|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Personally, I would like to disagree.
My Grandfather did not have to go to war. He had immunity due to his job.
But he felt that those who went to war before him should not have to go again. So he went.
He was wounded 3 months before the war was over. His Best friend died 2 weeks before it was over. They had Honour.
They fought for us. I am sorry if you dont understand Honour, but there are people who have it. Its more than a sacrifice. its a way of life.
Its standing up for what you believe in. The US soldiers today have honour. If you dont agree then take thier place and see for yourself.
But dont insult everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| They fought for us. I am sorry if you dont understand Honour, but there are people who have it. Its more than a sacrifice. its a way of life. |
I understand honor. Killing people you've never met on orders from the government isn't honor, it's a prescription for attrocity.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Its standing up for what you believe in. |
There's nothing inherently honorable or dishonorable about standing up for what you believe in. The KKK stands up for their belief in white supremacy, I don't consider it particularly honorable. I beg you to consider what these cliches actually mean before you repeat them.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| The US soldiers today have honour. |
How do you know? How many of them have you met? How many of them have you interacted with? Let's be realistic: you know almost nothing about the vast, vast majority of them. You're saying they have honor because other people say they have honor, and other people say they have honor because the idea that military service is honorable has been successfully imprinted upon the general populace of many nations in the world, to the detriment of all of us.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| If you dont agree then take thier place and see for yourself. |
Why on Earth would I take the place of someone whose behavior I'm condemning? I don't need to become a paid killer to know I'm ethically uncomfortable with people being paid killers. The last thing I'd want to do is to take a job in an organization I'm proposing the univeral abolishment of.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| But dont insult everyone. |
I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just accurately describing them. If a member of military is insulted by the term paid killer, perhaps they should have considered twice before becoming one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Why criminalize war, it's just a symptom of the actual problems: soldiers willing to kill on government orders. Politicians would be impotent without soldiers to act upon their commands.
Criminalize soldiers. |
And how would you enforce this without soldiers? Gonna use police on soldiers? |
How are you going to enforce criminalization of war without war? I'm just saying if we're going to talk about things like this, we may as well talk about the real cause, not the symptom. |
Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
| Gopher wrote: |
Kellog-Briand. 1920s and 1930s.
Clearly, the Italians, the Japanese, and the Germans obeyed it.
These are foolish, idealistic gestures. You guys should stay with charging at windmills, Bacasper. At least you only hurt yourselves in that nonsense. Why force the rest of us to charge at them with you? |
So it is too much to ask for you to even agree to theoretical ideals?
From South Pacific:
| Quote: |
You've got to have a dream
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true? |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| What an unbelievably ridiculous proposition. The countries participating in this kangaroo court should be invaded. |
Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream of non-violence while ironically meeting a violent end. This brings up the dilemma: how can non-violent guys/countries ever prevail if the violent guys/countries will just beat them up whenever they feel like it? |
Answer, they can't.
This is like all of the hens teaming up to tell the wolf he can't eat them.
What they essentially need is a bigger wolf to threaten them, and they don't have that.
If some governing body ever tried to abolish war and were successful, an army would wipe them out.
You can't change the world with hopes and dreams, that why the evolutionary process favors the strong AND the smart. Force solves a lot of problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kinerry wrote: |
| If some governing body ever tried to abolish war and were successful, an army would wipe them out. |
You would not need an army to wipe them out. Remember, these head-in-the-clouds idealists also tend to propose unilateral disarmament -- take the American nuclear arsenal, for example. Where does this leave those who disarm and renounce war forever?
Ever see Demolition Man? Remember how W. Snipes kicked all the cops' collective asses so easily? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| kinerry wrote: |
| If some governing body ever tried to abolish war and were successful, an army would wipe them out. |
You would not need an army to wipe them out. Remember, these head-in-the-clouds idealists also tend to propose unilateral disarmament -- take the American nuclear arsenal, for example. Where does this leave those who disarm and renounce war forever?
Ever see Demolition Man? Remember how W. Snipes kicked all the cops' collective asses so easily? |
The only way to abolish war would be on a global scale. It's not something any individual nation can do. That's what puts the "necessary" in the "necessary evil" that soldiers are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Update:
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Mathaba) On day one of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission Hearing, victims of torture at the hands of the U.S. soldiers, security and intelligence agencies continued to give sworn testimony in front of Commission panels and witnesses.
The War Crimes Tribunal Commission hearing is to continue tomorrow, and follows a two day Conference to Criminalize War held at the same venue under the auspices of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation and the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
Moazzem Begg testifies:
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Mathaba) In a very compelling and eloquent testimony in answer to questions by Commission members of the War Crimes Tribunal which is taking place here.
After years of isolation and unjust imprisonment in Afghanistan and Guantanemo by the U.S. and British intelligence agencies and military, the testimony of Muazzam Begg, a young British Asian Muslim, is almost a miracle, given his sanity and eloquence after his ordeals, which is a testimony to his strength of character and faith.
He gave very detailed testimonies which are clear to observers and psychologists, can only be born of truth and a willingness to answer all questions and give testimony in complete openness and honesty. He said that seeking justice is something everybody wants.
In Britain, Mr Begg has a case against the British intelligence for violation of his human rights. He said that places such as this commission, are the only places that the victims of torture and extraordinary rendition have as recourse and that this offers hope of justice for those victims.
...
He said that he can produce for the Commission details of his case against the British government, in answer to a question about the involvement of the British in the horrific human rights abuses that took place in U.S. custody.
92% of people captured were not involved with Taliban or Al-Qaidah or any battle field, 2% were accused to have something to do with Al-Qaidah and 8% involvement with the Taliban. The vast majority of the 92% were handed over as a result of people wanting to claim the bounties offered by the U.S. for any foreigners given to them within Afghanistan.
compete article at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The only way to abolish war would be on a global scale. It's not something any individual nation can do. That's what puts the "necessary" in the "necessary evil" that soldiers are. |
If you want to be a radical, then be a radical. And focusing on armies and soldiers does not get to the problem's roots.
People need to reconcile their differences. We have been trying to do it since the Neolithic, Fox. If it were as simple as this proposal makes it out to be, we would have solved it by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The only way to abolish war would be on a global scale. It's not something any individual nation can do. That's what puts the "necessary" in the "necessary evil" that soldiers are. |
If you want to be a radical, then be a radical. And focusing on armies and soldiers does not get to the problem's roots.
People need to reconcile their differences. We have been trying to do it since the Neolithic, Fox. If it were as simple as this proposal makes it out to be, we would have solved it by now. |
It actually is as simple as this proposal. I, personally, have no desire to reconcile my differences with others through force. If the vast majority could bring themselves to feel the same way, soliders would be a thing of the past, and the violent would be a criminal minority who could be delt with by the police, rather than a large group that became self-justifying.
However, I've admitted most people won't be taking that step anytime soon. A large portion of our population feels killing to reconcile our differences is something they want to be a part of, and an even bigger portion of our population believes them to be honorable and is cheering them on.
You say I'm a radical on this matter, and it's true: I've taken it to it's root, and my solution involves said root. It's a simple solution, if people cared to embrace it. It's also the only solution. So long as people are willing to be soldiers -- and so long as being a solider is socially acceptable -- warfare will continue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The only way to abolish war would be on a global scale. It's not something any individual nation can do. That's what puts the "necessary" in the "necessary evil" that soldiers are. |
If you want to be a radical, then be a radical. And focusing on armies and soldiers does not get to the problem's roots.
People need to reconcile their differences. We have been trying to do it since the Neolithic, Fox. If it were as simple as this proposal makes it out to be, we would have solved it by now. |
It actually is as simple as this proposal. I, personally, have no desire to reconcile my differences with others through force. If the vast majority could bring themselves to feel the same way, soliders would be a thing of the past, and the violent would be a criminal minority who could be delt with by the police, rather than a large group that became self-justifying.
