koan;1266347 wrote: Thanks for suggesting the link, I've never read about Bloody Sunday before and it was a pretty good overview.
If I've got it right, the British sent in a gang to formulate a hit list but, before they got it completed or planned out, the IRA finished their hit list against the hit listers and got to them first. Sadly it didn't end there and the British ended up getting overexcited and shot a bunch of football fans in frustration. (aside-football here means soccer to me, yes?)
There is no side better than the other in the specific events. If I read back further, and avoided watching the film Michael Collins, I might be able to formulate an opinion on the greater picture of what was going on at the time.
I'm thinking this might take the thread away from the focus on who signs up for the military unless the focus is to consider whether the Cairo Gang and the IRA members themselves had individual morality for having joined the plot. On the surface I read it as two sides both believing their culture was in serious danger and need of defense. I think that's where some differences are arising in the discussion here. There is an assumption on your part, spot, that individuals are capable of seeing through propaganda. That simply isn't true, in general. People live in a state of vulnerability and are quite easily manipulated by the media, their peers, anyone in a position of authority. It's not flattering but true.
I don't claim immunity. There are a number of times that I find myself in hindsight wondering how the hell I got so caught up in a lie. I like to think I shake myself free of the hypnotism quickly but I don't avoid the initial wooing nearly as often as I'd like.
It only takes a short time of fascination or hypnosis to join the army and then find oneself in the middle of all the bs.Nice explanation. I would further suggest that at least as far as American's are concerned, they are quite content being manipulated because its kept them safe and secure for a pretty long time. from a safety standpoint, we have not much really to worry about, natural disasters notwithstanding.
Its been a point of frustration for me over the years as to why Americans could like this system of capitalism as much as we do. And even most of those who have had a bad lot in life think nearly the same as those that live in ivory towers. Its survival, and whatever evils that includes are acceptable.
Volunteering for military service
Volunteering for military service
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266024 wrote: Because the wars since World War Two have been wars of aggression fought for national gain, which is why Americans invariably go back as far as World War Two to say they don't fight wars for national gain but for principle.
"national gain" doesn't always define the intent to envelop more money without principle. I don't necessarily have to imply anything to suggest your usage of the phrase "national gain" needs to be defined appropriately.
"national gain" doesn't always define the intent to envelop more money without principle. I don't necessarily have to imply anything to suggest your usage of the phrase "national gain" needs to be defined appropriately.
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266475 wrote: "national gain" doesn't always define the intent to envelop more money without principle. I don't necessarily have to imply anything to suggest your usage of the phrase "national gain" needs to be defined appropriately.
Self interest, Snyder.
The improvement of the US at the expense of the country invaded, quite often in terms of access to natural resources at lower prices and increased volume.
The creation of client governments in foreign countries which will enforce a capitalist economy on a people who recently attempted to establish socialism - the end result, being an expanded market for imports and exports at prices agreeable to the US.
In the old days it was called Empire.
Self interest, Snyder.
The improvement of the US at the expense of the country invaded, quite often in terms of access to natural resources at lower prices and increased volume.
The creation of client governments in foreign countries which will enforce a capitalist economy on a people who recently attempted to establish socialism - the end result, being an expanded market for imports and exports at prices agreeable to the US.
In the old days it was called Empire.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1265662 wrote: It always impresses me that Americans have to go back as far as World War Two to find a war which they can claim they fought for something other than national gain. Is there a reason for this?
Only that it is an always will be a great source of pride for Americans. But if it bothers you, I'm also proud of our involvement in Grenada, Desert Storm, Bosnia-Herzogovina, and lots of other, smaller localized conflicts.
And I'm proud of how the vast majority of American servicemen and women have represented our country in all of those conflicts. Spot, I know you are anti-military. That's obvious. So I put it to you: Is there anything at all that you would be passionate enough and care enough about to give your life for?
If yes, then you've answered your own thread.
If not, then no amount of explanation from those of us who do believe that strongly will ever help you to understand.
Teaching the concept of personal sacrifice for a country's and people's greater good to someone without that particular value and belief system is similar to a Christian trying to help an atheist understand the concept of faith.
Only that it is an always will be a great source of pride for Americans. But if it bothers you, I'm also proud of our involvement in Grenada, Desert Storm, Bosnia-Herzogovina, and lots of other, smaller localized conflicts.
And I'm proud of how the vast majority of American servicemen and women have represented our country in all of those conflicts. Spot, I know you are anti-military. That's obvious. So I put it to you: Is there anything at all that you would be passionate enough and care enough about to give your life for?
If yes, then you've answered your own thread.
If not, then no amount of explanation from those of us who do believe that strongly will ever help you to understand.
Teaching the concept of personal sacrifice for a country's and people's greater good to someone without that particular value and belief system is similar to a Christian trying to help an atheist understand the concept of faith.
Volunteering for military service
Saint_;1266573 wrote: So I put it to you: Is there anything at all that you would be passionate enough and care enough about to give your life for?Any number of them, but absolutely none involve killing other people.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266577 wrote: Any number of them, but absolutely none involve killing other people.
Hmmm, good answer. Now, what if the other guy was willing to kill you for your beliefs, would you defend yourself and them? The problem, of course, is that mankind's history is written by the living, not the dead. It is difficult to serve a country that is extinct. Ask any Babylonian.
Hmmm, good answer. Now, what if the other guy was willing to kill you for your beliefs, would you defend yourself and them? The problem, of course, is that mankind's history is written by the living, not the dead. It is difficult to serve a country that is extinct. Ask any Babylonian.
Volunteering for military service
Saint_;1266578 wrote: Hmmm, good answer. Now, what if the other guy was willing to kill you for your beliefs, would you defend yourself and them? The problem, of course, is that mankind's history is written by the living, not the dead. It is difficult to serve a country that is extinct. Ask any Babylonian.
There's a long tradition of non-violent opposition. It's been known to have extraordinary effects. It works by changing the level of home support for the government of aggressors. The domestic resistance to the Vietnam War is a prime example.
