Can America ever truly pay for its sins?

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, theres not a single bible in my house...even though my wife is an evangelical christian. (she doesn't need it..like me, she has most of it committed to memory). There is a beautiful quran...though......gold leaf, I even know the man who pressed it. I was introduced by my then best friend..who I would later execute...for murdering other muslims.

You ask me about these politicians I don't support.....none of them had their finger on my belt felt weapon. That was my finger. Mine. Every man I ever killed or didn't was my own. 'd do it all again, even if your stupid god would send me to hell having killed one of his garbage people.

[WinterHold]

[Anomalocaris]

Always seek the inside; not the outside. A beautiful cover won't benefit you, it's all about realising the text inside.

On the contrary, the beautiful cover is the only non-vile thing about either the Koran, or the entire 1300 year process that led to that particular copy of the Koran.

---

Back to the topic:

Soldiers usually don't go to battlefields because they believe in a "cause"; especially when the armies you have are like the American army. Whenever the fighting is just "a job", soldiers become inferior killing machines that never work probably without a squad commander or a captain, that's why the U.S army got defeated in Vietnam, then Afghanistan, and it will be defeated again and again because humans are not "machines".

But empires' elites never understand that lesson.

You have no clue why the US was defeated in Vietnam.    Notice the US army did not get defeated in Vietnam.  Not once.   It won every battle.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Back to the topic:

Soldiers usually don't go to battlefields because they believe in a "cause"; especially when the armies you have are like the American army. Whenever the fighting is just "a job", soldiers become inferior killing machines that never work probably without a squad commander or a captain, that's why the U.S army got defeated in Vietnam, then Afghanistan, and it will be defeated again and again because humans are not "machines".

But empires' elites never understand that lesson.

America was never defeated in battle in Vietnam or Afghanistan they lost for political not military reasons

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[Ravenshire]

Does America, or even any other nation, really have a moral impetus to change anything?

Yes.

Why should we?

Because we are understand morality, we have a moral obligation to try to do better today than we did yesterday.

When lions kill and eat gazelle, do the lions then apologize to the remaining gazelle? Of course not, because it's simply a part of "lion nature" to eat gazelle. Human nature is amoral and has much less to do with empathy than most people would like to believe.

If you are going to argue that humans are amoral, just as any animal with no understanding of morality, then you truly are, as has been stated earlier in this thread, a sociopath.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[awty]

[Spongebob]

America was never defeated in battle in Vietnam or Afghanistan they lost for political not military reasons

I don't completely agree.  It's comforting for Americans to think this and I believe this is what most Vietnam era politicians would like people to believe.  But the fact is the US threw bombs, guns and soldiers at this country for years without reservation and never broke their resolve, not even close.  We were not beaten by force if you are comparing what the allies did to Germany and Japan in WW2, but we also didn't win by force.  If anything it was a stalemate.  But political will, popular acceptance and treasure are all important and valid elements in any war.  If you don't have those things on your side, you can't win a war.  In the beginning, none of those things were a factor, but as the war progressed they became the biggest obstacles.  The war simply could not be won under the circumstances we found ourselves in.  FF 50 years later, the Afghanistan war is very similar.  We may not have lost this war, but we certainly didn't win it either.

---

When lions kill and eat gazelle, do the lions then apologize to the remaining gazelle? Of course not, because it's simply a part of "lion nature" to eat gazelle. Human nature is amoral and has much less to do with empathy than most people would like to believe.

If you are going to argue that humans are amoral, just as any animal with no understanding of morality, then you truly are, as has been stated earlier in this thread, a sociopath.

I want to address these two statements in bold, both of which are demonstrably wrong.

First, there are several works demonstrating that animals other than humans understand the concept of fairness.  Frans de Waal's book, Our Inner Ape is just one; there are lots of others.  Him and other scientists have conducted scientific studies that definitively document the behavior of apes and other animals that demonstrate they understand such concepts.  This doesn't mean they share our understanding of such concepts but they do have them.

Further, to argue that humans are "immoral" is simply ignorant.  There's far too much work to argue such a thing.  Individuals may be thus, but there's simply no evidence to suggest this applies to humans as a specie.  What you @Ahriman don't understand is what this means.  Just because you don't agree with the morals of some group doesn't mean they have none.  It just means you don't understand them, and morals are not a simple black/white thing; they can be very complex.

[Spongebob]

@WinterHold

Soldiers usually don't go to battlefields because they believe in a "cause"; especially when the armies you have are like the American army. Whenever the fighting is just "a job", soldiers become inferior killing machines that never work probably without a squad commander or a captain, that's why the U.S army got defeated in Vietnam, then Afghanistan, and it will be defeated again and again because humans are not "machines".

You are mistaken about some vital aspects of the US military.  During the Vietnam era, most soldiers were conscripted (drafted) and had no say in serving.  Serving in the military was not a job in the sense that they had the option to quite and do something else.  Since that time the military has become a voluntary force, meaning all military personnel voluntarily join up.  This makes it somewhat more like a job, but quitting is still only an option once one's tour is complete.  Many people join the military out of duty to country and many are officers who plan to serve out an entire career, so your observations are quite ignorant.  You would do better to base such statements on some valid source.  The US military is far more sophisticated and highly technical now than it was 50 years ago.  I say this because it requires a lot of training and work to be effective. 

 And regarding your comment about humans not being machines; this is actually just the tip of the iceberg for a conversation that spans thousands of years concerning the preparation for battle.  The most effective force known to man were the ancient Spartans, who were literally trained from birth to do nothing but fight.  In a way, they were killing machines and such focused preparation can transform people into such a thing.  Emotions never go away, but there is plenty of evidence that people can be molded into something any reasonable person would call a fighting machine.