1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Justice is Absent in War

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Irishone21, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    If the military desired peace, they wouldn't fight in the war.

    Either the military is entirely ignorant, or entirely subjugated, or the military desires war, for it brings military glory and faster promotion.

    However, now, alluding to the present US troops, they probably are less prone to desire war, for the passion is not supported by the cause, meaning the reason for going to war does not equate or supercede the reason for not fighting in the war.

    In a sense, people involved in war, once desired it, considering they are not willing to fight for peace and they volunteered to fight in the war in the first place... If the military does not want war, then they should refuse to fight in it. To have principle, requires that one be subservient to God prior to country... When subservience to country conflicts with God’s Will, then one should abort war, and keep ones crown.

    The only way war can be deemed as justice is when the principles which demand war as a means to achieving peace, are greater than the principles which refuse war, as a means to achieving peace... Whichever decision is more likely to bring peace, and whichever decision involves a higher standard of value, is the right decision. America does not need to be at war right now. If we withdrawal our military from Iraq, there is a better chance that violence will calm down... Even though we think we suppress enmity, or even prevent it from being inflicted on us, in actuality, we provoke enmity, when our presence is more wide spread.

    There are many legitimate ways out of this war, without the situation exacerbating once we leave. The problem is, when the government is confronted with a situation where they should be obsequious and giving, they instead are selfish; for those who value reason, and practice rationality forget faith and tend to place selfishness above generosity, or even altruism.

    I do know and have talked to people in the military. Some of the military believes they are fighting terror by enforcing law and diffusing troops. Some of the military is excited to kill Muslim, regardless of whether their reason to fight us makes more sense then our reason to fight them. Many of these people are so brainwashed or blinded by patriotism that they see every Muslim as an animal that is willing to kill thousands of people, to which, very few of them are... Not all people abdicate to dehumanizing attempts to reprogram ones mentality. Lastly, some don't believe in the war, but feel there is nothing to do about it.

    The military is taking over Iraq, as it is necessary in the path towards defending ourselves against a larger threat, Iran. Initially, they needed to invade Iraq to take out Saddam, to which they thought was the main source of hate in Iraq... We should have kept him alive as we could have got him to appease his men, or his troops by speaking out against hatred, to which he did before he died. Opposing the death penalty is more respectful in a nation, and that might have earned us some much needed respect, in addition to sending a message to the dissolved nation of Iraq that killing is wrong, regardless of the situation...

    What we didn’t expect was the remnants of hostility in Iraq to continue to grow, or linger, and section out. The reason their nations has no order may attribute to the fact that they have no strong federal government to keep them stabilized. Plus, the intrusiveness of American troops have left them feeling weak, and rebellious, leaving fighting as the only reasonable decision in maintaining their legitimacy and respect as a nation.

    Once again, I will say, if the military desired peace, they would not, fight in the war, unless they are subjugated.
     
  2. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ugh. What is it about leftism that promotes such half-assed, self-important verbosity?
     
  3. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    What is it about reactions on polical forums... they are so unceasingly critical, as if there was a bot system or a paid off citizen assigned to act like dissidents to anything that is Revolutionary, suggesting change.

    Why do people thwart the Revolution when change is the exact thing we need in the preservation of the United States, which implies that together, the governmet and the people do not diverge in opinion...
     
  4. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Why do you talk like this? Why capitalize revolution/revolutionary? Why add the unnecessary "suggesting change" when everyone already knows what a revolution is? What are you even trying to say?

    Why can't you just say what you mean instead of dressing it up in all this pseudo-philosophical garbage? I'd try to fish some meaning out of your maddening spaghetti tangle of run-on sentences, verbal tics, and utterly unnecessary metaphors, but I have a feeling it's barely even worth the effort it would take to translate it. You're not Plato, for heaven's sake.
     
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Closer to Jim Jones, actually.

    Irishone, I'd have to say that my biggest problem with you is that you seem to assume that your particular value set applies to everyone. You've set absolutes for things like appropriate usage of the military and assumed that those are the only ones that ought to be applied. That sort of unilateralism goes against much of what this country stands for.
     
  6. DrWho

    DrWho New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tardis
    The thing about being a soldier is that you don't get to choose what battles you fight. They might or might not desire to stay out of a particular conflict but it is the commanding officer, and his commanding officer, etc who decides if the conflict will be fought. However, anyone with an ounce of ethics desires peace - just some think that war might be the best course of action to get to peace. I don't exactly know what to call it when one assumes that others don't desire peace but it is not very noble.
     
  7. bokile

    bokile New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Soldiers come home....
     
  8. OPGhostdog

    OPGhostdog New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    DrWho...That was well explained. However I do agree with you
    concerning those who wants peace, and the ones who feel that
    we should stay in the Middle East. Once a person have committed
    themselfs to Uncle Sam. Those days doing it your way is over with,
    and you are going to do things the Gov't way

     
  9. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Excuse me for my verbosity, for that is how I speak. I write the things that come to my mind. The point I was making is that our military should be home, new leadership should be applied, and peace talks, and diplomacy should be increased, informing the public of the outcome. The people and the government should be on the same page. They are not operating at the same pace, and the government is getting away with alot of flawed decision making.
     
  10. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    No, it isn't, and you know it. This is the Internet language of people who, in real life, have nothing meaningful to contribute to discussions about anything, which is why you're dressing up the vacuous hole from which unique thoughts would normally originate with these pompous intellectual pig ruts masquerading as esssays.

    Who the hell uses "for" instead of "because," anyway??

    Only you didn't make that point. You just said it, over and over again, in the most ridiculously circuitous way possible. Even your summary is about as engaging as stereo instructions.

    "New leadership should be applied"? Leadership is not a suntan lotion.

    "Peace talks, and diplomacy, should be increased, informing the public of the outcome"? Wait, the peace talks will be informing the public of the outcome, but only if they're increased? I'm dying to know how this will work.

    See, I can't even take you seriously. The stuff you write is ridiculous on its face, but it's even more laughable because you try to pass it off as Tocqueville or something. I could rebut every coherent point you fail to make, but why bother? You wouldn't listen, and it's not like anyone here is exactly captivated by your less-than-spellbinding command of the English language, anyhow.
     
Loading...

Share This Page