Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,516
In Reply To
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
Subj: Re: Lol well yeah basically
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2022 at 07:09:12 pm EST (Viewed 258 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Lol well yeah basically
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2022 at 03:34:28 pm EST (Viewed 260 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    No it means that since you're not personally risking anything, you shouldn't be so cavalier about the waging of war.


In this circumstance, a war has already started and so this is not the same as 2003 where we pre-planned for months before preemptively attacking Iraq. The sense of urgency is quite different, wouldn't you say?

Also, the line dividing right and wrong is a lot less blurry in this case - do you disagree?


    Quote:
    And in terms of what rationally has to happen, I think anyone can weigh in. My point was you brought up the idea of cowardice, and since you're not going to be gracing the battlefield with your presence, from my position, I'd say you're not any less cowardly. How is saying we should send a bunch of people to kill and die on your behalf some how more brave?


Cowardice is more than just fear of physical harm and battle confrontations. I've seen "tough" guys who were absolutely petrified of public speaking and refuse to participate for fear of being judged. In the movie a Few Good Men, Demi Moore chastised Tom Cruise as a coward because he wouldn't put Colonel Jessup on the stand. Being a coward is more than just fear of physical harm - it's also fear of career damage, being judged, standing/eating alone, and being outside of the pack. Biden is definitely fearful of all these things, and a real man isn't. He can't handle the political risk and so always chooses the safest route like a real p***y.


    Quote:
    And I'm not preventing you from getting back to anything.


Okay, if that's how arguments are reduced, then fine. Nobody is preventing 19 year olds from choosing a different career.



In this circumstance, a war has already started and so this is not the same as 2003 where we pre-planned for months before preemptively attacking Iraq. The sense of urgency is quite different, wouldn't you say?

Also, the line dividing right and wrong is a lot less blurry in this case - do you disagree?


LGDB: how is their that kind of urgency. If we were going to circumvent the invasion that they morevor less predicted was going to happen, we already would have done that. They've already decided on aggressive sanctions, which will probably be awful for the Russian people, though I imagine Putin and his cadre of fellow oligarch will have spent the better part of the last 15 years making their actual assets sanction proof. I can't imagine they would have followed through here if they thought it would mean some kind of immediate impoverishment. Regardless, I think Putin is right about one thing, the West doesn't care enough about Ukraine or any principle enough to risk another world war.





Cowardice is more than just fear of physical harm and battle confrontations. I've seen "tough" guys who were absolutely petrified of public speaking and refuse to participate for fear of being judged. In the movie a Few Good Men, Demi Moore chastised Tom Cruise as a coward because he wouldn't put Colonel Jessup on the stand. Being a coward is more than just fear of physical harm - it's also fear of career damage, being judged, standing/eating alone, and being outside of the pack. Biden is definitely fearful of all these things, and a real man isn't. He can't handle the political risk and so always chooses the safest route like a real p***y.


LGDB: Oh yes, storming the beaches of Normandy and giving a TED talk. Same bravery ball park.

As far as if Biden's a coward? Yeah probably. Or at least I have no idea. What I'm saying is that the opposite of Biden in this case, Trump, the conservatives, people beating the war drum are every bit the coward. There's risking your life, and then there's expecting other people will do that for you.






Okay, if that's how arguments are reduced, then fine. Nobody is preventing 19 year olds from choosing a different career.


LGDB: So are you saying that since 19 year olds could have chosen not to enlist then it's okay to cavalierly send them to die?



Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software