Do you look down on people who...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But you weren't... you were too busy pursuing pork recipes and sharpening your knives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not likely

[julianw]

This reminds me of the opening chapters of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man.  I know he was quoting an earlier philosopher, though I can't recall who offhand.

 

The point is that history, progress and all human achievement were made by the mules and pigs, not by the star-swingers (so to speak).  Diplomacy and democracy were invented by people who didn't want to fight for their freedom.  That's not to say there's nothing worth fighting for, or nothing I'd be prepared to fight for, but our reluctance to fight is one of our greatest strengths.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Human compassion is one of our greatest strengths.

 

Btw, Moose, I hope my pig-analogy made sense. If it didn't, I hope it at least got a chuckle of you.

[Moose]

Btw, Moose, I hope my pig-analogy made sense. If it didn't, I hope it at least got a chuckle of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pigs are the best thing about this topic so far. They go oink and have funny tails

[julianw]

Btw, Moose, I hope my pig-analogy made sense. If it didn't, I hope it at least got a chuckle of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pigs are the best thing about this topic so far. They go oink and have funny tails

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so the pigs escaped in the end and me the butcher who went after them was drowned when crossing a river. Happy ending. :D

[Diamond]

We can get into stupid arguments about right and wrong wars.

We just did. There are no right or wrong wars, only morally ambiguous.

 

World War Two is not morally ambiguous.

It is. Germany was bitter because of lost territories after WW1, it was moral on their side to claim back what was lost.

 

Hitler was attempting to realize the dream of empire by swallowing the surrounding democracies. He was wrong.

It is a gross oversimplification of WW2.

 

Whatever you might think now, it looks different from the other side.

And this is exactly the reason of moral ambiguity.

 

Killing folks trying to take your land, destroy your democracy, rape your wifes, slaughter your children, and kill you is not morally ambiguous. It is appropriate.

So, allies doing the very same things in Germany in 1945 is a good thing then, because Hitler was evil?

 

So, in short, no, Diamond.  I think your argument is ridiculously stupid on its face.  I don't need to grasp at straws.

A pinnacle of debating techniques?

 

 

So, in short, no, you are wrong; we live in reality, not in Middle Earth.

It is simple to dismiss a point saying that something is "stupid" and not worthy of a "thoughtful response", but it didn't work, sorry. You have yet to give me an example of a "morally clean" war.

[213374U]

We just did. There are no right or wrong wars, only morally ambiguous.

And since morality itself isn't something set in stone by any means... where does that lead us?

 

 

It is. Germany was bitter because of lost territories after WW1, it was moral on their side to claim back what was lost.

Indeed. Funny thing is, if Germany had won, everyone would now acknowledge how right the mighty Aryans were... or some crap along those lines.

 

In the end, the only factor that decides what's right and what's wrong, is superior might. Those who wield it, define the rules by which the rest must live, or die.

[Nartwak]

Misquote - go back three spaces.

[Moose]

Do not collect $200?

[Walsingham]

I like pigs too. Excellent creatures, with some exceptions. I'd keep one as a pet if I had the space.

 

I also knew that Brooke died in WW1. So too did a number of men who believed it was worthwhile. Even ones who died thinking of England, if their diaries are to be believed. Indeed, thousands of men who fought in the war stayed in the Army, and went on to fight in WW2 with great enthusiasm and skill. To name two off the top of my head: Bernard Montgomery, and Archibald Wavell.

 

On the subject of oversimplifying the causes of WW2, what do you want? A book?

[Cantousent]

Oversimplification?

 

"Germany was bitter because of lost territories after WW1, it was moral on their side to claim back what was lost."

 

Ridiculous. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to provide the "pinnacle of debating techniques," the exemplar of which is found in your posts. If only I used rolling eyes icons, I could insert one here. I'm a bit more direct than you. Your arguments are pedantic, but that's not really the problem. The real problem is that you're putting World War One as the moral equivalent of World War Two. Unless you'd like a history lesson, for which you have simply to attend a good university rather than debate on a message board, you're going to deal with simple answers.

 

The fact is, however, that World War One was a contest between more or less equal aggressors while World War Two was a response to one. While you might want to put the showdown between the colonial powers on the same level as the western democracies uniting against a common foe, you'll probably have a hard sell.

 

However, if you really do believe that the moral cleanliness of defending your country, and therefore you familly and yourself, against a foreign army is in question, a thought that is as dubious as the rest of your post, then make the sale and convince the world.

 

BTW: Stupid:

 

"Main Entry: 1stu

[Calax]

I think we should just go back to hammarabi's code (switch from "you'll be put in a prison with good health care and probably not be killed" to "I will kill you if you do one of these 200 things.")

[Nartwak]

I'd rather not.

[Lucius]

So, anyone else find it fascinating that in the first year of WW1, the Germans went to war with shiny spikes on their helmets, and the French wearing bright blue jacket, red trousers... and no helmet at all?

[213374U]

Misquote - go back three spaces.

Oh, crap.

 

And now I can't edit it to fix the quote, which means I'll have to delete the post and make a few replies completely out of place, lest I want to be accused of purposeful and malicious misquoting.

 

...whatever.

[Moose]

I like pigs too. Excellent creatures, with some exceptions. I'd keep one as a pet if I had the space.

 

I also knew that Brooke died in WW1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Brooke? That's a famous Wilfred Owen poem. You're pretty ignorant for a war nut.

[Cantousent]

A quick note in regards to the evolving argument in which Moose and Gorth represent a more or less coherent side: I don't think anyone has yet argued that we should gladly give up our lives for anything. I think my argument, and Gorth used similar language in his response, revolves around risking life rather than simply laying it down.

