Iraq Casualties

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.

@Janus1:

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.

Agent,

I’m a bit confused, are you saying that the President of the United States, all of our upper brass and all cabinet level officers should be on the frontline with M-16s?

I’d think that very irresponsible considering they need to be making command decisions, not dodging bullets!

(BTW, that’s how I read your unjust war because they will sacrifice others but not themselves.)

BTW, Bob Dole was a World War II hero, lost the use of his arm for this country, about the biggest sacrifice I can imagine short of death, and I don’t think I’d want him running this war.

I guess what I’m saying is just because you’ve sacrificed in a war or not should not be the over-all deciding factor on your leadership or whether or not a war is just.

In my mind, a war is just if the world as a whole benefits from the war, and especially if my side (country, state, organization, whatever) benefits from the war. Though, that does mean you have to put a price on human life and that is something we are all loathe to do - regardless of standing on issues of war and peace.

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.

Well its really simple Janus you often speak of how great your school is, how great the college is you are going to, but then you say stupid things like this. Either you are enlightened or not, either you are in favor of enlightenment values or not. But if you choose ignorance you can’t then claim to have knowledge to support your claims only emotion which is the direction you have chosen here. To say that I am full of crap for espousing Thoreaus ideas is as nonsensical as you saying you can reasonably defend your position having not read them. Again are you really standing for knowledge or for emotion. Am I elitist, yes b/c I have learned and read a lot, but I use that to enlighten others, so at least I share. Since I have obviously read more things than you despite not having gone to such a great school says very little about your education and your school. What’s more I don’t expect people to take what I say based solely on my word. That is I want people to counter it so I can prove the error of their ways and enlighten them. You want to lecture, and never have your ideas/wisdom challenged b/c you think you are blessed of divine providence. Who is being the elitist. I want people to think for themselves b/c all are equally capable of it, you want them to only listen to your and yours.

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.

Your are the narrowminded and pigheaded one, and note it was you who resorted first to the unenlightened namecalling. If these ways are so wrong then dispute them with words and wisdom. If not then shut up. I’m sorry your education hasn’t been as good as you’d like to think, but too bad. The fact is that I believe in enlightenment, and if you can counter me with words and ideas then do so, but no more of your sentimentality.

The sad fact Janus is that you are somebody who believes in credentials ie I went to Harvard therefore I must be smart, but the reality is that a great many of the great intellectuals of American society haven’t gone to these schools, and there is a reason for this. These schools foster the idea in their students that they are better than everyone else so when people graduate from them they feel like they have nothing to prove. So when they enter the academic community they are shocked to find Mich grads and profs that can easily counter them, and even one up them. They are so elitist and narrowminded that they are unwilling to prove why they are right, and expect people to take their words as fact like they would the word of god. Everyone is smart enough to read Mill, Thoreau and DeTocqueville you don’t need to be an eastern aristocrat to get it, but this is exactly the unenlightend belief they like to propigate. In otherwords we the masses need them to interpret it for us. Who is really the elitist Janus?

I’m a bit confused, are you saying that the President of the United States, all of our upper brass and all cabinet level officers should be on the frontline with M-16s?

I’d think that very irresponsible considering they need to be making command decisions, not dodging bullets!

Jen I commend you on your class eventhough I don’t usually agree with you on politics. However, you make a good point once again proving wisdom is not the exclusive domain of the eastern aristocracy of Janus.

Yes you are right leaders shouldn’t be at the front lines b/c that would be foolish, but I was speaking to an ideal of how one can justify an action. The quakers actually apply a methadology similar to the one I expressed. Quakers are naturally pacifists, but instead of arguing that it is okay merely for them to not fight they go farther and argue all of war is wrong b/c it is unreasonable for them to ask someone like DFish to fight for them by proxy. It is to be said that they cannot ask someone to do something they cannot do themselves out of good conscience.

(BTW, that’s how I read your unjust war because they will sacrifice others but not themselves.)

This is roughly what I was getting at, but war isn’t just about sacrificing lives, but also other things as well. I don’t want to pay for it therefore it is unreasonable for me to expect others to do this. However, I would’ve been quite willing to pay for WWII via taxes as it served not only the greater good but also my own as Hitler was a really bad guy.

In my mind, a war is just if the world as a whole benefits from the war, and especially if my side (country, state, organization, whatever) benefits from the war. Though, that does mean you have to put a price on human life and that is something we are all loathe to do - regardless of standing on issues of war and peace.

But this is far too easy of a fix. By this reasoning it was just for the Germans to start WWII b/c it lead to the end of colonialism which has benefited the larger world as most of the world is in either the third or 2nd worlds. What’s more this discounts any sort of judgement of a war where little was gained or lost on either side. Case in point Korea. Was the greater good served by fighting a war in Korea in which the borders at the end were roughly the same. Wouldn’t by your definition make this and Vietnam unjust. What about the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Also were you to counter with that the point of Vietnam and Korea was to fight communism then again the greater good wasn’t served as it didn’t hurt/weaken them. And in the case of Vietnam our participation may have helped the NVietnamese win control of all of vietnam.

BTW, Bob Dole was a World War II hero, lost the use of his arm for this country, about the biggest sacrifice I can imagine short of death, and I don’t think I’d want him running this war.

