Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq Casualties
-
Janus,
I did not pick the comparison, I just pointed out why it was inacurate.Jennifer,
People still die in accidents. I would guess more not less, since war zones are harder to opperate in than free zones. Regardless, it’s ADDITIONAL casualties. Some people think having Americans die there could have (should have) been avoided. For them every American death in Iraq is a tradgedy. We are there now. What I hope Kerry does is rally people around the outcome. Rehashing the cause will get us nowhere. If Bush would have admitted the truth, like Tony Blair did maybe we would already be moving that direction. -
no agentsmith, its an absurd comparison.
a parent doesnt have to decide which war they want their kid to die in. they would pick no war. that doesnt mean the iraqi war was unjust. ask parents from WWII, they may have been proud if their kids dies heroes or even just doing something they believed, but i doubt any were even “willing” for their kids to die in WWII, let alone would “want” them to.
this really is the worst example you’ve ever tried to make.
-
Personnaly, i cant think of any greater honor than dying for my country.
-
@marine36:
Personnaly, i cant think of any greater honor than dying for my country.
so if i were to offer America $2.00 for the ability to kill one of its citizens, then you would offer yourself up?
sweet!
-
I’d offer him up for $2.00. wink That WAS a joke!
-
“Personnaly, i cant think of any greater honor than dying for my country.”
See I agree with Patton.
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”In seriousness, dying is best left to the experts. Very old men and women.
-
@marine36:
Personnaly, i cant think of any greater honor than dying for my country.
I can. 8)
-
Well Liz, of course i would like to take a couple hundred enemis down with me. :) And stuka, what can you think of that is greater than laying your life down for your country?
-
@marine36:
Well Liz, of course i would like to take a couple hundred enemis down with me. :) And stuka, what can you think of that is greater than laying your life down for your country?
oh
“I know i know!!”
how about 'living for your country"? -
Marine, You’ll realize eventualy that Dieing for your country isn’t as cool as it sounds right now.
Try helping to develope the cure for cancer or being the first man on Mars.
-
Why do we search for a cure for cancer when what we need to do is figure out how to give someone the right cancer?
If you are dieing of liver disease, wouldn’t it be great to be able to cut the diseased portions out and make the good portions cancerous, then when it’s regrown, stop the cancer?
(If you want a cure, try taking 2 tablespoons of liquid drano orally. If it doesn’t work the first time around, double the dose and try again.)
-
You seem to think im gonna jump in front of a bullet on purpose, I never said im anxious to die, i just said the most honourable way to do so is in the service of your country.
-
why do we give so much honor to the first man on mars? how bout the people who get him there? they are the ones doing the work, he could be any other astronaut really. he just got lucky in getting picked to be the first one.
-
why do we give so much honor to the first man on mars? how bout the people who get him there? they are the ones doing the work, he could be any other astronaut really. he just got lucky in getting picked to be the first one.
i dont’ know.
i’d say it takes a fair bit of courage and hard work to be lucky enough to be picked as the first one.
and i’m not sure that i’d like to be in space - it’s too easy to lose muscle mass quickly. -
i dont mean to denigrate their achievement, its applaudable and great (i dont know if i could do it, for example), but being an astronaut is the achievement, going into space is the achievement, going to mars is the fame, but not the achievement. you went to mars maybe because you are the best astronaut, maybe because its your turn, im not sure how nasa decides, but its the people who got you there who achieved. why is neil armstrong more famous than buzz aldren? because he stepped down first? BAH! that really means nothing. it was probably just the way they were strapped into the spacecraft. how bout the third guy? who even remembers his name? is his accomplishment any less great? he didnt step out onto the moon, but he still went there, he was still an astronaut…thats the praiseworthy part. actually being the first on mars is just fame and prestige, its no true accomplishment on your part.
-
a parent doesnt have to decide which war they want their kid to die in. they would pick no war. that doesnt mean the iraqi war was unjust. ask parents from WWII, they may have been proud if their kids dies heroes or even just doing something they believed, but i doubt any were even “willing” for their kids to die in WWII, let alone would “want” them to.
And you have learned this in your many years of what high school. I’m sorry this is something that you do not no about yet b/c you are still a pup. War is very much about sacrifice. Read Clauswitz. The citizens sacrifice their individual good for that of the state. If this weren’t so how do you explain how anybody would be will to die for their country. People understand that their death will have greater meaning and serve a greater purpose or greater good. I also disagree with you that individuals don’t have the right to decide this on a case by case basis. Thoreau certainly thought this was true as he chose not to support the Spanish American war b/c he couldn’t justify it to himself. Under the same reasoning were someone unwilling or unable to make the likewise sacrifices we expect our soldiers to make then you cannot justify this war, or any war for that matter.
-
you have proven nothing. yes, soldiers die in war. but you cant measure the justness of a war based on whether people want their children to die in it. people didnt want their children to die in WWII, but they did. no one wants their child to die in a war. they may be proud of that version of death, but they would not want that to happen.
-
you have proven nothing. yes, soldiers die in war. but you cant measure the justness of a war based on whether people want their children to die in it. people didnt want their children to die in WWII, but they did. no one wants their child to die in a war. they may be proud of that version of death, but they would not want that to happen.
But that wasn’t quite my point now was it. It was what you thought my point was, but that doesn’t quite get it done. No what I said was that society is essentially a sacrifice by the individual for the greater good. Everyone acknowledges this by paying taxes etc. This being the case the individual is prepared to die for his country b/c this actually improves himself, not so much if he dies, but if he lives. To this end nobody goes to war assuming they will die, but assuming they will live. However, if the individual does not believe they have a greater good invested in a war, not only is it their obligation to not support it, but to oppose it. Until you read Thoreau et al I don’t think you can be considered a qualified person on this matter. So to this end I would argue that b/c the very people who are running this war are quite willing to sacrifice others, but not recipricate that sacrifice then no this war is not just, nor is any other war which meets that criteria.
-
And I’d say that’s a pretty hypocritical remark in yourself.
Come on man, wake up! You’re accusing this kid of not having any insight to the matter because his only opinions are based on what he learned in school. Yet you’re doing the same: you’re basing every point you have on an external source. His opinions may or may not be based on what he learned in school; they might be based on what he personally has reasoned out through established knowledge into new conclusions (the definition of intellect). Your opinions are based on reading books written by men who, while famous, might not necessarily have any more correct insight than his sources. As long as you base your opinions on outside sources, even if they are published works, you have no valid complaint about whether his are based on outside sources. Face it: your opinions, if they are based on those of a book, are no more original than his are. And Thoreau? The only thing that makes him more “correct” in anyone’s eyes is that he was lucky enough to get published after writing his stuff. If he were stuck in a school and Janus’ teachers were published, would you then consider a person learned in the subject only if you’d read his teacher’s work instead of Thoreau’s? Consider it. A man is no more than a man, no matter how established he is. To claim reading someone’s work qualifies you any more than learning from someone else’s is less than insightful.
-
Agent, thats horseshit. Thoreau is a man. nothing more. you agree with his philosophies? fine. that doesnt make them right. you are an elitist SOB with this attitude Agent, that I dont have the authority to speak on something since i havent read thoreau. thats crap, and you are despicable for suggesting it.
heres a clue buddy: a philosopher develops philosophies. that doesnt mean they are right or wrong, they are one way of seeing or doing things. since you adopt his, you cannot disclaim mine because i havent read his. this thinking gets you nowhere. i cant even believe you would be so narrow minded and pigheaded.
Suggested Topics
