Homeless vets wait years for aid http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-wvets06.html

Print this headline out and stick it on every car you see with a I support our troops bumper sticker on it.

yeah. i think about that stuff a lot. even after having been made to kill one person, no matter their rank or status in it, a person will suffer immense regret and guilt and so on. even being a part of war as a witness only is massively tramatizing. i support the troops, but i dont support the troops fighting GWs war for him, i support them by saying BRING THEM HOME. there is no one GW isnt screwing but apparently himself. that guy has some karma to face like few people ever have in my opinionated opinion. i keep saying and saying philosophy simply isnt reality. how can we take a life to support a notion? think of ALL the suffering he has and is and will cause all over the world and at home over CONCEPTS!? and every person directly affected negatively will indirectly affect 100 more. millions of beings caused to suffer by his ignorance. no exaggeration. what can we do?

Nice one Brian, I agree.

These people say they support our troops, but that pretty much goes as far as the bumper sticker on their car...

It's much like the red-staters (isn't it nice they've given us brand new epithets for each other) who oppose abortion but don't seem to give a damn about anyone's children but their own once they're born.

I've already donated money to these guys:

http://www.nchv.org/howtohelp.cfm
https://www.usvetsinc.org/how_help/

Why don't you donate, Foley? You seem like the poster child for human rights.

I've already donated money to these guys:

God I admire you , there is a place in heaven just for people like you .

Why don't you donate, Foley? You seem like the poster child for human rights.

I do my share of donating to the needy but our donations only go so far . I was thinking more along the lines of the goverment injecting a mass amount of cash into helping them . Maybe at the expence of cancelling the tax cuts for the rich programme , Im sure the rich wont complain seeing Halliburton is making a bucket of cash from the windfall of death in Iraq .

Nice one Brian, I agree.

These people say they support our troops, but that pretty much goes as far as the bumper sticker on their car...

Yeah agreed as long as some other poor bastard does the fighting , they will cheer them on , but thats where it stops . If the draft ever makes a come back I will predict those stickers will disappear .

yeah. i think about that stuff a lot. even after having been made to kill one person, no matter their rank or status in it, a person will suffer immense regret and guilt and so on. even being a part of war as a witness only is massively tramatizing.
P O S T-D R A M A T I C-S T R E S S-S Y N D R O M E
i support the troops, but i dont support the troops fighting GWs war for him, i support them by saying BRING THEM HOME. there is no one GW isnt screwing but apparently himself. that guy has some karma to face like few people ever have in my opinionated opinion. i keep saying and saying philosophy simply isnt reality. how can we take a life to support a notion? think of ALL the suffering he has and is and will cause all over the world and at home over CONCEPTS!? and every person directly affected negatively will indirectly affect 100 more. millions of beings caused to suffer by his ignorance. no exaggeration. what can we do?
A lot of young Americans who through a sense of patriotic duty who joined in all earnest in the belief of fighting for their nation are coming to that realisation . They know this war is being prosecuted purely for mercenary reasons on behalf of the business community . What people can do depends on the will of the people , unfortunately people are sheep and will follow their goverments orders to the last . That has been the case since the days of the Roman Empire through to Napoleon and Nazi Germany and it is no different in todays america .

Post TRAUMATIC* Stress Disorder is what it is most commonly refered to as.

I support no person that would take any job in which weapons are part of. Nor would I support any person that inflicts pain and suffering upon others. I have nothing but contempt for any force that is armed, and all individuals that would participate in such a force/organization. Therefore, I do not support our troops. I support nothing of their weapon weilding kind.

I support those interested in intellectual pursuits. I support those who would not go near or touch any form of weaponry. I support those who desirt to create and nurture the planet. I support those who take massive action, and make massive change through the use of peace and intelligence. I support any intelligent community that refuses to partake in the use of any form of violence and weaponry.

Truly, all the young lads who fight in their wars are is MEAT!
Do yo see any of WBush & co's sons fighting ...... n.o.
Or Tony fukin Blair's? no
But you see young lads from the streets seduced away from poverty getting signed up. and remember the film Farenheight911 where you see those recrutiment officers trickin young lads, black and white into the military

if i was parent of a young lad or lads, i would try to my dying BREATH for them not to get caught up in that trip
we had a documentary on our TV not so long ago of these young men who had been damaged in various ways through combat. you saw this young working calss lad who had gottn so tramaatized he had tried to kill himself several times, and had acute insomnia, and physical ailments due to the chemicals they'd given him, and poisons he'd been exposed to without warning. We saw through the prog him wating to see if he'd receive any compensation from the military......eventually he gts a letter. the letter says really coldly he has been thrown out of the army and will NOt recive a penny
THAT's what they really think of them!

well fuck America (excuse my language)

If it wasnt for the billion dollar corporations making these weapons of war, guns and explosives, and if it wasnt for the country that still abides by laws written 400 years ago by 50 insanely drunk men, there would be no reasons to have war.

Wake up America and look into the mirror.......

Your Government is the axis of evil......

Americans are characterized by their refusal to give up certain luxuries that do us or civilization no good. We believe that what we don't know won't hurt us. We were brought up in a certain lifestyle, and are unwilling to acknowledge that the lifestyle is hurting ourselves and the world around us. Therefore, we are unwilling to let it go.

Why support efforts to stop war when we can go to the movies and out to eat, thereby supporting industries that obliterate the planet instread of supporting industries that help the planet.

Instead of plowing our own fields to feed ourselves, we allow seasonal farm slaves do our labor for us.

We do not collect our own trash and construct our own buildings. Of course we could easily do it all ourselves so that we can allow desperate people to get an education. Instead, we get desperate people to do it for us so that we can maintain our our lifestyle.

We do not take the responsibility to support our own lifestyle and provide the desperate with education and safety from war. Instead, we burden the desperate with the responisbility of supporting our lifestyle. We burden the desperate with the responsibility of providing us with the freedom to pursue a our own hapiness without regard for the sake of those around us.

There is war in the world. There is desperation in the world. As long as it's not affecting us, we continue to refuse to acknowledge it. Instead, we live off of it.

I support no person that would take any job in which weapons are part of. Nor would I support any person that inflicts pain and suffering upon others. I have nothing but contempt for any force that is armed, and all individuals that would participate in such a force/organization. Therefore, I do not support our troops. I support nothing of their weapon weilding kind.

I support those interested in intellectual pursuits. I support those who would not go near or touch any form of weaponry. I support those who desirt to create and nurture the planet. I support those who take massive action, and make massive change through the use of peace and intelligence. I support any intelligent community that refuses to partake in the use of any form of violence and weaponry.

Guess what? It's war that allowed us to gain our freedom in the first place, and it's war that continues to keep us free. If we didn't stop Hitler, who knows how far he would have gone. At most, war gains a country political power, and at the least, war and a powerful army helps a country protect itself and protect its political interests. There is a reason that every country needs a military. If this country didn't have a military to at least protect itself, we would no doubt be a very different, and arguably much less free country.

It's your right to think how you want and have your own opinions. But think about it, this country would not survive today thinking like you.

Who ever said this country was surviving?
War did not allow us to gain freedom. War allows nobody to gain freedom.
Violent war at least.
Peaceful demonstration and intelligence gets you alot further than any form of violence.
Violence is for those that are not intelligent enough to find real solutions.
Murder and violent methods only lead to bigger problems.
Weather in war, abortion, or crime and punishment, or any other form death and violence are used as solutions, the most they can do is act as quick fixes. Violence is never really a useful method.

I support no person that would take any job in which weapons are part of. Nor would I support any person that inflicts pain and suffering upon others.

I don’t think that’s fair, I agree with you completely that those who fight in useless wars aren’t exactly to be respected to the highest degree. But there are wars that are necessary to be fought, for example wars against aggressors, oppressors, and imperialists. I am sure you must have respect for men who fought against the Nazi’s, against any illegal invading force whose motives for invasion were for self-aggrandizement. But many warriors did fight for their freedom, and their children.

Of course I respect those who fought against such evils. As long as they did not use violence to do so. Those non-violent unarmed-forces have my upmost respect. It is not only our necessity to fight oppression and such, it is our duty to fight oppression. Even more so, it is our duty to do so without violence. I have utterly no respect for anybody that would commit violent acts for any reason. There is no such thing as a good reason to commit violent acts.

cool skill, was the Revolutionary War not violent? I think so. We defended ourself from a country that was trying to control us. We faught and lost many lives in the name of our freedom. You think this was unacceptable? If everyone in the country thought like you at that time, we would still be under the control of the British.

No we wouldn't. We would be controling the British. Aside from it being 200 years ago, it wouldn't make a difference.

As long as they did not use violence to do so. Those non-violent unarmed-forces have my upmost respect.

So if one was in a concentration camp, and fought to escape their actions would be immoral? I don’t think anyone can honestly say that fighting tyranny is immoral, and fighting needs physical needs to destroy your enemy because sometimes ideas will not win out in the end.

There is no such thing as a good reason to commit violent acts.

I can think of oh so many…its scary.

This thread is one of the funnier ones I've seen.

There is no such thing as a good reason to commit violent acts.

So if someone broke into your parents house and was beating your mom's head in with a sledgehammer, and you were holding a gun, you would refrain from violence? You are an idiot.

Sometimes sad things happen. Sometimes a baby bunny must die to feed a coyote. Violence is a part of nature.

I voted for Bush (yes, he's an ass but I'm glad we kicked Saddam's ass). Saddam supported terrorism and wouldn't comply with the UN inspectors. He left us with no choice. You can't say he wasn't warned.

Some day you will grow up and have a realistic view of the world (I hope). From your ideas I can tell you are immature and probably under 20 years old. In the mean time just pray that I am within earshot of your mother beaing beaten because I have a concealed weapon permit and I will blast the bastard for your pansy ass.

AlexK,

So if someone broke into your parents house and was beating your mom's head in with a sledgehammer, and you were holding a gun, you would refrain from violence?

How does that equate to the Iraq war? Poor parallel there.

You are an idiot.

Our feelings are mutual.

Sometimes sad things happen.

Yeah, like yer birth.

Sometimes a baby bunny must die to feed a coyote. Violence is a part of nature.

Another poor parallel.

The coyote is killing the rabbit for survival. It's doing it for food. We're not killing the Iraqi citizens for survival.

I voted for Bush (yes, he's an ass but I'm glad we kicked Saddam's ass).

But at what cost?

Saddam supported terrorism . . .

How do you know?

. . . and wouldn't comply with the UN inspectors.

The same ones that said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when it turned out there weren't?

He left us with no choice. You can't say he wasn't warned.

You! You have a gun! Hand it over or I'll stab you! You've been warned!

:rolleyes:

Saddam supported terrorism

Says who? Even the administration dropped that lie well over a year ago. Brush up on your Rhetoric, you're not even supposed to remember that the administration claimed this at one point. The war was to free the Iraqi people, now. Is Bush revising history a little too quickly for you to keep up?

"You are an idiot."
"Violence is a part of nature."

And I'm the idiot?
Primitive concept of nature is supposed to make you intelligent?



I have a concealed weapon permit and I will blast the bastard for your pansy ass.
The only pansy is any person that with no control, and would carry a weapon, and shoot another human. there is nothing heroic about carrying concealed weapons and violent intentions. Who needs to grow up and have a realistic view now?

As long as they did not use violence to do so. Those non-violent unarmed-forces have my upmost respect.

So if one was in a concentration camp, and fought to escape their actions would be immoral? I don’t think anyone can honestly say that fighting tyranny is immoral, and fighting needs physical needs to destroy your enemy because sometimes ideas will not win out in the end.

There is no such thing as a good reason to commit violent acts.

I can think of oh so many…its scary.
I guess it's only in your fantasy.

Yes it is immoral to use violence. Even when escaping a terrorist camp. What is so difficult to understand? Or is it that you lack the intelligence to think of a better way that is faster, easier, and non-violent.

people who worship violence are the ones who drool unverified BS about the inevitability of our species being visciously violent from year dot

thing to do then is use yourself as an experiment. first, find out IF you are violent, and second-if you are-find out WHY?

and/or, empathize with why people get violent. on one hand i see -for simplicity sake -two forms. one where the young lad gets sucked into the military and is dehumanized and trained to kill (and NOTE. IF we are supposed to be so inherently violent. whay is that? why do they have to be drilled to kill?), and secondly the kind of violence that can be in built up cities, especially ghettos. if you dont experience that, then use your imagination and empathize what living in that pressue must be like?

but third.....thre is the violence of the mechanistic mindset, that having lost its soul, it treeats others, and animals and Nature like a soul dead machine. a mirror image, as it were

I guess it's only in your fantasy.

Why of course where else would it be? I’m not fighting in a war, I’m not near a war zone, a concentration camp, a abusive relationship etc. It is unnatural to expect humans to not to resort to violence when they are being tortured, when their children are being raped, skinned alive, or worse, when they are on the verge of being killed. Even if the violent act is fruitless, the fact is that people tried to do something, an idea wasn’t going to stop Hitler, an idea isn’t going to stop Bush. Yes we as a human community have a responsibility to resort to violence at the very last measure of protection, but it can never be taken off the table.

Yes it is immoral to use violence.

According to which ethical theory? Or is it your own personal view?

What is so difficult to understand? Or is it that you lack the intelligence to think of a better way that is faster, easier, and non-violent.

When it comes to basic human nature intelligence hardly brings itself into the equation, when I see someone I love having something done to them I will forgo rational intelligent thought, sometimes that process, and sensibility is detrimental to humanity. Sure it would be lovely if we could all be like Ghandi doing non-violent resistance, but sometimes it’s simply not possible, or rational. It is more intelligent to kill then to be killed…as a rationalist I assume you agree that emotive responses don't matter.

Emotives do matter. Emotions are messages to be understood. They prepare our physiology to deal with situations. They do not make our decisions.


"I see someone I love having something done to them I will forgo rational intelligent thought"
========================================
That is your decision. That is not the decision of your emotions.

Hesitation can be detrimental.
People have already made up their minds on how they will make a decision regarding a situation long before the situation arises. They may not have done so consciously, but their mond is made up based on their values/perceptions/culture/etc.

A violent values person does not need to hesitate to commit violent acts. It's automatic.
A non-violent values person does not need to hesitate to commit non-violent acts. It's also automatic.


idea isn’t going to stop Bush
========================================
OK. Neither is violence.


"but it can never be taken off the table."
========================================
Why not?


sometimes it’s simply not possible, or rational
========================================
It sure is impossible if that is the limit you place on yourself.
There is nothing rational about violence.
It is never more important to kill. It is irresponsible to kill.


According to which ethical theory? Or is it your own personal view?
========================================
What are we discussing. In a discussion it's good to know what everybody is discussing to avoid misinterpretation.
The practicality of violence.
I believe that there is no practical use for violence. I also believe that ethical and practical are one and the same.
You believe that there are circumstances in which violence maybe practical (ethical).

Emotives do matter. Emotions are messages to be understood. They prepare our physiology to deal with situations. They do not make our decisions.

That’s a opinion, one could say that emotions get in the way of true ethical decisions by making us partial to people, and things that if we were to protect would be detrimental to the holistic human community. Emotion would tell you to save ur mother and not the rest of the people on a sinking ship for instance, when rationally the other people have more to offer. To a rationalist Emotions are a barrier to a common good.

That is your decision. That is not the decision of your emotions.

I don’t think it’s a rational decision of mine, it’s an animalistic instinct. By definition a instinct is not rationally thought out it is just done as a natural response to a situation.

People have already amde up their minds on how they will make a decision regarding a situation long before the situation arises. They may not have done so consciously, but their mond is made up based on their values/perceptions/culture/etc.

