" War, what is it good for? "....Edwin Starr.

[Pippy]

you seem to typify everything I hate about unrealistic idealistic views

As far as I am concerned there is no greater sacrifice that can be made than to put oneself between one's family/friends/country/kin and danger. I believe that is the ultimate sacrifice and I believe that makes that person (particularly those who give their lives for others in that way) worthy of being regarded as heroic.

It is funny, because you are hating on unrealistic, idealistic views, and twos post ago you had one yourself.

Your point is like whomever said they feel a moral obligation to pay taxes... If there is no greater sacrifice than to defend you family, but only if you're actually defending your family. If you think that being in Afghanistan is somehow a "heroic" act, and every raghead you kill makes your loved ones safer... Or that by you dying, it is the "ultimate sacrifice". Yeah, ultimate in the sense that you got nothing for it.

The war you are in has to be just. It has to be a really good reason to go to war, and if it is lies and manipulation for profit, then that makes taking part in that war the opposite of heroic. You're just killing other peoples loved ones, thinking you have to protect your own, but there is no threat. Your just a coward and a murderer in that situation. Not a hero.

There is a just war, but only one side of the conflict can claim it. Unfortunately we are not the good guys this time.

I just had to point out you accusing someone of being unrealistic and ideological, right after you talked about the "ultimate sacrifice" like some kind of cheezy movie. That's an unrealistic ideology.
Thanks,
-Pip

[Dotard]

So.......

During WWII America should have just stayed out of it. Hitler wasn't a threat to America. Every Nazi killed by an American wasn't making my family here safer. No ultimate sacrifices were made by any Americans there. Yup, cowards and murders, the lot of them.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, at least we could claim 'direct threat' there. Should have waited for Nazi Germany to directly attack America before involvement right?

Yup, America should have left Britain to her own devices since America was not directly threatened and Britain is just a "dirty little european country".

---

Raghead.

How many more racist statements are you going to make?

You're like the man who claims "I'm not a racists! I treat all beaners and jig-a-boos equally!"

Oh wait, you are that man.

[Pippy]

The wars of history are a different breed than modern war. They are still able to be argued as ideologically wrong, as it is a matter of opinion. I don't really want to argue about the right and wrongness of the historical wars, and that was not what I was talking about. I am talking about war in it's modern incantation, and for you to bring up a different kind of war (being the kind we used to fight/fought before) is arguing a different thing. Whether or not America's involvement in WW2 was "right" is a matter of opinion, and not what I am trying to discuss. I am trying to discuss America's involvement in conflict since about 1950, and more so since 2001. Modern war, the war on terror, Israel strutting, and all it's other facets are (I think) what I say they are. Without merit, without legitimacy and murderous... That is also a matter of opinion. We can talk about Hitler (if we absolutely have to), but that is a different conversation.

How many more racist statements are you going to make?

Likely a few. I use them in the context of bitter cynicism and sarcasm. It is not the use of the term that makes you a racist, it is the state of your mind. I try my best to treat all humans as of the same value, and have much love and respect for other cultures and our differences.

Let me try again,

If you think that being in Afghanistan is somehow a "heroic" act, and every raghead you kill makes your loved ones safer...

In the context of the sentence it is placed, I am making a hypothetical statement about the possible thoughts of an imaginary individual. That is the "If you think..." part of it. The term comes up as an example of the possible state-of-mind of the hypothetical person, of whom I am obviously mocking and disagreeing with. I guess I didn't put it in quotations, like heroic, but oh well.

If I may restate my point. You can only claim that protecting you loved ones, and dying to do so is honorable, or heroic, or even right if the thing you are doing actually protects your loved ones. It doesn't seem to matter if you think it is, because you could be wrong. I think that the wars we are engaged in now (and I am saying nothing about ww2) are not in any way protecting our loved ones. I could make a great argument for how the wars are making our loved ones much less safe. Terrorism is created, and these wars on terror are the exact thing that creates more terrorism. I used to say that GWB was lying when he said there was a threat from world terror, but if we let him have his war too long, it would be self fulfilling. Now in 100 years when there is so much hatred and terror in the world, he will be heralded as having a keen mind to have seen it coming...
Problem Reaction Solution. They warned us about that too, you know.

