"Lest we forget"

[mstriumph]

Yes of course but your argument earlier on seemed to be that NZ shouldn't send soldiers overseas to fight for other peoples borders. Which is the opposite of what your saying now?

I said

"they invade ANYWHERE i'm living in the way the US of whatever invaded (add your victim of choice here - you have a few to choose from) and I'd tend to take it personally. - so yes - wouldn't you?"

by definition ... "where I'm living" can't be 'overseas' from my perspective ....
yes, this means if (in the extremely unlikely event) I were to be living in Afghanistan and the Jonathans and their creatures invaded Afghanistan I'd be manning the barricades THERE because it wouldn't then be just 'other people's borders', it would also be MY borders (because I was living there, making a life there, etc., etc.,) ...

same same NZ
same same AUS

as a basic principal I'll defend wherever I am if attacked ... that's self-defence

BUT IF I (or any of my kin) go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

............ which is *sigh* exactly the essence of what I've been saying since post one.

[mstriumph]

You seem to have run dry on counterpoints then?

To make it simpler for you, I've given up on words and am now trying pictures. Message is essentially the same.

If you still don't get it I'm probably going to have to try a plague, a flood, a burning bush or part the red sea or something (when I was a kid I thought, frankly, he went a bit OTT with that but now, honestly, I can see just how frustrated the god of the old testament got with the Obdurate ...)

[bogan]

To make it simpler for you, I've given up on words and am now trying pictures. Message is essentially the same.

So, not very good then?

The point I'm making, is that if you keep touting false justifications as reason to never go to war; displays a logical inconsistency. That is, that if the reasons were true, it would have been justified, so going to war is sometimes acceptable.

My other point that defending your home soil and by extension the current govt is not always morally right either.

You've supplied no counterpoints to those, resorting to the ambiguity of pictures merely illustrates that.

[FJRider]

"they invade ANYWHERE i'm living in the way the US of whatever invaded (add your victim of choice here - you have a few to choose from) and I'd tend to take it personally. - so yes - wouldn't you?"

by definition ... "where I'm living" can't be 'overseas' from my perspective ....
yes, this means if (in the extremely unlikely event) I were to be living in Afghanistan and the Jonathans and their creatures invaded Afghanistan I'd be manning the barricades THERE because it wouldn't then be just 'other people's borders', it would also be MY borders (because I was living there, making a life there, etc., etc.,) ...

same same NZ
same same AUS

as a basic principal I'll defend wherever I am if attacked ... that's self-defence

BUT IF I (or any of my kin) go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

............ which is *sigh* exactly the essence of what I've been saying since post one.

If my country .... kin ... or friends/allies are attacked by another group in or outside MY borders ... I will take the battle to them. Be it inside (or outside) my borders ... or theirs.


Would you NOT .. ???

[jonbuoy]

I said

"they invade ANYWHERE i'm living in the way the US of whatever invaded (add your victim of choice here - you have a few to choose from) and I'd tend to take it personally. - so yes - wouldn't you?"

by definition ... "where I'm living" can't be 'overseas' from my perspective ....
yes, this means if (in the extremely unlikely event) I were to be living in Afghanistan and the Jonathans and their creatures invaded Afghanistan I'd be manning the barricades THERE because it wouldn't then be just 'other people's borders', it would also be MY borders (because I was living there, making a life there, etc., etc.,) ...

same same NZ
same same AUS

as a basic principal I'll defend wherever I am if attacked ... that's self-defence

BUT IF I (or any of my kin) go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

............ which is *sigh* exactly the essence of what I've been saying since post one.

So if you were living in NZ and "someone" attacked Australia/Fiji/Samoa you wouldn't get involved as you don't live there?

[Swoop]

[*]If the French invaded NZ...

The froggies don't invade anyone, their sole purpose is to be invaded.
Normally Ze Chermans, but recently the muslims.

[jonbuoy]

The froggies don't invade anyone, their sole purpose is to be invaded.
Normally Ze Chermans, but recently the muslims.

I think that's called "not getting involved" - bit like The Netherlands tried in WW2 - declared themselves neutral and "not involved" and got invaded anyway.

[mstriumph]

So, not very good then?

depends, you seem to have accepted the parallel I drew between myself and god without a murmur; quite scary.

