Hitler ignored Switzerland for the same reason we(U.S.) island hopped in the Pacific. We bounced from island to island often bypassing what was unnecessasry, leaving Japanese to literally rot. Switzerland was unnecessary, and offensively harmless, much like a garrison of Japanese soldiers, cut off from everything. Now, had Hitler set his sights on the Swiss, there's no doubt that he would have eventually suceeded. But it would have hurt. The populace was one big militia, every house had a rifle and ammunition and at least one capable shooter. Tanks and planes would have easily overcome any real threat, but what would have been left was a country full of snipers, slowly bleeding men and resources.
He is. He is showing persons with disabilities that fortitude and desire can result in accomplishment. The fact that he is now handicapped as result of serving his nation is an inspiration to injured servicemen and women who have similair ailments and would like to once again be productive members of society.max wrote:
If he was doing something truly heroic at the moment (i.e. saving the life of someone else) I'm sure the article would have mentioned it
Malloy must go
dont try bro. this forum is filled with cunts. you know who to listen to.deeznutz1245 wrote:
He is. He is showing persons with disabilities that fortitude and desire can result in accomplishment. The fact that he is now handicapped as result of serving his nation is an inspiration to injured servicemen and women who have similair ailments and would like to once again be productive members of society.max wrote:
If he was doing something truly heroic at the moment (i.e. saving the life of someone else) I'm sure the article would have mentioned it
Is that what you would tell your son?max wrote:
. Only fight the battles you can win
Malloy must go
Some of this is just stupid, a little kid with cancer who handles it stoically and doesn't complain could be called "heroic"
It's obviously the whole soldier thing and the Iraq thing thats being objected to here, tbh
Only soldiers who sign up to fight "good" causes are heroic, but since Iraq is evil and not a "good cause" some people find the idea of Iraq vets being portrayed as "heroic" really bothers them.
Fuckem, imo
It's obviously the whole soldier thing and the Iraq thing thats being objected to here, tbh
Only soldiers who sign up to fight "good" causes are heroic, but since Iraq is evil and not a "good cause" some people find the idea of Iraq vets being portrayed as "heroic" really bothers them.
Fuckem, imo
Not every war is "expansive" just because it was fought far from your home country. It's more complicated than that.oug wrote:
That's the difference I'm talking about. Same goes for the Russians in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam etc. You can't expect to make expansive wars and be called a hero as well.
Last edited by Vax (2008-12-26 21:54:01)
The Falklands belonged to us and was full of British people... pretty sure we had "business being there" when the Argentines invaded. Wasn't an expansive war or action at all. We claimed the islands via naval exploration hundreds of years ago during a point where nobody else cared about the islands or had proper settlements there...oug wrote:
Yeah sorry im a bit drunk and it's 6 in the morning.jord wrote:
Fought for what's right? What are you on about... Soldiers don't decide what to fight for, where, or when. Don't tell me to learn to distinguish with some vague point coupled with random examples. They are great heroes, yes. Especially the Falklands, since most of the British there were elite forces and are in contacts twice as much as anyone else.
"In war offensive is bad"
Doesn't make sense, I understand English isn't your first langauge so I won't rip you for it, just try and explain that one a bit better.
The fact that soldiers don't decide any of those things is no excuse. It's a factor to be considered before they enlist - that's assuming they do this for a job and they're not drafted of course.
As for the Falklands, it was a war about some bloody islands a million miles away from yours - where clearly you had no business being. That's why I used this example. I don't care if they were elite forces. Military skill doesn't make them heroes. Heroes were the Greeks in the Persian Wars, when they defended their country from the invading Persians. On the other hand, I can't call the Greeks heroes for conquering half of Asia under Alexander. As much as I admire the achievement from a military point of view, most of the land clearly didn't belong to them. That's the difference I'm talking about. Same goes for the Russians in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam etc. You can't expect to make expansive wars and be called a hero as well.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
This forum never ceases to amaze me.
Topic. Blind Vet assembles bike.
Now? WW2....
Topic. Blind Vet assembles bike.
Now? WW2....
Not really.Spark wrote:
Yet another thread turns into facetious "my country is beta than urs" tripe.