There's a long tradition of non-violent opposition. It's been known to have extraordinary effects. It works by changing the level of home support for the government of aggressors. The domestic resistance to the Vietnam War is a prime example.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266017 wrote: It's interesting to see you refer to Pearl Habor as a terrorist attack, given that it involved a declaration of war by a sovereign state. That expands the definition of terrorist to new levels.
. Then how would you describe the attack on Pearl Harbour?
. Then how would you describe the attack on Pearl Harbour?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266022 wrote: You live on a different planet, oscar. Give me a reference or two to this extraordinary assertion. By whom? In what court?
Beforehand? Enable his law enforcement systems to prevent it. Afterwards? Enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, and enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the sections of US Intelligence which allowed it to happen.
Re Blair... It's been said today that he was talking about Invading Iraq with Bush as far back as 2002... one of the facts they will look at in the Enquirey. It is still possible.
You say Bush should use his law enforcement system to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. Exactly how was he supposed to do this? If he had used law enforcement officers to go Into Afgan where It was believed the head of Al-Qaeda was holed up, Bin laden, How many Police Officers or CIA or the FBI agents would he have needed to accomplish the task? How long do you think they would have lasted with a hostile Afghan?
Beforehand? Enable his law enforcement systems to prevent it. Afterwards? Enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, and enable his law enforcement systems to arrest and prosecute the sections of US Intelligence which allowed it to happen.
Re Blair... It's been said today that he was talking about Invading Iraq with Bush as far back as 2002... one of the facts they will look at in the Enquirey. It is still possible.
You say Bush should use his law enforcement system to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. Exactly how was he supposed to do this? If he had used law enforcement officers to go Into Afgan where It was believed the head of Al-Qaeda was holed up, Bin laden, How many Police Officers or CIA or the FBI agents would he have needed to accomplish the task? How long do you think they would have lasted with a hostile Afghan?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Volunteering for military service
oscar;1266582 wrote: Then how would you describe the attack on Pearl Harbour?
It was a war crime. Pearl Harbor and The Tokyo Trials discusses it.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up?
It was a war crime. Pearl Harbor and The Tokyo Trials discusses it.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266494 wrote: Self interest, Snyder.
The improvement of the US at the expense of the country invaded, quite often in terms of access to natural resources at lower prices and increased volume.
The creation of client governments in foreign countries which will enforce a capitalist economy on a people who recently attempted to establish socialism - the end result, being an expanded market for imports and exports at prices agreeable to the US.
In the old days it was called Empire.
How would you differentiate this logic with, say, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? They have to keep their organization funded to continue their efforts.
Perhaps if The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hasn't been successful in any of their attempts to preserve happiness they'd be considered despicable and money hoarders by your logic?
Would you not give them credit for trying?
Not implying anything, a completely legitimate question.
The improvement of the US at the expense of the country invaded, quite often in terms of access to natural resources at lower prices and increased volume.
The creation of client governments in foreign countries which will enforce a capitalist economy on a people who recently attempted to establish socialism - the end result, being an expanded market for imports and exports at prices agreeable to the US.
In the old days it was called Empire.
How would you differentiate this logic with, say, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? They have to keep their organization funded to continue their efforts.
Perhaps if The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hasn't been successful in any of their attempts to preserve happiness they'd be considered despicable and money hoarders by your logic?
Would you not give them credit for trying?
Not implying anything, a completely legitimate question.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266584 wrote: It was a war crime. Pearl Harbor and The Tokyo Trials discusses it.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up?
The end result always justifies the means. It's the most logical reasoning known to man kind
Terrorism will be seen as terrorism by both the wicked as well as the morally just. It's the end result that defines terrorism, not fireballs.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up?
The end result always justifies the means. It's the most logical reasoning known to man kind
Terrorism will be seen as terrorism by both the wicked as well as the morally just. It's the end result that defines terrorism, not fireballs.
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266598 wrote: How would you differentiate this logic with, say, The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? They have to keep their organization funded to continue their efforts.
Perhaps if The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hasn't been successful in any of their attempts to preserve happiness they'd be considered despicable and money hoarders by your logic?
Would you not give them credit for trying?
Not implying anything, a completely legitimate question.
But they don't kill people, do they. Armed forces deployed abroad kill people. They have no international mandate to intervene in this way, they're sent out to fight what's laughingly called a preventative war and the end result is deaths in the invaded country which wouldn't have happened had the invasion not taken place. Millions of excess deaths, millions of displaced people, millions with a reduced standard of living, millions with a lower standard of life, all because an aggressor country which was completely unthreatened chose to intervene abroad.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement only exist to mop up the damage to whatever limited extent they're allowed.
You claim that these invasions are attempts at improving the condition of the people in the "liberated" countries. It's not what happens. History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated". What's more, I don't for one minute believe that's the intention of the military action in the first place. These are monsters we're discussing, giving them credit for good intentions would be an appalling injustice to those whose lives they ruin.
Perhaps if The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hasn't been successful in any of their attempts to preserve happiness they'd be considered despicable and money hoarders by your logic?
Would you not give them credit for trying?
Not implying anything, a completely legitimate question.
But they don't kill people, do they. Armed forces deployed abroad kill people. They have no international mandate to intervene in this way, they're sent out to fight what's laughingly called a preventative war and the end result is deaths in the invaded country which wouldn't have happened had the invasion not taken place. Millions of excess deaths, millions of displaced people, millions with a reduced standard of living, millions with a lower standard of life, all because an aggressor country which was completely unthreatened chose to intervene abroad.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement only exist to mop up the damage to whatever limited extent they're allowed.
You claim that these invasions are attempts at improving the condition of the people in the "liberated" countries. It's not what happens. History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated". What's more, I don't for one minute believe that's the intention of the military action in the first place. These are monsters we're discussing, giving them credit for good intentions would be an appalling injustice to those whose lives they ruin.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266584 wrote: It was a war crime. Pearl Harbor and The Tokyo Trials discusses it.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up? Thankyou for the link.
