I think D&ST is doing pretty good in the maturity department, compared to some other sections of BF2S.
Mediator for me.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Such as?usmarine2007 wrote:
If I do not agree, then I will get upset. I think you can see I do not agree with everything we have done.Bubbalo wrote:
If you choose to be a member of an organisation, then you cannot be upset when people criticise you for it's actions.
"Debate and Serious Talk
Please, if you can't keep a level head, this isn't for you."
Wow...this has kind of turned into a rough room. As Americans here, I think we all certainly appreciate (or perhaps sometimes take for granted) the rights we have for having the opportunities to even have these discussions. But the bottom line is, US soldiers are not mindless war-mongering hoards that use lethally definitive means for "getting our way". They use a strong and last resort method of preserving FREEDOM. I honestly believe that most, if not all, US soldiers use that as the cornerstone of their membership despite any other perceived political agenda. The word freedom really should be expressed plurally for it covers a wide path, yes, to include speech...even here in these forums. The forum administrators also have the right to censor speech based upon the desired content necessary to maintain a "friendly atmosphere". Like the forum topic description implies, this particular area is essentially for heavy duty conversations that undoubtedly could lead to heated debates, hence the "Please, if you can't keep a level head, this isn't for you".
I think I have gotten the gist of Bubbalo "permaban thread" and see the point he was attempting to make. Do I support or believe it? No, not necessarily...and that is my right...just as it was his right to post the thread. Do I think that thread was tactless and / or disrespectful? Perhaps, but whatever I think about it I certainly have the right to express my opinion, just as all of you do. How we individually choose to express those opinions is what can ultimately define us as individuals. As a prior US military member (and proud to have served) I could have easily took immediate offense and launched and all out massive verbal strike towards Bubb...I chose not to...what's the point? Every person, every society has their own views and beliefs...some I'm okay with, others...well, they are simply not for me. In my youth I was a pretty big hothead who would tear into your ass leaving you in a bloody heap at the mere notion of a pending attack (verbal or otherwise) made towards me, my family or friends. Now I realize it was pretty hypocritical of me to respond that way...don't sweat the small stuff and everything is small stuff being my "matured" motto. So, some other culture thinking that we Americans are the devil and need to be exterminated...whatever, expect me to defend my family and friends should you come to my door with the intent to carry out your belief...but talk all you want, my response to you will be "whatever". Someone trashing the members of the US military...again, whatever. Don't be surprised at a negative response or outcome for you should you "bite the hand that feeds you". I spent my military time believing in the notion that not only was I a small part of the US defense mechanism, but also doing my part as an American in preserving the freedoms that I and others enjoy. Was I "dumb" to be a part of that? No...anyone who honestly believes that is an idiot and a fool.
So in the spirit of the topic of this thread, I'm checking my attitude...nothing in this in this thread or forum has hurt me. It may have conjured up some opinion...maybe strong ones...but gang, it's just words. At the end of the day (or at least when we walk away from our computers), we're all able to just do our own thing. Peace to you all, Happy Holidays.
Please, if you can't keep a level head, this isn't for you."
Wow...this has kind of turned into a rough room. As Americans here, I think we all certainly appreciate (or perhaps sometimes take for granted) the rights we have for having the opportunities to even have these discussions. But the bottom line is, US soldiers are not mindless war-mongering hoards that use lethally definitive means for "getting our way". They use a strong and last resort method of preserving FREEDOM. I honestly believe that most, if not all, US soldiers use that as the cornerstone of their membership despite any other perceived political agenda. The word freedom really should be expressed plurally for it covers a wide path, yes, to include speech...even here in these forums. The forum administrators also have the right to censor speech based upon the desired content necessary to maintain a "friendly atmosphere". Like the forum topic description implies, this particular area is essentially for heavy duty conversations that undoubtedly could lead to heated debates, hence the "Please, if you can't keep a level head, this isn't for you".
I think I have gotten the gist of Bubbalo "permaban thread" and see the point he was attempting to make. Do I support or believe it? No, not necessarily...and that is my right...just as it was his right to post the thread. Do I think that thread was tactless and / or disrespectful? Perhaps, but whatever I think about it I certainly have the right to express my opinion, just as all of you do. How we individually choose to express those opinions is what can ultimately define us as individuals. As a prior US military member (and proud to have served) I could have easily took immediate offense and launched and all out massive verbal strike towards Bubb...I chose not to...what's the point? Every person, every society has their own views and beliefs...some I'm okay with, others...well, they are simply not for me. In my youth I was a pretty big hothead who would tear into your ass leaving you in a bloody heap at the mere notion of a pending attack (verbal or otherwise) made towards me, my family or friends. Now I realize it was pretty hypocritical of me to respond that way...don't sweat the small stuff and everything is small stuff being my "matured" motto. So, some other culture thinking that we Americans are the devil and need to be exterminated...whatever, expect me to defend my family and friends should you come to my door with the intent to carry out your belief...but talk all you want, my response to you will be "whatever". Someone trashing the members of the US military...again, whatever. Don't be surprised at a negative response or outcome for you should you "bite the hand that feeds you". I spent my military time believing in the notion that not only was I a small part of the US defense mechanism, but also doing my part as an American in preserving the freedoms that I and others enjoy. Was I "dumb" to be a part of that? No...anyone who honestly believes that is an idiot and a fool.
So in the spirit of the topic of this thread, I'm checking my attitude...nothing in this in this thread or forum has hurt me. It may have conjured up some opinion...maybe strong ones...but gang, it's just words. At the end of the day (or at least when we walk away from our computers), we're all able to just do our own thing. Peace to you all, Happy Holidays.
Clearly, you don't. My point is that saying that American soldiers preserve freedom is an opinion not a fact.Fujin wrote:
[i]But the bottom line is, US soldiers are not mindless war-mongering hoards that use lethally definitive means for "getting our way". They use a strong and last resort method of preserving FREEDOM.................I think I have gotten the gist of Bubbalo "permaban thread" and see the point he was attempting to make.................
Whatever
It would have been easier to just state that. It took two pages before it showed itself. I missed it when skimming...as did others.Bubbalo wrote:
Clearly, you don't. My point is that saying that American soldiers preserve freedom is an opinion not a fact.
We're from the US, we ain't subtle.
That was me and I did it because you were not even considering my side of the argument at all. It was like arguing with a 6 year old who wants ice cream, or the wall of my dorm room. Every time you post you have no intellectual precedence on the other side of the argument. it's either your way or no way...kalisti wrote:
he's right though the other day someone disagreed with me, and the most constructive way they could do this was posting 7 or 8 pictures saying shut the f*#k up. not very constructive if you ask me(seeing as it was the debate section) but hey monkeys it seems can type so we'll just have to ignore them and continue with the people that dont drag their knuckles on the floor
Except that the larger point of the thread was that all the people who say that I'm horrible for ruining threads designed to honour US soldiers to the exact same thing when I honour their enemies.Pug wrote:
It would have been easier to just state that. It took two pages before it showed itself. I missed it when skimming...as did others.Bubbalo wrote:
Clearly, you don't. My point is that saying that American soldiers preserve freedom is an opinion not a fact.
We're from the US, we ain't subtle.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-07 23:35:24)
See...I got that...
No, there's a slight difference.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that the larger point of the thread was that all the people who say that I'm horrible for ruining threads designed to honour US soldiers to the exact same thing when I honour their enemies.
And instead of writing "I'd like to honor the Islamic Extremists who fought the US", or "US servicemen shouldn't be honored because..." you write something like "Let's honor the following US soldiers" and post the 9/11 hijackers?
You just attracted the patriotic sector of this website, who want to read about the American servicemen who are heroes, but instead you post the names of people who killed thousands of Americans?
How did you think that was going to work itself out? How can it be anything than a flamefest?
