Smurf-ageddon!

[JediKnight707]

And bombing children is right because...?

 

And using child soldiers is right because...?

 

LIAYD I think that your taking this way too seriously. ITS A CARTOON!!!!! I seriously doubt that any children were injuured in the making of that production. Now granted, using children for fighting and destruction purposes is very, very sickening. However, this is a cartoon, not real children.

[90SK]

It represents real children, though. It’s the metaphoric property of the ad that hooks people.

[Hallucination]

LIAYD I think that your taking this way too seriously. ITS A CARTOON!!!!! I seriously doubt that any children were injuured in the making of that production. Now granted, using children for fighting and destruction purposes is very, very sickening. However, this is a cartoon, not real children.

OF COURSE IT A CARTOON! Do you think they'd get real kids fighting in a commercial for that? Speaking of fighting kids did anyone else hear about the Ender's Game movie?

[El Sitherino]

War for the right reasons?

 

Hmmm... this confuses me. Maybe if people would stop being complete ****heads we wouldn't have to fight wars. As far as I can tell there have been no reasonable wars.

[JediKnight707]

Insane Sith are you a commie? Cause I would swear that you are But as far as I can tell, there have only been wars in which their wasn't reason. Look at the wars:

 

1.) Vietnam War: The NVA and the VC were ripping their people to shreads, so we sent in troops to help

2.) WWII: Again, Hitler was terrorizing throughout Europe (and Japan attacked us) so we helped out

3.) This war were in now: Saddam Huessin and Osama Bin Laden were killing people just for the hell of it, we had to help

[El Sitherino]

Insane Sith are you a commie? Cause I would swear that you are

And I could swear you're an ignorant little child.

 

1.) Vietnam War: The NVA and the VC were ripping their people to shreads, so we sent in troops to help

CIA actually spreaded the conflict, we had to go in there.

And as for reasonable, hardly. If the politicians hadn't been such bastards they could have solved the problem diplomatically, instead they started an unneccesary war.

 

2.) WWII: Again, Hitler was terrorizing throughout Europe (and Japan attacked us) so we helped out

Once again, war-mongering.

 

3.) This war were in now: Saddam Huessin and Osama Bin Laden were killing people just for the hell of it, we had to help

Technically the people Saddam killed were trying to remove him from power, if it were America it'd just be seen as wacky liberals being restrained and taken care of. See the many political protests in which riot police beat protestors to death.

 

And uh.... what does bin Laden have to do with war?

[90SK]

War for the right reasons?

 

Hmmm... this confuses me. Maybe if people would stop being complete ****heads we wouldn't have to fight wars. As far as I can tell there have been no reasonable wars.

 

I'd say there have been justifiable wars (or rather, the justifiable action of taking part in a war), but war itself is beyond reason. So yeah, I agree.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

@Mac, *snicker*

 

@LYIAD, uh, did I say that's the way to fight a war, just because some people do it that way doesn't make it the right way to do it

 

@Sithy, being a ****head is what you're born with, and you can't stop doing that on your own...I'd love to see you try *starts monologueing about salvation, nobody listens*

 

@JK707, how does his statement make him a commie?

 

@Sithy, so explain how fighting Hitler was "war mongering" maybe my def's of but I thought mongering was similar to inciting?

...you don't shave your head, by any chance, Do you? J/K

 

@CS, and war with yourself?

[90SK]

I don't think I understand the question. What do you mean by "war with yourself?"

 

What I meant was it's justifiable to go to war to protect your country when it is in danger. War itself (the act of war) is beyond reason because of its pure pointless nature. Why not live peacefully with each other?

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

What do you mean, what do I mean?

Internal conflict is War.

Unless when you said "war itself is beyond reason." you specifically were referring to a war in which you point a gun at someone and pulling the trigger?

 

Physical, psychological, spiritual, to name a few...

 

If war was simply "pointless", then there wouldn't be any effect produced.

 

"Why not live peacefully with each other?"

 

Now you're getting into the nice, tender, juicy, medium rare, Meat of the dillema,

WHY?

[90SK]

Ah, now I understand. Yeah, no I wasn't referring to "internal war", though I wouldn't use the word "War" in that context anyway. That's me just me, though.