The meaning of Terrorism...... The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Perhaps if you could show us a generally accepted definition of terrorism we could try applying it to this instance and see whether it holds up? Thankyou for the link.
The meaning of Terrorism...... The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Volunteering for military service
oscar;1266583 wrote: Re Blair... It's been said today that he was talking about Invading Iraq with Bush as far back as 2002... one of the facts they will look at in the Enquirey. It is still possible.What you claimed was that Tony Blair "is possibly about to face war crime charges". By whom? In what court? When?
oscar wrote: You say Bush should use his law enforcement system to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. Exactly how was he supposed to do this? If he had used law enforcement officers to go Into Afgan where It was believed the head of Al-Qaeda was holed up, Bin laden, How many Police Officers or CIA or the FBI agents would he have needed to accomplish the task? How long do you think they would have lasted with a hostile Afghan?Police don't "go into" countries, they issue international arrest warrants. They extradite. Most particularly, they investigate before they do any of those things and then they bring charges. There are treaties which govern these actions. The actual reactions to 9/11, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, were premeditated regime change using a totally unrelated excuse.
oscar wrote: You say Bush should use his law enforcement system to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. Exactly how was he supposed to do this? If he had used law enforcement officers to go Into Afgan where It was believed the head of Al-Qaeda was holed up, Bin laden, How many Police Officers or CIA or the FBI agents would he have needed to accomplish the task? How long do you think they would have lasted with a hostile Afghan?Police don't "go into" countries, they issue international arrest warrants. They extradite. Most particularly, they investigate before they do any of those things and then they bring charges. There are treaties which govern these actions. The actual reactions to 9/11, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, were premeditated regime change using a totally unrelated excuse.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266602 wrote: You claim that these invasions are attempts at improving the condition of the people in the "liberated" countries. I'd like to think so.
spot;1266602 wrote:
It's not what happens. History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated". What's more, I don't for one minute believe that's the intention of the military action in the first place. These are monsters we're discussing, giving them credit for good intentions would be an appalling injustice to those whose lives they ruin.
Speaking hypothetically for the sake of understanding your position exactly, you wouldn't for a moment consider any life whatsoever as being sacrificial to provide a better living environment for said peoples above and beyond the same exact level from which they'd suffered under the previous regime?
spot;1266602 wrote:
It's not what happens. History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated". What's more, I don't for one minute believe that's the intention of the military action in the first place. These are monsters we're discussing, giving them credit for good intentions would be an appalling injustice to those whose lives they ruin.
Speaking hypothetically for the sake of understanding your position exactly, you wouldn't for a moment consider any life whatsoever as being sacrificial to provide a better living environment for said peoples above and beyond the same exact level from which they'd suffered under the previous regime?
Volunteering for military service
oscar;1266604 wrote: The meaning of Terrorism...... The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
The USA didn't do both of those when invading Iraq, then? Do you remember "Shock And Awe"? Have the Daily Mail version: A blitz of terrifying ferocity was unleashed on Saddam Hussein's regime last night. The night sky over Baghdad and other cities was lit by firestorms from wave after thunderous wave of missile and bomb explosions. It marked the opening of the long- awaited ' shock and awe' campaign against the Iraqi dictator.
In his capital, huge explosions, mushroom clouds and showers of sparks turned the horizon a hellish red as the full might of the Allied bombardment descended. In just 14 minutes, surgically precise strikes removed every building symbolising Saddam's brutal regime from the skyline.Somewhere in excess of 6,000 civilians died in it. Not surprising really.
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"?
The USA didn't do both of those when invading Iraq, then? Do you remember "Shock And Awe"? Have the Daily Mail version: A blitz of terrifying ferocity was unleashed on Saddam Hussein's regime last night. The night sky over Baghdad and other cities was lit by firestorms from wave after thunderous wave of missile and bomb explosions. It marked the opening of the long- awaited ' shock and awe' campaign against the Iraqi dictator.
In his capital, huge explosions, mushroom clouds and showers of sparks turned the horizon a hellish red as the full might of the Allied bombardment descended. In just 14 minutes, surgically precise strikes removed every building symbolising Saddam's brutal regime from the skyline.Somewhere in excess of 6,000 civilians died in it. Not surprising really.
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266606 wrote: Speaking hypothetically for the sake of understanding your position exactly, you wouldn't for a moment consider any life whatsoever as being sacrificial to provide a better living environment for said peoples above and beyond the same exact level from which they'd suffered under the previous regime?
History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated".
As for your hypothetical question, no, of course I wouldn't for a moment consider "sacrificing" even one person in order to provide a better living environment for the remainder. It's the exact opposite of any ethical position.
History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated".
As for your hypothetical question, no, of course I wouldn't for a moment consider "sacrificing" even one person in order to provide a better living environment for the remainder. It's the exact opposite of any ethical position.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
Personally I think pork BBQ is better than beef BBQ, but that's me.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266628 wrote: History shows the results are uniformly disastrous for the people "liberated".
As for your hypothetical question, no, of course I wouldn't for a moment consider "sacrificing" even one person in order to provide a better living environment for the remainder. It's the exact opposite of any ethical position.
I disagree when the majority of the ethical prove their willingness to support the invading army
As for your hypothetical question, no, of course I wouldn't for a moment consider "sacrificing" even one person in order to provide a better living environment for the remainder. It's the exact opposite of any ethical position.
I disagree when the majority of the ethical prove their willingness to support the invading army
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266599 wrote: The end result always justifies the means. It's the most logical reasoning known to man kind
Terrorism will be seen as terrorism by both the wicked as well as the morally just. It's the end result that defines terrorism, not fireballs.
Absolutely and totally wrong.
If you act immorally, even in order to gain a moral end, you are still acting immorally.
Terrorism will be seen as terrorism by both the wicked as well as the morally just. It's the end result that defines terrorism, not fireballs.
Absolutely and totally wrong.
If you act immorally, even in order to gain a moral end, you are still acting immorally.
