[quote]HardcoreHorn wrote:
I respect the people in the military for putting their lives on the line, certainly. But I don’t have to respect the institution of warfighting and the things it is meant for as a whole. Peace can not be brought about by force or the threat of force, unless of course one is talking about localized peace in which others suffer elsewhere so that those in another area can have their peace. Any morality that is justifiable from the ground up must center on sentient life’s pleasure/pain axis. Human beings strive, be it directly or indirectly, to increase their experience of pleasure (defined ambiguously for now) and minimize or eliminate their experiences of pain and suffering. With this as my basis for morality, the only thing I can clearly label as immoral is deliberately causing other sentient beings to suffer, or inhibiting them from pursuing pleasurable experiences. Going to war to benefit America at the expense of others therefore does not have moral validity.[/quote]
No such thing as morality in global politics. If there were, we’d be in a state of constant war.
[/quote]
Could you explain this a bit more? I’m genuinly interested.[/quote]
what meta said.
Also there can be no morality in politics because then you are obligated to intervene in every Human rights violations going around the world as perceived by our Western culture. Women rights and other human rights violations, Muslim law, female mutilation practices in Africa ect.
Also what may not be “moral” can serve the greater good. It wouldn’t have been moral to assassinate hitler in 1936, but would we go back and kill him if we had the chance?
If a leader takes a moral stand on issues like these, he’s endangering the lives of the people he is supposed to protect, as if an ally nation decides to go to war and then drags you and your people into it.
^^ of course this has been slowly changing first in the 1600s culminating into the UN and European Union which are starting to excercise sovereign law ABOVE nations. If this brings about a more peaceful world is still being debated.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
If I was Canadian I would try to get my green card in America, then join the US Army, which actually serves a purpose.[/quote]
I know my first comment was ignorant, it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Obviously as an American citizen, I have an attachment to my countries service, and that’s what I was trying to convey.
I do, however, support my countries troops to the fullest extent, and no matter what people may think in regards to political motivations, I believe they are making the ultimate sacrifice in doing what they do.
Oh and Rico, check any of the lead indicators, economic, political, or social and you will see that we are doing a great job in Iraq.
SAR is lame. I know some SAR guys here in the US and some Airforce PJ’s and it isn’t that cool of a job… Unless you’re going to stay in and retire its more than likely not gonna help you get a job once you’re out. A pilot would be cool and you could get a piloting job when you get out that would pay pretty well
[quote]gregron wrote:
SAR is lame. I know some SAR guys here in the US and some Airforce PJ’s and it isn’t that cool of a job…[/quote]
Can you elaborate on that?
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
with our powers united, Orion, we will move this thread to the PWI forums where it belongs with the other lonely white dudes. We must form a covenant.[/quote]
I asked if Architecture would suffice with its emphasis on autocad and 3d modelling and such… they said no. Otherwise I would be in that right now for sure.
But if I had the choice between SAR or Pilot for the SAR I think I’d choose to be on the ground.
Actually looking at the Blue 21 page I think they changed it. Last time it was pretty specific on science, math, or engineering. Maybe they’re desperate for pilots… I’ll have to give them a call on Monday and see.