I love it when three people in a row just say "yur dum" without bothering to provide any sort of justification or counterargument.
I already provided the counter argument like 25 posts ago and you didn't respond in any meaningful way, and also you are an idiot
When you said "The Crusades vs. WWII?" Because that was less of a counterargument and more of a baiting. (which I responded to anyway) Are you asking me to compare the casualty count? Are you asking me to compare the ethical reasoning of the Christians to the ethical reasoning of the Americans? Because I was never making an argument about any of that.
Morally, I'd say the reasons for starting either war were pretty much equivalent, and the reasons the defendants had for responding in kind were pretty much equivalent. Both wars were started because someone wanted some land and geopolitical power and both wars continued because the people who were attacked decided "fuck you, no, this is our stuff." Wars aren't really ever fought over anything else, we just like to play dress-up with our intentions so it sounds more noble.
PI is compassionate enough not to make fun of you for your wrongness.
damnit
i have this strong feeling that im not right but i could have swore i had learned this shit
man im glad i quit smoking, before i lose any more brain functaerhgbajkd
Also, if you want to learn about Vietnam, I'll hook you up for an afternoon with my dad and his friends down at the American Legion. After a few rounds, they'll inform you about Nam. Then they'll have agent orange flashbacks and try to eat you.
agent orange pisses me off anyways
hay guys lets dump a shit ton of chemicals on your country kthx
Yes, because removing vegetation using flechettes and daisy cutter bombs was much better.
you're defending the use of agent orange?
Fort, don't go down this road.
honestly im ignorant of why anyone would be for it
i assume that the total damage done to the ecosystem and to peoples health in the long run is worse than if we had not used it
EDIT: ok, yea lose lose is right
Worrying about the ecosystem and the genetic virility of your enemy isn't how you win wars. Agent Orange was seen as a means of shortening the war and, most likely, a way of minimizing casualties. Odds are the White House didn't know what the long term effects of the chemical would be, but they knew that the short term effects would rule in their favor. They probably would have dropped it anyways if they knew exactly what it would do to humans, but that's speculation.
It doesn't make it right by any means, but when your intention is to protect your own forces while at the same time neutralizing the enemy's, then you're going to drop stuff like Agent Orange. If FDR had something like Agent Orange in WWII, he'd have been seen as an idiot not to drop it. Though, obviously, WWII and 'Nam aren't the same kind of war, but that's with hind-sight and about a million other advantages that they did not have in hte 1960's. . .
like i said earlier this thread, people rationalize things so they dont think they are doing anything bad
I love it when three people in a row just say "yur dum" without bothering to provide any sort of justification or counterargument.
I already provided the counter argument like 25 posts ago and you didn't respond in any meaningful way, and also you are an idiot
When you said "The Crusades vs. WWII?" Because that was less of a counterargument and more of a baiting. (which I responded to anyway) Are you asking me to compare the casualty count? Are you asking me to compare the ethical reasoning of the Christians to the ethical reasoning of the Americans? Because I was never making an argument about any of that.
Morally, I'd say the reasons for starting either war were pretty much equivalent, and the reasons the defendants had for responding in kind were pretty much equivalent. Both wars were started because someone wanted some land and geopolitical power and both wars continued because the people who were attacked decided "fuck you, no, this is our stuff." Wars aren't really ever fought over anything else, we just like to play dress-up with our intentions so it sounds more noble.
There isn't equivalency between the person who started it and the person "defending" themselves, unless established later by unequal and inappropriate responses. (see Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc) It's often difficult to pin the blame on "who started it," too.
But we got involved in Vietnam of our own volition, and we got involved in Iraq of our own volition. Attempting to say one or the other is "worse" on any metric other than how badly we lost (or the cost of winning) is ludicrous, both were perpetrated with the sole aim of maintaining/creating a friendly ally in an unfriendly region.
So two wars are entirely morally equivalent because our reasons for getting into them, in the most vague and general terms possible, are remotely similar.
excelsior
Sorry, did we have any other reasons to get involved in either of these wars?
Yes? There's WAY more to these wars than "we are attacking them because we do not agree with their ideology." Fiscally, politically, geographically, the mere concept that you think that these wars can be boiled down so simply means that you are a fucking idiot. The mere idea that the idea that the body count means anything as far as morality goes is patently retarded.
Monroe if you're saying the Crusades and WW2 are similar because both of the aggressors did what they did because they thought it would help their respective states, then I guess I can give you that.
But on the other hand that is how ever war starts.
Meissnerd on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
There isn't equivalency between the person who started it and the person "defending" themselves, unless established later by unequal and inappropriate responses. (see Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc) It's often difficult to pin the blame on "who started it," too.
But we got involved in Vietnam of our own volition, and we got involved in Iraq of our own volition. Attempting to say one or the other is "worse" on any metric other than how badly we lost (or the cost of winning) is ludicrous, both were perpetrated with the sole aim of maintaining/creating a friendly ally in an unfriendly region.
So two wars are entirely morally equivalent because our reasons for getting into them, in the most vague and general terms possible, are remotely similar.
excelsior
Sorry, did we have any other reasons to get involved in either of these wars?
Yes? There's WAY more to these wars than "we are attacking them because we do not agree with their ideology." Fiscally, politically, geographically, the mere concept that you think that these wars can be boiled down so simply means that you are a fucking idiot. The mere idea that the idea that the body count means anything as far as morality goes is patently retarded.
Posts
Battle of Gondor looked better.
But is beaten by Battle of Endor.
When you said "The Crusades vs. WWII?" Because that was less of a counterargument and more of a baiting. (which I responded to anyway) Are you asking me to compare the casualty count? Are you asking me to compare the ethical reasoning of the Christians to the ethical reasoning of the Americans? Because I was never making an argument about any of that.
Morally, I'd say the reasons for starting either war were pretty much equivalent, and the reasons the defendants had for responding in kind were pretty much equivalent. Both wars were started because someone wanted some land and geopolitical power and both wars continued because the people who were attacked decided "fuck you, no, this is our stuff." Wars aren't really ever fought over anything else, we just like to play dress-up with our intentions so it sounds more noble.
Civil War vs Secret Invasion
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
like i said earlier this thread, people rationalize things so they dont think they are doing anything bad
XBox LIVE: Bogestrom | Destiny
PSN: Bogestrom
They get pumped and listen to nationalistic propaganda about whomever they are going to clean for.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
edit: Vs. Kramer
vs Roe vs. Wade
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
The Crusades weren't imperialistic bro
i think batman vs predator would be a cinematic masterpiece
Yes? There's WAY more to these wars than "we are attacking them because we do not agree with their ideology." Fiscally, politically, geographically, the mere concept that you think that these wars can be boiled down so simply means that you are a fucking idiot. The mere idea that the idea that the body count means anything as far as morality goes is patently retarded.
XBox LIVE: Bogestrom | Destiny
PSN: Bogestrom
vs. Nature
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
With Judge Judy as the judge.
How about Tony Stark vs. A Cave featuring a box of scraps
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
is the lawnmower turned on?
edit - is the baby turned on?
(oh god)
XBox LIVE: Bogestrom | Destiny
PSN: Bogestrom
But on the other hand that is how ever war starts.
vs. Rhino
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
thank you
vs.
50 Cent
Hobos are almost people too. Like 3/5's.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Think of the stockpiles of weapons going to waste, man.
No, now be quiet or I'll bomb your heathen ass back to the stone age.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
what do you think the bailout is really being set up for?