to you, I think you owe me an apology for your false accusation. Below is my quote word for word, at no time did i say you knew nothing i said if you could not clearly see the difference then you need to look at a history book... If you DID vist dachau then you would clearly know the difference and would not have to have it spelled out for you.......and that i'd been to 4 concentration camps, but that does not mean that i am a subject matter expert, any more than you are so what difference would it have made in your reply .... Judging by your posts here you still don't get it and perhaps you should re vist dachau... then you and only then would know why your alleged grandfathers deeds make him a hero and someone who is a better person... as he had a part in ending those crimes.... i take it was the Nazi's and they were not protecting any interests but cleansing Europe of the unwanteds....through chemical warfare,shooting straving, being worked to death, or beaten....If you can not clearly see the difference you really need to look at a history book ......or go to goggle and search death camps... What about no government? Sure that would work...no goverment means no law, no order, no nothing....who would defend you and yours ...YOU someone opposed to violence.... Because every nation is governed by a ruling elite that needs to defend its own interests. Try to use your own quotes and ideas....i already have a debate with BD...i don't need to have 2 with the same person.... Yes, but none of those things involve killing people! The piont is we have rules for everything we do in life...including war... This does not answer my point at all. It's just noise. So you believe that the genva convention does nothing to protect anyone....is that your piont... I am willing to defend what's mine. I'd defend my family, my property, my friends. I don't believe I have a rightful claim to anything else, so I don't see how I would even be able to defend it unless I wanted to and the owner consented. To what degree are you willing to protect them ...are you willing to take someones life....remember you can not violate any of thier rights as well or so you and BD have quoted to me....i'd be interested on hearing how it is your going to defend them.... If I'm to defend Blackdog, for instance, since I don't own him I submit that we must both consent to the defence. Otherwise, either I'm rendering a 'service' he doesn't want, or he's forcing me to render a service I don't want to perform. Right? So you ask your family if you can defend them, you've asked your friends if you can defend them...or is thier an unwritten rule that you don't have to ask...what if there is no time to ask.....do you own your family...or your friends.... Does the goverment ask everyone in canada who agrees should we defend ourselfs and what do we do when someone says no...do we stop or do we exclude them from the fighting ...do we ask them to leave ....what... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Yes they are products of the goverment. They were designed and given to you by the goverment. formed by the people so that we could co exist together in a large group........and yes the goverment can take those away...rights and freedoms are not garenteed by anyone else other than the goverment... That's not true. These rights were not granted to me by government, a fact many governments recognize (Canada is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."). So, if our rights are guaranteed and ours by the fact of our birth, by what authority does the government and its agents have to take those away? I did not say that, but implied that our values and morals push us to help other nations that have either asked for it, or the situation dictates....whom may inspire to have some of the rights and freedoms we have...they also push us to act when others are not being treated fairly or what we proclude to be fairly. I would take that seriously if our nation were nott complicit in so many acts the involve abrogating the rights and freedoms of others in order to serve the "natonal" interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Judging by your posts here you still don't get it and perhaps you should re vist dachau... then you and only then would know why your alleged grandfathers deeds make him a hero and someone who is a better person... as he had a part in ending those crimes.... It does not suit you to be so condescending when you can't defend your own ideas. An intellectual giant, you are not. Sure that would work...no goverment means no law, no order, no nothing....who would defend you and yours ...YOU someone opposed to violence.... You don't understand it. There's a long thread on the subject here, please do me the service of actually hearing my arguments before presuming that you know them. Try to use your own quotes and ideas....i already have a debate with BD...i don't need to have 2 with the same person.... Oh? Then which of you and Chimera is going to bow out of this debate, then? The piont is we have rules for everything we do in life...including war... War is the cessation of rules. It's the exertion of force. Rules are concocted to provide solutions to the problems of social interaction without the resort to force. The resort to force is the default and is lawless. So you believe that the genva convention does nothing to protect anyone....is that your piont... I believe, firstly, that it's a silly idea to try and force those committed to violence to abstain from certain types of violence. You're proving that point in this very thread, and all I'm doing is trying to persuade you. I also believe that it's a silly idea to try and apply laws to that which is lawless whilst still under the illusion that you are preserving the essential nature of the lawless thing. To what degree are you willing to protect them ...are you willing to take someones life....remember you can not violate any of thier rights as well or so you and BD have quoted to me Unless you believe it is the right of another individual to aggress against my person or property, it would not be a violation of his rights for me to use force to prevent that aggression. Does the goverment ask everyone in canada who agrees should we defend ourselfs and what do we do when someone says no...do we stop or do we exclude them from the fighting ...do we ask them to leave ....what... This just highlights the problem of government. It is really just an imposition and a coercive monopoly on violence held over the population in general. There's no good solution for how to apply government because opting out is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hugo: If the USA had not backed Saddam he wouldn't be a problem. If the British hadn't carved the Middle East up into a Royal mess (pun intended) there wouldn't even be an Iraq. If the USA didn't insist on putting troops all over the place Al-Queda wouldn't be bombing anyone. Well thats the solution build a time machine and reverse the worlds bad decisions...it all boils down to adam and eve does it not... if adam had not eaten the apple and god has not