Forums - General Discussion - Oh my god, the selective service system sent me a registration letter

voty2000 said:
PhoenixKing said:
voty2000 said:
PhoenixKing said:
voty2000 said:

This is the response I expected from you.  Rambling on and on with no real information.  So, if China(hypothetical) decides to take over the earth, should we let them, because if we fight back bad things will happen?  This is what happens when you don't think about the crap you a spewing.  It makes no sense. 

The allied forces attacking Germany had to happen.  You contradicted yourself pretty severely.  You say that Nazi's had no chance of taking over the world.  Why is that?  Because, GASP, people fought back.  If nobody fought back you would have never been born. 

With your ideals, I could get about 100 guys together and conquer the earth because war is murder so we shouldn't fight back.  Nobody fights back and kills me, we take over the world.  Glad people don't think like you.

As for honorable death, if you let your wife die and you could have saved her, you are a pathetic existence of a man.  I would rather die saving my loved ones than living the life of a coward and being treated as such.  A mourning wife is much better than a dead one.  Why can't you see that?  Because you don't think, you read some crap and believed.

You tell me I'm living a childhood fantasy.  Your most likely 17 or 18 so your still a child with distorted views of the world.  I guarantee that 5 years from now if you read this post again, you'll realize how wrong you are.  Know how I know this?  I used to be your age and said stupid stuff.  You'll grow smarter and wiser, and it's great.

I realize horrible things happen in wars and wish they wouldn't, but they are isolated incidents that aren't the norm, and these people get punished when they are caught.  Just because bad stuff happens, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight.  The internet allows smut videos of people being murdered to be viewed by all, so by your logic, we should ban the internet.  Sounds ridiculous.

Now see I calmly I replied and expressed my viewpoints without looking like rabbling lunatic?  That's wisdom baby.



You're just using strawman and condescending insults. That's all you do. You haven't made any specific credible reasons on why I'm wrong. You just say I am.

They aren't isolated incidents, never have been, and you haven't provided any factual basis for any of your arguments. Then you insult me over a hypothetical situation about a dead wife, of which I gave you a actual historic event that happened to an American president as a counter argument.

You're not arguing anything. You just insult. It's ridiculous. I'll stop taking you seriously as that was clearly my mistake.

Where are your facts?  You said you read a book and wathced some films.  That's a fact?  You have not explained anything and you have proven nothing.  You spouted off random crap like I'm supposed to simply believe it.  You complain about me insulting you but your first line in your first reply was an insult at me.  Wow, dish it bet can't take it.  Yes I am be condescending because you keep stating stuff like it's fact without backing anything up.  Read your posts and show me the facts.  Please, show me these facts I need to disprove.

It's clearly evident that your not afraid of war, your afraid of death.

Random crap? You obviously never even studied the history of Cambodia if you think that's all random crap.

Movie: The Killing Fields.

Books: A problem from Hell by Samantha Power, War is a Force which gives us meaning by Chris Hedges, among many journals and news articles I've also read about the subjects.

Anyone who studied Cambodia would know without doubt that the information I was telling you was accurate. It's not me who argues from ignorance and insults others character.

Again, you have no credible sources, never bothered to provide any, and have only ever insulted me as a person instead of actually providing a counter argument. I'm not taking you seriously anymore, you don't deserve that kind of respect because of your actions.

Perhaps I seem riled-up, but it's justified, I'm no longer speaking to people who essentially take things 'in one ear and out the other'.

Resume insulting me, if you wish. Good day.

Pay attention to what I'm saying.  Shitty stuff happens during the war that's all you've shown.  Not all wars are justifiable and some are just plain wrong.  But just because crappy stuff happens does not mean that all war is evil.  If a country tries to rise up and overthrow the world, they must be brought down.  You;re trying to put words in my mouth by saying I don't think bad stuff happens.  But with all the crap that happened in the American Revolution, WW I and WW II, those were not evil on our part.  THe enemy was evil and had to be stopped.  You can't argue against that. 

Again, I'm not saying that evil does not exist in war, even on the part of the good guys, but the small amount of crap that happens does not mean the entire army of the good guys is wrong.  I'm not going into small skirmishes like columbia because I can't say for certain what should have happened.  What I will say is the WW I and WW II had to happen to stop Germany.  I know it's pointless to discuss somehting like this with you because you will not listen to reason, but maybe it will make you stop and think that you don't know all and your views are not the end all. 

Last words, again, five years from now if you see this post, you'll realize how off some of the things your saying are.  I know from experience.  Good day random internet fanatic, I won't even look at the response so don't bother.



Good grief, you don't understand anything.

 

There is no 'good' guy in war. There is only murder.

You want to assume I'm ignorant? Fine. Don't care. It just means I won't take you seriously.

Here's something you probably never thought of; my focal reason for believing war is evil.

WW1: The war to defend Democracy and to end all wars - argued by President Wilson.


Result: It ended-up giving rise to Fascist dictatorships in Italy, in Portugal, and of course, Germany.

WW2: The war to preserve Democracy from Tyranny

Result: a 50 year Cold War with the USSR.

End of the Cold War: Believed to end all world strife and make it all boring.

Result: Ethnic Cleansing (a.k.a. Genocide) in Rwanda, Kosovo, Cambodia, Abkhazia, and other areas.

Do you really expect anyone to believe war is a good thing considering all that crap?

Yes, genocide is horrible but most people neglect the fact that rising ethnic tensions are unavoidable and unpreventable. Getting involved in another melting pot will lead to WW3.



Around the Network

@voty2000:

I wanna start by commenting on an earlier post of yours.

There is honor in death.  You take a bullet for your wife, you die with honor.  The men who died in WW I and WW II died with honor because without their death, Nazi forces will have taken over the world.  I can see your point about the Iraq War but those people chose to fight and whether you agree with the war or not, they died with honor, doing what they thought was right.

WTF??? Nazis in WWI? Seriously? There were no Nazis back then.

And no, the men who died in WWI did not die with honor. It was a pointless war. Political leaders playing games on the expense of the idiots who they governed. There were no "good guys" and "bad guys" in that war. EVERYONE was a "bad guy" then. But when it was all over the winners (allies) decided to take the frustration caused by their own stupidity by blaming it all on the losers (the Central powers, most fo all Germany), and with things like the Versailles Treaty created the climate in Germany that helped Hitler and the Nazis come to power.

Essentially WWII took place thanks to WWI.

No matter how cliche it is to say this, you wouldn't be here if it weren't for people fighting before you were ever born. 

That sounds like something from a movie. You're giving them too much credit. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for extramarrital relationships.

And about women.  I'm a misogynist?  Did I say women couldn't fight?  Did I say women are inferior to men?  NO, I said that men should protect women when we can.

Why should women have to be protected by men? If they're not inferior to men and they can fight, then that means they can protect themselves.

I respect women and do what I can for them.  That's what men do.  Do I hold the door open for a woman because she can't?  Nope, I do it because she doesn't have to.

What kind of misogynistic drivel is this? And "that's what men do"? The woman doesn't have to open the door, but a guy has to open it for her? WTF? Dude, that's just a cultural construct.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

PhoenixKing said:

Actually link the so-called evidence otherwise no one will take you seriously. This is YOUR evidence you're presenting for YOUR argument. No one's gonna do your work for you.

I already take him more serious than you.

I believe you are just arguing now for the sake of argument.   When so many posters disagree with you, dont you think you should at least take a few seconds to reflect on your beliefs?



 

My Real Redneck friends


sapphi_snake said:

The Nazis invaded other countries and wanted to conquer all of Europe. North Korea can hardly achieve such a feat.

Whatever human rights violations are going on there, they're going on internally, which means it's the business of North Koreans. If they don't like how things are in their country they should rise up and get rid of the stupid dictator they have. That's what happened here in Romania. No foreign nation invaded us to rid us of communism and that tyrannical dictator.

And Hitler and the Nazis' rise to power could have been prevented if the allies didn't decide to rape Germany post WWI with the Verssailles Treaty.


This is more a argument of isolationism vs interventionism.   Which is more an argument of ethics.   Do you not think the strong should stick up for the weak when they are being abused?

Should we allow grown men to abuse their families, just because it takes place within their home?

Sure, we may have to draw the line of where we stop intervening.   It can be at the country line.  The question still exist, is it right to let others suffer when you could stop it?

Im not saying we should get involved, but when america does not come to the aid, it also gets blamed.  Ie, Gerogia, and Iran during their elections.



 

My Real Redneck friends


@PDF:

This is more a argument of isolationism vs interventionism.   Which is more an argument of ethics.   Do you not think the strong should stick up for the weak when they are being abused?

I do, but in some situations it is better to not intervene. This is one of thos situations. I'm against the ideea of nation A invading nation B and changing the government etc., because nation A doesn't think things in nation B are going OK. This is always because in all cases nation A is simply following it's own interest, not the interest of nation B (like the US supporting all kinds of regimes that in no way help the people in those countries). It's the responsability of the citizens of nation B to make sure thigs go OK over there, and if they feel abused they should do something about it and they can do something about it if they stop being scared).

Should we allow grown men to abuse their families, just because it takes place within their home?

