Only children give out negative rep

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

If someone starts fighting a solider, what is the soldier supposed to do? Take it and die?

No, the soldier is not supposed to invade in the first place. They should STAY HOME.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Not really. If the soldier crosses my property line, they crossed my property line. So quit tip-toeing around the questions and answer them.

The North invaded the South.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

The U.S. invaded Iraq.

If someone crosses into your property, when you have done nothing to harm them, and they shoot at you, and you shoot back and kill them, who was in the wrong?

You almost had a good argument...until you mentioned Afghanistan. Their GOVERNMENT was directly supporting the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. So, you were lmost there. Then your delusion kicked in again.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Not really. If the soldier crosses my property line, they crossed my property line. So quit tip-toeing around the questions and answer them.

The North invaded the South.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

The U.S. invaded Iraq.

If someone crosses into your property, when you have done nothing to harm them, and they shoot at you, and you shoot back and kill them, who was in the wrong?

Everyone is wrong when it comes to war. War is Seldom the first step in a process, it's usually the last step in a number of failed ventures.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, the soldier is not supposed to invade in the first place. They should STAY HOME.

Did the soldiers of William Wallace stay home when they took the City of York? I'm thinking no.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Did the soldiers of William Wallace stay home when they took the City of York? I'm thinking no.

Once someone crossed into your property and started shooting at you, would you just quit fighting once they left your property?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

You almost had a good argument...until you mentioned Afghanistan. Their GOVERNMENT was directly supporting the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. So, you were lmost there. Then your delusion kicked in again.

No, with Afghanistan the U.S. said hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan said give us proof. The U.S. said no, give him over or we invade. Afghanistan said no.

What, do you think the government should be able to hold people against their will without evidence of their wrong-doing?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

You almost had a good argument...until you mentioned Afghanistan. Their GOVERNMENT was directly supporting the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. So, you were lmost there. Then your delusion kicked in again.

We depose a government for supporting cells that ultimately harm us? Should we then depose our own government for providing weaponry and training to the very same individuals (specifically Bin Laden who received American support to counter Soviet attacks)? It is the same principle.

The Taliban didn't directly harbor Al Qaida, although they were indifferent to their presence. We bore the same mantle while fighting against the Soviets in the Middle East (and Central America for that matter). Is the principle different when we do it?

Or was the destruction of the government not necessary?

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

You are saying there is no responsibility on the soldier to make moral decisions?

No, there certainly is, however the soldiers alone should not be held accountable. The soldiers are howeve,r heavily brainwashed into following orders, the commander(s) are also accountable for the action of the soldiers (except for actions when the soldier was acting purely on their own without command).

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Once someone crossed into your property and started shooting at you, would you just quit fighting once they left your property?

So it's all about your opinion or viewpoint. I see now.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, with Afghanistan the U.S. said hand over Bin Laden. Afghanistan said give us proof. The U.S. said no, give him over or we invade. Afghanistan said no.

What, do you think the government should be able to hold people against their will without evidence of their wrong-doing?

Uh, isn't the video that Bin Laden created proof enough?

Originally Posted by HughRuss

We depose a government for supporting cells that ultimately harm us? Should we then depose our own government for providing weaponry and training to the very same individuals (specifically Bin Laden who received American support to counter Soviet attacks)? It is the same principle.

The Taliban didn't directly harbor Al Qaida, although they were indifferent to their presence. We bore the same mantle while fighting against the Soviets in the Middle East (and Central America for that matter). Is the principle different when we do it?

Or was the destruction of the government not necessary?

I already said Reagan made a very bad play with that stupidity.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

So it's all about your opinion or viewpoint. I see now.

Uh, that is why humans have rights, duh. We can reason. That is why we have courts, to settle disputes about rights being violated.

Uh, isn't the video that Bin Laden created proof enough?

You think self-incrimination is all that is needed?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

No, there certainly is, however the soldiers alone should not be held accountable.

I never said they should be.

The soldiers are howeve,r heavily brainwashed into following orders,

All you are saying is that people are moral. So what? That does not mean they have valid morals. Besides my wife and I, I have never met anyone else willing to question their own preconceptions. Most believe what they were educated when they were young, would you not agree? From what I have experienced, most people grow up and follow whatever religion their parents followed. Same with politics, most people grow up and follow whatever political ideology their parents followed. If I looked into, I am sure I could find studies to back this up.

the commander(s) are also accountable for the action of the soldiers (except for actions when the soldier was acting purely on their own without command).

