Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2024, 11:39:45 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Army Ranger prep course passed by 5 out of 26 women  (Read 1089 times)
(oYo)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2015, 08:20:50 PM
 #21

There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.

Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate.

Curious. How do you figure? Can you name a single war that was fought without them?

<edit> Just so there's no question as to what we are talking about:

War: War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics.

Soldier: A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed forces.

I'll explain my thinking, as I offered a conclusion without the reasoning before.

It seems like a semantic game. "Soldiers are necessary to fight war, therefore if there are no soldiers, there cannot be war." Semantically and logically, I think the statement is accurate, but I think it loses applicability in the real world. Everyone's goal ostensibly is to end war, but getting rid of soldiers won't end war because soldiers aren't what cause war. To end war, you have to address the root causes: cultural differences, a lack of empathy, the violent tendency of mankind, and nationalistic fervor, among other things, are the root causes of war. Your statement makes it sounds like the cause to effect would be listed as soldiers ---> war, instead of the violent tendency of man ---> war. If we eliminated all the soldiers, mankind would not suddenly be peaceful, and the soldiers would return instantly once there is a cause for a new nationalistic fervor.

You are quite correct when you state that soldiers are not the cause of war, but this was not my point. It is also quite true that every human being has the inherent ability to be selfish and despicable. My point is that without the support of the war machine we are extremely limited to the extent of violence and destruction we are capable of inflicting upon others. Now, while you and I, and most everyone, would like to live in peace and see an end put to war once and for all, it is the elite who conspire for and profit from its continued use. While I know it's just a pipe dream and it won't solve all our problems, this is why I'd like to see an end to standing armies, because without them the ability to wage war is extremely diminished.

KizerWilhelm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 09, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
 #22

Serve with honor? How could anyone feel honor in the US military today?
You serve with honor only is you have no brain and believe your government's foreign policy.
Kill others in foreign countries for the benefit of the US economy.
jaysabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115


★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!


View Profile
February 10, 2015, 07:50:12 PM
 #23

There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.

Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate.

Curious. How do you figure? Can you name a single war that was fought without them?

<edit> Just so there's no question as to what we are talking about:

War: War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics.

Soldier: A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed forces.

I'll explain my thinking, as I offered a conclusion without the reasoning before.

It seems like a semantic game. "Soldiers are necessary to fight war, therefore if there are no soldiers, there cannot be war." Semantically and logically, I think the statement is accurate, but I think it loses applicability in the real world. Everyone's goal ostensibly is to end war, but getting rid of soldiers won't end war because soldiers aren't what cause war. To end war, you have to address the root causes: cultural differences, a lack of empathy, the violent tendency of mankind, and nationalistic fervor, among other things, are the root causes of war. Your statement makes it sounds like the cause to effect would be listed as soldiers ---> war, instead of the violent tendency of man ---> war. If we eliminated all the soldiers, mankind would not suddenly be peaceful, and the soldiers would return instantly once there is a cause for a new nationalistic fervor.

You are quite correct when you state that soldiers are not the cause of war, but this was not my point. It is also quite true that every human being has the inherent ability to be selfish and despicable. My point is that without the support of the war machine we are extremely limited to the extent of violence and destruction we are capable of inflicting upon others. Now, while you and I, and most everyone, would like to live in peace and see an end put to war once and for all, it is the elite who conspire for and profit from its continued use. While I know it's just a pipe dream and it won't solve all our problems, this is why I'd like to see an end to standing armies, because without them the ability to wage war is extremely diminished.

Very fair. In order to eliminate standing armies though, you have to eliminate people's perceptions for the need of one. That's the underlying reason we have them, politicians whipping us into a fury or a fear of people who are different than us, and would harm us if we ever let our guard down or stopped spending money on war machines.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!