HomeTeamFamily Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 ok this thought/rant just hit me a few minutes ago after highschool, one has several options....college, job, armed forces, whatever......but the choice that the person makes is one that they make with their free will, knowing the benefits and consequences of the decision before the decision is made that being said.....if one chooses the armed forces....they must do so knowing that being sent to war is a possible outcome of the decision right? i guess my point is that so many people are complaining about bringing the troops home and whatever and im all for that.....i want them to be safe just as all of us they are defending......but in reality.....that is their job......they signed up for it......they made that decision i dont mean to come across rude or insensitive toward our troops because i know a couple of friends who are in the military its like if you are at your desk job and the boss comes in and asks you to like do a report that really is boring and stupid......what do you do? do you do the report and hand it in or do others around you sit and complain to the boss about how its unfair of him to ask you do to this report when its your job to do them? just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Of course you realize what you're saying makes [b]too much[/b] sense..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Hey, I totally agree. I pray everyday for the troops in the war. My father was a Major in the Army so I know how it goes. I want them to be safe but that is what the troops want to do. If they didn't want to go and protect our country and fight then they wouldn't of joined the armed forces. I learned that from my dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Exactly. I'd like for someone to give a sensible explanation how Chamberlain's policy of negotiation would have stopped Hitler, Mussilinni, or the Emperor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Well unless theres conscription, but that doesn't happen nowadays. Vietnam was different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I agree with what you say. However, if I enlisted 2 or 3 or more years ago and was asked to fight in a war that I thought (along with JP2) was unjust... I would disagree, they signed up thinking they would fight just wars, I see that as a cathcer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 6 2004, 11:22 PM'] I agree with what you say. However, if I enlisted 2 or 3 or more years ago and was asked to fight in a war that I thought (along with JP2) was unjust... I would disagree, they signed up thinking they would fight just wars, I see that as a cathcer. [/quote] It's not up to you to decide if a war is a just war, it's up to the legitimate authority. From the Catechism: [quote]2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. [/quote] Read the last line again before replying.... Basically your saying you would enlist, then break the law by not following up on you enlistment. If you want to say something say (probably the truth), say that you wouldn't enlist. There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of the folks complaining probably signed up thinking they not fight any wars at all. They gambled and lost. They need to live up to their commitment. Edited July 7, 2004 by thicke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/quote] Yeh... I also think the Pope is kinda responsibile. Also Hitler thought his war was just... He was responsibile for the common good. (Not making a Bush Hitler refernce here, but I am sure we all can agree that Hitler did not lead a just war so I use him as an example) I don't have any plans of enlisting. Some people are made for the army etc. I don't think I am. I could never live with myself after taking a life, regardless of if it was just or not. I cried for hours when I mistakenly killed a rabbit or a snake with the lawn mower, and A. They don't have souls. B. It was a mistake. If I even thought I ended the life, on purpose, of an other human... I don't know what I would do. I know that there is a risk of war when you enlist. And therefore, I am not going to. If I feel called to serve my nation, I will do it someway else. I.E. fire dept, EMT, so forth. I respect those who enlist, and all I ask is they respect others and I ask those who lead them that they aren't put in harms way for less than good reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeteenchick527 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote name='lankyswimmer' date='Jul 6 2004, 12:05 PM'] ok this thought/rant just hit me a few minutes ago after highschool, one has several options....college, job, armed forces, whatever......but the choice that the person makes is one that they make with their free will, knowing the benefits and consequences of the decision before the decision is made that being said.....if one chooses the armed forces....they must do so knowing that being sent to war is a possible outcome of the decision right? i guess my point is that so many people are complaining about bringing the troops home and whatever and im all for that.....i want them to be safe just as all of us they are defending......but in reality.....that is their job......they signed up for it......they made that decision i dont mean to come across rude or insensitive toward our troops because i know a couple of friends who are in the military its like if you are at your desk job and the boss comes in and asks you to like do a report that really is boring and stupid......what do you do? do you do the report and hand it in or do others around you sit and complain to the boss about how its unfair of him to ask you do to this report when its your job to do them? just my .02 [/quote] ya i totally agree with you...its the same for all of us we all make a choice....they made that choice by themselves...it isnt like someone forced them into it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 7 2004, 08:38 PM'] Yeh... I also think the Pope is kinda responsibile. [/quote] The Pope made no formal statement. He only expressed his opinion.. Edited July 8, 2004 by thicke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote name='jasJis' date='Jul 7 2004, 05:52 AM'] I'd like for someone to give a sensible explanation how Chamberlain's policy of negotiation would have stopped Hitler, Mussilinni, or the Emperor. [/quote] It relied on the assumption that if Hitler had reneged on the agreement that France and the U.K. would shell the Ruhr and spear straight into Berlin. Unfortunately the French have the disability of having weak generals and gutless politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 7 2004, 09:44 PM'] It relied on the assumption that if Hitler had reneged on the agreement that France and the U.K. would shell the Ruhr and spear straight into Berlin. Unfortunately the French have the disability of having weak generals and gutless politicians. [/quote] Not to mention not expecting the success of that thing Hitler had called the Blitzkreig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote name='thicke' date='Jul 8 2004, 04:47 AM'] Not to mention not expecting the success of that thing Hitler had called the Blitzkreig... [/quote] Blitzkreig relies on the army being there, which it wasn't near france until spring 1940, which was lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 [quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 7 2004, 09:48 PM'] Blitzkreig relies on the army being there, which it wasn't near france until spring 1940, which was lucky. [/quote] Actually, the blitzkrieg relied on the Army moving there really quickly. That was the whole point. First you don't see it, then suddenly you do. But no one was prepared for armored warfare against the likes of Rommel and Guderian until long after they already got their rear ends kicked (yes, I'm talking about Monty) by them or Patton showed up. And none of that happened until Africa...... So even if English arty had tried to shell the Ruhr in 39, Tiger tanks would have blitzkrieg-ed right over them before they got off a shot. That is, unless Patton had been British instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeTeamFamily Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 (edited) did i just get a thread hijacked? Edited July 8, 2004 by lankyswimmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now