I wouldn’t say they do it consciously, sure culture, and being brought up in a violent culture would make you bias towards violence. But you’d be hard pressed a human being who wouldn’t kill in order to survive (unless they wanted to die). A simple mind experiment; would you do nothing to protect urself if someone was going to kill you in the most painful way possible?

A non-violent values person does not need to hesitate to commit non-violent acts. It's also automatic.

Its irrational…

OK. Neither is violence.

Are you so sure? It did McKinley, JFK, RFK, etc. They tried to kill Hitler, etc.

Why not?

Because it is not rational to do so, the only way this theory of yours would work is if all humanity would stop acting violently, hopefully in the future such a situation will arise. But as of right now, in the reality we call the world it is not rational, ethical in some cases to do nothing.

There is nothing rational about violence.
It is never more important to kill. It is irresponsible to kill.

I disagree of course, you’re saying because you attach a emotive value to all human life, a rationalist wouldn’t do such a thing. If that person is doing something that is detrimental to humanity, or yourself it is rational, expected, and human to react to such actions. Violence in many instances is indeed irrational, but in some it is not, it the most humanitarian thing one can do.

I believe that there is no practical use for violence. I also believe that ethical and practical are one and the same.

God forbid, but you would allow your mother to be raped fully knowing you can stop the rape with an act of violence? If you don’t do anything that is immoral.

You believe that there are circumstances in which violence maybe practical (ethical).

There is no question there are…

CS: Emotives do matter. Emotions are messages to be understood. They prepare our physiology to deal with situations. They do not make our decisions.

UD: That’s a opinion, one could say that emotions get in the way of true ethical decisions by making us partial to people, and things that if we were to protect would be detrimental to the holistic human community.

CS2: Any theory can be called an opinion. Your response has no relevance to my statement. My statement is my theory about what emotions are for. If emotions are not messages to be understood and prepare our physiology, you state no your theory about what they are for. You claim emotions are not to be understood. You claim they do not prepare your physiology or affect it to deal with situations. You claim that our emotions make our decisions for us.


UD: Emotion would tell you to save ur mother and not the rest of the people on a sinking ship for instance, when rationally the other people have more to offer. To a rationalist Emotions are a barrier to a common good.

CS2: Wrong.


CS: That is your decision. That is not the decision of your emotions.

UD: I don’t think it’s a rational decision of mine, it’s an animalistic instinct. By definition a instinct is not rationally thought out it is just done as a natural response to a situation.

CS2: It’s still a decision.


CS: People have already made up their minds on how they will make a decision regarding a situation long before the situation arises. They may not have done so consciously, but their mind is made up based on their values/perceptions/culture/etc.

UD: I wouldn’t say they do it consciously, sure culture, and being brought up in a violent culture would make you bias towards violence. But you’d be hard pressed a human being who wouldn’t kill in order to survive (unless they wanted to die).

CS2: Weather it is a conscious decision or not, the person makes a decision not to hit anybody, and their emotions support the decision. When stimulated, a person instinctively does not hit another person no matter what. You believe nobody makes up their mind consciously. You believe that emotions are not controllable. You believe that a person cannot make up their mind to live by a specific standard not to hit anybody. You believe that all people when stimulated will murder or hit somebody. The only difference between the people is the degree of stimulus required.


UD: A simple mind experiment; would you do nothing to protect urself if someone was going to kill you in the most painful way possible?

CS2: My question to you is this: do you have any idea what we are talking about here? Such a question proves you have no idea what the subject matter at hand is. Only a pre-school bully in the caveman age would equate non-violence with doing nothing. Let me know when you are ready to propose an argument based on the actual subject matter at hand. I could have sword I reiterated my understanding of the subject in a previous post. You seem to have no argument against it. Therefore, I expected that we were no the same page, and talking about the same matter.


CS: A non-violent values person does not need to hesitate to commit non-violent acts. It's also automatic.