But again war isn’t just about life, its about dollars. Did Bob Dole support Vietnam? I’ll bet he did since he is one of those Nixon types, but a lingering problem of Vietnam has been paying for it. Did Nixon raise capital gains to pay for the Vietnam war, especially after he escalated it in 1968-9.

Methinks you’re the unenlightened one, sir. Basing every philosophy you have on a book you’ve read by an external source, and in particular claiming everyone else is unenlightened for not following this MAN’s work (and yes, that is all he is), how can you dare to call ANYONE unintellectual? An intellectual is one who takes established knowledge and uses it to form his own conclusions, thereby forming a personal opinion, not one who’s read a lot of opinions by other men and is able to regurgitate them at will. That’s the sign of a person who’s done lots of reading but very little thinking.

Brilliance takes both reading AND thinking. And to claim that somebody who hasn’t read a certain work of a certain mortal man, just as full of flaws as anyone else, shouldn’t voice an opinion, be it shallow or genius, is more than just a shallow philosophy; it’s an actively dangerous one that discourages intellectual improvement. It’s like my saying that you shouldn’t have a right to vote because you haven’t read Locke, or your claiming I shouldn’t because I haven’t seen “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Is this also what you believe?

Agent: i have never touted my school as excellent, i have made reference to it being “considered” excellent, often in a derrogatory manner. those are two very different things. if you cant see the difference, then sorry.

Either you are enlightened or not, either you are in favor of enlightenment values or not.

define enlightened? the way you think? the way thoreau thinks? why?

You want to lecture, and never have your ideas/wisdom challenged b/c you think you are blessed of divine providence.

no, i counter your arguments with statements of my own belief. i do this for impact, i dont pretend to believe i am absolute (well, sometimes i do, but if you think im being serious, you are misguided).

Who is being the elitist. I want people to think for themselves b/c all are equally capable of it, you want them to only listen to your and yours.

how has this thread shown either of these in any way? you are saying one pov, i am saying another. we disagree. that doesnt mean one of us is using a fundamentally wrong argument, just different

and if you can counter me with words and ideas then do so, but no more of your sentimentality.

that is what a philosopher is! he has no facts, he contemplates and bases his theories on his sentiments and ideas

If these ways are so wrong then dispute them with words and wisdom

i never said they were wrong. reread my post. i said that they are idea, neither right nor wrong, not fact

The sad fact Janus is that you are somebody who believes in credentials ie I went to Harvard therefore I must be smart,

really? is that so? no agent, im sorry, but thats wrong. the only thing i can see you pinning this on is my defense of bush when he is called an idiot. if this is the case, then i can see where this idea of yours comes from. let me clarify. i dont believe he is smart because he went to yale. i believe he is not a complete idiot because he went to yale. he has at least average intelligence. perhaps not common sense, since the two do not correlate, but even a rich alumni daddy will not get a complete idiot into yale. he must have SOMETHING to justify it.

Who is really the elitist Janus?

what have i said that is elitist? what have i SAID, not what you think you have interpreted.

what makes thoreau smart? i dont disagree that he is, but why? why is he the ultimate source?

you think i buy into those interpretations from the so-called elite? i dont. i make my own interpretations, right or wrong. i accept the generally agreed-upon interpretation, but i form my own as well.

again, remind how any of this has to do with parents wanting their children to die in a war, and its justifiability. this all started from you quoting thoreau, and me pointing out that his opinion on the matter did not make it so. i fail to see how i have done anything other than disagree with you, something you apparently cant accept, since you are “enlightened” and i am not.

piss off

i am not denigrating thoreau’s intelligence, merely his divinity. he is not absolutely right on anything, he merely has his beliefs. if you agree, than fine. i dont. congratulations, lets move on.

What in the world does support for Vietnam have to do with the war on terrorism and who I’d feel comfortable running it?

If you are referring to just funding, then you are saying that if Bill Gates was to hire an army, for the United States, to invade Canada you’d support it, especially if Mr. Gates himself fought on the front lines?

@Jennifer:

What in the world does support for Vietnam have to do with the war on terrorism and who I’d feel comfortable running it?

If you are referring to just funding, then you are saying that if Bill Gates was to hire an army, for the United States, to invade Canada you’d support it, especially if Mr. Gates himself fought on the front lines?

hahaha
that would be AWESOME!!

@marine36:

And stuka, what can you think of that is greater than laying your life down for your country?

Winning the lottery.

I served my country already. I owe nothing. Now I can feel more comfortable about letting my voice be heard. Dying for your country is the most honorable thing you say? I say serving your country is the most honorable thing. If you died for your country, you got ripped off. Just don’t blame your country for it when you are in heaven, hell or where ever you believe you will be.

what if you could choose how you would die? would it be peaceful, and serene, or would it be going down in a blaze of glory, doing something for your country? (i dont mean to push either side, different strokes for different folks)

@Janus1:

what if you could choose how you would die? would it be peaceful, and serene, or would it be going down in a blaze of glory, doing something for your country? (i dont mean to push either side, different strokes for different folks)

I don’t care how I die. I just want it to be suddenly. :wink: