Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Why the military is screwed up

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Why the military is screwed up
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject:

Murder is limited to interpersonal killing in civil society; war occurs outside civil society. Killing in wartime cannot be murder. This line of argument remains a manipulative propaganda line, no more, no less.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:55 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Murder is limited to interpersonal killing in civil society; war occurs outside civil society. Killing in wartime cannot be murder.

Is even killing by soldiers of civilians or fellow soldiers during wartime not murder?

In fact, history proves you wrong. Lt. Calley was convicted of murder in the My Lai massacre in VietNam.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:15 am Post subject:

Nonsense reasoning, Bacasper. And I note that My Lai, which nearly everyone at the time agreed occurred outside the acceptable boundaries of war, seems, in your mind, to prove anything you want it to. We are so far apart on such issues that it is pointless to attempt to exchange. I find your reasonsing, again, almost always nonsensical, at times indecipherable. How did you form this worldview that you have?

CentralCali

Joined: 17 May 2007

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject:

Hmmm...I thought it was pretty obvious that Gopher was referring to killing of enemy soldiers and not to killing anyone for the fun of it.

ropebreezy

Joined: 27 Aug 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The same is not true of soliders. Geneva Convetion or no, it is within the purview of a soldier's duty to kill when the safety of innocents is not immediately threatened. This is a difference. A large difference.

I know it's pointless to argue with you about this, but I feel compelled to challenge this assertion every time you state it in this forum simply because I don't want other people adopting such simplistic world views.

But anyways. There are plenty of innocent people in a warzone.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

Fox wrote:

Challenge it all you like, it doesn't make it less true. Anyone saying soldiers don't kill when the safety of innocents is not immediately threatened is either a fool or pushing an agenda.

ropebreezy wrote:

There are plenty of innocent people in a warzone.

A generalization that's clearly not universally true (soldiers can and do fight in civilian-free zones), and when it is true, and those innocent people are at risk, they're at risk because of the presence of soldiers. Yeah, if you fly over a zone where innocent people live and start dropping bombs, innocent lives suddenly become endangered.

ropebreezy

Joined: 27 Aug 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

ropebreezy wrote:

Fox wrote:

Challenge it all you like, it doesn't make it less true. Anyone saying soldiers don't kill when the safety of innocents is not immediately threatened is either a fool or pushing an agenda.

Immediate danger is a universal constant in war. And there are certainly innocent people in a warzone. No agenda pushing here, it's pretty sound logic.

There are exceptional situations in which a soldier kills when innocent people are not in immediate danger. And there are also plenty of situations in which a soldier kills when innocent people are in immediate danger. The same is true with police officers or, hell, people in general. People make mistakes. That doesn't mean an entire profession is discredited.

Fox wrote:

ropebreezy wrote:

There are plenty of innocent people in a warzone.

Yes, let's talk about generalizations. How about we start with yours? You cherry pick scenarios in war that paint soldiers in a unfavorable light and then neglect the scenarios in which a soldier does indeed do good things. Your reasoning being (I'm supposing) that war wouldn't exist without soldiers.

The assertion that war goes away when soldiers go away is a laughable fallacy that fails to grasp the human condition. People will always fight each other. And people will always desire to band together. Put these two things together and we have war. Unless you support a mass lobotomy of the human species there will always be war. So, with that premise, doesn't it follow that, in the face of this ugly reality that we as a society employ individuals to defend ourselves against aggressors who initiate war?

I think your problem is with the current duties of a soldier. You don't agree when a soldier bombs civilians? A fair point, it absolutely shouldn't happen. I'd love to see the U.S. disengage in it's two wars and come home. That way, our soldiers would be fulfilling their actual duties, which is to defend our country and our allies from foreign aggressors.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:46 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

Fox wrote:

ropebreezy wrote:

Fox wrote:

Challenge it all you like, it doesn't make it less true. Anyone saying soldiers don't kill when the safety of innocents is not immediately threatened is either a fool or pushing an agenda.

