Search Results

I really don't like how bad it looks for my opinion to always conflict with somebody else's, but I'm not going to lie. I respect and trust your insight into your own family's past and therefore assume that everything you've said on the matter holds a good deal of truth. I don't know anything about warriors, but I've always thought of a soldier as a person who fights to defend his/her interests (which are common with those of a people)... The opposing arguement's definition of a soldier as one w…

Perhaps warriors fight when they feel that it is needed, and in certain cases honor was considered a need. All people hold certain, unique convictions and are willing to fight and die for them. People often fight for the wrong things (which in a soldier's case can lead to oppressing enemies of his/her nation)... In this case the warrior still exists. He is not a person who kills as much as debates. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and perhaps the warrior can now be found in th…

Well, there are good soldiers and bad ones. Good soldiers do their job, suceed in the defense of their interests, and then show mercy to their one-time enemies and act civil about the whole process. Bad soldiers win the cause and rape, pillage, and plunder while they do it . Oppression is a side-effect of corruption. @Fox...the ass-kicking is very complex. I would like to point out that the soldiers not so much as the warriors push little red buttons that leave cities in ruins (of course, a per…

The Bombs did us another favor. It's obviously bad that we could annihilate ourselves with some button-pushing, but at least for the last 60 or so years world powers have been too terrified of that to have another world war (think about every conflict that's taken place in the last half century and realize how many would have escalated if there hadn't been nuclear devices standing by 8o). WMD are despicable and vile, but they seem to be the ultimate safeguard against a greater evil: large-scale …