Oh Sh*t, Here We Go (4 Viewers)

AndreaCristiano

AndreaCristiano

Nato, Vive, e muore Italiano
#402
Jun 9, 2011
18,992
#402
Fred said:
How do you know they have a choice? most of the time they come from unpriveliged, uneducated backgrounds.

The difference is one is the aggressor, while the other is defending his country. Action, reaction, don't invade other lands, you won't get yourself blown to smithereens. Simple, and easy.



You're more detached from reality than a liberal in this case, i'm sorry.

A foreign army is invading your land, what do you do? have them over for lunch?

Making the aggressor and the aggressed upon equal is your mistake here.




They might love America as a country, as a people. Nobody loves the American government though. I work in an American university, and the Americans over here are the nicest people i know. I have no problems with Americans, or America(planning a visit there this year actually). My problem along with Nzoric and the vast majority of the worlds population is with the American government and its foreign policies.

As for being a soldier being a noble occupation, by that same logic, actually defending your own country from foreign invasion is even more noble.

"Risking their lives" If thats your criteria for an occupation being noble, then these suicide bombers who attack the US army in Iraq go even further and sacrifice their lives. So by your own logic, you should consider these suicide bombers even more noble.



Nobody said anything about that being noble



Nobody said anything about that either. Its kind of the same thing though, both are killing innocent people in lands foreign to them. Both do not deserve any sympathy, a foreign invador and a terrorist killing innocent people in foreign lands in the name of religion.
Click to expand...
Ben unprivileged, uneducated in the US is a shit load more so than most of the middle eastern countries. They know what they are getting into
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
#404
May 29, 2005
93,359
#404
There are just too many different opposing opinions on here to ever gain any ground in any given argument.
 
GordoDeCentral

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
#408
Apr 14, 2005
69,453
#408
Fred said:
How do you know they have a choice? most of the time they come from unpriveliged, uneducated backgrounds.

The difference is one is the aggressor, while the other is defending his country. Action, reaction, don't invade other lands, you won't get yourself blown to smithereens. Simple, and easy.



You're more detached from reality than a liberal in this case, i'm sorry.

A foreign army is invading your land, what do you do? have them over for lunch?

Making the aggressor and the aggressed upon equal is your mistake here.




They might love America as a country, as a people. Nobody loves the American government though. I work in an American university, and the Americans over here are the nicest people i know. I have no problems with Americans, or America(planning a visit there this year actually). My problem along with Nzoric and the vast majority of the worlds population is with the American government and its foreign policies.

As for being a soldier being a noble occupation, by that same logic, actually defending your own country from foreign invasion is even more noble.

"Risking their lives" If thats your criteria for an occupation being noble, then these suicide bombers who attack the US army in Iraq go even further and sacrifice their lives. So by your own logic, you should consider these suicide bombers even more noble.



Nobody said anything about that being noble



Nobody said anything about that either. Its kind of the same thing though, both are killing innocent people in lands foreign to them. Both do not deserve any sympathy, a foreign invador and a terrorist killing innocent people in foreign lands in the name of religion.
Click to expand...
well argued and put
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Thread Starter #412
Mar 16, 2004
111,724
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #412
    Fred said:
    They might love America as a country, as a people. Nobody loves the American government though. I work in an American university, and the Americans over here are the nicest people i know. I have no problems with Americans, or America(planning a visit there this year actually). My problem along with Nzoric and the vast majority of the worlds population is with the American government and its foreign policies.

    As for being a soldier being a noble occupation, by that same logic, actually defending your own country from foreign invasion is even more noble.
    Click to expand...
    This is not really "our" government anymore. More like a foreign occupation or regime. Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the middle class or even someone who makes 300K a year has a say in what happens with this country, so we're not much different than the Afghanis in this regard.
     
    Nzoric

    Nzoric

    Grazie Mirko
    #413
    Jan 16, 2011
    37,766
    #413
    Martin said:
    Well, this is a basic point about universal standards of morality. Is killing and torture wrong, is that something you can say in general or not? Because what you're pleading here is a case by case review.
    Click to expand...
    Precisely, there is an ultimate right and wrong, questions with a yes/no answer, signing up for something - which will potentiallly lead to you taking a life, in my mind is fundamentally wrong and therefore morally objectable and condemnable.

    Gordon Bombay said:
    If we generalize everything the entire world would end up as "immoral" would it not? We know acts of violence to be contrary to normalcy, therefore we assume they are wrong. However, if we examine the "prizefighter" a man or woman who actively engages in violent behavior with possibly may result in death. We don't declare this person to be bad or immoral. This is simply because he enters into a contract to fight as does the other participant. Is that not what war is?
    Click to expand...
    What does that have to do with generalizing? How do you equal prizefighting with war? The only people who entered a contract to fight is the occupying soldier, the rest is derived exactly from this vantage point. Furthermore the prizefighting argument is bad because there is an assumption of equality within the terms of the contract. Same weight class, same time for preparation and a consensual agreement that the fight should happen. What a straw man E, I really thought you wouldn't do that :p

    ---------- Post added 12.09.2012 at 09:59 ----------
    Bjerknes said:
    This is not really "our" government anymore. More like a foreign occupation or regime. Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the middle class or even someone who makes 300K a year has a say in what happens with this country, so we're not much different than the Afghanis in this regard.
    Click to expand...
    Well it might not be "your" government anymore, but the bodies who are signing up to be at "their" disposition are "your" people. Simply if it was not your government anymore, there would be no volunteering soldiers. American exceptionalism at it's best, now that things aren't going that well, you can't blame the American people, the people in charge must be labelled as something foreign, as in "occupation", to make it seem like it's not your fault.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)