Volunteering for military service
Bryn Mawr;1266672 wrote: Absolutely and totally wrong.
If you act immorally, even in order to gain a moral end, you are still acting immorally.
It's utterly impossible to get a moral end by acting out immoral means. It's a misconception that it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means. It defines itself no matter in how you look at it, I just felt saying it as "The end result always justifies the means" implies that one has misunderstood the definition of "morality" when suggesting it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means no more than it's possible to have an immoral end with moral means.
It's the "sacrifice" that is judged afterward that defines it as such.
If you act immorally, even in order to gain a moral end, you are still acting immorally.
It's utterly impossible to get a moral end by acting out immoral means. It's a misconception that it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means. It defines itself no matter in how you look at it, I just felt saying it as "The end result always justifies the means" implies that one has misunderstood the definition of "morality" when suggesting it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means no more than it's possible to have an immoral end with moral means.
It's the "sacrifice" that is judged afterward that defines it as such.
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266674 wrote: It's utterly impossible to get a moral end by acting out immoral means. It's a misconception that it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means. It defines itself no matter in how you look at it, I just felt saying it as "The end result always justifies the means" implies that one has misunderstood the definition of "morality" when suggesting it's possible to have a moral end by immoral means no more than it's possible to have an immoral end with moral means.
It's the "sacrifice" that is judged afterward that defines it as such.
End - getting rid of, say, Hitler
Means - A bomb in a crowded market place that you know will also kill hundreds of innocent people
Immoral means to get a worthwhile end
Totally unacceptable.
It's the "sacrifice" that is judged afterward that defines it as such.
End - getting rid of, say, Hitler
Means - A bomb in a crowded market place that you know will also kill hundreds of innocent people
Immoral means to get a worthwhile end
Totally unacceptable.
Volunteering for military service
joey2000;1266643 wrote: Personally I think pork BBQ is better than beef BBQ, but that's me.
Perhaps you missed this bit - it was intended to give you a chance to contribute to the site through dialogue. Finding common ground. Seeking an understanding of the core issues.
I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.
So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.It's about volunteering for military service and whether either belligerent party can be right, and if so why, and whether volunteering to fight for it can be ethical in those circumstances.
Perhaps you missed this bit - it was intended to give you a chance to contribute to the site through dialogue. Finding common ground. Seeking an understanding of the core issues.
I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.
So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.It's about volunteering for military service and whether either belligerent party can be right, and if so why, and whether volunteering to fight for it can be ethical in those circumstances.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
Spent!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266683 wrote: Perhaps you missed this bit - it was intended to give you a chance to contribute to the site through dialogue. Finding common ground. Seeking an understanding of the core issues.
I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.
So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.It's about volunteering for military service and whether either belligerent party can be right, and if so why, and whether volunteering to fight for it can be ethical in those circumstances.
Both sides thought they were in the right. One thought they were defending their people against those who have stepped beyond the pale and the other thought they had been left with no choice but to resort to violence and if you are fighting a vastly superior enemy terrorism is just one of the ways you can do it. were the maquis in france freedom fighters or terrorists? Are the mujahadeen of Afghanistan freedom fighters or guerrillas and terrorist? when they were fighting the russians they were freedom fighters-they even featured as such in Rambo III. Now they are terrorists and cowards using guerilla tactics and IED's instead of standing up for a clean fight meanwhile using remote controlled drones to drop bombs and incidentally killing civilians is unacceptable and the collateral damage unfortunate but it was for a good purpose.
The Saudi's that flew the planes in to the twin towers were behaving in an ethical manner just as the allied pilots dropping bombs on baghdad or in german cities in ww2 were behaving in an ethical manner. The first thing that goes out the window in warfare is morality. War is war there is no just war or limited war there is just war. If you are going to kill someone in war do it from as far away as possible preferably with no risk to yourself. There is nothing nice about warfare
If you are looking for n objective definition of what is ethical or morally correct in war or when you should go to war you are wasting your time. Warfare should be last resort when all else has failed. I think it is a truism that if you want peace then be prepared to go to war-but not as a first choice. Rather than condemn those who serve I would condemn those who see force as a legitimate method of getting your own way. That is the politicians, it's only ever advocated by those in the stronger position knowing there is little risk they will lose a conflict (or indeed not have to fight themselves) or they just plain misread the situation and think they will get away with it.
The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit.
Yes they are paid killers-as a society there are certain circumstances where generally we accept it is justified to kill in those circumstances soldiers are heroes. Right from the very first paid warrior-as opposed to one that just fought when attacked-society had been ambivalent about soldiers. No one likes them in peace time but everybody does in war but what they are asked to do is a reflection on the societies they come from. If it's a war people think unjustified it's easier to blame the soldiers than it is to face up to the reality we have let our leaders start a war we think is wrong and feel powerless to stop it. naturally political leaders are happy with the distraction from what they are up to.
Can't say I agree with you spot. The military is a necessary profession-one that needs kept in it's place as servants of the society they come from. I know many in the military who are honourable people who are in a very real way putting their lives on the line. Politician now there is a profession I have little time for and that has as much moral integrity as a plank of wood.
I'd like to stand back slightly because at the moment I can see a problem. When militias in their own country fighting against foreign armies are discussed there's invariably a selectivity, a bias, based on which side is "us". Americans discussing the Minutemen ejecting the British from the States have the Minutemen as the heroes, for example. Americans regard the Contras in Nicaragua as patriotic heroes - Freedom Fighters - because they were bankrolled and armed by the Reagan Administration. The Cuban rebels in Florida get the same degree of support in their attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba. Discussing the Mujahideen against the Russians in the 1980s it's the same bias, which leads to problems when those identical local militias are now doing the same thing for the same reason to the Western occupying forces of the current decade.
So. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to read a brief article before but I'll give it a try, with apologies for the attempted imposition. I'd be grateful if you looked through The Cairo Gang and give me a sense of which side you think was in the right, the British Intelligence assassination squad or the IRA's Intelligence Department under Michael Collins in arranging and carrying out their murders. It's an event which neither of us are incensed by, we might be able to discuss our reactions without bias on either hand.It's about volunteering for military service and whether either belligerent party can be right, and if so why, and whether volunteering to fight for it can be ethical in those circumstances.
Both sides thought they were in the right. One thought they were defending their people against those who have stepped beyond the pale and the other thought they had been left with no choice but to resort to violence and if you are fighting a vastly superior enemy terrorism is just one of the ways you can do it. were the maquis in france freedom fighters or terrorists? Are the mujahadeen of Afghanistan freedom fighters or guerrillas and terrorist? when they were fighting the russians they were freedom fighters-they even featured as such in Rambo III. Now they are terrorists and cowards using guerilla tactics and IED's instead of standing up for a clean fight meanwhile using remote controlled drones to drop bombs and incidentally killing civilians is unacceptable and the collateral damage unfortunate but it was for a good purpose.
The Saudi's that flew the planes in to the twin towers were behaving in an ethical manner just as the allied pilots dropping bombs on baghdad or in german cities in ww2 were behaving in an ethical manner. The first thing that goes out the window in warfare is morality. War is war there is no just war or limited war there is just war. If you are going to kill someone in war do it from as far away as possible preferably with no risk to yourself. There is nothing nice about warfare
If you are looking for n objective definition of what is ethical or morally correct in war or when you should go to war you are wasting your time. Warfare should be last resort when all else has failed. I think it is a truism that if you want peace then be prepared to go to war-but not as a first choice. Rather than condemn those who serve I would condemn those who see force as a legitimate method of getting your own way. That is the politicians, it's only ever advocated by those in the stronger position knowing there is little risk they will lose a conflict (or indeed not have to fight themselves) or they just plain misread the situation and think they will get away with it.
The people in the military haven't chosen an honorable profession in the slightest, they're paid killers who choose to work for criminals for personal benefit.
Yes they are paid killers-as a society there are certain circumstances where generally we accept it is justified to kill in those circumstances soldiers are heroes. Right from the very first paid warrior-as opposed to one that just fought when attacked-society had been ambivalent about soldiers. No one likes them in peace time but everybody does in war but what they are asked to do is a reflection on the societies they come from. If it's a war people think unjustified it's easier to blame the soldiers than it is to face up to the reality we have let our leaders start a war we think is wrong and feel powerless to stop it. naturally political leaders are happy with the distraction from what they are up to.
Can't say I agree with you spot. The military is a necessary profession-one that needs kept in it's place as servants of the society they come from. I know many in the military who are honourable people who are in a very real way putting their lives on the line. Politician now there is a profession I have little time for and that has as much moral integrity as a plank of wood.
Volunteering for military service
gmc;1266698 wrote: Yes they are paid killers-as a society there are certain circumstances where generally we accept it is justified to kill in those circumstances soldiers are heroes.It needn't be that way. Some while ago I offered http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/inter ... post659510 as an alternative. So far no countries have contacted ForumGarden to register an interest but I have my hopes.
Nobody need die on a battlefield, war or no war. It's all down to what society regards as acceptable practice.
Given such a protocol, soldiering might become ethical.
Nobody need die on a battlefield, war or no war. It's all down to what society regards as acceptable practice.
Given such a protocol, soldiering might become ethical.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
As my comments got bypassed, I'll just summarize and restate with an attempt at a conclusive statement.
People who join the army for the explicit purpose of killing other people are morally bankrupt.
People who join because they are willing to kill to advance their status via education and salary are morally questionable. Not bankrupt as they may not actually expect to have to kill.
People who join because of some idealised idea of what the army does are victims of manufactured consent (a la Noam Chomsky) and, though ignorance is no excuse it is understandable.
If it helps you any, spot, I disagree with you but offer an alternative that is no less flattering. Volunteers for military service, imo, are either morally bankrupt, morally questionable or ignorant.
I disapprove of your technique if the goal is to try and reduce war by convincing people to either not join the army or to refuse fighting by attacking them philosophically. The opinion of the people can have a lot of sway but what you are suggesting will bring misery to many people who sincerely want the world to be a better place, just like you. That they decided their efforts were best spent fighting is just a matter of whether they were influenced by the manufacturing of their consent.
I think you'd have much more success if you acknowledge how utterly painful it would be for someone who has killed another to find out that the reason they did it was a lie. They have to live with having caused death. Be kind.
People who join the army for the explicit purpose of killing other people are morally bankrupt.
People who join because they are willing to kill to advance their status via education and salary are morally questionable. Not bankrupt as they may not actually expect to have to kill.
People who join because of some idealised idea of what the army does are victims of manufactured consent (a la Noam Chomsky) and, though ignorance is no excuse it is understandable.
If it helps you any, spot, I disagree with you but offer an alternative that is no less flattering. Volunteers for military service, imo, are either morally bankrupt, morally questionable or ignorant.
I disapprove of your technique if the goal is to try and reduce war by convincing people to either not join the army or to refuse fighting by attacking them philosophically. The opinion of the people can have a lot of sway but what you are suggesting will bring misery to many people who sincerely want the world to be a better place, just like you. That they decided their efforts were best spent fighting is just a matter of whether they were influenced by the manufacturing of their consent.
I think you'd have much more success if you acknowledge how utterly painful it would be for someone who has killed another to find out that the reason they did it was a lie. They have to live with having caused death. Be kind.
Volunteering for military service
Thought this was fairly interesting as it's from the perspective of a culture that believes in non-violence and has the least violent history:
To Fight or Not to Fight
In "What Buddhist Believe," the Venerable Dhammananda wrote,
"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings."
As always in questions of morality, when choosing whether to fight or not to fight a Buddhist must examine his own motivations honestly. It is too easy and too common to rationalize one has pure motives when in fact one is fearful and angry. For most of us self-honesty on this level takes extraordinary effort and maturity, and history tells us that even senior priests with years of practice can lie to themselves.
