|
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 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Summer Wine wrote:
| Quote: |
Your argument that without a soldier, the world would be different is not actually correct, They may not be called soldiers, but the actions wouldn't change.
I'm sorry, but like much of what you've said, that's incredibly stupid. Whatever you call them, a soldier is still a soldier. |
We said exactly the same thing. Yet you call me stupid.
What is a 'soldier'? A soldier is a person who acts according to certain rules.
Even if you criminalized "soldiers", the Govt, would train people to do the same job and call them something else. |
No, we didn't say the same thing; your response makes that clear. If you train someone to do all the things a soldier does, they are a soldier. It doesn't matter what the government in question calls them, they're a soldier. This reminds me of the fellow who tried to argue mercenaries don't count as soldiers. It's ludicrious.
Soldiers are defined by what they do, not what you call them.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Call a man a "trashman" or a "street cleaner", the job doesn't majorly change. |
Be a drug dealer and call yourself a street vendor. See if it stops you from being charged with a crime when you're caught.
No one cares what you call yourself. What matters is what you do. I stick by my original assessment of your words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| But I would not like people to believe that your argument "that soldiers are nothing more than killers" should stand without an equal response. |
That's fine. It's only when you started screaming, "ignorant" and "troll" that I suggested you stop bothering to converse.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Its hard to understand your point. |
No it's not.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| 1. Soldiers shouldn't exist. |
Right.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| 2. People who want to be soldiers shouldn't exist.' |
Wrong; they should rather stop wanting to be soldiers, for the sake of everyone.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| 3. all violence can be constrained by police. |
I've yet to see a single example of violence that soldiers are effective at combating and police are not effective at combating that doesn't have other soldiers as its ultimate source.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| 4. When we educate, enforce people to think as we should. |
My beliefs on this matter are not something that can be forced upon people. My initial "Why not just criminalize soldiers?" line was obviously made somewhat tongue-in-cheek in response to the idea of criminalizing war. The conversation has moved on since then. Only a population whose overwhelming majority willingly chooses to oppose soldiering could hope to abolish it. It can't be forced on anyone, which again, is why soldiers are currently a necessary evil.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Is that close to the points that you have made? |
Not close enough.
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Now, how are we to reach that point? |
I have no suggestion. All I can do is do my part by speaking my ideology on the matter openly, honestly, and with conviction when I converse on the topic. I doubt it will spread; there are far more yous in the world than mes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thoreau wrote: |
I've been trying to sort out this idea.
What if the U.S. Congress passed a law that tied some 'cost' to being engaged in a war or 'police action.'
For example, what if there was a law that said for every division involved in a military action federal sales tax would be increased 1%.
Logically this works. Being at war increases costs so a tax increase is justified. If the war is 'just' then U.S. citizens should have no problem paying a little bit more. If the war is viewed as unjust then people will complain about the war and the tax increase and hopefully put pressure on their representatives.
I'm not sure a tax increase is the best thing. But there should be something that is automatically triggered by war. Something that has the potential to be politically costly back home. |
A war tax! I love the idea, as any antiwar activist should.
Most people almost always oppose most wars, and have to be dragged to support them by sophisticated psyops, media manipulation, and false flag attacks. If they also had to visibly and concretely pay extra for them, it would become virtually impossible, short of being directly attacked.
You should have spoken at the conference! 
Last edited by bacasper on Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Sure all nations could disarm...then what do we do about paramilitaries and terrorists? Remember the old canard "When guns become outlawed then only criminals will have guns". It's still true...in addition to being every criminal's dream. |
Soldiers are ineffective at combatting terrorists, so I don't know why people keep bringing them up. If anything, soldiers instigate terrorism. As far as paramilitaries, you'll notice these things aren't a particular problem in the civilized, well police part of the world.
. |
"the civilized, well police part of the world" is a very small part of the world. |
I agree. My point was rather that if (when?) the rest of the world joined us in that regard, police could keep sufficient order that such things would be no where near as much a problem as they are in barbaric parts of the world.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Even in the best countries we still have a lot of police brutality (remember that guy who was sexually assulted with a plunger by our finest) And that is only one in a very long list of incidents. |
And I agree this is a problem. It's not a problem relevent to soldiers, though; we don't call in the army to deal with police brutality. Rather, we use other police. |
I agree that if/when the rest of the world joins in, that the police might be able to keep sufficient order, but that was not what I was arguing.
My comments were more along the lines of how do we get from Point A (the way things are now) to Point B (where police are all the force that is required to keep law and order)?
As for my point it is that B is a very long way off, and as such movements to criminalize war and soldiers are foolish and remain so until said movements become global. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I agree that if/when the rest of the world joins in, that the police might be able to keep sufficient order, but that was not what I was arguing.
My comments were more along the lines of how do we get from Point A (the way things are now) to Point B (where police are all the force that is required to keep law and order)? |
Hopefully through growing social awareness of the fact that militaries are not only not glorious, but totally unacceptable. That's the only way I can think of.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| As for my point it is that B is a very long way off, and as such movements to criminalize war and soldiers are foolish and remain so until said movements become global. |
I agree, which is why rather than starting such a movement, I simply try to be the change I'd like to see in the world, and speak my mind when the topic comes up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| thoreau wrote: |
I've been trying to sort out this idea.
What if the U.S. Congress passed a law that tied some 'cost' to being engaged in a war or 'police action.'
For example, what if there was a law that said for every division involved in a military action federal sales tax would be increased 1%.
Logically this works. Being at war increases costs so a tax increase is justified. If the war is 'just' then U.S. citizens should have no problem paying a little bit more. If the war is viewed as unjust then people will complain about the war and the tax increase and hopefully put pressure on their representatives.
