"Yes, the choice to join our Army (and Navy, and Air Force) is optional, but those young men and women are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of their beliefs. Just as the choice to pick up an AK after your family is killed by a US cruise missile is optional."
i will never be able to understand how can someone believe in something that makes them put their lives on the line, and by putting life on the line means grabbing a weapon ad risking their own life to take anothers. maybe that something they believe in is wrong.
"Both sides have their own reasons. Only a fool would assume one side is 100% pure and good, and the other side is 100% evil. An even greater fool would fault those that are willing to die for what they believe in."
although the 100% thingy is common sense i'll take the bullet regarding dying for beliefs, i'm a fool who likes to believe in things worth living not dying for.
"Like they don't have their own politicians sending them into battle, or corrupt men preying on THEIR fears and idealism."
if people are aware of this aspect and it actually seems like no side has any real pleasure to do battle then why do they fight? why none of the parts is willing to put weapons aside? why are all the parts willing to sacrifice in order to kill another but none of them is willing to sacrifice in order not to do it?
"It's shameful to call someone that has made the decision to go that far a "drone", when the key reason behind the vast majority of combatants is an overabundance of heart and feeling."
we'll just have to agree to disagree. how can you be overabundant with heart and feelings only towards your own? what makes the others different and worthy only of their owns heart and feelings? what makes one one and the other other? is this not an artificial delimitation that should fall under practical scrutiny? are we not all homo sapiens? should we not try to live with eachother then kill eachother?
"How dare anyone try to belittle their sacrifice, no matter what side they're on."
i'm sorry but their sacrifice is in vain as it only makes room for future oportunities of sacrifices as such.
i want to apologize for ofending you and for my harsh language in my previous posts, and also for my poor english. i'm in no side, i'm not from the us nor from where you'd call it the other side. i'm from a country in europe that had its fair share of sacrifices and wars and they never did us any good. if someone were to attack my country i say let them do it. let them bear the shame of being such brutes. i will not fight back no matter what they do. and even if my side will force me to fight i still wont do it. i'll die for not doing it if it comes to that, and maybe you'll call this cowardice but i'll call it the ultimate sacrifice. i just hope that i would be strong enough to live up to my words.
ofcourse, this is idealism that has no place in our world, and probably never will. but bertrand russel did it before, and there are more who would do it now. but are they enough to make a difference? i'd love to be so optimistic as to think so.
Is it normal for my Marine BF to shout "Semer Fi!" when he cums?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Yes, the choice to join our Army (and Navy, and Air Force) is optional, but those young men and women are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of their beliefs. Just as the choice to pick up an AK after your family is killed by a US cruise missile is optional."
i will never be able to understand how can someone believe in something that makes them put their lives on the line, and by putting life on the line means grabbing a weapon ad risking their own life to take anothers. maybe that something they believe in is wrong.
"Both sides have their own reasons. Only a fool would assume one side is 100% pure and good, and the other side is 100% evil. An even greater fool would fault those that are willing to die for what they believe in."
although the 100% thingy is common sense i'll take the bullet regarding dying for beliefs, i'm a fool who likes to believe in things worth living not dying for.
"Like they don't have their own politicians sending them into battle, or corrupt men preying on THEIR fears and idealism."
if people are aware of this aspect and it actually seems like no side has any real pleasure to do battle then why do they fight? why none of the parts is willing to put weapons aside? why are all the parts willing to sacrifice in order to kill another but none of them is willing to sacrifice in order not to do it?
"It's shameful to call someone that has made the decision to go that far a "drone", when the key reason behind the vast majority of combatants is an overabundance of heart and feeling."
we'll just have to agree to disagree. how can you be overabundant with heart and feelings only towards your own? what makes the others different and worthy only of their owns heart and feelings? what makes one one and the other other? is this not an artificial delimitation that should fall under practical scrutiny? are we not all homo sapiens? should we not try to live with eachother then kill eachother?
"How dare anyone try to belittle their sacrifice, no matter what side they're on."
i'm sorry but their sacrifice is in vain as it only makes room for future oportunities of sacrifices as such.
i want to apologize for ofending you and for my harsh language in my previous posts, and also for my poor english. i'm in no side, i'm not from the us nor from where you'd call it the other side. i'm from a country in europe that had its fair share of sacrifices and wars and they never did us any good. if someone were to attack my country i say let them do it. let them bear the shame of being such brutes. i will not fight back no matter what they do. and even if my side will force me to fight i still wont do it. i'll die for not doing it if it comes to that, and maybe you'll call this cowardice but i'll call it the ultimate sacrifice. i just hope that i would be strong enough to live up to my words.
ofcourse, this is idealism that has no place in our world, and probably never will. but bertrand russel did it before, and there are more who would do it now. but are they enough to make a difference? i'd love to be so optimistic as to think so.