The point I'm making, is that if you keep touting false justifications as reason to never go to war; displays a logical inconsistency. That is, that if the reasons were true, it would have been justified, so going to war is sometimes acceptable.

so, by your convoluted 'logic' (and I use that term loosely) if my aunt had a willie she'd be my uncle. Also, depends on your definition of 'war'; like any Celt, I've never been anti-fighting, like any humanitarian I've always been anti bullying. Invading someone else's home ground is bullying.

My other point that defending your home soil and by extension the current govt is not always morally right either.

My fighting stance would be self-defence and that is not only morally right, it's a moral imperative and obligation... governments do not rate highly with me - but if defending them is an unavoidable by-product of defending me and mine, well, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

You've supplied no counterpoints to those, resorting to the ambiguity of pictures merely illustrates that.

You've used 'ambiguity' in a sentence; please look up what it means and try again.

[mstriumph]

If my country .... kin ... or friends/allies are attacked by another group in or outside MY borders ... I will take the battle to them. Be it inside (or outside) my borders ... or theirs.


Would you NOT .. ???

Give me a hypothesis pse?

[mstriumph]

So if you were living in NZ and "someone" attacked Australia/Fiji/Samoa you wouldn't get involved as you don't live there?

Sensible question. In all honesty, that close to home, it would probably fall within the definition of the attack being on 'me and mine' ... but that wouldn't give me licence to invade Afghanistan or march into the Sudetenland?

[mstriumph]

I think that's called "not getting involved" - bit like The Netherlands tried in WW2 - declared themselves neutral and "not involved" and got invaded anyway.

... which would immediately make them involved?

[mstriumph]

Seriously, guys ... we've now been debating the morality, whys and wherefores of warfare for well over a month. During that time, irrespective of which stance we take, we have been honouring the concept of 'lest we forget' by simply not forgetting.

The dead had their lives cut short, their futures erased, their hopes dreams and aspirations nullified as a consequence of warfare.
At least we are paying them the simple respect of asking why. We haven't just paused for a poppy-clad minute's silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month then pushed it away from us and gone, unheeding, back to our daily life.

On behalf of the fallen in my own bloodline, I'm comforted by that.
Thank you.

[Akzle]

The dead had their lives cut short, their futures erased, their hopes dreams and aspirations nullified as a consequence of warfare.

well thats more a matter of philosophy.
Even at that time, the standard indoctrination would have been judeo christian, meaning that while their incarnation on this earth was terminated, their spirit was ascended for judgement.
Human life is only a very small part of anything.

[TheDemonLord]

Sensible question. In all honesty, that close to home, it would probably fall within the definition of the attack being on 'me and mine' ... but that wouldn't give me licence to invade Afghanistan or march into the Sudetenland?

Woah!

That is a massive goal post shift, suddenly you have changed from 'only self defence is acceptable' to 'self defence and anyone that is strategically important to me'

So now we have established that not only is war occasionally acceptable but also that fighting other than for self defense is also occasionally acceptable.

And the final question then is this: if there was a threat in Afghanistan that if left unchecked could grow to the point where it would be a matter of self defence and anyone that is strategically important to me - does your version of morality allow you to march in and invade?

especially since in the modern world, physical distance has little to no bearing on whether the threat is real or not.

[bogan]

depends, you seem to have accepted the parallel I drew between myself and god without a murmur; quite scary.

so, by your convoluted 'logic' (and I use that term loosely) if my aunt had a willie she'd be my uncle. Also, depends on your definition of 'war'; like any Celt, I've never been anti-fighting, like any humanitarian I've always been anti bullying. Invading someone else's home ground is bullying.

My fighting stance would be self-defence and that is not only morally right, it's a moral imperative and obligation... governments do not rate highly with me - but if defending them is an unavoidable by-product of defending me and mine, well, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

You've used 'ambiguity' in a sentence; please look up what it means and try again.

I tend to ignore references to godly wisdom and instead focus on the poster's content.

Sounds about right. Invading someone else's country can also be liberation, to put an end to bullying of the populace by their govt and armed forces.

So you would give your life to preserve a morally bankrupt govt, even if the govt seeking to replace them was better in every way? Or does that not fall under defending me and mine? Seems the definitions of acceptable wars are getting a bit more cloudy, and a bit less naive

Firstly, it had the desired effect of you explaining your reasoning; secondly, it was used in the right context: "The quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness:" of which emoticons certainly are.