Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
I assume you feel the same about Vietnam and Korean veterans too, right?Therefore, even those who see combat in Iraq aren't heroes.
Yep. I believe they were pawns in political agendas of politicians, for this I feel sorry for them. But, heroes they are not.
The most recent war in which a true cause was being fought for was WWII, but that was over 50 years ago.
I think there are many people who fought in all of the wars who saved lives and selflessly made life better for others. In my book that's a hero. My heroes may not be faster than a speeding bullet or leap tall building in single bounds and save the world as your seem to need to do but they sure as heck risk their life for no personal gain.
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
lol yeah, except maybe ROTC profs I'd say most marines are more valuable
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
lol yeah, except maybe ROTC profs I'd say most marines are more valuable
LOL alot of these "academic" types are godless libbies as well. The real scum of America; why would we want them educating our children. And they don't really contribute much to making America great, war has made America great in the past century and the Marines are at the tip of the spear in that field.
Zephyr
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
I assume you feel the same about Vietnam and Korean veterans too, right?Therefore, even those who see combat in Iraq aren't heroes.
Yep. I believe they were pawns in political agendas of politicians, for this I feel sorry for them. But, heroes they are not.
The most recent war in which a true cause was being fought for was WWII, but that was over 50 years ago.
I think there are many people who fought in all of the wars who saved lives and selflessly made life better for others. In my book that's a hero. My heroes may not be faster than a speeding bullet or leap tall building in single bounds and save the world as your seem to need to do but they sure as heck risk their life for no personal gain.
Dissipate's definition of a hero is driven by his personal politics and interpretation of the constitution. He is an excellent example of what is wrong with Libertarianism.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
lol yeah, except maybe ROTC profs I'd say most marines are more valuable
LOL alot of these "academic" types are godless libbies as well. The real scum of America; why would we want them educating our children. And they don't really contribute much to making America great, war has made America great in the past century and the Marines are at the tip of the spear in that field.
Zephyr
Pretty much. WW2 shaped the world, as well as our country.
And if libertarians had been in power prior to WW2, we'd have quite a different world today. Lessee...they wouldn't have supported Britian militarily, they wouldn't have pressured Japan - no pearl harbor. Choose your language we'd speak - German, Russian or Japanese.
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
Nazi's no. German soldiers that fought honorably, yes. You'll get the same answer from those that faught against them. Your cause, while noble, is naive, as is libertarianism in general (and I do subscribe strongly to many LP beliefs). But that's discussion for another threadOriginally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
Originally posted by: alchemize
Nazi's no. German soldiers that fought honorably, yes. You'll get the same answer from those that faught against them. Your cause, while noble, is naive, as is libertarianism in general (and I do subscribe strongly to many LP beliefs). But that's discussion for another threadOriginally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
Nazi's no. German soldiers that fought honorably, yes. You'll get the same answer from those that faught against them. Your cause, while noble, is naive, as is libertarianism in general (and I do subscribe strongly to many LP beliefs). But that's discussion for another thread
Why don't you ask a Jew if the Nazi soldiers were heroes.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
I am thankful people like you were not in running our foreign affairs in the 1939 - 1941. Failure to act militarily against Japan and Germany would have resulted in the opposite of your stated goals.
South Korea had no intrest in becoming part of a Communist nation. Economics and politics usually go hand in hand. What was the result of our intervention? South Korea became one of stongest economies in Asia and in turn an advanced first world nation.
Look at the events during and after WWI.Originally posted by: alchemize
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
I am thankful people like you were not in running our foreign affairs in the 1939 - 1941. Failure to act militarily against Japan and Germany would have resulted in the opposite of your stated goals.
South Korea had no intrest in becoming part of a Communist nation. Economics and politics usually go hand in hand. What was the result of our intervention? South Korea became one of stongest economies in Asia and in turn an advanced first world nation.
I didn't say that the U.S. shouldn't have attacked Japan and Germany. The U.S. was directly attacked by Japan, thus justifying retaliation.
As for South Korea, we have now created a situation where we send billions of tax dollars over there in the form of military welfare. This is simply wrong, nations should take care of their own affairs and the U.S. cannot be the defender against all atrocities. Is communism bad? Of course, I hate communism. But meddling in the affairs of other nations and stopping all that is bad in the world is not only impossible, but it ties the U.S. up in activities that are counterproductive to our own prosperity.
Originally posted by: K1052
I am thankful people like you were not in running our foreign affairs in the 1939 - 1941. Failure to act militarily against Japan and Germany would have resulted in the opposite of your stated goals.
South Korea had no intrest in becoming part of a Communist nation. Economics and politics usually go hand in hand. What was the result of our intervention? South Korea became one of stongest economies in Asia and in turn an advanced first world nation.
I didn't say that the U.S. shouldn't have attacked Japan and Germany. The U.S. was directly attacked by Japan, thus justifying retaliation.
As for South Korea, we have now created a situation where we send billions of tax dollars over there in the form of military welfare. This is simply wrong, nations should take care of their own affairs and the U.S. cannot be the defender against all atrocities. Is communism bad? Of course, I hate communism. But meddling in the affairs of other nations and stopping all that is bad in the world is not only impossible, but it ties the U.S. up in activities that are counterproductive to our own prosperity.
