Debate Would you ever kill someone?

¬.¬ very well... & After our little chat on PM i decided to use fairly new resources instead of the World war shortage type information... so im going to point out that the biggest Hick is the one in the white house & not the soldiers. Though if they follow such a hick then well says pretty much about there inteligence. "A good soldier knows when his orders are bullshit"

Always start with the weakest one; War debate, Iraq;

"American's have backed a man who does not think through the problems he has to face. Seemingly his cabnet/advisors either did not adivise him properly or were afraid to do so. Colin Powell in my opinion does what he is told to do, whether he agrees with it or not. Usually NOT! Such is the price of politics. President W. Bush will go down in history as " not overly intellectual".
A strong man would have waited, to see the outcome of the inter-fighting between his emenies. Bush made a huge mistake and now the US will have to face their stupidity. If they did it to Iraq and Vietnam then there is nothing to stop them from doing it to any country they want to control. The world may have forgiven Vietman but they will not let this bullying go. This has already taken power away from the United States and will continue to do so. The man started a quarrel for God know what reason, (Ben Ladden and Sadam are still at large) which means a whole lot of Iraq's and Americans were were killed for "WHAT?" The US population should now pay the bill for their swollen heads. But like the fellow he is, Bush is now whinning to get the world to help him clean up the mess he made. God help the US......when they have to rebuild what they have distroyed. Excuse me??????? Am I not responsible for the pain I cause others, by driving drunk and damaging someone else's life?
The US is one of the most litigous countries on earth.
This is Shame for the entire Western world that let the US do this even if the UN did not agree, there are ways to force an outcome without war! Look at South Africa!"

& now a soldier;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,929138,00.html
Sounds pretty much like a hick/dumb

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,959981,00.html

^ Some highlights from "George Galloway, anti-war campaigner and MP for Glasgow Kelvin";

"Young children in Iraq are throwing rocks at occupation forces and receiving volleys of automatic fire in return."

"25 Iraqi demonstrators have been shot dead by American forces. That's 25 new families with another reason for eternal, undying bitterness and hatred"

So mindless killers following a hick

 

So in other words because a leader and some of his troops are hicks, all soldiers, not simply the ones in that military, but worldwide must be hicks as well? You do realise that the US military is not the only military, right?

Additionally, your second source is an opinion piece. I find the claim that troopers are firing on children to be a tad... well, stupid.

Besides...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102067,00.html
http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=78D6ECE4-7F4A-4576-8189-28902970AB0B
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/7180527.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3238431.stm
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-isadd04.html

According to Tariq Aziz, Saddam was obsessed with obtaining banned missile technology and though he didn't have WMDs, he was capable of quickly producing them.

Besides, if you think what the Americans did was bad, look at how many of his own people Saddam killed, and often in horrifying ways. Need proof? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html


So whats worse - a hick, or a madman? You're portaying Saddam and his government to be the innocent victim of an idiot, when in fact he was far from it.

Edit: What about people in the US military who were not involved in the invasion of Iraq? You're using the association fallacy, Angel. I mean, using your logic, I can claim that everybody in my college does drugs because some of the most visible and popular people do it.

 

If you read closely the "http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,929138,00.html" you will find that it was a Scottish soldier... so im not just dissing americans. & also you may remember that i admited to there being good soldiers also.

Me saying sadam was the good guy... no way in hell, just putting up sources as they are... can hardly put up iraq stories for 2 reasons;

1; doubt you or me can read it
2; The press(If there is any over there) would be kinda bullied into not saying anything bad about there "Leader".
Also your kinda helping me out here with the bits about sadam... he is a total idiot/hick & what does he have... soldiers! who follow him blindly... more mindless killers

If you think some more... that statement is true, what is caffeine, pheylalanine? Drugs in a harmless little can of diet coke & coffee, tea (Cept the pehylalanine :/ )

 

Wow, you found an isolated case of stupidity. You must be so proud. By that logic, because one creationist I'm debating on another board can't spell, ALL people who believe strongly in their religion can't spell.

Or of course they're terrified for their lives and bow to him. They don't necessarily have to agree with what they're doing, all you need are a few brutal commanders with a few loyal soldiers and you can cow thousands.

And what about American soldiers who want to fight in Iraq because they want to depose a regime which is nothing but evil? You can go fight in a war for different reasons than your leader states. None of the soldiers I've talked to have ever found joy in killing, and they do not find pleasure in the fact that they have killed.

Fine. Let me rephrase that.

Using your logic, I can claim that everybody in my college uses illegal drugs such as marijuana (it is not yet entirely legal here) or magic mushrooms because some of the most visible and popular people do it.

 

Ah sarcasm... the lowest form of wit. & i would find more but... why the hell should i, i found a source (If not breif) theres bound to be more. Your the one argueing... im just replying.

... I did not say that they enjoyed or felt proud of killing... your just nit picking with things that are not there now.

My logic, my logic... you know nothing of my logic... so stop trying to change it into a fault... this is getting pointless now

 

Ah, ad hominem attacks. The weakest form of debate.

"I refuse to do my work. I found one isolated case, that should be enough to prove that the vast majority of militaries worldwide are idiotic mindless killers."

Wrong. "Mindless killers" would imply that they are either indifferent to the killing or take pleasure in it, and I have encountered neither behavior.

And I'd refrain from saying I nitpick, since you nitpicked about my statement on drug use when you darn well knew what I meant by drug use.

"Stop pointing out flaws in my thinking! It's pointless! I don't like seeing errors in my arguments!"

Sorry bud, but all I'm doing is applying your criteria to other situations. If you don't like it, either leave the debate thread, or rethink your argument.

 

That could go around in circles

My defination of mindless killers is that at the time they will kill... what they think later on is a different matter.

... :shy3: ...

I would rethink the arguement... but to me there hardly is one now... just digs

 

So...

A mother fighting to defend her child who ends up killing her attacker is a mindless killer? Someone defending their nation or city is a mindless killer? Someone who has the order "kill or you will be killed" is a mindless killer? Someone who kills on somebody firing on them is a mindless killer? Someone trying to escort/protect civilians who has to kill is a mindless killer?

 

mother = No she is not mindless... protective

nation or city = Many a reason

order= Kinda... how do they not know that there isnt another way, why didn they think of ways to not get in that situation

firing on them = Refere to mother

escort/protect civilians = Following orders, didnt think of an alternate way rather than killing

The act of killing is mindless, split second thing. The situation around the reason has meaning... the actual act doesnt

 

Then what about soldiers defending their families?

Again, soldiers.

Oh, if only all life were so easy that we could think of ways to get out of bad situations! And what if they just cant pull off said idea? Blackmail is a powerful thing.

Then how about soldiers that are being fired upon?

Oh yes, because when you're trying to save civilians, you want to sit down and have a nice talk about your feelings with the person trying to propel chunks of lead and/or explosives into your face.

Then why limit your argument just to soldiers? Why not expand it to every single human and animal, because we kill to survive, one way or another?

 

"Then what about soldiers defending their families?"

Situation, not the act


"Again, soldiers."

Situation, not the act



"Oh, if only all life were so easy that we could think of ways to get out of bad situations! And what if they just cant pull off said idea? Blackmail is a powerful thing."

Could simply not join the army



"Then how about soldiers that are being fired upon?"

Refere to above situation

"Oh yes, because when you're trying to save civilians, you want to sit down and have a nice talk about your feelings with the person trying to propel chunks of lead and/or explosives into your face."

Different route, backup, etc... dont think i meant something so stupid


"Then why limit your argument just to soldiers? Why not expand it to every single human and animal, because we kill to survive, one way or another? "

Because we are argueing about the soldiers... focus

 

What if it's mandatory?

Not always an option.

But your claim was that all soldiers are mindless killers. Apparently, you reach this conclusion by believing that if they kill, they must therefore be mindless, hickish killers. By your logic, a mother protecting her child is a mindless killer due to the act.

I'm sorry AoH, but your generalization is the true mindless act.

 

"What if it's mandatory?"

Oh ive heard of ways they avoid that... but thats a different story



"Not always an option."

Well there is always at least two option... i just cant list them




"But your claim was that all soldiers are mindless killers. Apparently, you reach this conclusion by believing that if they kill, they must therefore be mindless, hickish killers. By your logic, a mother protecting her child is a mindless killer due to the act.