I'm not sure a tax increase is the best thing. But there should be something that is automatically triggered by war. Something that has the potential to be politically costly back home. |
A war tax! I love the idea, as any antiwar activist should.
Most people almost always oppose most wars, and have to be dragged to support them by sophisticated psyops, media manipulation, and false flag attacks. If they also had visible and concretely pay extra for them, it would become virtually impossible, short of being directly attacked.
|
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/my-friendly-nudge-of-the-day/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now a war tax would work to stop the conflicts between large countries, but it wouldn't do much to stop insurgents and rebels and similar types of fighters.
It would make it easier for smaller forces to fight guerilla warfare.
I think it's a great idea as long as no one gets taxed for fighting unorganized armies to the point that it helps one side over another.
One problem though, who would enforce it? You would need a worldwide army composed of troops from all the major countries involved. What happens when the troops of one country have to enforce their own country though?
omg, head about to explode |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| thoreau wrote: |
I've been trying to sort out this idea.
What if the U.S. Congress passed a law that tied some 'cost' to being engaged in a war or 'police action.'
For example, what if there was a law that said for every division involved in a military action federal sales tax would be increased 1%.
Logically this works. Being at war increases costs so a tax increase is justified. If the war is 'just' then U.S. citizens should have no problem paying a little bit more. If the war is viewed as unjust then people will complain about the war and the tax increase and hopefully put pressure on their representatives.
I'm not sure a tax increase is the best thing. But there should be something that is automatically triggered by war. Something that has the potential to be politically costly back home. |
A war tax! I love the idea, as any antiwar activist should.
Most people almost always oppose most wars, and have to be dragged to support them by sophisticated psyops, media manipulation, and false flag attacks. If they also had to visibly and concretely pay extra for them, it would become virtually impossible, short of being directly attacked.
|
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/my-friendly-nudge-of-the-day/ |
 Yeah, that's the idea  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MSM Defend Refusal to Cover War Crimes Tribunal
| Quote: |
| The choice of stories we include in our bulletins is a subjective matter. There are factors we take into account, including how unusual the story is and how much national interest there is in the subject matter. |
Kuala Lumpur - Sky, BBC, ABC, UPI, AFP, VOA, CNN, as well as all American and European news agencies did not give any mention whatsoever, much less any coverage, to 2 important events that took place in Malaysia's capital city recently.
The white out was total. Not a word was said about a two day International Conference on the Criminalization of War. Not a word was said about a further 2-day War Crimes Tribunal Commission that cross examined witnesses from Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq, that will implicate senior British and American officials as well as agencies in crimes that make killers like Jack the Ripper look like fairies.
So, if there was not a word said about these major international events, were they then not major and not international but just some gathering of crack pots, tin foil hats, or other nut cases? Clearly not. The Tribunal Commission included international legal experts such as Francis Boyle of the USA, and leading lawyers and judges from Malaysia. The Conference speakers included two former senior United Nations officials, a former assistant UN Secretary General, and the former UN Humanitarian Cooordinator in Iraq.
United States National Laboratory radiation experts, a former United States Presidential Candidate and 6 term Congresswoman, a British MP, former military leaders, lawyers and human rights experts, all shared the panel in the Conference that was advertised widely in advance, and Asia's longest serving leader, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, chaired the proceedings.
Is that really something that all the "major news networks" could fail to cover? Yes, and it is not the first time.
Neighbouring countries news networks failed to cover it. Alternative media failed to cover it. Alex Jones failed to cover it. Al-Jazeera failed to cover it. Al-Jazeera, even though one of its own journalists, and its Head of Liberties and Human Rights Affairs, Sami Al Hajj, who was abducted by the Americans while covering the war in Afghanistan as a camera man and flown to Guantanamo where he was tortured for years, was a called witness, Jazeera also failed to cover it.
excerpted from link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So why not? It's time that millions of people around the world face the simple truth. The reason that no Australian media covered the Sydney Conference on 9/11, is simply because that media there is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an arch Zionist Jewish fanatic, and the Packer family, both of which have plenty to lose if their political friends are implicated either in involvement or in neglect resulting in massive loss of life. |
I think it's more plausible that it wasn't covered because the vast majority of people really don't care. Just looking at this thread it's easy to see how most people glorify war. Even as an individual who abhors warfare, I really don't care that much about the conference myself, because I feel nothing will really come of it, and I think such things are just ways for people to make themselves feel important without actually doing anything of value. So who would this news coverage be directed at? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I think it's more plausible that it wasn't covered because the vast majority of people really don't care. Just looking at this thread it's easy to see how most people glorify war. Even as an individual who abhors warfare, I really don't care that much about the conference myself, because I feel nothing will really come of it, and I think such things are just ways for people to make themselves feel important without actually doing anything of value. So who would this news coverage be directed at? |
You may be putting the cart before the horse. People may not care because the media is not covering it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I think it's more plausible that it wasn't covered because the vast majority of people really don't care. Just looking at this thread it's easy to see how most people glorify war. Even as an individual who abhors warfare, I really don't care that much about the conference myself, because I feel nothing will really come of it, and I think such things are just ways for people to make themselves feel important without actually doing anything of value. So who would this news coverage be directed at? |
You may be putting the cart before the horse. People may not care because the media is not covering it. |
That's possibly true. I just don't think it's certain, or even more likely, which is why I'd be hesitant to try to ascribe the lack of coverage to the reasons Mathaba did. It's good they covered it, so that people who are interested have a source to turn to, but I can understand why other media outlets would feel it not worth their time, especially major news outlets who try to appeal to the largest viewer base 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
