I think that this boils down to whether one thinks that what is moral for one to decide for himself can be applied to a larger scale.
I personally made choices for myself (quit jobs, told Persons In Authority that they were wrong and how, risked my own personal safety and welfare for the sake of Principles I Held Dear, etc.) when I was a young and single man that I would never have made as a married man and father responsible for the well-being and safety of others.
On the other hand, I have also been considerably more ruthless about protecting my wife, children and our property than I would have been acting on my own behalf. I have done more than merely threaten violence to persons representing a threat to them, and I have not 'let it go' on a few occasions when people in positions of responsiblity abused my kids' rights at school or failed to protect them the way their job required them to do.
I have no conscience problems with that; first because I can't ask anyone else to pay for my principles, no matter how valid and right I think they are, and second because it was my primary responsibility to protect and serve my family and almost else on this earth could come before that responsibility.
Acting for myself, I have the luxury of playing by the rules, but if I am placed in the position of fighting for my family, then the Marquis of Queensbury and the Spirit of Fair Play in general can kiss my fat pimply arse.
Now, if I have to be much less concerned with my own convenience and pride and much more active in seeking the welfare and happiness of only three other people, however dear (or not) they may be to me, what is the weight of responsiblity for the lives and welfare of dozens, hundreds, thousands or millions of people to the person or persons they look to for leadership and protection?
cheers
horseback
A bit of a conundrum?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?
Bottom line?
Any time you are reacting to something?
You're already losing...
If you need/want to win?
You don't meet force with equal force.
You meet the force with superior force.
If you think that's a bunch of bull?
Reference Germany and Japan circa 1945.
So what shall we do? A bit of total war? For every US soldier killed walk into an Afghan village, take it's inhabitants for a walk down the road and then make them dig their own graves in a field and machine gun them? Yes it would probably work but now your worse than them as well.Originally posted by Pudfark:
A bit of a conundrum?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?
Bottom line?
Any time you are reacting to something?
You're already losing...
If you need/want to win?
You don't meet force with equal force.
You meet the force with superior force.
If you think that's a bunch of bull?
Reference Germany and Japan circa 1945.
So your fighting for democracy and liberty, yet your willing to sell it out for the sake of the war your fighting to protect it? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
So what shall we do? A bit of total war? For every US soldier killed walk into an Afghan village, take it's inhabitants for a walk down the road and then make them dig their own graves in a field and machine gun them? Yes it would probably work but now your worse than them as well.Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pudfark:
A bit of a conundrum?
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?
Bottom line?
Any time you are reacting to something?
You're already losing...
If you need/want to win?
You don't meet force with equal force.
You meet the force with superior force.
If you think that's a bunch of bull?
Reference Germany and Japan circa 1945.
So your fighting for democracy and liberty, yet your willing to sell it out for the sake of the war your fighting to protect it? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Airmail, I'm not picking on you personally...just your ideas. It would seem, I'm about 2 1/2 times your age..no disrespect meant by that.
You seem to totally miss or deliberately ignore my point...which is?
Folks cannot afford to fight a long term bullet and bomb type war, especially with troops on the ground...and yes, precision munitions have made it a bit cheaper. However, it is still not "affordable"...So, you use what you have...the U.S. is just about out of money...so to put it bluntly...when you're out of rocks, you throw the boulders that you have saved for that rainy day....with the world unrest and over population? Precipitation is in the forecast...
The next world war? Will not be fought by troops. Though, they will be targeted, along with large metropolitan areas.
I wish that the above was not true..History will repeat itself..and the Boom will be bigger...
3 so far and I don't care for spelling on a forum. You should have a look at your grammar in that last sentence. Plus I've been up all night doing work. Like a lot of people I won't be joining because I'm a patriot.Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They are fighting for power, to keep those who have it on top. Are you sure you're ready to join a military?
BTW Aimail, how many years have you been in university and spell the way you do?
You have plenty of other options that don't don't involve starting world war three.
I can grasp the "you" part a bit...How about the "them" part...You have plenty of other options that don't don't involve starting world war three.
I would really like to hear the options part?
If the options involve the U.N. or a League of Nations thingy...I hope I don't aspirate on the contents of my stomach...
I don't think torture should be a national policy, it should be discouraged wherever possible. Anything done should be unofficial, encouraging it and saying that it's okay is a slippery slope.
__________________________________________________ ____________
+1
imo thats why the us has organizations like the CIA. they are supposed to do the dirty work that sometimes needs doing, so that the us doesn't have to corrupt its ideals by doing something like legalizing torture.
yes im aware that that is being hypricritical, but im a pragmatist at heart and i realize sometimes dirty nasty things do need to be done, but in don't want them to be legalized.
this whole legalizing torture mess started because the CIA didnt want its people prosecuted if what they were doing became known.
im sorry, but imo thats one of their jobs, and the risk of jail if caught, should be in the job descrpition.
note; in my previous post i should of said im totally against "legalizing" torture in any form.