This could evolve into a really interesting debate about the accountability of soldiers in terms of their actions. Or it could turn into a WW2 based dickswinging contest. I hope for the former.
Where do you draw the line with war crimes? Essentially soldiers in combat are committing government sanctioned murder, so what defines an illegal target when civilians become fair game for the Air Force? How is a soldier shooting a civilian different to a bomb dropped on a civilian target?
@S3v3N, that's half the fun of D&ST, it's like a lucky dip when you pick a topic to view.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It was looking like that for a while.Flecco wrote:
Not really.Spark wrote:
Yet another thread turns into facetious "my country is beta than urs" tripe.
This could evolve into a really interesting debate about the accountability of soldiers in terms of their actions. Or it could turn into a WW2 based dickswinging contest. I hope for the former.
Where do you draw the line with war crimes? Essentially soldiers in combat are committing government sanctioned murder, so what defines an illegal target when civilians become fair game for the Air Force? How is a soldier shooting a civilian different to a bomb dropped on a civilian target?
@S3v3N, that's half the fun of D&ST, it's like a lucky dip when you pick a topic to view.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Unlikely, the Germans would just have done what they did in other European countries, shooting fifty civilians for every German killed.Reciprocity wrote:
Tanks and planes would have easily overcome any real threat, but what would have been left was a country full of snipers, slowly bleeding men and resources.
Fuck Israel
How did we have no business being when the population votes to be ruled under us and wants us there? Argentina had no business starting a war against an enemy 10 times stronger than themselves which was only going to end one way, and that's wasting Argentinian soldiers lives and British lives. There is the principle element as well, although the Falklands have no significant resources, and only a minor strategic value they were ours. How does it look in the Cold War to let some country walk in and take your island and say "Welllll okay we won't fight back, take them". It looks weak and pathetic is how it looks, and Russia would have played to that.oug wrote:
Yeah sorry im a bit drunk and it's 6 in the morning.jord wrote:
Fought for what's right? What are you on about... Soldiers don't decide what to fight for, where, or when. Don't tell me to learn to distinguish with some vague point coupled with random examples. They are great heroes, yes. Especially the Falklands, since most of the British there were elite forces and are in contacts twice as much as anyone else.
"In war offensive is bad"
Doesn't make sense, I understand English isn't your first langauge so I won't rip you for it, just try and explain that one a bit better.
The fact that soldiers don't decide any of those things is no excuse. It's a factor to be considered before they enlist - that's assuming they do this for a job and they're not drafted of course.
As for the Falklands, it was a war about some bloody islands a million miles away from yours - where clearly you had no business being. That's why I used this example. I don't care if they were elite forces. Military skill doesn't make them heroes. Heroes were the Greeks in the Persian Wars, when they defended their country from the invading Persians. On the other hand, I can't call the Greeks heroes for conquering half of Asia under Alexander. As much as I admire the achievement from a military point of view, most of the land clearly didn't belong to them. That's the difference I'm talking about. Same goes for the Russians in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam etc. You can't expect to make expansive wars and be called a hero as well.
Valid points from both Uzique and you about the Falklands, although claiming even a bunch of small islands a million miles away from your domain falls in the imperialistic section. The latter I will never condone.jord wrote:
How did we have no business being when the population votes to be ruled under us and wants us there? Argentina had no business starting a war against an enemy 10 times stronger than themselves which was only going to end one way, and that's wasting Argentinian soldiers lives and British lives. There is the principle element as well, although the Falklands have no significant resources, and only a minor strategic value they were ours. How does it look in the Cold War to let some country walk in and take your island and say "Welllll okay we won't fight back, take them". It looks weak and pathetic is how it looks, and Russia would have played to that.oug wrote:
Yeah sorry im a bit drunk and it's 6 in the morning.jord wrote:
Fought for what's right? What are you on about... Soldiers don't decide what to fight for, where, or when. Don't tell me to learn to distinguish with some vague point coupled with random examples. They are great heroes, yes. Especially the Falklands, since most of the British there were elite forces and are in contacts twice as much as anyone else.
"In war offensive is bad"
Doesn't make sense, I understand English isn't your first langauge so I won't rip you for it, just try and explain that one a bit better.
