Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Herald of War's avatar

Dedicated Reveler

3,100 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1


Oh plz.

The invasion made the price of oil go up, if we were there for money we would have never invaded and simply allowed Saddam to wipe out whatever group of individuals he deemed "inferior".


But we didn't.

As far as it goes, the objective is not to kill, not even to defeat your enemy, but help people. We left Hitler alive because it made it more likely for the Germans to lose and, surrender. We rebuilt Germany, France, Japan, and tried to lessen the blow against them in retaliation after they were defeated. In Iraq we've captured about as many people as we killed, and we sent in pamphlets urging people to surrender and help us liberate Iraq from Saddam; and at least 90,000 of Saddam's surrendered almost immediately.


Woman can vote, hell men can vote, and we lost trillions of dollars having to buy more expensive oil, which has raised the cost of manufacture and transportation, raising the cost of everything, possibly sending us into a recession. If we were there for money, why did we calculate the loss before invading and invade anyways?

And no human being is a tool. They're human beings, individuals, with thoughts, feelings etc. No human being, anywhere, is just a "tool", or an object. And the objective of the military is very solidly not to kill.


Interesting thing to note. You use the word money several times, implying I said it was the cause for the wars. I only use it in reference to what he personally got.

I am saying what is being done is unnecessary, and it is not protecting our country. Made no comment on motives.

As for being a tool, I'm referring to the idiotic notion that a soldier isn't resonsible because he has to follow orders.

A soldier goes where they're needed told.


Fix'd.

Quote:

Whether they fight in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, they could have just as easily gone to Germany or Japan and stayed there, or gone to some little country no-one has ever heard of, or helped out in some kind of domestic dispute etc.


And? They signed up to do what the institution tells them to.

Quote:

And why is it unnecessary?


Because necessity was not shown. This is not difficult.

Quote:

I love Saddam


I know you do, but nothing said he had to go.

Quote:

I love terrorists


Yes, and isn't it great that people across the world aren't necessarily a threat over here just because we fight them/

Quote:

I hate civilians


I know you do. As for the people who would die, please try to understand the basic fact that just because something bad happens that doesn't justify what is done to try to prevent it.

Quote:

In the end, when you let mad men spiral out of control and get more powerful, they became a serious threat; history has shown this.


Nope. People with a brain realize that "Someone has done X" does not prove that some other person will do it too if we don't kill them. Need a bit more evidence than that.


wut


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War


Interesting thing to note. You use the word money several times, implying I said it was the cause for the wars. I only use it in reference to what he personally got.

I am saying what is being done is unnecessary, and it is not protecting our country. Made no comment on motives.

As for being a tool, I'm referring to the idiotic notion that a soldier isn't resonsible because he has to follow orders.

A soldier goes where they're needed told.


Fix'd.

Quote:

Whether they fight in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, they could have just as easily gone to Germany or Japan and stayed there, or gone to some little country no-one has ever heard of, or helped out in some kind of domestic dispute etc.


And? They signed up to do what the institution tells them to.

Quote:

And why is it unnecessary?


Because necessity was not shown. This is not difficult.

Quote:

I love Saddam


I know you do, but nothing said he had to go.

Quote:

I love terrorists


Yes, and isn't it great that people across the world aren't necessarily a threat over here just because we fight them/

Quote:

I hate civilians


I know you do. As for the people who would die, please try to understand the basic fact that just because something bad happens that doesn't justify what is done to try to prevent it.

Quote:

In the end, when you let mad men spiral out of control and get more powerful, they became a serious threat; history has shown this.


Nope. People with a brain realize that "Someone has done X" does not prove that some other person will do it too if we don't kill them. Need a bit more evidence than that.


wut


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


What makes our current engagements unnecessary?

You have yet to provide any kind of argument other than blabbering.
The Herald of War's avatar

Dedicated Reveler

3,100 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1

A soldier goes where they're needed told.


Fix'd.

Quote:

Whether they fight in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, they could have just as easily gone to Germany or Japan and stayed there, or gone to some little country no-one has ever heard of, or helped out in some kind of domestic dispute etc.