A bad example. Those grown men are citizens of a particular country, and they need to obey the laws of said country. Just because the home is supposed to theoretically be a private space, it is also part of society, and most of society's laws still apply there (like those regarding physical violence, murder etc.). There's no higher entity that creates laws that need to be followed by nations as a whole. In other words you can't say that there's something wrong with the way a particualar nation treats it's citizens, by comapring it to another nation. If you do that's essentially ethnocentrism, which is simply wrong. One day when there will be a single world state this will no longer be a problem.

Sure, we may have to draw the line of where we stop intervening.   It can be at the country line.  The question still exist, is it right to let others suffer when you could stop it?

Read my above post.

Im not saying we should get involved, but when america does not come to the aid, it also gets blamed.  Ie, Gerogia, and Iran during their elections.

That's your country's own fault. If you start an interventionist policy people will be expecting you to entervene all the time, and in all situations. Of course what many don't realise is that your country doesn't practice interventionalism for any moral reason, but for fulfilling your own interest (see all of your countrie's immoral practices).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Baalzamon said:

I don't think that I would ever fight on behalf of the country either, as I don't feel it should be an obligation to protect people living 2,000 miles away who probably will never have had an effect on your life anyways, and who don't give a shit about your life.

The only situation where I would feel obligated to fight is on the local level.  Should war erupt in Central Minnesota for instance, I would feel obligated to fight and protect what I call home and protect all of my relatives that are living in the area.  Fighting in this situation would have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the country as a whole though, but only to protect my local area.

Personally speaking, I'd join up first in order to prevent the fighthing from ever getting near my home/relatives.  That'd be especially true if I were in your position, seeing as how if anyone ever made it to Central Minnesota the shit must have long ago hit the fan, so the odds that you're doing anything particularly effective by then are much, much smaller.



PhoenixKing said:
SmoothCriminal said:
PhoenixKing said:
mrstickball said:
PhoenixKing said:
mrstickball said:
nightsurge said:
mrstickball said:
PhoenixKing said:

YOU are living in a childhood fantasy crafted by movies and patriotic ramblings.

Military fighting isn't 'good vs bad'- light vs dark star wars BS.

It's going into peoples homes, forcing information from them, bombing innocent civilian areas because of enemy bases nearby or because that's how they get their food, it's killing children should you be ordered to do so, and it's sick and wrong.

These aren't 'over-dramatized isolated incidents'. They're fact. They happen all the time in wars. Civilians are the FIRST objective to be attacked so they don't join the opposing army or provide food for them.

Nazi's taking over the world? Nazi's had no chance of doing that because they were fighting a 2 front war and Russia was on our side.

Honor in dying? No such thing. Your wife would grieve for your death, no? Wouldn't she feel guilty about it?

Look at Abraham Lincoln, when he was killed, his wife went crazy and was sent to a mental institution because she thought anyone emotionally close to her would die (Her husband died after she lost 3 sons in the war).

Want to know why schools don't tell you this? Because NO ONE wants fresh and able-bodied military resources to be anything but happy about partaking in war.

Also, to put it in the most simplest terms, since I'm sure most of you don't believe me.

War's definition: Organized Murder.

That's it. That's all. It's no different than gangs killing people. You just wear an honorary uniform to do it.

Just curious, but do you think war against Hitler was justified? What about Pol Pot, or Imperial Japan?

Give it up, mrstickball.  This kid is delusional as they come.  I love how he preaches to us more mature and older individuals about living in a fantasy created by movies when he himself is the one seemingly living in a fantasy and not fully understanding many of these complex topics.

I know I have kept out of commenting on the actual war topics, but I must say his comment about "killing civilians is the first thing to do so they won't join up" is the absolute worst logic ever and completely false.  Sure some idiotic crazy war pirates and terrorists will do this, but if your goal is actually to win a war you want the citizens to like you as an invading force or to at least tolerate you, not hate you.  If you go off killing civilians left and right the only thing that will do is inspire civilians further to stand against you.

Now please, you are obviously only 18 and being overrun with information from many sources that are not always credible.  Take the advice of all of us on here and chill out.

I mean, I can understand his distain of what war is. War is hell. War is vile. The worst atrocities of humanity are usually in and around wars. Yet at the same time, some wars have purged us from evils that did their deeds in the shadows, only finding out the horrors once war was ended.

Atrocities are atrocities, but to say that all war is bad, to me, begs to justify regimes and perpetrators of the worst kinds of crimes - the ones that go unpunished. Americans have done some bastardly things in wars, but they pale in comparison to the things done by others in wars, and before wars were perpetrated.

