Soldiers are not heroes (3 Viewers)

[zombie omie jay]

i would be committing all sorts of atrocities if some other nation or even our own govt tried to curtail my freedom or harm my family

 

[zombie omie jay]

like i would be committing war crimes

 

[62396420]

of so it is political ie they have a much stronger army so it is not worth it

but i thought we were fighting for our freedom, isnt our freedom to be secured at all costs?




another question

is our freedom any more valuable than the freedom of these people that we invade in the name of protecting our freedom?

freedomfreedom

also i am right arent i, the ADFs primary function is to kill, excellent that means its job is to enable murder

Mate, go back through all of my posts, have I ever claimed we are fighting in Afghanistan for out freedom? Have I?

The coalition would be able to role iran in around a week, the problem they would face would be in having the man power to secure the country until it could support itself again, if you can't see the logistical issues with running an occupation on three fronts your a little bit silly.

The rest of your questions about freedom are not really valid.

The ADF's primary function is not to kill. If you wish to know more about the role of the ADF I suggest you take the time to read the white paper on it.

 

[62396420]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...t-in-afghanistan/story-e6frf7l6-1226005180898

.303 lee enfield

and yes of course not all the equipment is that old, does it make my point any less valid, of course not


oh so terrorists can be heroes too, this is quite excellent

so all terrorists are heroes, its settled

I believe you are making a 'straw man argument' some terrorists can be heroes, to the people that support them. Simple isn't it?

The .303 lee enfield in a competent marksmans hands provides an overmatch on the F88 of over 500 meters, don't confuse age with lethality. The Taliban are a skilled and well equipped and resourceful enemy.

 

[62396420]

like i would be committing war crimes

And that is your perogative to do that.

 

[zombie omie jay]

the coalition would be able to role iran in about a week

i knew we had some kind of armchair general on our hands

1. why are we fighting in afghanistan then
2. why are we occupying 2 other nations and subjugating/murdering their people
3. they are valid now anwser them
4. The ADFs primary function is to deter (by killing) an enemy invasion force. With secondary functions including disaster relief and peacekeeping in the south pacific and in UN forces. The secondary functions are just offshoots of the primary function. Which is to kill. I never said anything about the legitimacy of this killing. Killing an enemy invasion force is 100% legitimate, and something that would qualify members of the ADF to be called heroes. Just as the afghans killing members of our ADF invasion force makes them heroes.

tl;dr

the ADF killing an enemy invasion force, 100% legitimate and makes them heroes.

the ADF invading another nation and killing the inhabitants, 100% illegitimate and makes them murders.

murder can be legitimate, but it is still murder.

 

[zombie omie jay]

I believe you are making a 'straw man argument' some terrorists can be heroes, to the people that support them. Simple isn't it?

The .303 lee enfield in a competent marksmans hands provides an overmatch on the F88 of over 500 meters, don't confuse age with lethality. The Taliban are a skilled and well equipped and resourceful enemy.

yes that is 100% the point i was making (it wasnt at all)

lethality of our force > lethality of their force

and yes i am full of strawmans

 

[zombie omie jay]

i shot a fox at ~450m with a .223 but only at ~150m with a lee enfield therefore .223s are more lethal to foxes

 

[62396420]

the coalition would be able to role iran in about a week

i knew we had some kind of armchair general on our hands

1. why are we fighting in afghanistan then
2. why are we occupying 2 other nations and subjugating/murdering their people
3. they are valid now anwser them
4. The ADFs primary function is to deter (by killing) an enemy invasion force. With secondary functions including disaster relief and peacekeeping in the south pacific and in UN forces. The secondary functions are just offshoots of the primary function. Which is to kill. I never said anything about the legitimacy of this killing. Killing an enemy invasion force is 100% legitimate, and something that would qualify members of the ADF to be called heroes. Just as the afghans killing members of our ADF invasion force makes them heroes.

tl;dr

the ADF killing an enemy invasion force, 100% legitimate and makes them heroes.

the ADF invading another nation and killing the inhabitants, 100% illegitimate and makes them murders.

murder can be legitimate, but it is still murder.

1. I have told you why we are fighting in Afghanistan. You obviously did not read it.
2. We (The ADF) are not occupying Iraq. Other than a small detatchment in the Green Zone.
4. You don't deter someone by killing them. That is a silly suggestion.

So now you are saying that you feel that members of the Taliban killing members of the ADF are heroes?

Afghanistan is a conflict, any deaths that happen in accordance with the ROE and LOAC are lawful killings. No member of the ADF is a murderer unless they stray outside of these laws.

I'll give you a hint, I'm not an armchair General, and I have a greater understanding of all matters Defence related than you could ever hope to.