And? They signed up to do what the institution tells them to.

Quote:

And why is it unnecessary?


Because necessity was not shown. This is not difficult.

Quote:

I love Saddam


I know you do, but nothing said he had to go.

Quote:

I love terrorists


Yes, and isn't it great that people across the world aren't necessarily a threat over here just because we fight them/

Quote:

I hate civilians


I know you do. As for the people who would die, please try to understand the basic fact that just because something bad happens that doesn't justify what is done to try to prevent it.

Quote:

In the end, when you let mad men spiral out of control and get more powerful, they became a serious threat; history has shown this.


Nope. People with a brain realize that "Someone has done X" does not prove that some other person will do it too if we don't kill them. Need a bit more evidence than that.


wut


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.

Quote:

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


Hopefully not the strawmen.

Quote:

What makes our current engagements unnecessary?


I answered this.

Quote:
I'm not good at reading replies


I know, it's okay.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War


Fix'd.



And? They signed up to do what the institution tells them to.



Because necessity was not shown. This is not difficult.



I know you do, but nothing said he had to go.



Yes, and isn't it great that people across the world aren't necessarily a threat over here just because we fight them/



I know you do. As for the people who would die, please try to understand the basic fact that just because something bad happens that doesn't justify what is done to try to prevent it.



Nope. People with a brain realize that "Someone has done X" does not prove that some other person will do it too if we don't kill them. Need a bit more evidence than that.


wut


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.

Quote:

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


Hopefully not the strawmen.

Quote:

What makes our current engagements unnecessary?


I answered this.

Quote:
I'm not good at reading replies


I know, it's okay.


Uh...

When you change what I write and respond to that you're not actually responding to what I say, I hope you realize that. xp
The Herald of War's avatar

Dedicated Reveler

3,100 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1


wut


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.

Quote:

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


Hopefully not the strawmen.

Quote:

What makes our current engagements unnecessary?


I answered this.

Quote:
I'm not good at reading replies


I know, it's okay.


Uh...

When you change what I write and respond to that you're not actually responding to what I say, I hope you realize that. xp


The words. They do adress the stupid stuff you said too. Like pointing out that nothing said it was necessary to kill Saddam for example. Or pointing out that terrorists don't necessarily need to all be killed, they don't necessarily threaten us. And lastly, that disagreeing with military intervention is not the same as saying people should die. Not that some military fanatic would understand that.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War


I can imply you said things you didn't too. Surely you didn't think you were the only one? I just did it the lazy way.


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.

Quote:

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


Hopefully not the strawmen.

Quote:

What makes our current engagements unnecessary?


I answered this.

Quote:
I'm not good at reading replies


I know, it's okay.


Uh...

When you change what I write and respond to that you're not actually responding to what I say, I hope you realize that. xp


The words. They do adress the stupid stuff you said too. Like pointing out that nothing said it was necessary to kill Saddam for example. Or pointing out that terrorists don't necessarily need to all be killed, they don't necessarily threaten us. And lastly, that disagreeing with military intervention is not the same as saying people should die. Not that some military fanatic would understand that.


So... you expect me to have a real conversation with a guy who ignores all my points, pretends the things he's saying are my points, and then attacks those?

Right. Well!


We did in fact allow 90,000 people to surrender, and another 250,000 to desert; before we bombed places we sent in pamphlets, to tell the soldiers in the area to leave, and then took the soldiers we captured and many of them became the new standing army for Iraq, which is now presumably a force for good. We did in fact capture Saddam Hussein, who was later executed by his own people. So, we didn't kill everyone; most of what we did was take down communication systems, airplanes, and tanks before they could leave.

But Saddam decided to bomb the surrounding cities and cause as much havoc as he could while the remaining loyal soldiers killed innocent people, stole things like ambulances, blew up hospitals etc. just to cause chaos and slow down the American invasion, so they were killing random civilians, just to by time, so Saddam could escape.