I'm sorry AoH, but your generalization is the true mindless act. "

Again you forget that i said im not generalizing, i admit that there is good soldiers (As someone mentioned way WAY earlier... they knee cap/generally disarm the guy rather than kill) i will admit, when you get an assumtion about my way of thinking, that you are right... but also keep in mind... im VERY bad at phrasing

 

Alright AoH. You're in a box canyon, escorting slow moving trucks full of, oh, lets say, medical supplies.

Suddenly from either side of the canyon mixed infantry (both riflemen and men equipped with rocket launchers) begin to attack.

Reinforcements have an ETA of 15 minutes. In the meantime, what do you do? You can't run or hide, it's a box canyon. You can't talk to these people, they're trying to kill you.

So? Whats this second option?

As for getting out of mandatory service, what if you need to support your family? Not every situation has an open and shut, easy way out.

And ultimately, a certain onus falls on you to prove your claim that soldiers are, by majority, mindless killers. I don't know what hippy propaganda you've been exposed to, but armies are not typically composed of hundreds of thousands of hicks looking to kill someone.

 

"Alright AoH. You're in a box canyon, escorting slow moving trucks full of, oh, lets say, medical supplies.

Suddenly from either side of the canyon mixed infantry (both riflemen and men equipped with rocket launchers) begin to attack.

Reinforcements have an ETA of 15 minutes. In the meantime, what do you do? You can't run or hide, it's a box canyon. You can't talk to these people, they're trying to kill you.

So? Whats this second option?"

Well although i said i couldnt forsee this second option... i would say wound, avoid killing, but thats me... im not exactly in the army tatics devision.

"As for getting out of mandatory service, what if you need to support your family? Not every situation has an open and shut, easy way out."

I just said that theres a way out... i didnt mention the choice behind the end choice. up to them.

"And ultimately, a certain onus falls on you to prove your claim that soldiers are, by majority, mindless killers. I don't know what hippy propaganda you've been exposed to, but armies are not typically composed of hundreds of thousands of hicks looking to kill someone."

Do you know every soldier? do you know what they think? although this arguement could go both ways... but bugger it. Hippy propoganda? again your assuming to much to what i think... & again your wrong

 

No, nor do I claim to. I simply said that not every soldier is some bloodthirsty killer, unlike you.

No, but neither do you.

Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and you'll agree to stop generalizing.

Think about it. In 'Nam, returning soldiers were booed and dismissed as evil baby killers regardless of whether or not they did or even if they joined due to draft.

Similarly, you dismissed all (then later, the majority of) soldiers as killers with no mind of their own.

I do not care, because the way you're viewing soldiers certainly leans to it.

 

"No, nor do I claim to. I simply said that not every soldier is some bloodthirsty killer, unlike you."

As i have told you about 3 or 4 times... im not saying that everyone of them is, you are saying that im saying it.



"Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and you'll agree to stop generalizing."

Id agree with the first bit, but im not generalizing.

 

Bull.

"Hmmm... not for fun, nor if ordered to for i never intend to join the ranks of mindless killers"

"i was refering more to the "Hick with gun" kinda soldier which does tend to outnumber the good ones."

You may have limited your claim to a smaller degree, but it is still there. You're claiming the majority of all militaries worldwide are composed of hicks who love their guns.

"Hmmm... not for fun, nor if ordered to for i never intend to join the ranks of mindless killers" (this is a generalization)

"i was refering more to the "Hick with gun" kinda soldier which does tend to outnumber the good ones." (this is still a generalization - that this is the most common sort of soldier and that militaries have these as their base)

"mindless killer is... (someone that) kills" (generalizing everyone who has ever killed under the label of mindless killer, regardless of circumstances)

"there is always at least two option" (this generalization is only true if you include options that are unacceptable)

 

"You may have limited your claim to a smaller degree, but it is still there. You're claiming the majority of all militaries worldwide are composed of hicks who love their guns."

Although i did say that... im not going to say that they are the majority... the majority would be normal... if i started talking about them THEN i would be generalizing
________
Not actual percent... just to explain further

5% Good soldiers
20% Hicks/mindless killers
75% normal
_________






"there is always at least two option" (this generalization is only true if you include options that are unacceptable)
Still an option... there is such a thing as bad judgement