 

[62396420]

i shot a fox at ~450m with a .223 but only at ~150m with a lee enfield therefore .223s are more lethal to foxes

Are you on drugs?

 

[mirakon]

1. I have told you why we are fighting in Afghanistan. You obviously did not read it.
2. We (The ADF) are not occupying Iraq. Other than a small detatchment in the Green Zone.
4. You don't deter someone by killing them. That is a silly suggestion.

So now you are saying that you feel that members of the Taliban killing members of the ADF are heroes?

Afghanistan is a conflict, any deaths that happen in accordance with the ROE and LOAC are lawful killings. No member of the ADF is a murderer unless they stray outside of these laws.

I'll give you a hint, I'm not an armchair General, and I have a greater understanding of all matters Defence related than you could ever hope to.

so apparently killing is justified if we are 'officially' at war. But then, is war justified? If I were to declare war against you, would your death be lawful? Your argument is based entirely on the technicality that a killing in war, is not really 'murder' because killing is somewhat justified if we call them baddies and launch an all out military assault. By your logic, colonel gaddafi is not murdering people in libya, mugabe is not murdering people in zimbabwe. Just because something is 'official' just because it involves the military, it by no means justifies the killing itself. Morals>technicalities. Learn this.

 

[62396420]

so apparently killing is justified if we are 'officially' at war. But then, is war justified? If I were to declare war against you, would your death be lawful? Your argument is based entirely on the technicality that a killing in war, is not really 'murder' because killing is somewhat justified if we call them baddies and launch an all out military assault. By your logic, colonel gaddafi is not murdering people in libya, mugabe is not murdering people in zimbabwe. Just because something is 'official' just because it involves the military, it by no means justifies the killing itself. Morals>technicalities. Learn this.

I think you will find the actions of Libya and Zimbabwe are not sanctioned, and are in fact illegal. That does classify those actions as murder.

This isn't my logic by the way, it is international law.

 

[mirakon]

I think you will find the actions of Libya and Zimbabwe are not sanctioned, and are in fact illegal. That does classify those actions as murder.

This isn't my logic by the way, it is international law.

yes and the people of afghanistan and irag 'sanctioned' the us invasion of their countries? and just because international law is called international law, it is by no means justified. War conventions agreed upon by a monopoly of the dozen or so nations most likely to go to war is not the moral be all and end all of global politics

 

[62396420]

yes and the people of afghanistan and irag 'sanctioned' the us invasion of their countries? and just because international law is called international law, it is by no means justified. War conventions agreed upon by a monopoly of the dozen or so nations most likely to go to war is not the moral be all and end all of global politics

No, maybe not. But it is the system that we operate under.

Ask yourself this question, would you be more comfortable in a world without the U.N and without regulations that dictate when and how we can go to war.

 

[davidbarnes]

Can a mod please change the title of this thread to 'Soldiers are heroes'.

It really is time the title was changed and this thread locked.

 

[Azure]

I don't think this should be locked. There is debate + no rules have been broken?

 

[davidbarnes]

I don't think this should be locked. There is debate + no rules have been broken?

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

 

[mirakon]

No, maybe not. But it is the system that we operate under.

Ask yourself this question, would you be more comfortable in a world without the U.N and without regulations that dictate when and how we can go to war.

Your argument is ridiculous. You're essentially justifying killing people because its 'the system'. well its the system in libya and zimbabwe. This system argument is abysmal. Its only the system because people like you are too dumb to accept it. Challenge the system, and say its unacceptable, don't jsut accept that it is correct because its called a 'system'

and @davidbarnes oh and what would those broken rules be my good sir? please is you have nothing useful to contribute gtfo.

 

[62396420]

Your argument is ridiculous. You're essentially justifying killing people because its 'the system'. well its the system in libya and zimbabwe. This system argument is abysmal. Its only the system because people like you are too dumb to accept it. Challenge the system, and say its unacceptable, don't jsut accept that it is correct because its called a 'system'

and @davidbarnes oh and what would those broken rules be my good sir? please is you have nothing useful to contribute gtfo.

Libya has been censure yesterday in relation to those murders, the system works. But nice work resorting to petty insults.

What you are suggesting is wholesale unregulated war. That would work for sure without atrocities!

Stop looking at the world and hating 'the system' get some perspective and grow up, without these laws, conventions and the such the world would be in a much worse place.

 

[mirakon]

No what i am suggesting is no war at all. What i am suggesting is we stop looking at killing as in any way justifiable, even if people are employed and paid to do so. I do not hate the whole system, I hate the aspect of the system that justifies war. In all honesty, someone who conforms to a system unquestionably and sees it as the sole definer of their morals is the one who really needs to grow up.