If you read a lot of stuff about war, you have a healthy respect for what it does, and what it accomplishes in the face of pure evil. If it were not for intervention in some of the worst conflicts of humanity, they would of continued unchecked, and lay hidden in the dark, for us to never know the evils that were perpetrated behind 'peace'.

When you look at some of the war atrocities - the Rape of Nanking, Katyn Forest, the Soviet Occupation of post-war Germany, Pol Pot's post-war Cambodian regime, and dozens of others, you understand that, in very rare instances, war and the atrocities thereof are the lesser of two evils. I could not imagine a world to where we did not fight the Nazis, the or the North Koreans and Chinese. Instances like that are why I cannot always stomach pacificsm, because it seeks a world that does not exist - a world where no one is abused or hurt. Sadly, that is not the reality in a lot of places. God forgive us when North Korea collapses, and we find out what really went on while we were sitting in our warm houses, playing on the internet, and watching TV instead of engaging such a vile regime.

Why did Nazi Germany come to surface? Because of war reparations forced upon Germany after World war 1 compounded with the Great Depression.

Why did Pol Pot eradicate 2 million Cambodians who were on the Pro-American side? Because America's bomb campaign in Cambodia hit the wrong towns and killed millions of innocent civilians during the war.

Why did the war against Korea end in a neutrality with it being divded in the middle? Because America kept going further up and China had warned us that it felt threatened during the time we were winning the war.

War creates more war and genocides. These events WERE impacted because of American military action, though in the case of WW2, it was due to French and British politics of desiring to embarass Germany backed by combined military might.

You think I'm a delusional kid? You both haven't even made an argument against anything I've said. The other dude is just condescending and arrogant so I won't even respond to his childish rants.

You never answered my question:

Do you believe that the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Imperial Japan, and such should of continued unabated? I understand your points, but you didn't answer my question.


Hitler wouldn't have taken over had America never even bothered to step in. He was doomed the moment he betrayed the USSR. The Eastern Front was simply a battle he couldn't win. America going in was technically irrelevant on Hitler's end although, admittedly, it would have happened anyway since that idiot declared war on America only a few days after Pearl Harbor.

Imperial Japan would have been taken down by Russia, period. Japan was just a sad situation because their child of an emperor had no control over what his board did.

Pol Pot did what he did because he was convinced America was 'evil' and that all 'western influenced' Cambodians were evil. America's illegal bombing campaign by Nixon was one of the major factors in why Cambodians united under Pol Pot.  Not ONLY that, but you're ignoring the fact that America supported a Dictatorship of Lon Nol, who was a corrupt and vile tyrant himself, against Pol Pot's communism. Were you even aware of this? America was NOT supporting the establishment of a democracy in Cambodia.

America simply shouldn't be involved in these affairs. It's actions were a catalyst to the tragedies that occurred and usually cause more problems while wasting millions.

Just look at the American Civil war, it created the KKK, the black codes, and other Jim Crow laws that kept Blacks surpressed from having equal rights. What ended this terrible system? Non-violent civil disobediance.

People should learn: War is NEVER the answer.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You seriously think that war was about slavery? 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Learn to read: War created those events. I did not say anything about slavery.

I blame insomnia. After 5 days with 2 or less hours of sleep you start to read things that aren't really there. I'm deeply and honestly sorry for my previous douchebaggery and or ineptitude to read.

 

Now for a serious non-insomnia-induced reply. Those things would've existed anyway. War is never the cause for human ignorance or intolerance. If the Civil War hadn't happened, they'd still have been slaves. Although I'm a firm supporter of the CSA, I doubt you'll think that slavery is a good idea. I'd rather be descriminated against than be a slave.



voty2000 said:

Pay attention to what I'm saying.  Shitty stuff happens during the war that's all you've shown.  Not all wars are justifiable and some are just plain wrong.  But just because crappy stuff happens does not mean that all war is evil.  If a country tries to rise up and overthrow the world, they must be brought down.  You;re trying to put words in my mouth by saying I don't think bad stuff happens.  But with all the crap that happened in the American Revolution, WW I and WW II, those were not evil on our part.  THe enemy was evil and had to be stopped.  You can't argue against that. 

Again, I'm not saying that evil does not exist in war, even on the part of the good guys, but the small amount of crap that happens does not mean the entire army of the good guys is wrong.  I'm not going into small skirmishes like columbia because I can't say for certain what should have happened.  What I will say is the WW I and WW II had to happen to stop Germany.  I know it's pointless to discuss somehting like this with you because you will not listen to reason, but maybe it will make you stop and think that you don't know all and your views are not the end all. 