So, they needed to be taken down, and if that took killing them, to save as many lives as possible, that's what we did. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands on the Anfal genocide, 40,000 alone in the Halajba poison gas attacks (which involved the use of nerve gas, genocide, in the single most painful way to die), and even after he surrendered, he did not meet the terms of his surrender (which was to give up things like nerve gas, anthrax, etc.) and attempted to invade the same countries again. So, since he was going to resort to deadly force to finish what he started, we resorted to deadly violence to stop him.

You say it's unnecessary. What would you have done, then?
The ideal ethic of a soldier is none. War is hell, and the one who brings the most hell wins. If the goal is to win, and nothing else.
The Herald of War's avatar

Dedicated Reveler

3,100 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1


Considering that you changed what I said and then quoted that there really isn't a lot for me to say.


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.

Quote:

I suppose I could reiterate what I said earlier?


Hopefully not the strawmen.

Quote:

What makes our current engagements unnecessary?


I answered this.

Quote:
I'm not good at reading replies


I know, it's okay.


Uh...

When you change what I write and respond to that you're not actually responding to what I say, I hope you realize that. xp


The words. They do adress the stupid stuff you said too. Like pointing out that nothing said it was necessary to kill Saddam for example. Or pointing out that terrorists don't necessarily need to all be killed, they don't necessarily threaten us. And lastly, that disagreeing with military intervention is not the same as saying people should die. Not that some military fanatic would understand that.


So... you expect me to have a real conversation with a guy who ignores all my points, pretends the things he's saying are my points, and then attacks those?

Right. Well!


Hypocrite much? For example, your BS about wanting people dead and thinking terrorists will die on their own? I said none of that.

Quote:

We did in fact allow 90,000 people to surrender, and another 250,000 to desert; before we bombed places we sent in pamphlets, to tell the soldiers in the area to leave, and then took the soldiers we captured and many of them became the new standing army for Iraq, which is now presumably a force for good. We did in fact capture Saddam Hussein, who was later executed by his own people. So, we didn't kill everyone; most of what we did was take down communication systems, airplanes, and tanks before they could leave.


I didn't say we killed everyone. More hypocrisy. But unless a significant amount of people over there asked for our help, what business of it was ours?

Quote:

But Saddam decided to bomb the surrounding cities and cause as much havoc as he could while the remaining loyal soldiers killed innocent people, stole things like ambulances, blew up hospitals etc. just to cause chaos and slow down the American invasion, so they were killing random civilians, just to by time, so Saddam could escape.


And? It's not our country, the people of the country should decide whether they want our help or not.

Quote:

So, they needed to be taken down, and if that took killing them, to save as many lives as possible, that's what we did. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands on the Anfal genocide, 40,000 alone in the Halajba poison gas attacks (which involved the use of nerve gas, genocide, in the single most painful way to die), and even after he surrendered, he did not meet the terms of his surrender (which was to give up things like nerve gas, anthrax, etc.) and attempted to invade the same countries again. So, since he was going to resort to deadly force to finish what he started, we resorted to deadly violence to stop him.


The excuse was WMDs. Further, unless he does attack, it's overly aggressive to attack in 'defense'. Lastly, if it's for the sake of his own citizens, you wait for them to ask.

Quote:

You say it's unnecessary. What would you have done, then?


Not invaded. Further, not the world police. You want to invade every country with problematic leaders?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War
Suicidesoldier#1
The Herald of War


I replied to the idiotic strawmen despite changing the quotes.



Hopefully not the strawmen.



I answered this.



I know, it's okay.


Uh...

When you change what I write and respond to that you're not actually responding to what I say, I hope you realize that. xp


The words. They do adress the stupid stuff you said too. Like pointing out that nothing said it was necessary to kill Saddam for example. Or pointing out that terrorists don't necessarily need to all be killed, they don't necessarily threaten us. And lastly, that disagreeing with military intervention is not the same as saying people should die. Not that some military fanatic would understand that.


So... you expect me to have a real conversation with a guy who ignores all my points, pretends the things he's saying are my points, and then attacks those?

Right. Well!


Hypocrite much? For example, your BS about wanting people dead and thinking terrorists will die on their own? I said none of that.