 

Offensive war has a pointless nature about it. There are plenty of other means at solving issues than war. Unless your aim is sole conquest, which is spawned of greed (and isn't much of a valid point anyway).

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

The best defense...

 

So if you've got a dictator who's attacked others, and is bent on eventually attack you,

What would you do?

Is your answer based on greed?

[90SK]

No. Defending one's country doesn't have anything to do with sole conquest, save the fact that you're defending against it.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

The more detailed form of my question:

 

IF^^^

Would you,

A. Use diplomacy to try and convince someone who wants to kill your people to do otherwise, giving them time to mount an attack on your homeland,

B. Wage a defensive war, putting your people in danger by having the war on your soil,

C. Wage an offensive war taking it to them and putting your soldiers at more risk,

D. other (specify)

[90SK]

Those are all good questions there. I really couldn't answer. It all depends on the situation, though I suppose generally it would be a mix of A and C.

 

I'm not trying to say that all offensive war is pointless greed; I'm just saying that most wars like that are started because of it.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

Most wars like what?, the one in my example, because that one could have easily come from hate.

 

What it all comes down to is this:

 

Every one will always be in a war of some kind, from your first thought, to your last breath, some wars are mandatory, some wars are voluntary,

the question is which wars do you fight,

AND WHY?

 

 

OT: Are you having trouble picking an avy tonight;)

[90SK]

How could you tell?

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

OT: I lost track after like 4:D

[lukeiamyourdad]

A. Use diplomacy to try and convince someone who wants to kill your people to do otherwise, giving them time to mount an attack on your homeland,

 

Fully biased question.

 

B. Wage a defensive war, putting your people in danger by having the war on your soil,

 

It depends on what kind of defensive position you have. If Germany and france fight each other, they have a real problem but if for example, Morocco tries to invade Australia, eh...good luck getting all of your troops secretly across the pond...

 

C. Wage an offensive war taking it to them and putting your soldiers at more risk,

 

Also biased. Unless there is aggression from their part or that they're massing troops along your border, an offensive war is rarely justifiable.

 

uh, did I say that's the way to fight a war, just because some people do it that way doesn't make it the right way to do it

 

Yet the video was about child soldiers...

 

 

 

 

 

On a personnal note, there's only one was to fight a real war. Not like today, sitting on your ass behind a monitor and bombing people like it was a video game or with firearms or tanks or all that dishonorable weaponry.

 

Sword, shield, some body armor, that's all you need. A true test of strength. You come face to face with your opponent, ready to clash in a battle. That's honor in battle.

[JediKnight707]

I disagree. While I believe that you never know someone until you fight them hand-to-hand, I hink that its a true test of skill if you can pull out a rifle and hit something thats half a mile away. I would rather be shot to death than be gouged.

[Darth333]

Sword, shield, some body armor, that's all you need. A true test of strength. You come face to face with your opponent, ready to clash in a battle. That's honor in battle.

 

I disagree. While I believe that you never know someone until you fight them hand-to-hand, I hink that its a true test of skill if you can pull out a rifle and hit something thats half a mile away. I would rather be shot to death than be gouged.

 

Sword or rifle, I think it's pretty dumb, just as war is.

[El Sitherino]

I disagree. While I believe that you never know someone until you fight them hand-to-hand, I hink that its a true test of skill if you can pull out a rifle and hit something thats half a mile away. I would rather be shot to death than be gouged.

Having done both (non-fatally mind you). The melee combat is a harder test. Rifle shot is nothing but a matter of hand eye coordination. Melee combat is a test of your entire being.

[JediKnight707]

True, I have done all (except rifle shooting at others) as well, but I still think that hurting someone with a rifle is harder then in hand-to-hand.

[El Sitherino]

Hardly, a rifle shot is most surely going to hurt, but a punch depends upon ones strength.

[RedHawke]

True, I have done all (except rifle shooting at others) as well, but I still think that hurting someone with a rifle is harder then in hand-to-hand.

Hand-to-hand combat is the most intensive and difficult combat there is... I'm not talking common schoolyard brawls here... I'm talking full contact "I'm going to hurt you really badly" skilled fighting, be it with bare hands or melee weapons, it takes far more heart, wit, and skill than shooting a rifle.