kaz1
et tu
LOAC is retarded, killing is wrong on all grounds except when it's done in the name of the state.
Would you rather conflicts without LOAC? In a perfect world war would not exist, but since it is not a perfect world LOAC is essential.LOAC is retarded, killing is wrong on all grounds except when it's done in the name of the state.
Confirmed retardedJust as I thought, back in your box Lolsmith. If you are going to try and be involved in a conversation at least have an understanding of the underlying principles. One day you'll be able to talk with the adults!
Really because that was so obviously clearly defined as what Rothbard was posting. Quite obviously it was a fallacious claim because he isn't stupid enough to make that sort of generalisation without the intent to reel you in to being stupid like you are being. Those aren't the only 2 war crimes on the list champ so you certainly quoted him wrong for starters.Murder outside of the LOAC is clearly a warcrime as prescribed by the Hague convention as well as the Geneva convention. Rape is a war crime no question.
Are you fucking retarded?
Really the problem is me is itThere you go again, calling everyone with a view different to yours 'ratarded'. Perhaps you should look in the mirror Christian as the problem is not everyone else it is you.
Are you saying your friends can make ridiculous claims as long as it's in an attempt to troll people? Your reply does not even make sense. I hope your written communication improves or your time at University will be very short lived.Confirmed retarded
Because I don't post within a 12 minute timeframe that means I am wrong forever eternity
Really because that was so obviously clearly defined as what Rothbard was posting. Quite obviously it was a fallacious claim because he isn't stupid enough to make that sort of generalisation without the intent to reel you in to being stupid like you are being. Those aren't the only 2 war crimes on the list champ so you certainly quoted him wrong for starters.
Really the problem is me is it
Your are ignorant to anything other than your own seriously flawed sense of reasoning in 100% of the things that you write and supposedly that makes me ~the problem~
Cool story bro
Seriously do you even read what you write
I'm pretty sure the problem is you.There you go again, calling everyone with a view different to yours 'ratarded'. Perhaps you should look in the mirror Christian as the problem is not everyone else it is you.
No, I'm saying that you obviously missed his intentAre you saying your friends can make ridiculous claims as long as it's in an attempt to troll people? Your reply does not even make sense. I hope your written communication improves or your time at University will be very short lived.
That is not the job of a soldier. The inference that this is true is insulting, untrue and facetious.Their job is to kill people, that is their job. I'm sorry if I don't feel an iota of sympathy for paid murderers.
Then why do we make a distinction between deploying the AFP to international situations and the ADF?That is not the job of a soldier. The inference that this is true is insulting, untrue and facetious.
The thread title is just libertarian rhetoric to provoke some fiery debate. Obviously not all soldiers in any army get to kill people and most of the time an army is just there as a highly organized force to help in national disasters and in Afghanistan's case, nation rebuilding. But remember that the thing younger generations connect with the defense forces of Western nations is the two pointless wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not fighting against the Nazis and Japan.I'm too disgusted to bother coming back to look at your pathetic justifications. Just remember that if a natural disaster occurs or heaven forbid, war ever comes to our shores, those "paid murderers" are the ones who will be sandbagging your homes or rescuing your family members until they're too exhausted to crawl.
They do it because they want to serve. What have you got to justify YOUR existance?
When we leave those same things are still going to happen because of the same reasons it is happening now. Poverty, lack of education, backward tribal-religious laws and whatnot that aren't going to go away after we leave. Afghanistan's one of the worst places in the world and we can't just put some secular liberal democracy there. So we saved some woman. Great. That war has cost the US hundreds of billions, while it's in $14 trillion of debt. And how many civilian casualties has it caused? It sounds bad but we can't go around trying to fix every country in the world.It would be dishonourable to the highest degree to leave Afghanistan prematurely because of our lack of endurance and to let Afghanistan fall once more into the brutality and ruthlessness of the Taliban. The Afghans put their faith in us to help them to a more peaceful and prosperous future and we have to honour it and fighting and risking your life for a cause such as this, for people who are not even your fellow countrywomen or men, to me that is heroism and altruism to the highest degree.
And if you're in doubt about our mission just look at this-
If you want us to leave, you are condoning this.
Expand on the oil and the opium thing, please.We mourned as a country for the bush fires in Melbourne, all of which were natural disasters of which we had little control over, however nobody mentions the utter chaos and destruction the civilians in both these countries are now forced to endure on a daily basis. Nobody mentions that these soldiers have seized control over oil in Iraq and currently occupy opium fields in Afghanistan.
I would also extend this to wanting to help the people of other countries, from the tyrants and warlords and shit making life hell for the civilians.This is exactly why this question is complicated.
The morons that want to fight for fun are simply murderers. There's no excuse or justification, I don't care how emotional you want to get.
If on the other hand somebody joins because they actually want to protect their country, then they have more right to be deemed heroes along side doctors, nurses, engineers, paramedics, firefights, cops, etc...
They have a right to mourn everyone does and you cant prepare for death. It is annoying that they go on about unfair it is that they died or how they whine about not being able to support their kids.Does that remove a widows right to mourn?
I quote you
So in your world, a widow is asked by the media 'What are you going to do now your husband will no longer be around' the answer would be 'Well that's a good question, however as my husband was in a high risk job I was expecting his death and feel absolutely no emotion from it, and me and my family will be just fine without him' You are an absolute champion mate...
How old are you?
So anyone in a 'high risk job' (by the way how do you define a high risk job? or is it just if Jaundice decides that it's a high risk job then it is) their family automatically has no right to mourn in the case of them passing away? Are you even aware of how stupid that sentiment are?
By the way it's been quite some time since a defence member 'died in Iraq' so maybe you should get your head around that as well.