Soldiers and Scientists and Engineers

[Garland]

Just because one side doesn't fight back, that doesn't mean violence will stop. It just means the agressor will attack unopposed. Saddam and Hitler met no opposition, and didn't halt their agression because of a lack of resistance. For that matter, Europe was willing to give Hitler Czecheslovakia, and he still continued on to Poland. The cycle of violence idea is a very flimsy argument against defending oneself, and to defend yourself, you need weapons, and scientists to develop them. After all, nations go to war for many more reasons than retaliating for past violence. That's why the best solution for violence is rarely negotiation. What bully ever stopped picking on the weak kids when they *didn't* fight back? Never worked for me.

[Dr Unne]

To say that no one need fear being attacked by anyone else in the modern world isn't true. We did just have two world wars last century. Also look at the Middle East, present day included. There will always be someone who has no problem at all going into someone else's country and raping and pillaging, if he can get away with it. Sometimes even if there's only a CHANCE of getting away with it.

China invaded and conquered Tibet last century. I'm not extremely familiar with the situation, other than that the state religion of Tibet was all but outlawed, and that the religous and political leader of the country was cast into exile and remains so. I think that this shows an example of the failure of pacifism.

I've said it before, and people probably won't agree with me this time either, but I believe that sometimes it is immoral NOT to kill people. There are times when killing people is the only moral thing to do, not by your choice, but by the choice of people who leave you no choice. Pacifism at its extreme is a disregard for human life; pacifism in pure form places the value of an ideal, "do no violence", above the value of human life, even innocent human life. If you consider it moral victory to die at the hands of someone you believe is in the wrong, rather than defend yourself, I would say that your morals are nothing I want any part of.

Military strength is valuable insofar as violence is sometimes necessary as a counter to violence. If someone has no problem killing everyone who stands in his way, and no one who stands in his way will fight back, what is ever, ever going to stop him, other than when he runs out of people to kill?

[nik0tine]

I have no problem killing out of defense. However, an invasion of another country hardly ever constitutes defense.

[theundeadhero]

In the modern western world there is little risk of being invaded by a foregin country.

This statement is made true by the fact the American Army is the best Army in the world due to it's technology. Without it their would be a risk of invasion and it probably would of already happened by now. All in all, it's a 50/50 situation on what's more important. The scientist and engineers make the equipment for the army, and the soldiers train, and train, and train on it over and over again to be sure we can use it right. You have no idea how many times I've had to sit on top of a bulldozer at 2:30 in the morning, in freezing cold weather, diggin holes or knocking down 8 ft tall dirt walls, in fog so thick you can't see 10 ft in front of you with no headlights turned on. I'm not exaggerating one bit. What's more important, to have the bulldozer that can do the work, or me knowing how to do it. 50/50 I say.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I am well aware that one must defend themselves. However, I see no clause that says I must enjoy the constant death and bloodshed.

[Garland]

I hope noone enjoys constant death and bloodshed. I know I don't. I just accept it as the way of life. War is as much a part of life as death and taxes. I'm just glad I don't have to experience combat first hand (no draft). I'm not a brave man outside my own imagination.

[theundeadhero]

Can this thread get back on topic?

[DMKA]

I think we should all agree sometimes killing saves lives.

Well I don't. Perhaps you should kill me?

That statement pisses me off. Its yet again saying "I know whats right, and these people should live at the death of these people cause they're worth more".

[nik0tine]

Can this thread get back on topic?

What is wrong with the direction that it has taken?

[theundeadhero]

Other on-going threads already cover where it's at.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Well I don't. Perhaps you should kill me?

That statement pisses me off. Its yet again saying "I know whats right, and these people should live at the death of these people cause they're worth more".

And what life would it save if i were to kill u? None. Therefore i have no motive or reason to kill u. Everyone has the right to life, but if u threatened my life or the life of my friends without what i define as a good enough cause(FE: Them trying to kill u for no reason, or for ur own selfish gain), i wouldnt hesitate to kill u, nor would i think twice about it afterwards.

With ur attitude the Genocide would go unchecked and races would be wiped out in Africa. Well excuse my arrogance for being able to make a judgement call without consulting my God on whats right, but that could cost people who just want to live in peace their lives.

We were given the power to give life and take it. I beileve in righteous killing. In the bible there are many examples where God had his people kill, so i stand by my principles of 'a time to kill'.

[Shadow Nexus]

Question: Where did someone said the scientists and engineers developing weapons in another country deserve respect?

Even though I highly doubt the US was going to get invaded by a neighbour country, I am not saying I only dislike the US military investigation, I dislike all military investigation.

In my ideal happy candy world, with rainbows, care bears, ponnies, sun with smiling face and sunglasses, kittens, puppies, Hello Kitty, children playing in the field, chocolate bunnies, jelly mountains and sugar trees, I would like military investigators to quit their jobs and develop delicious, sweet candy that wont hurt my teeth and make me fat. However, yes, it is unlikely this will happen, it would need some international deal to quit producing weapons, that will never take place thanks to the interests of a few, plus not to mention all the money weapons get, for example, US economy would sink without weapon production, Reagan dixit.

And thats why I don't respect military investigation. In my candy world with syrup rivers, lollipop electricity posts and piña colada fountains, every soldier would throw their weapons and refuse to fight, every sicentist would refuse to develop techniques that only aid those in power, and if George Bush, Arafat, Saddam, Sharon, Blair or Aznar have any problems with each other, they can fight each other in a happy arena with mud all over, instead of sending people they don't know to die after telling them they will be heroes once they rest under the ground. In my ideal candy world with small furry animals and bouncing jelly balls with eyes, the self-alienation of humanity would have not risen to the extreme where human beings can appreciate their own destruction as first order esthetical pleasure.

[theundeadhero]

It's too bad the real world isn't like that, which is why those things have too exist.

[nik0tine]

The real world isn't like that because the rich will never let it be like that.

[Shadow Nexus]

The real world isn't like that because the rich will never let it be like that.

See, thats my point Except for the candy parts, the world could be like that if those interested in alienating the population and keeping a system that fails at is base. Thats why I defend the destruction of the pillars of the modern system and the moral of hypocresy.