release all those bad desires ....Lets blame Eve and that short fig leave.... The "they hate our way of life" argument is just crap. If they hate secular capitalism so much, why don't they bomb Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan? If they hate democracy, why don't they bomb Sweden or Switzerland? If they hate Christians, why aren't they bombing the Vatican? It is part of thier doctrine...you tell me why ? answer man... No, I'm really not. You just keep refusing to answer the question. If you say that soldiers are better people than civilians because they give out candy as well as kill people, I say, non sequitur! I've answered your question as best as i'm able ...if that is truely not enough for you then sorry....ask someone else...I am not forcing you accept it that is what i believe and is my opinion... Like firemen, mountain rescue teams, or just ordinary people who do extraordinary things? What is special about a soldier? I believe i have already answered this question and have included those that you mention in the group....and i have already answered this question in above posts...i'd be interested in hearing what you do for a living ...and what do you contribute to life and your surroundings ....or is it that you can only slam those that you envy.... What is "our country"? I'll tell you: a big lie concocted by a ruling elite to try and convince 30 million very diverse individuals that they could ever possibly form a homogenous group. And do you honestly think 30 million people can live together with each having thier own agenda...thier own ideas on how life should be lived...I'd be interested on how this new country dealt with every day problems like policing, fire fighters, courts, let alone criminals, like murders, rapist, child molesters....I mean everyone has to be free and we can not impose on thier freedoms ...can we... Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you are still not answering the question. You just keep repeating the same pap over and over again That Pap as you call it is happening every day, every minute of every hour of every day...those that have been on the recieving side are very greatful... again you are entitled to your opinion...it is obvious you have an axe to grind be it with the defense dept, or our elitist goverment as you call them...but you should sit down, and ask what rights or freedoms have you given yourself that have not been given to you by the goverment, what have you done to change what you don't like except to bitch about it like a teenager...........what have you done to contribute to 30 million people in this country or is it just me me me..... Then I expect you have hard evidence that things are very different now. I'll wait. Yes, you'll have to wait the evidance is out there and regardless of what i post i don't think you'll read it any how or atleast try to understand it....I believe i've answered all your question to the best of my abilities...if you have a specific question then i'll answer it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Judging by your posts here you still don't get it and perhaps you should re vist dachau... then you and only then would know why your alleged grandfathers deeds make him a hero and someone who is a better person... as he had a part in ending those crimes.... Getting back to the original question, which you still haven't answered: What is the difference between Country A and Country B under the conditions I stated? Your only answer has been to suggest that I need more education. Well, let's assume I'm very ignorant of the whole thing. Why don't you explain it to me? Well thats the solution build a time machine and reverse the worlds bad decisions Or alternately, let's not keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It is part of thier doctrine...you tell me why ? answer man... I already told you why. They want US troops to leave their homeland and stop exerting an influence on their government and way of life. I've answered your question as best as i'm able ...if that is truely not enough for you then sorry....ask someone else I'm asking you. Why did you make a point you can't defend? If you seriously can't think of a satisfactory answer does that not suggest something about the viability of the original point? i'd be interested in hearing what you do for a living ...and what do you contribute to life and your surroundings What business is it of yours? My answers will neither negate nor augment my arguments. And do you honestly think 30 million people can live together with each having thier own agenda Are you saying that these 30 million need to have a unified agenda forced on them by an all-powerful government? That's really the alternative, isn't it? That Pap as you call it is happening every day, every minute of every hour of every day...those that have been on the recieving side are very greatful... But your words remain just a mindless repetition of your original contention. again you are entitled to your opinion...it is obvious you have an axe to grind be it with the defense dept, or our elitist goverment as you call them...but you should sit down, and ask what rights or freedoms have you given yourself that have not been given to you by the goverment Why don't you answer Blackdog's point? Government does not grant freedoms, it can only take them away! what have you done to contribute to 30 million people in this country or is it just me me me..... I'll tell you what I haven't done: killed any of them. Yes, you'll have to wait the evidance is out there and regardless of what i post i don't think you'll read it I'll read it if you post it. Again, I'm waiting. But this just sounds like an excuse for you not to produce any evidence. And evidence versus no evidence is no contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hugo: It does not suit you to be so condescending when you can't defend your own ideas. An intellectual giant, you are not. If you had truely visted dachau what feelings did you have when you walked through the camps seen all those big posters on the walls of the people and thier conditions or walked through the mass grave site in the back ...or walked through the ovens and smelled that sickening sweet ordour....... Have you and your grandfather talked about his war experiences... You don't understand it. There's a long thread on the subject here, please do me the service of actually hearing my arguments before presuming that you know them. No i don't and if you could not convince the 1/2 dozen or so others involved in that post that your theories are valid how could you convince an intellectual gaint as myself....I've been to countries like Somila that was ruled by thugs and war lords and in the back country it was every man ,women for themselfs....Survival of the fittest....and you and your theories would not do well there. War is the cessation of rules. It's the exertion of force. Rules are concocted to provide solutions to the problems of social interaction without the resort to force. The resort to force is the default and is lawless. War is not a ceastion of rules, but a