Quote:

We did in fact allow 90,000 people to surrender, and another 250,000 to desert; before we bombed places we sent in pamphlets, to tell the soldiers in the area to leave, and then took the soldiers we captured and many of them became the new standing army for Iraq, which is now presumably a force for good. We did in fact capture Saddam Hussein, who was later executed by his own people. So, we didn't kill everyone; most of what we did was take down communication systems, airplanes, and tanks before they could leave.


I didn't say we killed everyone. More hypocrisy. But unless a significant amount of people over there asked for our help, what business of it was ours?

Quote:

But Saddam decided to bomb the surrounding cities and cause as much havoc as he could while the remaining loyal soldiers killed innocent people, stole things like ambulances, blew up hospitals etc. just to cause chaos and slow down the American invasion, so they were killing random civilians, just to by time, so Saddam could escape.


And? It's not our country, the people of the country should decide whether they want our help or not.

Quote:

So, they needed to be taken down, and if that took killing them, to save as many lives as possible, that's what we did. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands on the Anfal genocide, 40,000 alone in the Halajba poison gas attacks (which involved the use of nerve gas, genocide, in the single most painful way to die), and even after he surrendered, he did not meet the terms of his surrender (which was to give up things like nerve gas, anthrax, etc.) and attempted to invade the same countries again. So, since he was going to resort to deadly force to finish what he started, we resorted to deadly violence to stop him.


The excuse was WMDs. Further, unless he does attack, it's overly aggressive to attack in 'defense'. Lastly, if it's for the sake of his own citizens, you wait for them to ask.

Quote:

You say it's unnecessary. What would you have done, then?


Not invaded. Further, not the world police. You want to invade every country with problematic leaders?


Do I want to invade every country that has dictators, where in the only situation is for violence to take them down. Yes...?

I don't stand for oppression, genocide, dictatorship, etc., whether it's Hitler or Saddam Hussein or anyone. Ask them? How would we ask them; you mean you assume they *wanted* to be treated the way they were? Because, if you don't, then the only logical conclusion is that they didn't want it. O_o


We can't poll a foreign country that doesn't do polls in the first place, because it's not a democracy. We inferred, and understood, due to basic human empathy, what these people were going through, and how they didn't want it. So we stopped him. There are a universal deceleration of human rights, of course.

But, if that's not enough, Kuwait, Kurdistan, and many other places did officially ask for our help several times, with resolution 688, and after the fact we learned our inference was right when democracy allowed the people to vote for what they wanted. By creating a democracy, we made it so they could choose what they wanted; since putting Saddam Hussein back in power was always an option, and they did not do that, we were probably right. We did stop Saddam from invading these countries and killing a lot more people, which he easily could have done and showed no reason to believe he was stopping.

He did in fact attack, several times, and broke his treaties yet again. All of which warranted violence.

Since he committed many humans right's violations and continued to, there was more than one reason for the justification of the invasion. He still had WMD's, but they were degrading. But, degrading WMD's, he would have used, in an attempt to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, is justification in it's own right. The fact they would not have worked as well as he wanted is irrelevant; he had shown he often combined his efforts with conventional warfare and had already begun doing so. There was no reason to believe he wouldn't try to use the weapon, which could still do considerable damage even in their degraded states. The fact he did not give these weapons up in the 1991 resolution is justification alone to invade even if they had degraded, since he did not return them, obviously, so he could use them again. Attempted murder is still a crime in it's own right, and he had already murdered hundreds of thousands, in a hate crime.


So, you say you don't want us to be world police, that the war is unnecessary and that we shouldn't have invaded. But the consequence of not invading is millions of people dead, more people under the rule of an oppressive leader etc.

So, when you say "For example, your BS about [me] wanting people dead and thinking terrorists will die on their own? I said none of that.", Yet, you don't want to invade and help these people, because you don't want to be the world police. And the consequence of that would be their death, and continued oppression, for us not invading, so, consequently, you'd have rather not invaded, and as a result have innocent people die? It's a very simple cause and effect relationship, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.