However, I've admitted most people won't be taking that step anytime soon. A large portion of our population feels killing to reconcile our differences is something they want to be a part of, and an even bigger portion of our population believes them to be honorable and is cheering them on.
You say I'm a radical on this matter, and it's true: I've taken it to it's root, and my solution involves said root. It's a simple solution, if people cared to embrace it. It's also the only solution. So long as people are willing to be soldiers -- and so long as being a solider is socially acceptable -- warfare will continue. |
Wow, you must have grown up really sheltered. People don't go to war to "settle differences", they go to war because someone has something and isn't willing to give it up.
What do you think is going to happen when the oil starts to run low?
People will go to war to ensure they are the ones with the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kinerry wrote: |
Wow, you must have grown up really sheltered. People don't go to war to "settle differences", they go to war because someone has something and isn't willing to give it up.
What do you think is going to happen when the oil starts to run low?
People will go to war to ensure they are the ones with the oil. |
Dispute over possession rights is an example of a difference that needs to be settled. If one nation says, "This oil is ours," and another says, "No, we want it," then they have a difference that they must settle somehow. One method of settling such differences is warfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Dispute over possession rights is an example of a difference that needs to be settled. If one nation says, "This oil is ours," and another says, "No, we want it," then they have a difference that they must settle somehow. One method of settling such differences is warfare. |
I understand your desire for peace but its not realistic.
There was a aussie/kiwi who died in somalia. He went to an area of somalia to create development and was killed by Al Qaeda supporters in the mid 1990s.
They shot him in the head in the middle of a speech. They used violence, even though he was there for peaceful development. He had an agreement with the tribes there, but AQ doesn't care about the rights of the people.
Look you dont like soldiers fine, but disarming our countries would be stupid, while some people see violence as a winner.
AQ and the taliban do see violence as the solution. You don't come to fight, that doesn't mean they wont.
Therefore, dont waste your time arguing this point unless you are trolling. its stupide to attack the soldiers, when AQ is not made up of soldiers, but rather terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Dispute over possession rights is an example of a difference that needs to be settled. If one nation says, "This oil is ours," and another says, "No, we want it," then they have a difference that they must settle somehow. One method of settling such differences is warfare. |
I understand your desire for peace but its not realistic.
There was a aussie/kiwi who died in somalia. He went to an area of somalia to create development and was killed by Al Qaeda supporters in the mid 1990s.
They shot him in the head in the middle of a speech. They used violence, even though he was there for peaceful development. He had an agreement with the tribes there, but AQ doesn't care about the rights of the people.
Look you dont like soldiers fine, but disarming our countries would be stupid, while some people see violence as a winner.
AQ and the taliban do see violence as the solution. You don't come to fight, that doesn't mean they wont.
Therefore, dont waste your time arguing this point unless you are trolling. its stupide to attack the soldiers, when AQ is not made up of soldiers, but rather terrorists. |
Soldiers have proven ineffective at eliminating groups like al Qaeda, which is why said members of al Qaeda were around to shoot that Australian in the head rather than being incarcerated or dead. I have precisely zero respect for what soldiers have achieved on that front.
Al Qaeda is something religional police forces could handle just fine, if every region had adequate police forces, which in turn require stable governments. Trying to fight al Qaeda is a stupid waste of time, we need to remove the factors that cause groups like al Qaeda to form and thrive: regional instability, massive poverty, and religious extremism. Your whole "soldiers are the answer" ideology moves us further from elimination of those factors, not closer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox.
| Quote: |
Soldiers have proven ineffective at eliminating groups like al Qaeda, which is why said members of al Qaeda were around to shoot that Australian in the head rather than being incarcerated or dead. I have precisely zero respect for what soldiers have achieved on that front.
Al Qaeda is something religional police forces could handle just fine, if every region had adequate police forces, which in turn require stable governments. Trying to fight al Qaeda is a stupid waste of time, we need to remove the factors that cause groups like al Qaeda to form and thrive: regional instability, massive poverty, and religious extremism. Your whole "soldiers are the answer" ideology moves us further from elimination of those factors, not closer. |
Now, I know you are trolling or you are so ignorant of history and humanity that its not even worth trying to educate you.