The difference is you might have actually had a debate on that topic...
I never said let's honour the following US soldiers.
I honestly think that the D&ST section is boring. The same topics are constantly discussed only in different forms. I only contribute when a fresh idea comes along.
Plus: In every topic I swear that the US and thier involvment in Iraq suddenly appears
Plus: In every topic I swear that the US and thier involvment in Iraq suddenly appears
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2006-12-08 00:36:09)
Its not about honoring enemies, its about honoring an enemy that shows a total lack of ethics.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that the larger point of the thread was that all the people who say that I'm horrible for ruining threads designed to honour US soldiers to the exact same thing when I honour their enemies.
You wanna honor fallen enemy soldiers in a legit war? Fine. But you shouldn't honor illegal combatants who kill unarmed non-combatants. Those who don't play by the rules don't deserve the benefits that others enjoy.
Whose ethics, whose laws, whose rules?Elamdri wrote:
Its not about honoring enemies, its about honoring an enemy that shows a total lack of ethics.
You wanna honor fallen enemy soldiers in a legit war? Fine. But you shouldn't honor illegal combatants who kill unarmed non-combatants. Those who don't play by the rules don't deserve the benefits that others enjoy.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-08 00:37:51)
The laws set by the international community. And yes, I realize its a western based system. But understand, war is a political tool. It has certain goals to achieve.Bubbalo wrote:
Whose ethics, whose laws, whose rules?Elamdri wrote:
Its not about honoring enemies, its about honoring an enemy that shows a total lack of ethics.
You wanna honor fallen enemy soldiers in a legit war? Fine. But you shouldn't honor illegal combatants who kill unarmed non-combatants. Those who don't play by the rules don't deserve the benefits that others enjoy.
The Middle East is a society that adheres to a principal called Hamas rules of warfare, or basically a total war philosophy, whereas the US (for the most part) adheres to principles set forth by the Geneva Conventions and other treaties and pacts.
So you expect them to fight a war on your terms, and consider that fair?
Yes.Bubbalo wrote:
So you expect them to fight a war on your terms, and consider that fair?
Then we have nothing further to discuss. I shall consider you an idiot, you shall consider me heartless, and we're done.
Here is the one flaw with your arguement.Bubbalo wrote:
Then we have nothing further to discuss. I shall consider you an idiot, you shall consider me heartless, and we're done.
list of countries that have signed the Geneva Convention:
Afghanistan 08.12.1949 26.09.1956
Albania 12.12.1949 27.05.1957 27.05.1957 (text)
Algeria 20.06.1960
Andorra 17.09.1993
Angola 20.09.1984 20.09.1984 (text)
Antigua and Barbuda 06.10.1986
Argentina 08.12.1949 18.09.1956
Armenia 07.06.1993
Australia 04.01.1950. 14.10.1958 14.10.1958 (text)
Austria 12.08.1949 27.08.1953
Azerbaijan 01.06.1993
Bahamas 11.07.1975
Bahrain 30.11.1971