UD: Its irrational…

CS2: It is anything but irrational. I have already stated my case about why non-violence is rational, and violence is not. Any rational person would not allow emotions to cause them to use violence. Any rational person would ensure that their emotions support non-violent behavior.


CS: OK. Neither is violence.

UD: Are you so sure? It did McKinley, JFK, RFK, etc. They tried to kill Hitler, etc.

CS2: I see no point in this statement. You claim there is no more intelligent and more efficient way of handling Bush. You used examples of the past that prove what? Problems in the past were handled with violence. Therefore, there is no better way to have handled such problems? You actually believe that there could not have been a more intelligent efficient way to have handled such problems. Violence was the last resort because people were not intelligent enough to come up with better results. You act as if you cannot give me examples in history where non-violence was more effective. Who cares about JFK, RFK, Hitler. What’s your point?


CS: Why not?

UD: Because it is not rational to do so, the only way this theory of yours would work is if all humanity would stop acting violently, hopefully in the future such a situation will arise. But as of right now, in the reality we call the world it is not rational, ethical in some cases to do nothing.

CS2: This is the second time here that you have equated non-violent action with doing nothing. I would like to know why you equate non-violence with doing nothing. Why do violent minded people think that non-violence action is the same as doing nothing? The only thing that is not rational is violence as a solution. Violence is neither an efficient nor effective solution to any problem for any rational person. Violence carries with it every aspect of an inefficiency to reason. Such is the case of your inefficiency to reason that non-violent action is not the same as doing nothing.


CS: There is nothing rational about violence.
It is never more important to kill. It is irresponsible to kill.

UD: I disagree of course, you’re saying because you attach a emotive value to all human life, a rationalist wouldn’t do such a thing. If that person is doing something that is detrimental to humanity, or yourself it is rational, expected, and human to react to such actions. Violence in many instances is indeed irrational, but in some it is not, it the most humanitarian thing one can do.

CS2: I never claimed to attach an emotive value to a human life. You are making false assumptions without rational thought. The only values I attach to all human life is a rational value. Your lack of value for human life is not rational. It is in no way rational or expected of any rational person to use violence as a result due to lack of intelligence in creating better answers.


CS: I believe that there is no practical use for violence. I also believe that ethical and practical are one and the same.

UD: God forbid, but you would allow your mother to be raped fully knowing you can stop the rape with an act of violence? If you don’t do anything that is immoral.

CS2: My mother, your mother, or whoever, only an idiot would think that there is no better way to stop the rape than an act of violence.


CS: You believe that there are circumstances in which violence maybe practical (ethical).

UD: There is no question there are…

CS2: Wrong. There is no such thing as a circumstance in which violence can be used practically.

I think violence comes from suppressed emotion. ie., too much 'rationality. which isn't inFORMEd be free emotional expression
Think of the person being bullied...or dissed in any way. like many in this culture. they will be made to not show any emotional reponse, but it is still brewing there. cause we are human. we are a continuum of emotional feelings and reason

what has happened is that our culture defies reason and denigrates emotion. look at the mamoth pharmaceutical industry if you dont believe me, with its drugs for 'depression', 'anxiety', 'shyness' 'agressiveness' 'mania' 'hyperactivity'...you fkin name it. ie., FEELINGs, emotion are to be controlled

the nazis were 'rational'! their plans for their 'Final Solution' were meticulously coldy rational. COULD you have emotions and visit a concentration camp.....could you ...k

You act as if emotions are something out of our control. Like they are something brewing inside of us ready to burst. I'm not talking about using pharmaceuticals to control your emotions. If you have the ability to identify a particular feeling, and understand what the feeling is, and the message behind the feeling, you can use it as a guide to take the proper action.

The Nazis had their own emotions, rationalizations, and values. They acted upon them as we act upon ours. The question is what are our emotions, rationalizations, and values? Who do they affect our behaviors and actions.

Of course you could have emotions to visit a concentration camp. There is no such thing a s aperson without emotions. Hitler rarely visited the camps, and it is said that he put up a curtain on his vehicle to keep him from being influenced by the outside suffering. Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the lack of desire for knowledge.