The fact that soldiers don't decide any of those things is no excuse. It's a factor to be considered before they enlist - that's assuming they do this for a job and they're not drafted of course.
As for the Falklands, it was a war about some bloody islands a million miles away from yours - where clearly you had no business being. That's why I used this example. I don't care if they were elite forces. Military skill doesn't make them heroes. Heroes were the Greeks in the Persian Wars, when they defended their country from the invading Persians. On the other hand, I can't call the Greeks heroes for conquering half of Asia under Alexander. As much as I admire the achievement from a military point of view, most of the land clearly didn't belong to them. That's the difference I'm talking about. Same goes for the Russians in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam etc. You can't expect to make expansive wars and be called a hero as well.
So besides the Falklands, we could use the example of India. Or Cyprus. The point remains the same. The Brits colonize India, well ok fuck that, but you can't expect to be called a hero for doing it can ya? On the other hand, the Indians who fought for their independence rightly deserve the characterization. At least in my book.
The point I'm making is that being a soldier - with all the health hazards that this line of work entails - doesn't make you a hero. It's the cause that makes you a hero. In the case of this guy for example, I do admire his courage and willpower to go get a job and be creative despite his problem, but other than that I cannot put the man in the same league as his grandpa who fought the Germans. The latter is a hero.
ƒ³
Then we must agree to disagree because our opinions of what being a hero entails couldn't be more differentoug wrote:
Valid points from both Uzique and you about the Falklands, although claiming even a bunch of small islands a million miles away from your domain falls in the imperialistic section. The latter I will never condone.jord wrote:
How did we have no business being when the population votes to be ruled under us and wants us there? Argentina had no business starting a war against an enemy 10 times stronger than themselves which was only going to end one way, and that's wasting Argentinian soldiers lives and British lives. There is the principle element as well, although the Falklands have no significant resources, and only a minor strategic value they were ours. How does it look in the Cold War to let some country walk in and take your island and say "Welllll okay we won't fight back, take them". It looks weak and pathetic is how it looks, and Russia would have played to that.oug wrote:
Yeah sorry im a bit drunk and it's 6 in the morning.
The fact that soldiers don't decide any of those things is no excuse. It's a factor to be considered before they enlist - that's assuming they do this for a job and they're not drafted of course.
As for the Falklands, it was a war about some bloody islands a million miles away from yours - where clearly you had no business being. That's why I used this example. I don't care if they were elite forces. Military skill doesn't make them heroes. Heroes were the Greeks in the Persian Wars, when they defended their country from the invading Persians. On the other hand, I can't call the Greeks heroes for conquering half of Asia under Alexander. As much as I admire the achievement from a military point of view, most of the land clearly didn't belong to them. That's the difference I'm talking about. Same goes for the Russians in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam etc. You can't expect to make expansive wars and be called a hero as well.
So besides the Falklands, we could use the example of India. Or Cyprus. The point remains the same. The Brits colonize India, well ok fuck that, but you can't expect to be called a hero for doing it can ya? On the other hand, the Indians who fought for their independence rightly deserve the characterization. At least in my book.
The point I'm making is that being a soldier - with all the health hazards that this line of work entails - doesn't make you a hero. It's the cause that makes you a hero. In the case of this guy for example, I do admire his courage and willpower to go get a job and be creative despite his problem, but other than that I cannot put the man in the same league as his grandpa who fought the Germans. The latter is a hero.
Last edited by jord (2008-12-27 06:18:19)
Great now you've killed the debate. I hope you're happy you dick.
ƒ³
I think you fuck faces stopped reading the article when you saw he was a US Armed Forces Veteran and labeled him. Uzique, MAx, M3thod? What the fuck? This guy got shot in the fucking head and lost his vision and he is out volunteering to help others, building houses for the less fortunate and all you can mention is the legitimacy of his heroism. Never mind the other things the article brings up, you are too busy analyzing it to see who he was shot by. I would think that having a bullet put through your dome is not very fortunate at all, despite the circumstance it was put there. Honestly, how many of us able bodied guys do this shit? Huh? Not many. You guys are to busy making sure your collars are popped just right and whether or not Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter is relevant while this guy is getting shit done for others. It is diharreah cakes like you who need their mirror to find true love.