Immediate danger is a universal constant in war. And there are certainly innocent people in a warzone.

No, there aren't innocent people in every warzone, and every time a soldier kills is not necessarily in a warzone either. As such, your objection is disputable on two different terms.

ropebreezy wrote:

There are exceptional situations in which a soldier kills when innocent people are not in immediate danger.

There's nothing exceptional about these situations. And because the upper half of your post has been invalidated, the lower half crumbles along with it. Forgive me as such for not wasting words on it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be taken in by your pro-warfare propaganda. Fortunately for you, much of society is taken in by it, and soldiers are seen as heroes as a result.

ropebreezy

Joined: 27 Aug 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:58 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

No, there aren't innocent people in every warzone, and every time a soldier kills is not necessarily in a warzone either. As such, your objection is disputable on two different terms.

No? Not even one? Are you sure?

Every time a police officer kills he's not necessarily doing his job either.

Fox wrote:

How convenient for you.

Fox wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be taken in by your pro-warfare propaganda. Fortunately for you, much of society is taken in by it, and soldiers are seen as heroes as a result.

Yes, yes, it's all propaganda, no need to engage with me in a philosophical discussion, soldiers cause war and that's that. Well I guess I expected as much.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be taken in by your pro-warfare propaganda. Fortunately for you, much of society is taken in by it, and soldiers are seen as heroes as a result.

Yes, soldiers are presumed heroes, Fox. Because they are sent out by effete philosophers like us to take care of the dirty business, sometimes the business isn't even necessary, but they're sent anyway. That's why they're presumed heroes.

Kuros: taken in by pro-soldier propaganda

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject:

Many of you here have no business opining on this as harshly and matter-of-factly as you do. What do you know about security needs, let alone actual military service?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:15 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Nonsense reasoning, Bacasper. And I note that My Lai, which nearly everyone at the time agreed occurred outside the acceptable boundaries of war, seems, in your mind, to prove anything you want it to.

We are so far apart on such issues that it is pointless to attempt to exchange. I find your reasonsing, again, almost always nonsensical, at times indecipherable. How did you form this worldview that you have?

Idiotic response, Gopher. And I note that you see it that way since I disproved your assertion.

Unlike you, I believe that when two sides are so far apart on an issue, the best thing they can do is talk to one another unless, of course, one is so closed-minded it would be futile as you are apparently asserting here that you are.

CC: Gopher is perfectly capable of expressing himself precisely (or, for that matter, to be vague) when he so chooses. I assume almost nothing beyond what people actually write here, and that is what I refuted.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject:

ropebreezy wrote:

Fox wrote:

No, there aren't innocent people in every warzone, and every time a soldier kills is not necessarily in a warzone either. As such, your objection is disputable on two different terms.

No? Not even one? Are you sure?

Yes, because of the Air Force and Navy, we can be sure of this. Sea to sea and air to air combat are often innocent-free, so even if we granted that every land battle had innocents present (something I would not grant without extraordinary proof), we still have examples of innocent-free fighting.

But, you don't care about that, because you haven't really thought it through. You came to your conclusion, and you do what you can to justify the conclusion, rather than the reverse.

ropebreezy wrote:

How convenient for you.

Super convenient. Thank you for that.

ropebreezy wrote:

Yes, yes, it's all propaganda, no need to engage with me in a philosophical discussion, soldiers cause war and that's that.

Stop whining, I engaged you sufficiently, and you answered me with ridiculous questions like asking me if I was really sure that innocent-free battlegrounds existed.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be taken in by your pro-warfare propaganda. Fortunately for you, much of society is taken in by it, and soldiers are seen as heroes as a result.

That's an interesting way to put it. I have to say, though, I don't see that as particularly heroic.

T-J

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:13 am Post subject:

Reggie wrote:

We may have spent a gazillion dollars on our military over the past 50 years, but we do have a win in Grenada to show for it. So, I don't want to hear anyone complain.

We did O.K. in Panama as well.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe