Rothbard
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,118
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
"Their policy statement says they don't murder which means they don't"You have no facts to back up the claims you are making.
You're an idiot.
"Their policy statement says they don't murder which means they don't"You have no facts to back up the claims you are making.
Australian Army Engineers rebuilding Afghanistan are they murderers as well?Fire fighters are heros because they are protecting people, not killing them.
I dont think soldiers who elect to fight in unnecessary wars are heros I think they are killers. Thats basically it and it was an easy point to get from my jibberish.
They get enough money to live and they have the option to find work or remarry.
Plenty of single mothers with kids are surviving.
How do you quantify enough money to live? You can't even tell me what benefits a war widow is entitled to after making claims earlier on that they get stacks of money...They get enough money to live and they have the option to find work or remarry.
"Their policy statement says they don't murder which means they don't"
You're an idiot.
Right, have I even put forward my opinions on the conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq?That big anti-war communist Robert Gates
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it,"
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=750441&f=20
Yet again you can't back up your statement... Just accept you are not as smart as you would like to believe.The AFP's role is policing and support, the ADF's role is to apply blunt force and to murder.
david barnes
functionally retarded
I must say - davidbarnes your argument is flawed. You cannot have it all ways here. Making general statements like you did (quoted and mocked on previous pages) is a very narrow way of looking at soldiers.It is academically correct to quote yourself.
Finally someone else looking at this topic objectively.I must say - davidbarnes your argument is flawed. You cannot have it all ways here. Making general statements like you did (quoted and mocked on previous pages) is a very narrow way of looking at soldiers.
Yes, some soldiers are brave and should be commended. However, there are many (Australian included) that are as bad as the terrorists they're supposed to be fighting against.
A little cynicism here I believe is warranted due to the fact that war itself is in many cases is blatantly unnecessary.
We don't want another Vietnam not because the soldiers were treated badly upon return to Australia, but because the war itself was a waste.
So, I agree that some soldiers are heroes - but not every soldier should be termed a hero (no more than other people in other professions being termed a hero or equivalent).
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Them terrorists is pretty brave. Are they to be commended too?
Still have not answered any of my questiond Jaundice.One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
*heroes (western interpretation). the point i was making is that you can't say ALL soldiers are not heroes, or ALL soldiers are heroes. this is a grey area and should be trested as such.Them terrorists is pretty brave. Are they to be commended too?
Finally someone else looking at this topic objectively.
he did: perspectivism.Still have not answered any of my questiond Jaundice.
He made sweeping statements and generalizations, when challenged he was unable to back any of his arguments up with fact. If you want to present an opinon do not try to make it seem to be fact. Simple.he did: perspectivism.
I reiterate If you want to present an opinon do not try to make it seem to be fact...your inability to divine the ultimate connotation of that statement was not his fault.
Righto, that's a reasonable response...k tough guy
you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying the military is bad, i'm simply saying that i'm unsympathetic to people who only join the army to kill people. If they sincerely believe in rebulding countries, defending their own etc. then that's fine for me.Someone who is not in the Military can hardly be held as indicative of the Military can they champion?
And FYI the engineers who work to rebuild the country, guess where they come from... the Military.
Have you met a single person from the Army who says the only goal they have is to kill people????you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying the military is bad, i'm simply saying that i'm unsympathetic to people who only join the army to kill people. If they sincerely believe in rebulding countries, defending their own etc. then that's fine for me.