Thread: Henry Rollins On Military Recruitment.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

I´m focusing on the military and military conflicts because that´s what was being discussed. I like tackling one issue at a time, otherwise it gets confusing and then we end up comparing killing ants to killing people and how they´re alike or they´re nothing alike and then the whole point of having a discussion completely goes out the window.

I don´t think anything is across the board. You will always have at least 2 differing perspectives on any given issue.

They only real way to break this type of topic up is by the circumstances involved. Which you have whole heartedly avoided.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Well, see...2 different opinions on the matter. Some think the U.S. was the aggressor when the U.S. decided to level and invade Iraq. And then there´s you who thinks they (the Iraqi´s) were the aggressors. So, depending on what side you´re on, in this issue, you´ll see one person killing another person in a totally different perspective than someone on the other side of the coin.

The difference is the perspective of when tensions started. Some here think its when we hit the ground running but that isn't the case. Wheels were being spun long before we resorted to action. Saddam knew LONG before we went to Iraq that his actions could bring us back to Iraq. Yet he continued down the path all the way up until we jumped on trail and stomped the living shit out of him. Dont poke a bear and you wont get bit is a lesson he learned long ago yet he kept picking up that damn stick.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

They only real way to break this type of topic up is by the circumstances involved. Which you have whole heartedly avoided.

All I have tried to avoid is throwing out comparisons that will only confuse the whole discussion. As I said before, I´m talking about military conflicts; armed conflicts.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The difference is the perspective of when tensions started. Some here think its when we hit the ground running but that isn't the case. Wheels were being spun long before we resorted to action. Saddam knew LONG before we went to Iraq that his actions could bring us back to Iraq. Yet he continued down the path all the way up until we jumped on trail and stomped the living shit out of him. Dont poke a bear and you wont get bit is a lesson he learned long ago yet he kept picking up that damn stick.

So how was Iraq aggressive towards the U.S. again? (Anyway, who caused Iraq War #2 is not even the issue here, that has been discussed and I´ll gladfully discuss it again in another thread).

What I´m trying to get you to understand is there will always be 2 differing perspectives in an armed conflict. Some will justify their perspective with _______ and others will justify their perspective with _______.

Anyway, I think you might´ve grasped at least some of what I´m trying to explain in simplest terms. That´s the best I can do for now. If I think of a way to explain this in a much, much, much simpler manner, I promise I will post it up as soon as I come up with it!

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

All I have tried to avoid is throwing out comparisons that will only confuse the whole discussion. As I said before, I´m talking about military conflicts; armed conflicts.

That must be what you meant when you said "killing is killing in the end". Yet it has been proven over and over killing is killing. Circumstances determine whether something is murder. I already gave you all three places to look to find what is exceptable and what isn't. Having an opinion of killing is killing is just absurd. What your doing is even worse then absurd because you dont know what your talking about. Educate yourself as to what the difference between murder and a fatality/casualty.

Looking at the whole picture doesn't confuse a topic. It brings a clarity to things like this because without those comparisons you end up with killing is killing when a friendly steps on a friendly land mine or when a kid is gunned down with a 50 cal because he's trying to run up to the back of a hummer with a pin pulled on a grenade.

Oh and the whole it depends on what side your on is complete garbage. You cant play both sides and pretend your trying to have an intelligent conversation on the topic.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

So how was Iraq aggressive towards the U.S. again? (Anyway, who caused Iraq War #2 is not even the issue here, that has been discussed and I´ll gladfully discuss it again in another thread).

What I´m trying to get you to understand is there will always be 2 differing perspectives in an armed conflict. Some will justify their perspective with _______ and others will justify their perspective with _______.

Anyway, I think you might´ve grasped at least some of what I´m trying to explain in simplest terms. That´s the best I can do for now. If I think of a way to explain this in a much, much, much simpler manner, I promise I will post it up as soon as I come up with it!

They repeatedly violated the peace treaty with the US since we pulled our troops out the first time. One of which included locking onto our jets with sam sites.

Your perspective is what the people might think. Those that run the show know whats going on. That being said this isn't about perspective. Your statement is killing is killing and that is not reality. Trying telling that shit to a rape victim that managed to get the upper hand. Tell her she's a murderer for not letting the guy finish the job. Tell that to the guy that killed a home invader in time to save 1 or 2 of his family members. Tell that to the soldier that got pinned down when that sniper saved his ass. I could poke holes in your statement all day and night.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Tell that to the guy that killed a home invader in time to save 1 or 2 of his family members.

Hmmmmmmm....interesting. Food for thought.

I´m saying that depending on where you´re looking at it from...yes, they´re murderers. That´s exactly what I´m saying. Depends who you consider the "good" guy and depends who you consider the "bad" guy. The Iraq War: Some Iraqi´s considered the invading army the bad guys. The invading army, on the other hand, considered the Iraqi´s the bad guys. Depends on which side of the coin you´re on.

What makes the killing of another human being a JUST cause? (IN TERMS OF MILITARY CONFLICT / ARMED CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATES) To me, the only way I could bring myself to kill another human being is because I fanatically believe in something that will justify me killing.

Disclaimer: I´m not discussing who started what when I use the Iraq War as an example. The same can be applied to any military conflict in history. One side will always consider the other "unjustified" aggressors.