We more or less caused Japan to attack us by cutting off badly needed steel and oil destined for military use in Asia.
South Korea does pay for their native forces. The bases we maintain over there are for their protection and for us to have a continued military presence in an important part of the world. Eventually all the US bases in Japan will be given up.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
I am thankful people like you were not in running our foreign affairs in the 1939 - 1941. Failure to act militarily against Japan and Germany would have resulted in the opposite of your stated goals.
We only acted because we were attacked. No one at the time wanted to get invovled into yet another European mess that everyone saw as being yet another WW1 type war during that time. Also not one Libertatrian has said that defending your nation is wrong if we are attacked. Stop with the damn distortions. If you want to be a nanny to the world then you better get ready to get spit on in your face from grown people across the world who don't want you interfering in their affairs. Why don't you neo-con's start nation building in Africa ? Why don't you guys start re-builiding the infrustructer in nations in Africa ? Why don't you, if you want to be a nanny to the world? Africa is crying out for a nanny to save it.
South Korea had no intrest in becoming part of a Communist nation. Economics and politics usually go hand in hand. What was the result of our intervention? South Korea became one of stongest economies in Asia and in turn an advanced first world nation.
and now they say that we are a evil nation. They want our troops out and they protest every time Bush arrives to visit South Korea. It's funny how neo-con's have no problem giving out billions of dollars in aid along with creating U.S. goverment funded welfare and medical aid in other foriegn nations using my tax dollars. Tax and spend and send overseas GOP neo-con's will destory this nation.
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: alchemize
Nazi's no. German soldiers that fought honorably, yes. You'll get the same answer from those that faught against them. Your cause, while noble, is naive, as is libertarianism in general (and I do subscribe strongly to many LP beliefs). But that's discussion for another threadOriginally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: alchemize
And your "cause" is defined by your politics. As is your perception.No, my definition of a hero is someone who puts their life on the line for a good cause. Putting your life on the line, period does not qualify you for hero status. Furthermore, putting your life on the line for a perceived, but not actual good cause does not qualify you for hero status either.
On the contrary, putting your life on the line for the political agendas of neo-conservatives is simply foolish
My definition of a hero (as it relates to the military) is someone who puts their life on the line in service of their country.
SViscusi: If you're going to make a broad comment like that, you might want to back it up. I pretty much view WW1 as the warm-up to WW2, or WW2 as a continuation of WW1.
So you define Nazis and German soldiers of WWII to be heroes?!
My "cause" is not defined by my politics. My "cause" is very simple: free markets & anti-war. The longer we stay out of war, the easier we can attain the goal of free markets. The longer we stay in war the closer we will get to enormous deficits and people crying for more interventionism on behalf of "security."
Why don't you ask a Jew if the Nazi soldiers were heroes.
Originally posted by: steeplerot
The vast majority of German forces were Wehrmacht soldiers, not SS.
Rommell = Hero
Guerdian = Hero
The politicians of Germany were awful.
The population followed them blindly into the abyss not realizing what they were supportng was not in the best interest of their proud country.
(What's new?)
When trying to deliver your message, the mail server at op1.xlccorp.com encountered permanent problems with the following address:
For <cawestley@email.msn.com>, could not look up destination domain (email.msn.com), DNS server not responding
We only acted because we were attacked. No one at the time wanted to get invovled into yet another European mess that everyone saw as being yet another WW1 type war during that time. Also not one Libertatrian has said that defending your nation is wrong if we are attacked. Stop with the damn distortions. If you want to be a nanny to the world then you better get ready to get spit on in your face from grown people across the world who don't want you interfering in their affairs. Why don't you neo-con's start nation building in Africa ? Why don't you guys start re-builiding the infrustructer in nations in Africa ? Why don't you, if you want to be a nanny to the world? Africa is crying out for a nanny to save it.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: K1052
I am thankful people like you were not in running our foreign affairs in the 1939 - 1941. Failure to act militarily against Japan and Germany would have resulted in the opposite of your stated goals.
South Korea had no intrest in becoming part of a Communist nation. Economics and politics usually go hand in hand. What was the result of our intervention? South Korea became one of stongest economies in Asia and in turn an advanced first world nation.
I didn't say that the U.S. shouldn't have attacked Japan and Germany. The U.S. was directly attacked by Japan, thus justifying retaliation.
As for South Korea, we have now created a situation where we send billions of tax dollars over there in the form of military welfare. This is simply wrong, nations should take care of their own affairs and the U.S. cannot be the defender against all atrocities. Is communism bad? Of course, I hate communism. But meddling in the affairs of other nations and stopping all that is bad in the world is not only impossible, but it ties the U.S. up in activities that are counterproductive to our own prosperity.
We more or less caused Japan to attack us by cutting off badly needed steel and oil destined for military use in Asia.
South Korea does pay for their native forces. The bases we maintain over there are for their protection and for us to have a continued military presence in an important part of the world. Eventually all the US bases in Japan will be given up.
Why does the U.S. need to have continued presence in any part of the world? Why have we become the world's policemen? Every other country seems to be able to pretty much keep to itself, with the exception of some U.S. "allies."