CNN Combat Hospital.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
please, they did it in the 40'ies anyway...and Hitler used the defeat as a means to gain power... that's a fact..

so what if it would have changed Europe, woulda shoulda coulda

only result is that millions died... and they died thinking it was the war to end all wars...they died because Generals and supreme commanders just ordered men to die en masse... very noble .. veyr glorious...

One cannot predict the future...but must fight for right and for country when they are threatened...any less would maleficent.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Just the opposite. If the Allies had let the Central Powers succeed, it would have changed Europe and the nature of governments there forever. Germany would have likely have been strong enough to take over and rule the entire continent by the 30s.

Utter nonsense. That's not even close to the historical facts.

You really have a garbage mentality, fintstone.

[NY65912]

M21sniper

My friend has been in and out of Afgahnistan for 5 years. He is a Green Beret bird colonel who "negotiates" with the local warlords.

He has offered a warlord a school and hospital for "his village/ area in exchange for cooperation with US forces. The warlord says no.....he wants a helicopter for his own personal use.

My buddy says that the warlords are only interested in their own personal gain and really are not concerned with the people they control. An old story I guess.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by fintstone
I don't really feel that I need to enlighten you as you are clearly a hopeless case, but I have a good deal of experience at war...but nothing I would like to share with you.

[Erakad]

Back on topic...amazing work they're doing at the theater hospitals. Once at the Balad ER, you have a 96% chance of survival, on average, a day later you're at WRAMC. Casualties in any war are sad....agreed, but politics aside, when seeing the men and women at the US definitive care facilities, you marvel at their attitudes.

[holtjv]

Sorry to continue the OT. But hearing about nobility and dying for one's country, frankly, is a crock to the troops on the ground. Whoever thinks this has not been in a conflict and seen the insanity up close.

In retrospect, a troop's death may have contributed to a larger, noble cause. But I can guarantee you that there's not one troop on the ground who would consider dying for his country or another country an honor, unless he's whacked out. Die for your buddy? You bet.

Fint, and whoever else thinks war is glorious, you've been watching movies and have not been there--unless you're mental.

Jack

PS. Yes, I've been there--mind you it was only Somalia

[fintstone]

Originally posted by holtjv
...Fint, and whoever else thinks war is glorious, you've been watching movies and have not been there--unless you're mental.

Jack

PS. Yes, I've been there--mind you it was only Somalia

Been there or not...misquoting a person here is pretty pathetic...even if it is via paraphrase.

Arguing it is "noble" certainly does not argue it is "glorious."

It is amazing how quick many of you guys are to reword someone's position to make yours easier to argue. It is intellectually dishonest and maybe...as you put it "mental." Either your vocabularies are deficient or you are outright dishonest. If you are going to use my name...at least try to get my words right. It is akin to me saying that your position is that we should never go to war to defend our country. Cheap shots are just that...
If you served in Somalia...thank you for your service. I don't know about you, but I certainly believe the efforts of the men that received the Medal of Honor posthumously for what they did there were certainly "noble." And as special forces...if they had survived...they likely would have not even be allowed to talk about it.

[svandamme]

no·ble /ˈnoʊbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -bler, -blest, noun
–adjective
1. distinguished by rank or title.
2. pertaining to persons so distinguished.
3. of, belonging to, or constituting a hereditary class that has special social or political status in a country or state; of or pertaining to the aristocracy.
4. of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence; lofty: a noble thought.
5. admirable in dignity of conception, manner of expression, execution, or composition: a noble poem.
6. very impressive or imposing in appearance; stately; magnificent: a noble monument.
7. of an admirably high quality; notably superior; excellent.
8. famous; illustrious; renowned.
9. Chemistry. inert; chemically inactive.
10. Falconry. (of a hawk) having excellent qualities or abilities.
–noun
11. a person of noble birth or rank; nobleman or noblewoman.
12. a former gold coin of England, first issued in 1346 by Edward III, equal to half a mark or 6s. 8d., replaced in 1464 under Edward IV by the rose noble.
13. (in Britain) a peer.




glo·ri·ous /ˈglɔriəs, ˈgloʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[glawr-ee-uhs, glohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. delightful; wonderful; completely enjoyable: to have a glorious time at the circus.
2. conferring glory: a glorious victory.
3. full of glory; entitled to great renown: England is glorious in her poetry.
4. brilliantly beautiful or magnificent; splendid: a glorious summer day.
5. Archaic. blissfully drunk.


you'll find they are somewhat synonims
or shal i call it "overlapping"

regardless Fint, War is neither Noble nor Glorious
proper terms would be horrific, nasty, death, bad, evil, suffering, agony,despair, homesick,anguish

negative terms, not positive ones...

and you still haven't explained your self and what war you've been to which makes me think your posing...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
...you'll find they are somewhat synonims
or shal i call it "overlapping"
...

You can call it whatever you choose, but you would still be wrong. Perhaps you just need to work on your English a bit. If both words meant the same thing, there would not be two different words with two different definitions in the dictionary you cited. Just because both are somewhat "positive" terms does not make them synonyms...duh

Risking ones life...or giving one's life as a soldier in the defense of family and nation are indeed noble. The fact that you do not see that is worrisome. If your other countrymen feel that way...you are doomed as a nation. Eventually there will come a time where you can neither buy-off an enemy and the US will choose not to help.

[nostatic]

my dad was a corpsman in WW2 in the Pacific. He was a "runner"...the guy who took the the one-man stretcher out under fire to drag back guys that had been hit. Then he'd try to fix 'em, mostly gauze and morphine.

That's about all I've ever been able to get out of him about the "nobility" of war. He won't talk about it. And thinks the current conflict is questionable at best. ymmv.

