@Farmageddon:

Yeah, but the reason being right or not won`t change the fact that the person sees it as good reason. I`m talking about intention. Also most wars at least start out with public support.

People rarely have enough information to make an informed decision. You know, transparency isn't common isn't exactly something practiced by Governments these days. And most wars end up losing support by the end (especially the majort wars of the past couple of decades) which shows that people learn nothing from the past.

It`s not an excuse. It doesn`t mean you can`t question it later, but if I have no way out before and it gets to a point where it`s me or them, I don`t give a shit whose army is rigth.

"Later" will probably be too late, and you can question things even before you end up going to war.

Yup. As long as you believe your cause and die for it, it`s hypocritical to not call the guy a martyr. From his point of view he`s made the same sacrifice for the same reason. I mean, we usually only get the winner`s cut of the history afterwards anyway, the case of nazis seems extreme but the validity of a cause is all ultimately subjetive, and your valour isn`t really affected by it.

I do think you shoudn`t judge people solely on the validity of their beliefs, but on why they got there and how they act on them. Of coure, in practical life you may understand someone`s ways but still have to take some measure or you`ll be fucked.

Anyway, at the end of the day you can`t really be sure what`s right or wrong, all you can do is take your best guess and act on it, and it`s this process of guessing and acting out, not the guess itself, that defines you.

There are some things which are clearly right, and some things which are clearly wrong. Not all causes are right, and those who are wrong can be demonstrated as such pretty easily, as their reasoning can be proven to be illogical. "Relativism" should not be taken to such extremes. What you beleive IS just as important as what you do about it.

Ha, so much for trying to shorten this, uh?

Yes. Honestly I feel kinda guilty. It seems like we've hijacked this thread.

actually Im enjoying this as its making people discuss politics civilly on this site.

@pizzahut451:

Oh, oh but in Africa they send women and children to war and look how well they managed to defend themselfes against European colonists. if they had less women and children in their army, maybe they wouldnt be forced to salvery.

Do you enjoy purposely lying? Old African tribes didn't send kids to war, that is going on in Africa now. Also, most of them did not have female warriors, only some tribes were like that. And European colonists had guns, and African tribes didn't, ergo they had no way of winning, same as the indians (who also had male warriors).

The reason why some tribes had female warriors was that that was how gender roles had evolved over there: women were the heads of the household and did all the work, while men stayed at home and took care of the children. Women were the strong assertive ones, while men were the weak ones who needed to be protected etc. Those things aren't dictated by natire, they're indoctrinated culturally since people are born.

Oh, and the famale warriors could kick the male European colonist's asses, but those cowards decided to use guns, as they were tired of getting beaten up by girls.

About "male superior strength".

What percentage of people in the army do you think are stronger then her...

Averages are just that... averages.   Just because your group on average is stronger then another doesn't mean there are a lot of people stronger then you in the other group.

Also that's what boot camp is for.  If you pass bootcamp you are fit for combat.

Saying women shouldn't be in the army because men are stronger is like saying that men shouldn't go to college because women are more likely to graduate by 22.

Also, the majority of weapons used in antiquity actually weren't that heavy.  Even in europe there were times woman fought and often as well as men.  Usually in nomadic tribes like the Goths and Huns and such, and you pretty much needed to as nomads you were often running into soldiers.

Keep in mind, most people in armies had nothing but simple weapons and were lucky to have padded cloth armour.

This is interesting. Around a year ago I was clearly in the conservative section, now I am slowly gravitating to the libertarian side ;_;

Edit: I like this quiz too

Conservative/Progressive score: 2 
You are a social conservative. You believe in traditional values, and care first and foremost about your country, your family, and your religion. You dislike the agenda of the left because you see them as trying to destroy these things.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 4 
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 8 
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 8 
You're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Republican

@Farmageddon:

True, people rarelly ever learn. Transparency is an icky issue. Secrecy can be very important and helpfull , but it's also very easily abused, it's complicated.

Yes. Yes it if.

I was talking about a specific stituation that could arise: being forced into a battle field with your ass on the line without turning back.

I can understand this, hence why I'm against a mandatory draft.

Your country being invaded by an enemy that kills lots of civilians is a way this could happen. Sure, an individual always has the option of running away, but you'll usually not be able to evacuate an entire people. And some people do have that group instinct to defend their "fellows". Besides, the notion of territory and defending your home is pretty basic too.

This would also be a good situation. But still, we shouldn't forget that most military conflicts can be avoided in the first place.

Of course it is. As I said, I'd react to what you do much more than to why you do it, but arriving at the wrong conclusion doesn't change one's sacrifice. When measuring a guy's courage and inner strength the validity of his cause makes no difference, that's what I'm talking about, so yeah, a nazi can be a martyr.

I guess we disagree on this part. For me both the cause and the sacrifice are equally important.

Oh, I wasn't questioning the definition of a martyr (though it is generally used in a positive sense, after all you never hear anyone call Nazis martyrs). But I do think that what you do is as important as what you believe in.