political tool which the people around the globe have decided needed rules....yes certain rights and privilages have been suspended...but everything is governed by rules... Unless you believe it is the right of another individual to aggress against my person or property, it would not be a violation of his rights for me to use force to prevent that aggression. Does another person have the right to agress anyone....even if that they believe it is there right.....and my question to you was would you use deadly force to protect you, your family, your friends and your land....which brings me to the land question who decides it is your land...and why can you use deadly force to protect it if you don't truely own it... This just highlights the problem of government. It is really just an imposition and a coercive monopoly on violence held over the population in general. There's no good solution for how to apply government because opting out is not possible Are you saying your theories are invalid or impractical or that it would not be possiable under this form of goverment .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 War is not a ceastion of rules, but a political tool which the people around the globe have decided needed rules....yes certain rights and privilages have been suspended...but everything is governed by rules... You're using the existence of rules to try and negate the farcical nature of applying rules to armed conflict. For example, isn't it more than a touch ridiculous to deem certain forms of killing to be against the rules? Realy, what difference does it make if the men you kill die by mustard gas or bunker buster bomb? They are no less dead. You are far to willing to accept war as a condition of civilization when it is a failure of civilization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black dog: That's not true. These rights were not granted to me by government, a fact many governments recognize (Canada is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."). So, if our rights are guaranteed and ours by the fact of our birth, by what authority does the government and its agents have to take those away? And if there was a change in goverment say to a communist state do you think your rights and freedoms would not change....And if it did change and Canada suspended your rights what would the UN do...what could it do...Not all human beings are born free, and are equal in dignity they are in Canada but not across the globe....Slavery still exists in alot of countries....are those starving to death in Africa equal in dignity and rights...those caught up in war torn countries are they equal ..the UN may proclaim what ever it wants it lacks the power to enforce it...And because Canada signed some paper does not mean you are guarenteed anything as it could change in a flash...like in the former Yugo, Iraq,Iran, and place there has been a regime change...Canadian goverment gave you tall your rights because there is a pay off for them....regardless of what some paper says... I would take that seriously if our nation were nott complicit in so many acts the involve abrogating the rights and freedoms of others in order to serve the "natonal" interest. Name on country in the world that has acted truely because it was the right thing to do...and had no national interest involved....There has to be a pay off...regardless of the intention of the deed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Black dog: You're using the existence of rules to try and negate the farcical nature of applying rules to armed conflict. For example, isn't it more than a touch ridiculous to deem certain forms of killing to be against the rules? Realy, what difference does it make if the men you kill die by mustard gas or bunker buster bomb? They are no less dead. Chemical warfare is not against the rules, but i get your piont...it does seem alittle crazy to have rules in a time of complete caus....however we are civilized people who are not going to give -up warfare and the rules are thier to limit it's effects.... You are far to willing to accept war as a condition of civilization when it is a failure of civilization. No, i am a soldier, that has accepted that as long as man has been around there has been war and unless some major event happens to change that war is always going to be around....does it truely matter if it is a cindition or failure.... If all the great minds of our times have not been able to change that would you not accept it has a condition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 change in goverment say to a communist state do you think your rights and freedoms would not change.... The rights and freedoms I am entitled to would not change, only the extent to which they are curbed by the state. .Not all human beings are born free, and are equal in dignity they are in Canada but not across the globe....Slavery still exists in alot of countries....are those starving to death in Africa equal in dignity and rights...those caught up in war torn countries are they equal ..the UN may proclaim what ever it wants it lacks the power to enforce it...And because Canada signed some paper does not mean you are guarenteed anything as it could change in a flash...like in the former Yugo, Iraq,Iran, and place there has been a regime change...Canadian goverment gave you tall your rights because there is a pay off for them....regardless of what some paper says... The fact that people are denied their rights around the world (most often by governments) does not nullify the existence of those rights. They may be unable to exercise their rights and may be denied their freedoms, but they are still entitled to them. And here we see the basic contradiction in your position. You stated earlier: How about asking yourself who gave you your rights to ask those questions...Soldiers gave you those rights Men and women that fought and risked thier lives to enusre our way of live remained as it is today.... which, along with the above implication that individual rights only exist at the say-so of government seems to indicate that my rights and freedoms are the property of the state to advance or dispense with as it sees fit. If such is the case, what good are our freedoms? What makes our government or (as you put it) "way of life" any more superiour than that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? If our main claim to fame is that we don't choose to abrogate citizen's rights with the same frequency (though the state reserves the right to do so), then ( as Hugo stated much earlier) our differences are simply a matter of degrees. the basic principle remains the same. Basically, the soldier you see fighting for freedom today can just as easily be the one who marches you to the gulag tomorrow. Name on country in the world that has acted truely because it was the right thing to do...and had no national interest involved....There has to be a pay off...regardless of the intention of the deed Herein lies the problem and the fundamental reason why humanitarian intervention is a dead end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.