With which I agree.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Uh, that is why humans have rights, duh. We can reason. That is why we have courts, to settle disputes about rights being violated.



You think self-incrimination is all that is needed?

No, I meant YOUR viewpoint. In other words, you're fine with murder and mayhem done by soldiers as long as they were being "oppressed". That's totally subjective and again, kills your entire argument.

Look, he was there, they new it but were trying to play tough. If they just would've cooperated it wouldn't have been that big of an issue.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

No, I meant YOUR viewpoint. In other words, you're fine with murder and mayhem done by soldiers as long as they were being "oppressed". That's totally subjective and again, kills your entire argument.

How? Was Lincoln or Bush being oppressed?

Look, he was there, they new it but were trying to play tough. If they just would've cooperated it wouldn't have been that big of an issue.

And what? If Afghanistan demands that the U.S. hands you over because they think you did something terrible, should the U.S. just do it, with no evidence?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

How? Was Lincoln or Bush being oppressed?



And what? If Afghanistan demands that the U.S. hands you over because they think you did something terrible, should the U.S. just do it, with no evidence?

LOL, yeah. You're fantastic example is bush and lincoln. Well, yeah. The American people were being attacked by Al-Quida that had safe haven in Afganistan and the government was cool with that. Much like Pakistan now. Very annoying.

Anyway, that's so not even the point. The point is that you simply can't blame the soldiers for the mission. That be like blaming small children when their parents tell them to steal or lie.

I guess you think there should be no military or anything like that. Makes sense with your anarchist philosophy.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

LOL, yeah. You're fantastic example is bush and lincoln. Well, yeah. The American people were being attacked by Al-Quida that had safe haven in Afganistan and the government was cool with that. Much like Pakistan now. Very annoying.

Anyway, that's so not even the point. The point is that you simply can't blame the soldiers for the mission. That be like blaming small children when their parents tell them to steal or lie.

Uh no, they are adults. Nothing like children. They can understand right from wrong, unlike children.

I guess you think there should be no military or anything like that. Makes sense with your anarchist philosophy.

I do not think there would be a standing army in a free society.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Uh no, they are adults. Nothing like children. They can understand right from wrong, unlike children.

You're so radically blinded it's not even remotely funny. Can't you understand that soldiers are rarely, if ever, given all the info about an operation? They DON'T KNOW a lot of the things that happen as a result of following orders.

It's not a matter of morality or maturity, but sheer ignorance. Get over yourself man.

I do not think there would be a standing army in a free society.

And that is why there will never be a society like that on earth with something that other nations want. why do you think armies were brought about in the first place. They are called department of defense for a reason.

BTW, I'm quite sure in the "free society" the people would want some kind of national force to protect them.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

You're so radically blinded it's not even remotely funny. Can't you understand that soldiers are rarely, if ever, given all the info about an operation? They DON'T KNOW a lot of the things that happen as a result of following orders.

It's not a matter of morality or maturity, but sheer ignorance. Get over yourself man.

Well, they definitely have the right to demand information before shooting at someone. It is their own damn fault if they do not.

And that is why there will never be a society like that on earth with something that other nations want. why do you think armies were brought about in the first place.

To do the bidding of illegitimate rulers?

They are called department of defense for a reason.

Yup, a political one.

BTW, I'm quite sure in the "free society" the people would want some kind of national force to protect them.

Why? They would have trade with all and would not have alliances, so they would not have any enemies.

Plus a free society would be well-armed. It is not like it would be a cake walk to take them over. Even in the U.S., there are civilians that own artillery.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Well, they definitely have the right to demand information before shooting at someone. It is their own damn fault if they do not.

Right, they can just up and request top secret information because of their conscience.

To do the bidding of illegitimate rulers?

Are we back to this stupidity again?

Yup, a political one.

Just like all of your reasons

Why? They would have trade with all and would not have alliances, so they would not have any enemies.

Plus a free society would be well-armed. It is not like it would be a cake walk to take them over. Even in the U.S., there are civilians that own artillery.

No civilians own anything that could hold of an entire Army for long or could mobilize against an invasion force.

Trade with all, no alliances and no conflicts? Man, you really do live in a world of 100% theory don't you.

[motivez]

everyone has the ability to say no, soldiers included

there's consequences for saying no, but they have the option.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by motivez

everyone has the ability to say no, soldiers included

there's consequences for saying no, but they have the option.

Of course. But there has to be a logical limit.

For instance. Did everyone that worked for Enron go on trial or just the chief people giving orders?

Logically, the people giving the orders. The same should be with the military except in special cases like Abugrave(sp)