Last words, again, five years from now if you see this post, you'll realize how off some of the things your saying are.  I know from experience.  Good day random internet fanatic, I won't even look at the response so don't bother.

This will be my last post in the thread, because I don't think what I say will do any good but..

The central problem with his line of thought "War is evil. We should never participate in it as Americans. All external wars would of been solved without our intervention" throws away the idea that greater evils would of taken place had we not intervened - in fact, on levels that make things like Abu Ghraib and other American atrocities look like an episode of Sesame Street.

For example, had we not of intervened in World War 2, the following would of happened:

The Soviet Union would of taken the entirety of Europe, leading them into poverty and destruction for many decades. Furthermore, many human rights would of been utterly destroyed. As far as we know, the Russians raped over 2 million German women during and after the war. A number that is multiples higher than any claimed number by the Western allies in the Brits, Americans, and Canadians. And that was with us taking half of Germany before the war ended. Furthermore, the Soviets would of done things unimaginable to the Japanese had they of been the only ones to solve that side of the war. I would imagine that the Soviets would of ended up invading Japan, along with the Chinese, and killing/raping every last Japanese citizen to the last child, for their atrocities in China. Far worse outcomes than what we experienced, having intervened in the war.

Oh, lets not forget the nuclear war that would of occurred in the 1960's that would of resulted in the death of approximately 1 billion Asians and Russians, had we not intervened (I wonder how many know of that one?).

According to Phoenix, such atrocities would be 'ok' because they aren't our atrocities. According to his line of logic, its better if a billion people die, and millions raped, tortured and beaten as long as it isn't you, or your country. That is why I have a problem with his logic. By his logic, we should not have police either, or desire to defend our family or property if ever assaulted by another individual.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

sapphi_snake said:

@voty2000:

I wanna start by commenting on an earlier post of yours.

There is honor in death.  You take a bullet for your wife, you die with honor.  The men who died in WW I and WW II died with honor because without their death, Nazi forces will have taken over the world.  I can see your point about the Iraq War but those people chose to fight and whether you agree with the war or not, they died with honor, doing what they thought was right.

WTF??? Nazis in WWI? Seriously? There were no Nazis back then.

And no, the men who died in WWI did not die with honor. It was a pointless war. Political leaders playing games on the expense of the idiots who they governed. There were no "good guys" and "bad guys" in that war. EVERYONE was a "bad guy" then. But when it was all over the winners (allies) decided to take the frustration caused by their own stupidity by blaming it all on the losers (the Central powers, most fo all Germany), and with things like the Versailles Treaty created the climate in Germany that helped Hitler and the Nazis come to power.

Essentially WWII took place thanks to WWI.

No matter how cliche it is to say this, you wouldn't be here if it weren't for people fighting before you were ever born. 

That sounds like something from a movie. You're giving them too much credit. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for extramarrital relationships.

And about women.  I'm a misogynist?  Did I say women couldn't fight?  Did I say women are inferior to men?  NO, I said that men should protect women when we can.

Why should women have to be protected by men? If they're not inferior to men and they can fight, then that means they can protect themselves.

I respect women and do what I can for them.  That's what men do.  Do I hold the door open for a woman because she can't?  Nope, I do it because she doesn't have to.

What kind of misogynistic drivel is this? And "that's what men do"? The woman doesn't have to open the door, but a guy has to open it for her? WTF? Dude, that's just a cultural construct.

I should have written Germany, my bad.  Your saying the World Wars were pointless, yes they were and I won't disagree, but Germany had to be stopped and that's what the allied forces did.  What you are saying is that we should have let Germany take over because war is bad.  That's ridiculous.  We were forced into the war so the allied forces that died had to die to stop Germany.  If they had to die to protect the world, they died with honor.  If you can't see that, your somebody I don't care to ever speak to again. 

It saddens me about your view on women.  I never said that women couldn't do anything, and I clearly explained myself.  All I'm saying is that I do what I can women so they don't have to do things they don't have to.  It's called respect.  If a women tells me not to hold a door for her, I won't.  I will never make my future  wife mow the lawn, not because she can't, but because she doesn't have to.  Again, it's about respect and what you say is very telling of your character.  Your somebody I never want to meet.  You'll probably spout more crap about being old fashioned and call me misogynistic again and that's cool.  For one, you apparently don't know what being misogynistic means and two, you've clearly shown your somebody whose words mean nothing to me.  I get to finally add my first 2 people to my ignore user list.  I've had it for a while and never used it. 



Every male over 18 in US gets this, so calm down. If you do have a medical condition like you say then you don't have to worry since you would be labeled a risk for combat, if the draft would come back you would be placed in a non-combat job. Thankfully I'm in the same boat.



Former something....