Malloy must go
QFTdeeznutz1245 wrote:
I think you fuck faces stopped reading the article when you saw he was a US Armed Forces Veteran and labeled him. Uzique, MAx, M3thod? What the fuck? This guy got shot in the fucking head and lost his vision and he is out volunteering to help others, building houses for the less fortunate and all you can mention is the legitimacy of his heroism. Never mind the other things the article brings up, you are too busy analyzing it to see who he was shot by. I would think that having a bullet put through your dome is not very fortunate at all, despite the circumstance it was put there. Honestly, how many of us able bodied guys do this shit? Huh? Not many. You guys are to busy making sure your collars are popped just right and whether or not Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter is relevant while this guy is getting shit done for others. It is diharreah cakes like you who need their mirror to find true love.
Read my first post ya cunt. I said there was 'nothing negative' at all about the post, it was an "inspiring" story for everyone- and the debate on heroism is a 'matter of semantics', i.e. heroism is a subjective concept so of course not everyone will agree with the article. I think it's a great story, but thanks for calling me a "diharreah cake" with a casual 'jibe' about the iamb; now if only you could express your insults in metred verse, then maybe I'd be impressed (or perhaps even offended).deeznutz1245 wrote:
I think you fuck faces stopped reading the article when you saw he was a US Armed Forces Veteran and labeled him. Uzique, MAx, M3thod? What the fuck? This guy got shot in the fucking head and lost his vision and he is out volunteering to help others, building houses for the less fortunate and all you can mention is the legitimacy of his heroism. Never mind the other things the article brings up, you are too busy analyzing it to see who he was shot by. I would think that having a bullet put through your dome is not very fortunate at all, despite the circumstance it was put there. Honestly, how many of us able bodied guys do this shit? Huh? Not many. You guys are to busy making sure your collars are popped just right and whether or not Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter is relevant while this guy is getting shit done for others. It is diharreah cakes like you who need their mirror to find true love.
I think to the skeptic the facts stand as yes, a guy got shot in the head and is now continuing on with life- is this an inherently noble or heroic act? Not everyone person that survives cancer gets a George Cross, life is fucking hard for some people, that's how the cards are cruelly dealt. I think it's inspirational and he sets a brilliant examples for others- but to some he doesn't satisfy the 'Jumped in a lake and saved a small boy' criteria.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Which is exactly my point. The "some" who's criteria he is failing to meet are poeple who shouldn't be setting the bar. Do something constructive and charitable beyond self recognition otherwise you are an asshole when you attempt to discredit. As for you specifically, perhaps you made no negative gesture towards his efforts but you are rationalizing for those who are. Take everything else away and the fact that he is helping build houses for the less fortunate is heroic in itself but that was never mentioned once in the "Debate". So before you call me a cunt go re-read the fucking story and then do your best hungry baby bird impression on the end of a dick.Uzique wrote:
but to some he doesn't satisfy the 'Jumped in a lake and saved a small boy' criteria.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-12-27 09:47:25)
Malloy must go
So I'm not allowed to stand in the middle ground and see both respective points of view?
Why do you come to a 'debate' Forum if you only enjoy a unified point of view and singular collective opinion? Guess I do lie in that 'fringe' denomination of risky Communists and Eurofag-Shakespearian-Thespians then, threats to self-respecting society that we are.
Why do you come to a 'debate' Forum if you only enjoy a unified point of view and singular collective opinion? Guess I do lie in that 'fringe' denomination of risky Communists and Eurofag-Shakespearian-Thespians then, threats to self-respecting society that we are.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Definitely. If you've got no chance of winning fighting is pointless.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Is that what you would tell your son?max wrote:
. Only fight the battles you can win
Maybe you should read the article before you start calling people names. It didn't say anything about volunteer workdeeznutz1245 wrote:
I think you fuck faces stopped reading the article when you saw he was a US Armed Forces Veteran and labeled him. Uzique, MAx, M3thod? What the fuck? This guy got shot in the fucking head and lost his vision and he is out volunteering to help others, building houses for the less fortunate and all you can mention is the legitimacy of his heroism. Never mind the other things the article brings up, you are too busy analyzing it to see who he was shot by. I would think that having a bullet put through your dome is not very fortunate at all, despite the circumstance it was put there. Honestly, how many of us able bodied guys do this shit? Huh? Not many. You guys are to busy making sure your collars are popped just right and whether or not Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter is relevant while this guy is getting shit done for others. It is diharreah cakes like you who need their mirror to find true love.