I know for a fact that unless you trained and armed my country's police to the level of an AO officer (para military) or a soldier, they could not handle AQ.
I just watched on Sunday the documentary about the terrorists who attacked Bombay in 2008 and the police were weak against them. Five police were asked to go against two terrorists and 2 were killed and 1 seriously wounded.
It took the soldiers to end the siege. Listen, you want peace so do I, but I wont insult those who have to do the job until the violence is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Fox.
| Quote: |
Soldiers have proven ineffective at eliminating groups like al Qaeda, which is why said members of al Qaeda were around to shoot that Australian in the head rather than being incarcerated or dead. I have precisely zero respect for what soldiers have achieved on that front.
Al Qaeda is something religional police forces could handle just fine, if every region had adequate police forces, which in turn require stable governments. Trying to fight al Qaeda is a stupid waste of time, we need to remove the factors that cause groups like al Qaeda to form and thrive: regional instability, massive poverty, and religious extremism. Your whole "soldiers are the answer" ideology moves us further from elimination of those factors, not closer. |
Now, I know you are trolling or you are so ignorant of history and humanity that its not even worth trying to educate you. |
I don't enjoy your posts, I only respond to them because I respond to almost everything directed at me. I'm not so desparate to hear your completely incorrect opinions that you should feel obliged. So if you think I'm an ignorant troll that's a waste of time to talk to, for God's sake just shut up; I promise, I won't complain for lack of your "wisdom".
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| I know for a fact that unless you trained and armed my country's police to the level of an AO officer (para military) or a soldier, they could not handle AQ. |
They certainly couldn't if the military weren't sucking up immense amounts of funding and personelle. I don't think you realize how much money the world collectively wastes on these paid killers and their toys. Think about how much more effective police forces would be at everything with just a portion of that extra funding and man power availible to them.
Stop being obtuse. Soldiers are the "only ones who can handle it" because they suck up all the man power and funding.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| I just watched on Sunday the documentary about the terrorists who attacked Bombay in 2008 and the police were weak against them. Five police were asked to go against two terrorists and 2 were killed and 1 seriously wounded. |
Wow, thanks for this really great data. "I saw some documentary the other day and a few cops botched a job against terrorists and suffered some casualities!" Because soldiers never die against terrorists, right? Ridiculous.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| It took the soldiers to end the siege. Listen, you want peace so do I, but I wont insult those who have to do the job until the violence is over. |
Those people are the ones perpetuating the violence, and I have zero respect for them. I know you feel otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned that makes you part of the problem. Glorify them all you want, it just means you're part of the war cycle that infects our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The only way to abolish war would be on a global scale. It's not something any individual nation can do. That's what puts the "necessary" in the "necessary evil" that soldiers are. |
If you want to be a radical, then be a radical. And focusing on armies and soldiers does not get to the problem's roots.
People need to reconcile their differences. We have been trying to do it since the Neolithic, Fox. If it were as simple as this proposal makes it out to be, we would have solved it by now. |
It actually is as simple as this proposal. I, personally, have no desire to reconcile my differences with others through force. If the vast majority could bring themselves to feel the same way, soliders would be a thing of the past, and the violent would be a criminal minority who could be delt with by the police, rather than a large group that became self-justifying.
However, I've admitted most people won't be taking that step anytime soon. A large portion of our population feels killing to reconcile our differences is something they want to be a part of, and an even bigger portion of our population believes them to be honorable and is cheering them on.
|
If these differences involve flying jetliners into civilian residences and the like, I see no problem with killing those who ordered such actions.
But you know, maybe you're right. Next time we see Bin Laden the global community should just wag their collective fingers at him and tell him what a naughty boy he was.
Some people need killing. The world would be a better place if people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden and the like didn't exist. Unfortunately they do, so it's up to us to end their existence as soon as possible by whatever means possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