[fintstone]

Most guy that have actually seen action do not want to discuss the specifics. In this case we are discussing the idea. I cannot see how you could call what your Dad in did WW2 anything but "noble" even though he may not think of himself in such heroic terms. I know I do.

[holtjv]

fint, no apology for the misquote.

I group the people who say war is, or can be, glorious in the same category with those who say war or the death of a troop can be noble. No argument that they are different words with different meanings. Sure.

"..I cannot see how you could call what your Dad in did WW2 anything but "noble" even though he may not think of himself in such heroic terms. I know I do."

I see your nice and shared comment above as something different to which I am referring.

Jack

[holtjv]

So to sum up my opinion: war is neither noble nor glorious. Those who think it is are ignorant in the true definition of the word.

A troop's death can be noble, although he/she is not risking his/her life for any noble cause other than protecting a buddy, which indeed is heroic.

Jack

[fintstone]

Originally posted by holtjv
fint, no apology for the misquote.

I group the people who say war is, or can be, glorious in the same category with those who say war or the death of a troop can be noble. No argument that they are different words with different meanings. Sure.

"..I cannot see how you could call what your Dad in did WW2 anything but "noble" even though he may not think of himself in such heroic terms. I know I do."

I see your nice and shared comment above as something different to which I am referring.

Jack

Do me a favor...if you are arguing with me....please quote the portion so that I have some idea what you are talking about. All I know about your argument now is that you really see no problem misquoting me.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by holtjv
So to sum up my opinion: war is neither noble nor glorious. Those who think it is are ignorant in the true definition of the word.

A troop's death can be noble, although he/she is not risking his/her life for any noble cause other than protecting a buddy, which indeed is heroic.

Jack

No one used the word glorious except you. To me, fighting to protect one's family and nation are indeed noble...beyond a doubt. I know of nothing more noble.
So are you saying there is no cause sufficiently noble enough to go to war for...other than protecting a buddy? If so, why would you join the military? Did you have buddies already in the service and were joining to protect them? Did you not have to take the oath like everyone else?

[svandamme]

Originally posted by fintstone
No one used the word glorious except you. To me, fighting to protect one's family and nation are indeed noble...beyond a doubt. I know of nothing more noble.
So are you saying there is no cause sufficiently noble enough to go to war for...other than protecting a buddy? If so, why would you join the military? Did you have buddies already in the service and were joining to protect them? Did you not have to take the oath like everyone else?

"defending ones own"
is not the same as "war"

War is a state of affairs between 2 nations or more

"defending ones own" is an act of one person for the purpose of defending someone dear

if you don't get that, then maybe you need to work on your english... it's my 3rd language, what's your excuse?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
"defending ones own"
is not the same as "war"

War is a state of affairs between 2 nations or more

"defending ones own" is an act of one person for the purpose of defending someone dear

if you don't get that, then maybe you need to work on your english... it's my 3rd language, what's your excuse?

I like the way you made up a quote from me so you could better present an argument. That was right out of the Rodeo playbook.

Of course you started out telling us that

Originally posted by svandamme
war is never noble... not even when it's to fight a war against evil…

Now I am not really sure what point you are attempting to make...it seem that it is just an extension of the usual liberal argument that "surrender is always the answer." Is your second language French?

[svandamme]

mais oui mon cher... mais en faîte, concernant l'Iraq les Français on bien donnez l'assesement plus accurate que celle la de votres governement ... ce n'etes pas les Français qui ont fails la connery sur le niveau international... n'est pas?

si je commence a dire que la guerre est ni noble, ni glorieux, meme pas dans le cas de defence, je ne disais pas que la capitulation est le seul alternatif...Peut êtres vois avez obliez, la defence dans la Premie Guerre du Monde?? pas de la capitulation la... si vous dites que la France est plain des capitulateurs, peut-êtres on peut dire la meme pour l'Etats-Unis? Vietnam etait une capitulation bien humiliant...

Si vous êtes pas sûr quelle point je vous presente, peut-êtres ca va mieux en Français??

[fintstone]

Originally posted by svandamme
mais oui mon cher... mais en faîte, concernant l'Iraq les Français on bien donnez l'assesement plus accurate que celle la de votres governement ... ce n'etes pas les Français qui ont fails la connery sur le niveau international... n'est pas?

si je commence a dire que la guerre est ni noble, ni glorieux, meme pas dans le cas de defence, je ne disais pas que la capitulation est le seul alternatif...Peut êtres vois avez obliez, la defence dans la Premie Guerre du Monde?? pas de la capitulation la... si vous dites que la France est plain des capitulateurs, peut-êtres on peut dire la meme pour l'Etats-Unis? Vietnam etait une capitulation bien humiliant...

Si vous êtes pas sûr quelle point je vous presente, peut-êtres ca va mieux en Français??

It figures.

I disagree. Going to war for a honorable cause is indeed noble. No the French have not been right on any issue that comes to mind. Yes, France is the home of surrender. No, we did not surrender in Vietnam. We soundly defeated the North Vietnamese and withdrew after the Paris Peace accords. The problem was that our (at the time) lily-livered congress chose not to live up to our obligation to help the South Vietnamese as we promised. This failure, purely for political gain, resulted in millions of deaths that we could have prevented. The war was not ignoble, but our failure to support our ally in '74 was indeed shameful and a dark day in the history of our nation. If we fall to similar democratic politics with our situation in Iraq...we will follow the same path. Millions will die and our military will be destroyed....again. The reason that we have reached the current situation is because we failed to act strongly enough in the past and are largely viewed as a paper tiger....due to the trepidation of some of our elected leaders and the partisan political aspirations of others.

[svandamme]

lol