 

So, some things are worth fighting to protect. I believe that with all my heart. Moose comes up with a poem that shows that war sucks. Good God above, I never contended otherwise. Hell, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that war is a pleasant activity.

 

Moreover, Moose then let's us know that the author of the poem died in the trenches of World War One. Fair enough. I guess that gives him the grauitas to comment on warfare. However, he must have felt that there were things worth fighting, risking his life, and eventually dying to protect. There is no greater proof than the fact that he fought, risked his life, and died.

 

War is not pleasant, but there are things less pleasant than war. Gorth, whom I consider as much a personal friend as I'm likely to find on a message board, says he can't think of anything other than his life that he would fight or die to protect. I don't believe him. I think, should a foreign army come to his land and demand that he give up his essential and basic human rights, he would resist. There's a good chance that he would outright fight.

 

You know, I still don't look down on folks who don't volunteer, but I disdain people who look down on folks who do. There are things for which it is worth both to fight and to die.

[Gorth]

Gorth, whom I consider as much a personal friend as I'm likely to find on a message board...

 

says he can't think of anything other than his life that he would fight or die to protect.  I don't believe him.  I think, should a foreign army come to his land and demand that he give up his essential and basic human rights, he would resist.  There's a good chance that he would outright fight.

I *think* I said something in that direction (but you know, I'm not always eloquent enough, so I resort to bluntness), if it came up close and personal, my self preservation instincts would most likely take over, but also, that I haven't been put in such a situation and therefore can't think of anything from the top of my head that I would go out and die for. No noble causes, bring peace and justice and c++ to the rest of the world etc.

 

It would be easy to sit here in the comfort of a soft chair, a glass of red wine in my hand and claim that I'm particularly righteous and would do this and that for the sake of goodness if I wasn't too old to join an army somewhere, but truth is, I wouldn't, so I just stick to being honest about it. :">

[Lucius]

Meh, we'd probably end up hiring mercenaries from Germany to do the fighting for us anyway, the Danish way.

 

Seriously though, if war (however unlikely) should come to Denmark again, I'm pretty sure both Gorth and I would put our lives at risk for old Dannebrog. :cool:

Edited May 10, 2006 by Lucius

[Cantousent]

I never take anything you say personally, Gorth. I wear my heart on my sleeve, so if I feel attacked, it's pretty easy to see. hahaha

 

Seriously, though, as long as I remember you guys are Danes, I remember to take your Danish sense of humor into account. :Eldar's ****-eating grin icon:

[metadigital]

I always did and always will consider war an incredibly waste of human resources, and I'm not talking about money. Perhaps the guy that survived another fifty years did more to contribute to the wellbeing of his fellow country men/party members/faithful/ethnic group ? Death is such a final thing, so we can only speculate, was the bottle half full or half empty. Did his dying or his living contribute more ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My father's one clause summary of war was that it was simply a "huge waste" (he was fond of citing a variation of Patton's battle-decision-philosophy, where the leaders would fight, according to whatever ruleset, between themselves, alone).

 

Certainly the WW1 Germans believed they were fighting for their survival (witnesses remarked), as they tried to rally against the Franco-British duopoly geoplotical hegemony. And if all those millions of soldiers hadn't died fighting in the mud, and even more people died immediately afterwards of influenza, and even more people suffered in the second world war,the world we have today would not exist (for better or worse).

 

Jonathan Swift had an interesting take on making the process more efficient, with a test case for the people of Ireland.

 

Was it Clausewitz (Sp?) wrote something along the lines of war being too serious to be left to politicians, they give up peace way too easily (not a precise quote).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this what you were thinking of?

[quote name='Karl von Clausewitz (Prussian soldier and military theorist)' date=' 1780

[metadigital]

I'm sure there are exceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Computers... they predate that particular war. The internet, it came after it, although it has it's roots in the cold war, but wouldn't that be more of a political conflict than a military one ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Computers were advanced for deciphering Enigma; the internet was a distributed paradigm developed to survive a nuclear (Mutually Assured Destructive) exchange.

 

Well, sometimes you die for freedom and stuff, sometimes you die for the interests of a few smarter than yourself, and if not, you just die for absolutely no reason.

 

Sucks, don't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm only pointing out that all the European participants of WW1 were equally bad, none of the nations were fighting for 'freedom' like they did in WW2, for instance. (as in freeing Europe from Germany).

 

The impression I gained from studying WW1 was that sending all those millions of men to their deaths was, to put it very very brief as I'm short on time; utterly pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 after they invaded neutral Belgium, to protect their independence.

 

And it wasn't a pointless waste of life: it was the unavoidable result of the countries of Europe playing empire-building: greed kills.

[Nartwak]

Caught Stealing Images - Pay $150.

[Cantousent]

Too much testosterone, I guess. I'm actually probably one of the biggest whimps on this board. I destest and fear violence.

 

I guess we all have "war stories" of some sort or another. My dad went to Germany at the end of 1945, fought in Korea, and did a tour in Viet Nam. He hates and fears violence. He doesn't put it in those terms of course. He says things like "what a waste" or "all those dead kids" or... well, you get the picture. He has never, once, expressed regret for serving his country.

 

My grand-dad was in the battle of Guadalcanal. He was a marine. He hated the Japanese, I believe, until the day he died. He also hated his drill instructor. What a terrible thing war is, to make us hate our fellows.

 

The question didn't regard war. The question regarded volunteers. Inasmuchas folks deride volunteers, even by implication, I'll continue to respond. In regards to war, however, it sucks. There are points where there is no choice, because it only takes one side to force a war between two parties. Nevertheless, what sane person desires war?

[metadigital]

Caught Stealing Images - Pay $150.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Caught plagiarizing Monopoly, miss a turn.

[Nartwak]

****!