I'm not debating that this is an inspirational story. He's a great guy for wanting to wanting to work instead of leeching off society. But not a hero. He didn't voluntarily get injured to save someone or something. Heroism requires self sacrifice
Last edited by max (2008-12-27 09:50:02)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
No thats not what I am saying. Before his heroism is debated I ask that all of his actions be weighed. The very first thing Max said was "How does being shot make you a hero" which was not even remotely close to his what constituted his heroic status. Are you honestly saying that you don't find that comment, or rationalazation suspect. At least a little?Uzique wrote:
So I'm not allowed to stand in the middle ground and see both respective points of view?
Why do you come to a 'debate' Forum if you only enjoy a unified point of view and singular collective opinion? Guess I do lie in that 'fringe' denomination of risky Communists and Eurofag-Shakespearian-Thespians then, threats to self-respecting society that we are.
Malloy must go
Stop talking like your opinion is fact. Heroism is individually defined. For some people the London bombers were heroes, it's differs.max wrote:
Definitely. If you've got no chance of winning fighting is pointless.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Is that what you would tell your son?max wrote:
. Only fight the battles you can winMaybe you should read the article before you start calling people names. It didn't say anything about volunteer workdeeznutz1245 wrote:
I think you fuck faces stopped reading the article when you saw he was a US Armed Forces Veteran and labeled him. Uzique, MAx, M3thod? What the fuck? This guy got shot in the fucking head and lost his vision and he is out volunteering to help others, building houses for the less fortunate and all you can mention is the legitimacy of his heroism. Never mind the other things the article brings up, you are too busy analyzing it to see who he was shot by. I would think that having a bullet put through your dome is not very fortunate at all, despite the circumstance it was put there. Honestly, how many of us able bodied guys do this shit? Huh? Not many. You guys are to busy making sure your collars are popped just right and whether or not Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter is relevant while this guy is getting shit done for others. It is diharreah cakes like you who need their mirror to find true love.
I'm not debating that this is an inspirational story. He's a great guy for wanting to wanting to work instead of leeching off society. But not a hero. He didn't voluntarily get injured to save someone or something. Heroism requires self sacrifice
I understand where you're coming from Uzique, and in certain ways, I can agree with you.
Still, you had to know that you're walking into a shitstorm when you took the position that you did.
This may be the debate section of the forum, but as with a lot of debates, courtesy is few and far between. You made an inflammatory assertion, and you received an inflammatory response.
I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but no one should be surprised here.
Still, you had to know that you're walking into a shitstorm when you took the position that you did.
This may be the debate section of the forum, but as with a lot of debates, courtesy is few and far between. You made an inflammatory assertion, and you received an inflammatory response.
I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but no one should be surprised here.
WHAT?????max wrote:
Maybe you should read the article before you start calling people names. It didn't say anything about volunteer work
Can I call names now or did you just prove me right when I stated earlier that I didn't think most of you read the entire article once you saw he was a vet when you questioned his heroic status?Hartford Courant wrote:
Tinsley went to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' Eastern Blind Rehabilitation Center in West Haven to learn how to maintain his mobility and read Braille, and even helped Habitat for Humanity build a house in Hartford.
Re-Read
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-12-27 09:55:24)
Malloy must go
thats why uzique is in my rolodex as a permanent huckleberryTurquoise wrote:
I understand where you're coming from Uzique, and in certain ways, I can agree with you.
Still, you had to know that you're walking into a shitstorm when you took the position that you did.
This may be the debate section of the forum, but as with a lot of debates, courtesy is few and far between. You made an inflammatory assertion, and you received an inflammatory response.
I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but no one should be surprised here.