To Fight or Not to Fight
In "What Buddhist Believe," the Venerable Dhammananda wrote,
"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured person to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his or her fellow human beings."
As always in questions of morality, when choosing whether to fight or not to fight a Buddhist must examine his own motivations honestly. It is too easy and too common to rationalize one has pure motives when in fact one is fearful and angry. For most of us self-honesty on this level takes extraordinary effort and maturity, and history tells us that even senior priests with years of practice can lie to themselves.
Volunteering for military service
koan;1266756 wrote: I disapprove of your technique if the goal is to try and reduce war by convincing people to either not join the army or to refuse fighting by attacking them philosophically. The opinion of the people can have a lot of sway but what you are suggesting will bring misery to many people who sincerely want the world to be a better place, just like you. That they decided their efforts were best spent fighting is just a matter of whether they were influenced by the manufacturing of their consent.I agree entirely with the Venerable Dhammananda. "They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression", exactly so. "Called upon" is one key unlocking a personal ethical justification as "they may be forced to go to war by others". I've said that throughout. "From external aggression" is the other key and again that's the matching key I've included earlier. I have no problem at all with his formulation.
There are examples across the Internet of people writing that they've joined up because their mates have already done tours and "got theirs" - not in the sense of been injured but meaning that they've been allowed their legal quota of hunting men to death, as though it's a sport - and now it's their turn. That, I grant you, I've found disgusting. Whether they kill or not, though, is to my mind immaterial. By joining up, whether they find themselves eventually on the front or not, they're releasing troops in the various services from support duties into the front line.
Your comment on ignorance is rational, yes. There's a far greater and more abhorrent guilt on the part of recruiting sergeants trawling inner-city schools offering a way out of dependency into an educated career than there is in the teenagers who take the lure.
I'm sure many ex-service veterans live with the demons manufactured by their earlier choices in life. What upsets me is the unconscionable vacuity of ex-service veterans and their families on ForumGarden who refuse to recognize their sin, hiding away behind patriotism and the allegedly heroic nature of comradeship under arms.
There are examples across the Internet of people writing that they've joined up because their mates have already done tours and "got theirs" - not in the sense of been injured but meaning that they've been allowed their legal quota of hunting men to death, as though it's a sport - and now it's their turn. That, I grant you, I've found disgusting. Whether they kill or not, though, is to my mind immaterial. By joining up, whether they find themselves eventually on the front or not, they're releasing troops in the various services from support duties into the front line.
Your comment on ignorance is rational, yes. There's a far greater and more abhorrent guilt on the part of recruiting sergeants trawling inner-city schools offering a way out of dependency into an educated career than there is in the teenagers who take the lure.
I'm sure many ex-service veterans live with the demons manufactured by their earlier choices in life. What upsets me is the unconscionable vacuity of ex-service veterans and their families on ForumGarden who refuse to recognize their sin, hiding away behind patriotism and the allegedly heroic nature of comradeship under arms.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1266775 wrote:
I'm sure many ex-service veterans live with the demons manufactured by their earlier choices in life. What upsets me is the unconscionable vacuity of ex-service veterans and their families on ForumGarden who refuse to recognize their sin, hiding away behind patriotism and the allegedly heroic nature of comradeship under arms.
For most of us self-honesty on this level takes extraordinary effort and maturity, and history tells us that even senior priests with years of practice can lie to themselves.
That was the part that expressed best what I've been trying to say.
I'm sure many ex-service veterans live with the demons manufactured by their earlier choices in life. What upsets me is the unconscionable vacuity of ex-service veterans and their families on ForumGarden who refuse to recognize their sin, hiding away behind patriotism and the allegedly heroic nature of comradeship under arms.
For most of us self-honesty on this level takes extraordinary effort and maturity, and history tells us that even senior priests with years of practice can lie to themselves.
That was the part that expressed best what I've been trying to say.
Volunteering for military service
Only a small percentage of U.S. military will see or participate in combat. The majority are support troops, typists, cooks, mechanics etc. plus you have the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force & Coast Guard, with the bulk of combat participants coming from the Army and Marine Corps units. Individuals joining the Army and Marine Corps will be initially trained as combat participants even though they may wind up pounding a typewriter. Never the less, their motives for joining a recognized combat branch is questionable.
Young men joining the other branches generally have different reasons for enlisting. Paid college tuition upon release from service, lower interest on home loans as a veteran or just plain picking up job skills that are transferable to a civilian career.
I joined the Air Force during the Korean War primarily to keep from getting drafted into the Army and to get the college benefits which would have been other wise difficult to obtain given my family situation. Even though there is no present draft, young men have many reasons for enlisting other than a desire for confrontation.
Young men joining the other branches generally have different reasons for enlisting. Paid college tuition upon release from service, lower interest on home loans as a veteran or just plain picking up job skills that are transferable to a civilian career.
I joined the Air Force during the Korean War primarily to keep from getting drafted into the Army and to get the college benefits which would have been other wise difficult to obtain given my family situation. Even though there is no present draft, young men have many reasons for enlisting other than a desire for confrontation.
Volunteering for military service
I had some of that in mind when I wrote "By joining up, whether they find themselves eventually on the front or not, they're releasing troops in the various services from support duties into the front line" - I think it's at least arguable.
Volunteering into a conscript army is a different kettle of fish to anything I've discussed here. Standing beside those who have no option but to be there is an overriding choice compared to all I've discussed. And I do agree that many enlist today for reasons other than wanting to fight. The lures dangled by the military are valuable.
If you ever get round to starting a thread on your perspective into the Korean War I'd be very interested in asking a few questions, Lon.
Volunteering into a conscript army is a different kettle of fish to anything I've discussed here. Standing beside those who have no option but to be there is an overriding choice compared to all I've discussed. And I do agree that many enlist today for reasons other than wanting to fight. The lures dangled by the military are valuable.
If you ever get round to starting a thread on your perspective into the Korean War I'd be very interested in asking a few questions, Lon.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
Bryn Mawr;1266675 wrote: End - getting rid of, say, Hitler
Means - A bomb in a crowded market place that you know will also kill hundreds of innocent people
Immoral means to get a worthwhile end
Totally unacceptable.
The end wouldn't have been worthwhile unless it served to save the lives of one more person, equal in worth, than the hundreds killed. By not bombing the market place you served to kill one more than the hundreds you'd chosen to save. The means cannot possibly have a differing level of morality than the ends by any fraction whatsoever.
Means - A bomb in a crowded market place that you know will also kill hundreds of innocent people
Immoral means to get a worthwhile end
Totally unacceptable.
The end wouldn't have been worthwhile unless it served to save the lives of one more person, equal in worth, than the hundreds killed. By not bombing the market place you served to kill one more than the hundreds you'd chosen to save. The means cannot possibly have a differing level of morality than the ends by any fraction whatsoever.
Volunteering for military service
K.Snyder;1266926 wrote: The end wouldn't have been worthwhile unless it served to save the lives of one more person, equal in worth, than the hundreds killed. By not bombing the market place you served to kill one more than the hundreds you'd chosen to save. The means cannot possibly have a differing level of morality than the ends by any fraction whatsoever.
Then we will agree to disagree over this - regardless of the practical equation that you save more lives that you murder the act of murderering the innocent people in the marketplace is still immoral.
Then we will agree to disagree over this - regardless of the practical equation that you save more lives that you murder the act of murderering the innocent people in the marketplace is still immoral.
Volunteering for military service
Bryn Mawr;1266942 wrote: Then we will agree to disagree over this - regardless of the practical equation that you save more lives that you murder the act of murderering the innocent people in the marketplace is still immoral.
I think of it as murdering the one more than the hundreds because I would have had the ability to stop it from happening. Sure it would be horrific, I agree, but not nearly as horrific as allowing 100 to live all at the expense of 101 to die.
The ends of anything dictates how one sees the means. A justifiable ends gives credence to a moral means. Anything else is a skewed view of the means.
But sure we can agree to disagree if you like.
I think of it as murdering the one more than the hundreds because I would have had the ability to stop it from happening. Sure it would be horrific, I agree, but not nearly as horrific as allowing 100 to live all at the expense of 101 to die.
The ends of anything dictates how one sees the means. A justifiable ends gives credence to a moral means. Anything else is a skewed view of the means.
But sure we can agree to disagree if you like.
Volunteering for military service
Lon;1266787 wrote: Only a small percentage of U.S. military will see or participate in combat. The majority are support troops, typists, cooks, mechanics etc. plus you have the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force & Coast Guard, with the bulk of combat participants coming from the Army and Marine Corps units. Individuals joining the Army and Marine Corps will be initially trained as combat participants even though they may wind up pounding a typewriter. Never the less, their motives for joining a recognized combat branch is questionable.
Young men joining the other branches generally have different reasons for enlisting. Paid college tuition upon release from service, lower interest on home loans as a veteran or just plain picking up job skills that are transferable to a civilian career.
I joined the Air Force during the Korean War primarily to keep from getting drafted into the Army and to get the college benefits which would have been other wise difficult to obtain given my family situation. Even though there is no present draft, young men have many reasons for enlisting other than a desire for confrontation.
Stop messing up the military-bashing with stuff like facts. tsk tsk
Young men joining the other branches generally have different reasons for enlisting. Paid college tuition upon release from service, lower interest on home loans as a veteran or just plain picking up job skills that are transferable to a civilian career.
I joined the Air Force during the Korean War primarily to keep from getting drafted into the Army and to get the college benefits which would have been other wise difficult to obtain given my family situation. Even though there is no present draft, young men have many reasons for enlisting other than a desire for confrontation.
Stop messing up the military-bashing with stuff like facts. tsk tsk
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Volunteering for military service
Clodhopper;1150869 wrote: laugh. Now it's my turn to take the thread off-topic.
I think old Tutu puts it very well.
The basic situation is that the USA is a place where principle and ideals are very strong in the fundamental make-up of the place: "Send us your poor and your huddled masses and they can live the American Dream", to paraphrase 200 years of US history. It resonates still.
And then you get the GW years. It is hard to articulate my total contempt for this man and his administration. I cannot think of one foreign policy success in his time (there may have been some, but I don't know of them) and during his time in office the current financial disaster was created.
To call the man a moron is to insult the retarded, and he was VOTED IN to run a place as vast and complex as the USA. Look at the way he failed to deal with something as widely predicted as the flooding of New Orleans, failed to grasp the existence of climate change, allowed the sub-prime fiasco, and deceived his allies into war. I despise the cretin.
If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, a lot of it is the fault of one idiot:
G.W.Bush.
I don't pity the fool, I want to rack the bastard.
So a good many people, myself included, have this immense affection for the USA and all she stands for, and simultaneously, total contempt for the way she has behaved internationally for the last decade or two.
My thoughts exactly clod. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Oil in Iraq.........Gas pipeline in Afghanistan............(that debacle was going on even before Iraq, we all knew Afghanistan was next ten years ago.
I think old Tutu puts it very well.
The basic situation is that the USA is a place where principle and ideals are very strong in the fundamental make-up of the place: "Send us your poor and your huddled masses and they can live the American Dream", to paraphrase 200 years of US history. It resonates still.
And then you get the GW years. It is hard to articulate my total contempt for this man and his administration. I cannot think of one foreign policy success in his time (there may have been some, but I don't know of them) and during his time in office the current financial disaster was created.
To call the man a moron is to insult the retarded, and he was VOTED IN to run a place as vast and complex as the USA. Look at the way he failed to deal with something as widely predicted as the flooding of New Orleans, failed to grasp the existence of climate change, allowed the sub-prime fiasco, and deceived his allies into war. I despise the cretin.
If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, a lot of it is the fault of one idiot:
G.W.Bush.
I don't pity the fool, I want to rack the bastard.
So a good many people, myself included, have this immense affection for the USA and all she stands for, and simultaneously, total contempt for the way she has behaved internationally for the last decade or two.
My thoughts exactly clod. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Oil in Iraq.........Gas pipeline in Afghanistan............(that debacle was going on even before Iraq, we all knew Afghanistan was next ten years ago.
Volunteering for military service
Scrat;1268712 wrote: Quite an interesting thread.
Joey's complete refusal to engage with any questions is fairly notable too.
Joey's complete refusal to engage with any questions is fairly notable too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
We don't have the same kind of warrior cult you seem to have adopted in the states. More and more people are turning up at military funerals. If a politician tuned up it would be seen as a cynical attempt to appear caring and the likes of gordon brown would get mobbed and I think now any Muslims protesting at a funeral would get a shock at the reaction. But it's more, imo, because we see our soldiers not as "warriors" but as the neighbours kid or just wee boys doing what they think is right. Maybe it stems for ww2 when unlike america our soldiers didn't go away to war-it involved everybody and no one wanted to listen to old soldiers telling tales-kind of i was there mate keep it to yourself abd it was a shared experience. We don't go in for flag waving either- we've seen where blind patriotism can lead. Jingoism no thanks. This ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country notion receives a resounding F099 O(F. Maybe americans aren't cynical enough yet.
Rather than direct anger at soldiers direct it at the politicians who got them in to this mess
Rather than direct anger at soldiers direct it at the politicians who got them in to this mess
Volunteering for military service
It does seem that the U.S. and Russia are two huge dinosaurs attempting to absorb everything in between. They both were pretty successful for a long long time. Unlike real dinosaurs though the countries in your immediate area and now others have refused to be consumed and are actually pushing back.
Neither America or Russia like that and are indeed not familiar with this. This pushing others around is bound to come back at us in more ways than it already has.
We should smarten up.
Israel and oil companies have no problem with America expending its young men and womens lives for them.
When will we wake up?
Neither America or Russia like that and are indeed not familiar with this. This pushing others around is bound to come back at us in more ways than it already has.
We should smarten up.
Israel and oil companies have no problem with America expending its young men and womens lives for them.
When will we wake up?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Volunteering for military service
gmc;1268905 wrote: Rather than direct anger at soldiers direct it at the politicians who got them in to this mess
No, that's too facile. Are you saying there are any volunteers in any of the Western armed forces who didn't know precisely how they'd be deployed if they signed up? Of course they did. They share the responsibility, at the very least. Without their connivance the politicians would have no ability to project military power beyond their country's borders.
No, that's too facile. Are you saying there are any volunteers in any of the Western armed forces who didn't know precisely how they'd be deployed if they signed up? Of course they did. They share the responsibility, at the very least. Without their connivance the politicians would have no ability to project military power beyond their country's borders.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1268997 wrote: No, that's too facile. Are you saying there are any volunteers in any of the Western armed forces who didn't know precisely how they'd be deployed if they signed up? Of course they did. They share the responsibility, at the very least. Without their connivance the politicians would have no ability to project military power beyond their country's borders.
Far too conservative in my opinion.
If the Western world had no standing army ready to deploy such would only romanticize the idea of taking it over not to mention being completely helpless in the event of another world war.
The people should question everything let alone potentially killing someone but the greater blame has to lie solely on those with an eagerness to go to war. It's not as if politicians do not lie so the people should always have significant power in the government before, during, and after each election.
Far too conservative in my opinion.
If the Western world had no standing army ready to deploy such would only romanticize the idea of taking it over not to mention being completely helpless in the event of another world war.
The people should question everything let alone potentially killing someone but the greater blame has to lie solely on those with an eagerness to go to war. It's not as if politicians do not lie so the people should always have significant power in the government before, during, and after each election.
Volunteering for military service
spot;1268997 wrote: No, that's too facile. Are you saying there are any volunteers in any of the Western armed forces who didn't know precisely how they'd be deployed if they signed up? Of course they did. They share the responsibility, at the very least. Without their connivance the politicians would have no ability to project military power beyond their country's borders.
No I'm not saying that. Reality is you will always need some kind of military force-even sweden and switzerland do and Hitler didn't invade them because they were in a position to give him a very bloody nose of he tried it not out of respect for their neutrality. Sweden still has one of the most powerful military in europe. You never know what is going to happen.
Austria germany and france still have national service (I think-I know austria definitely does) and they're not involved in this.
It's not having a military that is the problem it's losing control of the government that is. Arguably in both the US and UK the political process has actually failed so that you have a few people with power and the rest of us seem unable to to them. The US has a bigger problem I think as people power is now seen as communism-the language of dissent and protest has somehow become tainted to be seen as unpatriotic. At least we can still call gordon brown an incompetent baboon without some idiot accusing us of being unbritish.
Historically we've never had that large an army except in times of war-navy yes but we can't afford it nowadays. What we did have was dispersed around the world. If america brought all their troops home and shut the foreign bases their armed forces would decrease dramatically, no free people wants or will tolerate a large standing army except in exceptional circumstances.
No I'm not saying that. Reality is you will always need some kind of military force-even sweden and switzerland do and Hitler didn't invade them because they were in a position to give him a very bloody nose of he tried it not out of respect for their neutrality. Sweden still has one of the most powerful military in europe. You never know what is going to happen.
Austria germany and france still have national service (I think-I know austria definitely does) and they're not involved in this.
It's not having a military that is the problem it's losing control of the government that is. Arguably in both the US and UK the political process has actually failed so that you have a few people with power and the rest of us seem unable to to them. The US has a bigger problem I think as people power is now seen as communism-the language of dissent and protest has somehow become tainted to be seen as unpatriotic. At least we can still call gordon brown an incompetent baboon without some idiot accusing us of being unbritish.
Historically we've never had that large an army except in times of war-navy yes but we can't afford it nowadays. What we did have was dispersed around the world. If america brought all their troops home and shut the foreign bases their armed forces would decrease dramatically, no free people wants or will tolerate a large standing army except in exceptional circumstances.