Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[Squeezer]

almost every day

i really like cock

[Summa]

You can't seem to understand a simple logical argument, which is quite saddening. Nor does it seem you have a grasp on the English language. Do you know what a preposition is? If you do, then you should know that the cannot end a sentence. It is a serious flaw in your writing.

Now to the heart of this. If you understood and could comprehend without me babying you, this post would be unnecessary, but alas you cannot. I am in full support of both squeezer and epi. What that quote from the movie is saying is that you cannot grasp the entirety of a subject. You cannot know something in its being without experiencing it. You have probably read a couple or less primary texts or accounts of this afghan government or whatever (I could care little about the subject it is that you claim mastery over). Most of what you have read is likely secondaries. That is, people's opinionated pieces. (For example: A primary of united states law would be a supreme court justice ruling or an actual bill. A secondary would be some dude's book about Brown v. Board. Or better the primary of Dracula would be the text itself and a secondary would be a review/summary/critical analysis). You are "deducing" your own "opinions" off of other people's opinions. You have an opinion of someone's opinion of an actual subject. That is not the subject itself. You cannot have mastery over something unless you reach the subject itself (so says that Plato and Nietzsche guy....I hear they is smarts).

Aside from that your post is a waste of space. It is unsubstantiated insults. Your best insult on me was "you make no sense". I once read Macbeth when I was in 5th grade. It made no sense. I read it again later, when I was more intelligent and could actually think. Guess what happened?

[Epinephrine]

Summa, you do realize that this all started because Paradise and Jerome disagreed on the origins of the Taliban right. And neither of them have been there, and are basing their opinions off the opinions of someone else.

[Summa]

Yes, but jerome doesn't claim mastery over the subject. Paradise does. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the expression of it (provided you live in a free speech country), but claiming to actually know something about a subject is an entirely different story.

[Cops]

Yes, but jerome doesn't claim mastery over the subject. Paradise does. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the expression of it (provided you live in a free speech country), but claiming to actually know something about a subject is an entirely different story.

Jerome often claims mastery over others in almost all topics on this forum, especially those regarding politics and economics. I'm not saying either side is right, I just think you're browbeating at this point.

[Cops]

Cops I want you to fully experience my cock.

i knew you were all about the cock

[Ephemeral]

...views of himself are he is in fact what you, genocidal, squeezer, kolar, myself and the majority of people are in this thread; Young individuals that haven't fully experienced life...

???

[PH]

hope everyone picked up their nobel prize

turns out this year all you have to do to get one is not be george w. bush

[Mattey]

So apparently firefighters know more about how to fight a fire as a firefighter more than non-firefighters. As well, pilots know more about piloting aircraft than people who've never piloted an airplane, and women know more about how it is to be a women more than men do.

I think that's what Squeezer's getting at.

Does a fire-fighter know more about how to make a fire-hose than an engineer? Do pilots know more about how to build a plane than an engineer? Does an infantryman know more about scorched-earth tactics than a civilian who's been bombed?

Is everyone on this forum incredibly dense?

[Squeezer]

Does a fire-fighter know more about how to make a fire-hose than an engineer? Do pilots know more about how to build a plane than an engineer? Does an infantryman know more about scorched-earth tactics than a civilian who's been bombed?

Is everyone on this forum incredibly dense?

No, they don't necessarily know "more" or "less" but that's why our engineers build weapons and our soldiers are trained to use them. Perhaps an engineer could use the weapon better in theory, since he built it, but the soldier is trained to use it in combat. That's why they're soldiers. That's why they fight wars while engineers only build the munitions.

Firefighters fight fires, engineers keep away from the heat. Again, which would you rather have saving your family from a fire, an engineer that blueprints fire hoses, or a firefighter trained to rush a building and put out the fire? Now who would you rather have fighting our wars, soldiers trained to fight and kill or the guy that thinks about constructing their guns? Where do you think generals come from? They're soldiers educated (hopefully) both on how to fight a war and what it takes to fight a war on the ground level. Is it so weird to assume that people enter trades they're interested in and in some cases succeed enough to be inventive with their roles?

[Mattey]

Now who would you rather have fighting our wars, soldiers trained to fight and kill or the guy that thinks about constructing their guns?

What does this have to do with every veteran knowing more about war tactics than anyone else?

[Squeezer]

What does this have to do with every veteran knowing more about war tactics than anyone else?

They all have to finish basic training (aka training on how to survive and handle harsh conditions) don't they? War is about fighting and surviving. Those are the two things they cover in heavy detail during basic.

That training would make a person more suitable to fight in a war, would it not? More fit than say, you and I? If that soldier sees and survives conflict, that would give him experience you and I or even Chomsky could never claim, wouldn't it?

[Mattey]

To fight in it, yes. To plan a strategy for it? no.

[Squeezer]

To fight in it, yes. To plan a strategy for it? no.

So then why the hell give officer's rank to people that slowly work their way up in the military? Why promote people at all if there's already a batch of qualified war executives that know what they're doing without ever stepping foot onto a battlefield? I understand that sometimes West Point punks and military geniuses make it to certain ranks, but how do you explain for people like:

Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Samuel Wilson, Eisenhower, MacArthur?

All of whom rose through the ranks after they'd given service as some form of a grunt. They were deemed valuable because of their military experience and ability to think about warfare as a concept. The two are not mutually exclusive, but don't mistake for a minute that the reason they ascended to these positions wasn't because of their soldier's intuition. They all did their time beforehand and learned what it meant to be a soldier. Are you going to say that experience didn't help qualify them over a regular joe or a fresh graduate out of West Point?

[Mattey]

I never argued that first-hand experience isn't beneficial, just that it's not strictly necessary. You seem to think that it is, so if I can provide an example of an established war strategist or philosopher that never served as a soldier, will you agree that first-hand soldiering experience isn't necessary to have informed opinions about war?

Edit: for reference:

Where do you get off then talking about what should or shouldn't happen in a war? Like anyone but the Gods can determine what comes about.

double edit: nobody ever came close to addressing this point:

Afghanistan and Iraq are un-winnable because the goal isn't occupation. The goal is to change ideology, you can't win that by killing as many soldiers as civilians.


Edit: How do you win a war with no clear goals? What is the end-zone we must reach to have won a war in Iraq? Is there one?