Military

What you guys aren't understanding is that is there is a large difference between attack and defence.

Defending your country is honourable, right and quite necessary due to potential conquest. Attacking other countries that pose no tangible threat is disgraceful behaviour.

I'm happy to support soldiers who engage in the former, indeed I am proud of them for it.

But I have nothing but contempt for those who go forth and mindlessly attack. Indeed, I have the utmost respect for those few recent conscientious objectors who risked imprisonment and other punishments to make their moral point.

Sadly, this attack/defence morailty has a large flaw, what If you were to attack a country to defend another etc etc etc etc etc?



You forgot Poland.

what country was being defended by invading iraq?

>>3
I weren't on about that, I'm not defending americas princibles here, I just think only defending oneself is a bit...selfish. But I think the general idea was that the people were being defended (read as:oil).

>>2

That's why I said "attacking other countries that pose no tangible threat"

Obviously if another country attacks one of your protectorates (e.g. Poland in WWII) then it is correct to come to their defence.

I'm >>2 and >>4
What if the country was in a civil war, and one side had your interests in mind (say, abolishing slavery). I'm sure there are many cases where attacking may be apparent for ones own interests.

We are defending Iraq from terrorists.

>>7
LOL

Attack is the best form of defense. Destroying the weak is good.
I demand an ethnic cleansing in Iraq because we need more Lebensraum!

>>1
"What you guys aren't understanding"

Even a silly little cocksucker like you should be able to understand that encouraging soldiers to decide who and when and where to fight would produce extremely negative results.

Sort of like what happened to your mom at the naval yard.

The price of peace is constant vigilance.  Our military is the foot that is applied to the ass of all the motherfuckers abroad who would conquer us in a second if given half a chance.

#11, vigilance is not practiced by continually attacking other nations on the basis of fear, and peace is not secured in that fashion at any rate (i.e. constant war in the Middle East is NOT peace!).  That only took 53 milliseconds to conclude, so the scope of your failure is fucking HUGE!

If the USA had been practicing "constant vigilance", all the men who took flying (but not landing) lessons would have been investigated, and likely at least half of them would have been deported for visa violations -- as happens today.  If the USA had been practicing "constant vigilance", Bush and Cheney would NOT have pulled the authorization from regional commanders to respond to threats on their own decision (hence scrambling fighters almost immediately -- as happens today).  If the USA had been practicing "constant vigilance", then the passengers on the affected planes would have resisted IMMEDIATELY -- as we fucking do today!

You fail as America fails, #11!

>>9

I don't want to live in Iraq... can't we send the Mexicans?


Rename Iraq "New Mexico" oh wait that's already taken.

bush says he's doing in the name of god and i belive him. god likes killing.

bin laden says he's doing in the name of god and i belive him. god likes killing.

redcream says he's doing in the name of god and i belive him. god likes killing.

BUMP FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

there's a difference between cocks and penises

>>14
>>15
>>16
I'm doing it in my own name to give you do nothing b/tards something to second guess. I like killing. I like peace. When they're all killed I'll have peace. Unless you'd care to climb out of your easy chair, tear yourself away from your computer, leave your air conditioned tomb and do something your words don't mean shit.

Go back to bed Neville Chamberlain. There are good guys and bad guys and it's never as simple as who hit first.

>>20
It's not as simple as there being good guys and bad guys either, you stupid motherfucker.

>>20
its as simple as good guys and dead guys. and keep your mom out of the combat zone.

there are strong guys and stronger guys.that's it

>>21
Yes it is. War causes an enormous amount of sufferring, wasted resources and lives. It takes something other than selfish animal urges to resist the temptation to submit to the will of an oppressor. If you can resist this temptation you possess the moral calibre associated with being a good guy.

>>24
The 'guys' on either side can be simultaneously good and bad, and something in-between.

>>25
good and bad is based on perception of 'good' and 'bad'.
Eg muslims good is different from what JEWS JEWS JEWS think is good.

War causes suffering and it breeds evil people.
Unless you actually think the goodness of mankind was born on the battlefield.

>>25
If they oppose each other and one side is good then the other side is being evil.

>>26
If someone thinks they are doing good that doesn't make it good, their idea of good is merely innaccurate. Good and evil are induced and defined scientifically from metaphysical axioms. It is perfectly set in concrete like the laws physics, given their range of accuracy.

>>26
There are worse things than war. If you are a SWAT sniper and a hostage taker is about to kill 50 little black children (they are black therefore if you disagree with me you are racist) would you not kill the hostage taker just because it would be you who is pulling the trigger? How would Mahatma Gandhi's idea of resistance fair against a sadistic maniac like Adolf Hitler?

Hippy.

>>28

That's not war, you stupid shit.

>>29
Can't you see the connection?

Sadly, the border between defense and agression is often blurred. Take for example Israel's recent war against Lebanon. Though many people both condemned and supported it, who was really the agressor and the defender? Taking a brief look, one could easily assume it's Israel, since they attacked Lebanon. However, this idea breaks down when one realizes that the Lebanese government refused to deal properly with terrorists in the South. Israel, with it's soldiers kidnapped, and cities rained on by crude missles, invaded Lebanon to protect its citizens. So, who's really right here?

>>31
Truth. Germany never invaded the US, but would the world be a better place if the US had not joined in? There would certainly be less poverty in Africa due to "population controls", but generally the world would not be a better place.