|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2005 16:31:01 GMT -5
hello everyone. I was thinking of the death penalty and why we think one person killing another person gets punished and yet a person in the military who has killed 50 or so men gets a medal??? does this make sense??? what I am trying to get at is what is your views on the war we have just had and wars in general. was it right to start a war with iraq? is it right to start a war with anyone? is war the answer?
my view is war should not even be a choice or even considered an answer. it does not help anything. there should be no war.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 16:36:47 GMT -5
In most cases, I agree that war doesn't help
But there are some people who are total jerks and need to be taught a lesson via explosions
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Apr 29, 2005 17:30:02 GMT -5
Well I have alot of excessive rants on this subject, but this ties with what honor is too, first off the medal isnt for if you killed a bunch of people its for if you served your country risking your life, like if you ran through enemy territory to save a injured soldier, that would most likely get you the medal of honor, but my view on war is that you should only attack someone to defend another group of people who cant stand for themselves, or if allies are in need of aid, you should always have a strong military to defend yourselves if need be, and in war you should always fight to win, people talk about in just things like fist fights so called "honor" that honor is fighting fair and whatnot, but if your fighting a fight that can be avoided (that is if you are not defending anything but yourself) you are dishonoring yourself, and if you are fighting fairly against an opponent that attacked you or you are defending something while fighting fair, you are dishonoring yourself, fight to win when defending is what true honor is. which is why we should never go to war to get a countries resources or anything like that, in Iraq we are defending the people of Iraq, even though we are fighting using uber weapons, it is honorable because we are saving innocent lives.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 19:05:47 GMT -5
but if your fighting a fight that can be avoided (that is if you are not defending anything but yourself) you are dishonoring yourself, and if you are fighting fairly against an opponent that attacked you or you are defending something while fighting fair, you are dishonoring yourself, What? I'm confused. Defending yourself from an opponent is dishonorable?
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Apr 29, 2005 19:20:09 GMT -5
If its only you that stands in danger, and if its a fight that can be avoided, If I remember my japanese history right, an old samuri believed the same thing, and whenever someone would fight him he would just walk away, he was quite wise.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 19:35:18 GMT -5
but your country cant just walk away. Especially a democratic country like the United States, where all of the people who live here have mixed feelings and each have an equal say. There can't be just one honorable thing to do when so many people want something different.
So in the words of Vash: Anydangway, this is getting off topic, so back to the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Apr 29, 2005 19:38:34 GMT -5
No I ment for a single person, if you are defending your country you are defending everyone in it, but I ment for an individual (if u read it it says, if you arent defending someone other than yourself... or something)
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 19:40:59 GMT -5
Okay, just one more thing before we return to the topic. When is there ever a single person going to war? I don't think that qualifies as a war.
Anydangway, Back to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Apr 29, 2005 19:44:00 GMT -5
Okay, just one more thing before we return to the topic. When is there ever a single person going to war? Ahem, leaders, political powers who fear that someone is going to kill them personaly so they wipe out someones city to defend their own life, human past is drenched with it and its the most common cause for war... well was, that form of warfare is horrible and its the people against those people that are the good guys (in a matter of speaking)
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2005 21:27:19 GMT -5
i get what you mean about protecting other people but can't we find a way to do that without bringing guns and death into it? I mean there must be some way to end an argument rather than just shooting the guy who disagrees with you
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 23:10:47 GMT -5
You'd think so, but the terrorists don't seem to wanna give that a try.
|
|
|
Post by KiddoFreak on Apr 29, 2005 23:57:33 GMT -5
>I mean there must be some way to end an argument rather than just shooting the guy who disagrees with you? < You could always stab them, instead... No, seriously, I've thought about this no small bit. There are a number of reasonable -nonviolent- alternatives, though there is one small problem: pride. Animals (humans included) have this strange need to be superior to others. I mean, animals fight each other of territory, mates, food, hobo-scraps, etc. Humans fight for beliefs, territory, mates, food, resources, and most of all hobo-scraps. So, you may say, why not just share things? The answer is fairly simple. Money is incredibly important substance in society. Without money, there would be bartering, with bartering there would be impatience and dispute, and with impatience and dispute comes war. Even if we could somehow break into a peaceful struggle, something incredibly hard to do, pride ends up getting in the way. Lets say one side wins, fair and square. The other will get angry that they have lost. Eventually, if they cannot find a way to redeem themselves, they will attack the other side. Causing war. Don't forget that war sparks the creative genious in us all. Computers, transportation, communication, etc. have all been improved because of war. In death there is new life. I'm a strong believer in extremes: you can't experience something without experiencing its opposite, with extremely mild versions of these feelings being a center point. You can't love until you're happy, or be happy untill you've loved. You can't know the meaning of life until you know the meaning of death. You can't have total peace, until total armegeddon destroys us all. The moral of my story is this: war cannot be stopped. As long as there is pride, there will be fighting. As long as there is animal nature (the instict to survive), there will be pride. Without animal nature, we would all be mindless slobs that would quickly die out. Not to mention, fighting can be way cool, I mean, compare the the Swiss to Anime. Tell me which one is cooler.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 30, 2005 0:02:49 GMT -5
Wow... That's some pretty deep stuff. Maybe you should be one of them philosophy guys, kiddo.
|
|
|
Post by KiddoFreak on Apr 30, 2005 0:14:35 GMT -5
Heh, I didn't back any of it up with evidence, so I'm just waiting for someone to tell me to prove it. I guess its off to research... But yeah, as I see it, war is unavoidable, even if it is a terrible thing. Like irrelevant-goverment funded programs and solar power.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 30, 2005 0:29:45 GMT -5
Whats wrong with solar power?
Anyway, I think war is the only answer, and that there will never be any peace without war. Most people are basically good people, but there are those who would seek to do harm for the dumbest reasons, or quite possibly no reason. Those people must be purged from the earth, and only then may we begin to live in peace.
"You will be fuel for the fire, your blood will be shed in your land, you will be remembered no more, for I the Lord have spoken" --Ezekiel 21:32
|
|