"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"- MLK

We hold these truths, to be self evident, that all people are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That when any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, and the duty of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


So, do I believe in the above statements. Yes, yes I do. Do I believe an invasion was necessary to stop Saddam? Yes, I do. Do I believe he would have continued to grow more and more powerful until he was a serious threat to the U.S. and the world? Yes, I do. Not just to help the local people but prevent a genocidal mad men from gaining power, and becoming a serious problem. The less North Korea's the world has, the better America is, by virtue of being a part of the world, and within so close of proximity to these countries, so, it benefits America not to have to deal with them later on. History has shown that ignoring an enemy does not make them go away; do I believe Saddam would simply disappear? I do not. It is better to stop him before more bloodshed occurs, and a war escalates to massive proportions, and therefore to save those lives, it is necessary to stop him before he becomes too powerful, which he showed both the motivation, desire, and capability to kill these people, and had tried to do so in the past.

So, when the question comes, do I think we need a world police? The answer is yes. If that has to be America so be it. I do not relish the task, or enjoy it, but if it's necessary, than it's what must be done.


Again, you would have not invaded.

And almost certainly, millions would have died, and the situation in the middle east would be substantially worse than it is even now. Knowing this cause and effect relationship, present in reality, you would have still not invaded, if you were in control?
killing Sadam was Just, and killing the general he permitted to carry out genocide was just. Invading, I do not believe was necessary for that. Sometimes invading is necessary when leadership alone is not responsible for perverse ideology that promulgates crimes against humanity. If you can sever the right heads and the serpent dies, then you do not have to invade. If you kill some political leaders and a large army or organization is still grinding down a target minority or majority, then invasion may be necessary to abolish the ideologically backed infrastructure. Do remember though that I am talking about generals who pump lung dissolving flesh corrosive nerve gas into towns of innocent people to "ethnically cleanse" them. I am talking about Zyklon B and hills of Rwandan bodies stacked so high in the streets that you can't drive. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of people being kicked off trains in the middle of a Siberian winter and marched to their deaths and shot if they stop marching. I'm talking about soldiers who bayonet the pregnant wombs of crying mothers.

These people I am speaking of are the people that warrant invasion when their own justice system fails.
1kaz's avatar

Devoted Seeker

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
There are no good people.


Perfect =/= Good.
And no one is either.


Maybe
The arch-type of ethical soldier for me comes from a story a political boss of mine told me.

He had a chance to go and visit Japan on a fact-finding effort to study their electric trains and how they fund their system. While there, he attended a fancy buffet where all the movers go to, and was introduced to a former Japanese soldier. He was pretty famous because everyone knew him. The old man told him of a time when a young boy brought him an American G.I. Apparently, the G.I.'s plane was shot down and he ejected into a rice field. The boy who found him helped him up and brought him to the military post there for aid. While there, the town's peopel gathered and demanded the G.I. be handed over to them for alittle mob justice. The old man refused to hand the soldier over to the citizens, saying something to the effect of, "When he is in the air, he is an enemy. When he is not, he is a victim." He gave aid to the soldier. By the time he healed up, he let the soldier return to America.

The ability to show mercy to one's enemy and see him not as an opponent but as a human, even in the face of public pressure, is what a real soldier is to me.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50141405n

Marines behead cobra and drink its blood while on their knees like Vegas hookers.

I would NOT characterize this as the behavior that would be ethically inspiring. Sometimes improving camaraderie between soldiers and decreasing their susceptibility to fear comes at a price too high for gains that can be acquired elsewhere.
GunsmithKitten
Theoretical Physicist
GunsmithKitten
l_Shamrock_l
GunsmithKitten
l_Shamrock_l
Their job is not to kill people.


So those rifles, explosives...just all there for show?
They are there to better equip them to do their job against an unpredictable opponent. Preemptive strike is better than retaliating when people's lives are at stake.


Which involves killing people and breaking things.


So does self defense.

Do you own a gun to kill people, or to defend yourself, by killing, if necessary; hopefully more so by intimidation?


Yes I do. But I make no illusions as such.

Also, my handgun instructor didn't instruct us that it's easy to kill women and children if you just don't lead em around so much, or that blood makes the grass grow.


And you think that the military really endorses these policies?

...because you saw it in the movies?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games