Or keep bringing up the Nazis. Compare apples and oranges to justify yourself.

Thank you,
-Pip

[Dotard]

OH! My bad! I thought the discussion was on War, not particular wars you just happen to disagree on the necessity of fighting.

A pile of poo is a pile of poo. You can paint yours a different color and call it an 'orange' in an attempt to keep it out of the discussions of poo, but no, it's still poo and my questions posed in my posts are valid.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I can't be arsed but yeah, it doesn't surprise me ... you seem to typify everything I hate about unrealistic idealistic views.

I started this thread with the words of the late Harry Patch. Did he typify " unrealistic, idealistic views "?

He had an opinion, one he is (perhaps) more entitled to than some. I disagree with him but there you go.

Kyu

---

you seem to typify everything I hate about unrealistic idealistic views

As far as I am concerned there is no greater sacrifice that can be made than to put oneself between one's family/friends/country/kin and danger. I believe that is the ultimate sacrifice and I believe that makes that person (particularly those who give their lives for others in that way) worthy of being regarded as heroic.

It is funny, because you are hating on unrealistic, idealistic views, and twos post ago you had one yourself.

And that would be YOUR opinion, one I don't happen to share ... next?

Your point is like whomever said they feel a moral obligation to pay taxes... If there is no greater sacrifice than to defend you family, but only if you're actually defending your family. If you think that being in Afghanistan is somehow a "heroic" act, and every raghead you kill makes your loved ones safer... Or that by you dying, it is the "ultimate sacrifice". Yeah, ultimate in the sense that you got nothing for it.

Way to go twisting my remarks ... now would you like to read what I actually WROTE again and perhaps deal with that instead of what you thought I was saying?

The war you are in has to be just. It has to be a really good reason to go to war, and if it is lies and manipulation for profit, then that makes taking part in that war the opposite of heroic. You're just killing other peoples loved ones, thinking you have to protect your own, but there is no threat. Your just a coward and a murderer in that situation. Not a hero.

There is no objective way to determine what is or is not a "just" war because, "just" is a legal concept, therefore we would require all nations to be subject to international, law, international law does not exist at present and won't do until all nations buy into a world government so your point is basically bollocks.

There is a just war, but only one side of the conflict can claim it. Unfortunately we are not the good guys this time.

Nope ... see above!

I just had to point out you accusing someone of being unrealistic and ideological, right after you talked about the "ultimate sacrifice" like some kind of cheezy movie. That's an unrealistic ideology.

And you were wrong ... as usual!

Kyu

---

The wars of history are a different breed than modern war.

No they're not ... outside of our hugely magnified capability to cause destruction the only real difference now is that such conflicts are reported in near real time so we get to see the horrors of it within hours and in full colour rather than in weeks and in black and white print.

Kyu

[Pippy]

And you were wrong ... as usual!

I think my point stands. I don't know how else you could describe you view on heroism except that it is unrealistic and idealistic. I understand you disagree, but it is valid still. That if the war does protect your family, then your actions may be heroic. But if the war does not protect anyone, just kills other peoples families... Then it is not. If the war is unjust, you can't be the hero. Stands, since your only retort was that you think that is wrong...

No they're not ...

Yes, they are. When I say that these wars (modern, current) are illegitimate, and then you guys talk about Hitler, we are talking about two different things.

Thank you for enlightening us as to what you disagree with.

[Dotard]

... war does not protect anyone, just kills other peoples families... Then it is not. If the war is unjust, you can't be the hero. Stands, since your only retort was that you think that is wrong...

You seem to believe "just" and "unjust" are defined by your personal opinion or legal concept.
Heros in a just war, murders in an unjust war. And who decides which is which? Pippy!

[quote]No they're not ...

Yes, they are. When I say that these wars (modern, current) are illegitimate, and then you guys talk about Hitler, we are talking about two different things.

So the wars of the past were legit according to you.

Again with the "my morality supersedes your morality".

No war is 'justified'. No war is 'legitimate'. No war is 'called for'. No war can be pardoned.

But they must be fought against those who wage such.

[Pippy]

So the wars of the past were legit according to you.

No. I am repeating myself now, war is never the right option. I do not believe in war. But I want to talk about modern war. It is much easier for me to try to present the argument that modern war is without merit, since historical war had a semblance of justification. So I am trying to be clear about modern war, we are talking about Afghanistan and Iraq. You retort with rhetoric about Hitler, and we are suddenly talking about two different things.

Again with the "my morality supersedes your morality".

That may very well be the case, I am a terminally moral person, but that is not what I am saying. That my morality supersedes your morality might be true, but that is inconsequential and immeasurable...

No war is 'justified'. No war is 'legitimate'. No war is 'called for'. No war can be pardoned.

Finally, we seem to agree on something. Keep on that track...

But they must be fought against those who wage such.

Arg! You were doing so good. If we are the ones who "must" fight those who wage war, are we not those who wage war? Isn't that still a system that grows exponentially worse? I am living a life that tries to progress towards a better humanity, a big part being an advocate for peace. If everyone is crazy, and war is in fasion, then I will stand with the side I chose.

I love when people make peace-mongers out to be cowards. It takes strong rhetoric. If you don't stand behind the troops, stand in front of them. My call for peace is the greatest support (from little old me) the troops can ask for.

Don't you see that the "we have to fight madmen" and "we have to fight those who fight" are states of mind where war will become bigger and bigger? Certainly not states of mind that work towards any resolution. We are responsible to not elect or allow madmen in our home country, but it is really not our business to stop them other places, especially if we are not better than them in doing so.

I know this is a touchy subject, and please don't get offended. I don't mean to say that my morality is better than yours. I just disagree, on a moral point.

You seem to believe "just" and "unjust" are defined by your personal opinion or legal concept.
Heros in a just war, murders in an unjust war. And who decides which is which? Pippy!

When I say that the wars now are unjust, I am not stating an opinion. I believe that to be the actual truth of the situation. I am much more certain about the wrongness of war, and how to get out of it, than I am about god, or any other thing I am quick to say "I think"...

I think objectively that the war is wrong. Based on logic and rationale, not on personal opinion and especially not 'legal concept'. BUT, that is an opinion. I am of the opinion that it is objective that the modern wars are wrong. Unnecessary. So it is both, and opinion and not... I get to decide when I am talking about what I think, just as you get to decide when you are talking about what you think. It is funny that you made me seem like I am being unrealistic and domineering when I am speaking about what I think. Obviously I get to decide what I think. Geez!

Thanks,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

And you were wrong ... as usual!

I think my point stands.

Good for you ... you're wrong but then you have a history of delusion so I can live with that.

No they're not ...

Yes, they are. When I say that these wars (modern, current) are illegitimate, and then you guys talk about Hitler, we are talking about two different things.

No they are not ... there is NO essential difference between old style warfare and modern day apart from our magnified ability to destroy and the fact that they are reported in near real-time.

Thank you for enlightening us as to what you disagree with.

Thank you for continuing to be everything I've thought of you!

Kyu

---

No war is 'justified'. No war is 'legitimate'. No war is 'called for'. No war can be pardoned.

War can always be justified; our history is replete with wars that have been justified, legitimacy requires an overarching legal framework and the organisation to back that up with force if necessary (a world government) and if we didn't pardon/forgive we could never move on.

But they must be fought against those who wage such.

Too idealistic a view for me.

Kyu

[Pippy]

The essential difference is that nowadays war is for money and power, and lied about. Hitler really existed, Bin Laden and Hussein were presented as dangerous when they were not (to us). The main difference is the way war is fought, the 'why' war is fought. And in that difference, I see it as much easier to understand the wrongness of war by looking at the new ones. We could argue the old ones, but I am not as confidant of my ability to make it make sense. Although, I am everything you think of me, and then some.

Thank you yet again for being so charming and enlightening.