FireCat
Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
- Reaction score
- 536
LOL It looks like "Slapshot136 giving you a hard time @Zakyath
question, what is your position on military operations vs gangs, drug raids, etc.?
and that risk is somehow different than the risk a country takes when it enters a war? the only difference I see is who decides whether or not to take that course of action in cases where the government is a non-democracy
how exactly do you differentiate a medic in the army who "didn't want to participate" in the war vs a civilian who manufactures guns for the war? or cars, matches, clothes, food, radio's, etc.?
But those who initiate the war puts the other country/countries in a riskily position. They don't put themselves in it.
I might as well make it clear, that I have no problem with not killing people. what I do have is a problem is:
2. assist others killing people
okay, let me rephrase. if you join the army you want people dead. just because you're not pulling the trigger, doesn't mean that you haven't got blood on your hands. if you give the order or information that will lead to someone's death, you're responsible. if you tend the wounds of a murderer in uniform, you're responsible for every life he takes from that point.
If you join the army, to go to war, you will most likely play some part in people dying. So assuming you realize this, you want people to die if you're going to war.
as you so eloquently put it, but rather that the soldier he saves may save lives during a natural disaster such as the oil spill or a hurricane, or simply exist as a deterrent to an armed invasion or attack?murderer in uniform
It's all about intent. The medic is a victim if he is in a war he didn't get himself into. Those civilians are doing their jobs. Clothes, cars, matches, food, radio's, etc. are widely used across the world, and are not necessarily intended for the purpose of war. Weapons however is a touchy subject, although they might be necessary when other countries have them as well.
So, this comes up in the first page for highest number of responses now. Just something I thought I'd note, since the vast majority of it is you two I think.
No I did not. Did you really count?you realize you have 30 posts in this thread, while as this is my 12th?
pretty sure zaky has us both beat though
Just no way!I think all narcotics should be legalized and supplied by either the state or private companies, which would most likely decrease gangs role in the business
It would be nice if I didn't have to spend half an hour talking someone to write me a prescription for Vicodin. I mean, it's Vicodin, not Oxycontin, what's the worst I could possibly do? Overdose and puke it all out?Just no way!
You get addicted, Isn't that bad enough?what's the worst I could possibly do?
lol, addicted to Vicodin. Dude I abused opiates for four years, if I'm going to get addicted to it again it's not going to be from Vicodin. Can't even smoke that shit.You get addicted, Isn't that bad enough?
That's good too hear!Can't even smoke that shit.
You can't, don't smoke Tylenol, it makes you sick. You could snort it I guess, but I've heard you get some nasty nasal drip.That's good too hear!
Ha It seems you try to hide your nasty thing?You can't, don't smoke Tylenol, it makes you sick. You could snort it I guess, but I've heard you get some nasty nasal drip.
Wrong - the other country/countries have a choice - either to surrender, or to engage in war - 99% of the time they choose the latter - they put themselves in war by not surrendering.
so you hold the medics responsible for future deaths, even if they might be saving the soldier because the medics belief is not that soldiers exist primarily to kill,
as you so eloquently put it, but rather that the soldier he saves may save lives during a natural disaster such as the oil spill or a hurricane, or simply exist as a deterrent to an armed invasion or attack?
healthcare is also used widely across the world, so then then the problem you have lies with the army supplier that sells clothes, car/etc. to the army? is it better for a business to be selective about it's clientele and refuse to serve the army?
You get addicted, Isn't that bad enough?
They shouldn't have to make that choice. Besides, not everyone in a country gets a say in those situations.
I'm not against soldiers helping during natural disasters, or existing as a deterrent to an armed invasion or attack.
[/quote]Yes to the first question. No to the second, I think. At least in the US.