|
|
#221
08-12-2005, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal (AP)
[ QUOTE ]
It's getting late, and you're tired. You're having a tough time spelling and writing down cogent thoughts. I understand. Come back tomorrow after you get some rest. Perhaps you'll make sense then. [/ QUOTE ] plus I drank a boat load of beers.....but seriously, I cannot see how someone as intelligent as you seem to be can logically come to the conclusion that ones political support for a war necessarily translates into a moral obligation to go and fight in that war. Stu 
|
|
#222
08-12-2005, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal (AP)
[ QUOTE ]
plus I drank a boat load of beers.....but seriously, I cannot see how someone as intelligent as you seem to be can logically come to the conclusion that ones political support for a war necessarily translates into a moral obligation to go and fight in that war. [/ QUOTE ] Here's why I think war supporters are morally obligated: [ QUOTE ] I’d say Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative may shed some light on where moral obligations come from. Specifically, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." If you’re unfamiliar with Kant, a categorical imperative is merely an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires. In that vein, if you support a war in which people are going to have to make enormous personal sacrifices, die, etc. – then you’re unconditionally obligated to make the same sacrifices yourself. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#223
08-12-2005, 06:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal (AP)
[ QUOTE ] So when you call someone a hypocrit based on your moral values, thats imposing. [/ QUOTE ] LMFAO. So, then, we are all morally obligated to NOT call you a hypocrite, even if you clearly and blatantly ARE a hypocrite? Give me a break. If you don't like being CALLED a hypocrite, stop BEING a hypocrite. Otherwise, get used to people calling it like it is. q/q
|
|
#225
08-13-2005, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal (AP)
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I disagree. If you're going to spend alot of time touting your support for the troops, show it by standing along-side them on the battlefield, if you're capable. [/ QUOTE ] And why is this the only measure of support? You're trying to define support as serving and anything less is hypocritical. I think the reason you've set it up this way is merely so you can throw mud at war-supporters. People can support the troops in many ways and enlisting is a big one, but not the only one. I've supported the troops by helping organize one of those phone cards-for-the-troops things. I'm going to keep doing this to show my support. [ QUOTE ] Then don't go. [/ QUOTE ] Erm, you don't have a choice. You enlisted, you have to fight. I suppose you can desert, but then you should be shot. [ QUOTE ] No. This is ridiculous. I'm sure you can envision scenarios where you signed up to fight, but through poor judgment and leadership your country asked you to fight somewhere you couldn't possibly morally accept. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I shouldn't have added 'no matter what', but if you enlist, then you are morally obligated to fulfill this commitment, up to the point where it is extremely conflicting with your own moral system (ie. committing war crimes). [ QUOTE ] Other institutions probably don't have the moral overtones that war does. Wars involve death, destruction, pain, injury, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Crime prevention involves death, destruction, pain, and injury. So does our legal system. So does the government. But do you belong to all of them? Probably not. It's not possible for everyone who supports these systems to also be actively involved in each. So it's not hypocritical. [ QUOTE ] Yeah, I know you said it. I don't think you're correct. Forgive me for questioning your obvious expertise. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, so could you back up your statement that a branch of the military missing its recruitment goals means that they're lacking troops in Iraq? You never did. You merely stated it as fact. [ QUOTE ] I didn't say it wasn't possible; but I'm of the belief the military is trying to achieve more frequent troops rotations - therefore they'd like to send many home, but some would still have to go to replace them. This could still be true even if we agree the troops were wildly successful and effective. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't answer the original question of why, if we're lacking troops in Iraq, would we be talking about reducing the number of troops? Troop rotation and reducing the numberof troops are not the same thing. One implies a that the number of troops remained the same and the other that there are no fewer troops. Please explain how you this squares with your answer.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