Bangladesh 04.04.1972 20.12.1988 (text)
Barbados 10.09.1968 10.09.1968 (text)
Belarus 12.12.1949 03.08.1954
Belgium 08.12.1949 03.09.1952
Belize 29.06.1984
Benin 14.12.1961
Bhutan 10.01.1991
Bolivia 08.12.1949 10.12.1976
Bosnia-Herzegovina 31.12.1992
Botswana 29.03.1968
Brazil 08.12.1949 29.06.1957
Brunei Darussalam 14.10.1991
Bulgaria 28.12.1949 22.07.1954
Burkina Faso 07.11.1961
Burundi 27.12.1971
Cambodia 08.12.1958
Cameroon 16.09.1963
Canada 08.12.1949 14.05.1965
Cape Verde 11.05.1984
Central African Republic 01.08.1966
Chad 05.08.1970
Chile 12.08.1949 12.10.1950
China 10.12.1949 28.12.1956 28.12.1956 (text)
Colombia 12.08.1949 08.11.1961
Comoros 21.11.1985
Congo (Dem. Rep.) 24.02.1961
Congo 04.02.1967
Cook Islands 11.06.2001
Costa Rica 15.10.1969
Côte d'Ivoire 28.12.1961
Croatia 11.05.1992
Cuba 12.08.1949 15.04.1954
Cyprus 23.05.1962
Czech Republic 05.02.1993 19.12.1950 (text)
Denmark 12.08.1949 27.06.1951
Djibouti 06.03.1978
Dominican Republic 22.01.1958
Dominica 28.09.1981
Ecuador 12.08.1949 11.08.1954
Egypt 08.12.1949 10.11.1952
El Salvador 08.12.1949 17.06.1953
Equatorial Guinea 24.07.1986
Eritrea 14.08.2000
Estonia 18.01.1993
Ethiopia 08.12.1949 02.10.1969
Fiji 09.08.1971
Finland 08.12.1949 22.02.1955
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 01.09.1993 18.10.1996. (text)
France 08.12.1949 28.06.1951
Gabon 26.02.1965
Gambia 20.10.1966
Georgia 14.09.1993
Germany 03.09.1954 03.12.1954. (text)
Ghana 02.08.1958
Greece 22.12.1949 05.06.1956
Grenada 13.04.1981
Guatemala 12.08.1949 14.05.1952
Guinea-Bissau 21.02.1974 21.02.1974. (text)
Guinea 11.07.1984
Guyana 22.07.1968
Haiti 11.04.1957
Holy See 08.12.1949 22.02.1951
Honduras 31.12.1965
Hungary 08.12.1949 03.08.1954
Iceland 10.08.1965
India 16.12.1949 09.11.1950
Indonesia 30.09.1958
Iran (Islamic Rep.of) 08.12.1949 20.02.1957 20.02.1957 (text)
Iraq 14.02.1956
Ireland 19.12.1949 27.09.1962
Israel 08.12.1949 06.07.1951 08.12.1949 (text)
Italy 08.12.1949 17.12.1951
Jamaica 20.07.1964
Japan 21.04.1953
Jordan 29.05.1951
Kazakhstan 05.05.1992
Kenya 20.09.1966
Kiribati 05.01.1989
Korea (Dem.People's Rep.) 27.08.1957 27.08.1957. (text)
Korea (Republic of) 16.08.1966 16.08.1966. (text)
Kuwait 02.09.1967 02.09.1967. (text)
Kyrgyzstan 18.09.1992
Lao People's Dem.Rep. 29.10.1956
Latvia 24.12.1991
Lebanon 08.12.1949 10.04.1951
Lesotho 20.05.1968
Liberia 29.03.1954
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 22.05.1956
Liechtenstein 12.08.1949 21.09.1950
Lithuania 03.10.1996
Luxembourg 08.12.1949 01.07.1953
Madagascar 18.07.1963
Malawi 05.01.1968
Malaysia 24.08.1962
Maldives 18.06.1991
Mali 24.05.1965
Malta 22.08.1968
Marshall Islands 01.06.2004
Mauritania 30.10.1962
Mauritius 18.08.1970
Mexico 08.12.1949 29.10.1952
Micronesia 19.09.1995
Moldova (Republic of) 24.05.1993
Monaco 12.08.1949 05.07.1950
Mongolia 20.12.1958
Montenegro (Republic of) 02.08.2006
Morocco 26.07.1956
Mozambique 14.03.1983
Myanmar 25.08.1992
Namibia 22.08.1991
Nauru 27.06.2006
Nepal 07.02.1964
Netherlands 08.12.1949 03.08.1954
New Zealand 11.02.1950. 02.05.1959 02.05.1959 (text)
Nicaragua 12.08.1949 17.12.1953
Nigeria 20.06.1961
Niger 21.04.1964
Norway 12.08.1949 03.08.1951
Oman 31.01.1974
Pakistan 12.08.1949 12.06.1951 12.06.1951. (text)
Palau 25.06.1996
Panama 10.02.1956
Papua New Guinea 26.05.1976
Paraguay 10.12.1949 23.10.1961
Peru 12.08.1949 15.02.1956
Philippines 08.12.1949 06.10.1952
Poland 08.12.1949 26.11.1954
Portugal 11.02.1950. 14.03.1961 14.03.1961. (text)
Qatar 15.10.1975
Romania 10.02.1950. 01.06.1954
Russian Federation 12.12.1949 10.05.1954 12.12.1949 (text)
Rwanda 05.05.1964
Saint Kitts and Nevis 14.02.1986
Saint Lucia 18.09.1981
Saint Vincent Grenadines 01.04.1981
Samoa 23.08.1984
San Marino 29.08.1953
Sao Tome and Principe 21.05.1976
Saudi Arabia 18.05.1963
Senegal 18.05.1963
Serbia (Republic of) 16.10.2001
Seychelles 08.11.1984
Sierra Leone 10.06.1965
Singapore 27.04.1973
Slovakia 02.04.1993
Slovenia 26.03.1992
Solomon Islands 06.07.1981
Somalia 12.07.1962
South Africa 31.03.1952
Spain 08.12.1949 04.08.1952
Sri Lanka 08.12.1949 28.02.1959
Sudan 23.09.1957
Suriname 13.10.1976 13.10.1976. (text)
Swaziland 28.06.1973
Sweden 08.12.1949 28.12.1953
Switzerland 12.08.1949 31.03.1950
Syrian Arab Republic 12.08.1949 02.11.1953
Tajikistan 13.01.1993
Tanzania (United Rep.of) 12.12.1962
Thailand 29.12.1954
Timor-Leste 08.05.2003
Togo 06.01.1962
Tonga 13.04.1978
Trinidad and Tobago 24.09.1963
Tunisia 04.05.1957
Turkey 12.08.1949 10.02.1954
Turkmenistan 10.04.1992
Tuvalu 19.02.1981
Uganda 18.05.1964
Ukraine 12.12.1949 03.08.1954
United Arab Emirates 10.05.1972
United Kingdom 08.12.1949 23.09.1957 23.09.1957. (text)
United States of America 12.08.1949 02.08.1955 02.08.1955. (text)
Uruguay 12.08.1949 05.03.1969 05.03.1969. (text)
Uzbekistan 08.10.1993
Vanuatu 27.10.1982
Venezuela 10.02.1950. 13.02.1956
Viet Nam 28.06.1957 28.06.1957. (text)
Yemen 16.07.1970 25.05.1977. (text)
Zambia 19.10.1966
Zimbabwe
Notice that the US, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all in the list.
Ergo, countries that do NOT follow the convention can be held accountable as acting in a Criminal matter.
As another counter point to your argument, if you take the 9/11 hijackers into account, since they aren't tied to any state government, they can't receive combatant status. Thus any act they perform is simply an act of murder, not war.
I answered Yes to that question because you believe that I am holding them to the US's expectation of warfare, but in reality, I am holding them to an agreed upon principle of warfare.Bubbalo wrote:
So you expect them to fight a war on your terms, and consider that fair?
Even then, there reaches a point where there is so much stock in a certain way of thinking that to assume that all other forms of thinking have the same weight is almost facetious. You think in relative terms. However, if relative thinking was true, I would be out of line to say that Hitler's slaughtering of millions of Jews was wrong.
Last edited by Elamdri (2006-12-08 01:08:29)
I'm going to make an assumption that your a teenager, which I figure is probably the best explanation as to why your so attached to the idea of relativism. Heaven knows that when I was a teen, relativism was my best friend too.
Here is the problem. Lets suspend for a minute reality, and assume that Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan DIDN'T sign the Geneva convention. I would STILL be justified in holding them to my terms of warfare.
Now, you discredit that logic by assuming I'm being arrogant. However, your logic hinges on the principle that the US and the Middle East's philosophy in regards to war are equal in weight.
However, this cannot be. If everyone's opinion's had equal weight, no one could criticize anyone for their actions. Now (and I find this to be a MAJOR flaw in education) your going to be taught for most of your lower education career that everyone's opinion matters and that no one person's opinion is wrong. I'm sorry, but thats simply not true. People can have wrong opinions.
There has to exist in the world, an universal, intrinsic set of ethics. If that wasn't the case, I could never criticize another human being for anything that they did. And if I could not criticize a person for their actions, all actions become equal and just. A murder would be just as justified in his murder of other human beings as I would be in my criticism of his acts.
Thus, to hold people accountable for their actions, there has to be a universal set of ethics.
These ethics should thus be self-evident to an extent that they are widely recognized. Since a majority of countries have ratified the Geneva conventions, we can thus consider the Gevena convention to be a reflection of this set of universal ethics.
Thus it is more probable to suggest that the West's approach to war and conflict is justified and the Middle East's isn't; than it is to suggest that the West's approach and the Middle East's approach are equally justified.
Here is the problem. Lets suspend for a minute reality, and assume that Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan DIDN'T sign the Geneva convention. I would STILL be justified in holding them to my terms of warfare.
Now, you discredit that logic by assuming I'm being arrogant. However, your logic hinges on the principle that the US and the Middle East's philosophy in regards to war are equal in weight.
However, this cannot be. If everyone's opinion's had equal weight, no one could criticize anyone for their actions. Now (and I find this to be a MAJOR flaw in education) your going to be taught for most of your lower education career that everyone's opinion matters and that no one person's opinion is wrong. I'm sorry, but thats simply not true. People can have wrong opinions.
There has to exist in the world, an universal, intrinsic set of ethics. If that wasn't the case, I could never criticize another human being for anything that they did. And if I could not criticize a person for their actions, all actions become equal and just. A murder would be just as justified in his murder of other human beings as I would be in my criticism of his acts.
Thus, to hold people accountable for their actions, there has to be a universal set of ethics.
These ethics should thus be self-evident to an extent that they are widely recognized. Since a majority of countries have ratified the Geneva conventions, we can thus consider the Gevena convention to be a reflection of this set of universal ethics.
Thus it is more probable to suggest that the West's approach to war and conflict is justified and the Middle East's isn't; than it is to suggest that the West's approach and the Middle East's approach are equally justified.
But you assume that your set of ethics is that single, universal set of ethics. Keep in mind, that not all countries who have signed the Geneva convention follow it. Further, many of the countries who have signed it are dictatorships, meaning they do not fit your set of ethics. And those countries who did sign it may have done so out of fear of what would happen if they didn't. Also, the fact that everyone agrees something is true doesn't make it true: everyone used to agree that the world is flat, but that isn't true.
Further, based on you assessment, those who fought the British in the American War of Independence were murderers not soldiers.
Finally, my lower education is finished. And I don't make a habit of assuming those who disagree with me are children: I merely assume they have a different viewpoint, either due to different stimuli or different interpretation.
Further, based on you assessment, those who fought the British in the American War of Independence were murderers not soldiers.
Finally, my lower education is finished. And I don't make a habit of assuming those who disagree with me are children: I merely assume they have a different viewpoint, either due to different stimuli or different interpretation.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-08 01:52:48)
I think, Elamdri, that the people being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are not themselves signatories of the Geneva Convention, especially given that they are non-governmental.
Yes, but his argument is that the fact that it isn't their set of values has no relevance on whether it is the right set of values.
Of course, his theory of absolutism rather than relativism falls apart as soon as you start looking at moral conundrums.
Of course, his theory of absolutism rather than relativism falls apart as soon as you start looking at moral conundrums.
AND WE ARE ALL HAPPY AGIAN,dont we feel much better now that were not mad