Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[Galleleo]

Great, being called Finnish and Danish in a space of 4 posts...

And people wonder why there is so much stereotyping on Americans.

[Mattey]

Because first-hand experience isn't the be-all end-all of knowledge about a subject. The fact that you think it is, makes me think you've never taken a proper logic class. Anecdotal evidence is what baseless opinions are formed upon.

[Squeezer]

Yeah, women can't know anything about war, and men can't have opinions about abortion! You just lost the game.

Lol. I told you, you can have opinions about things. But don't assume that you are more intuitive about the demands of carrying and having a baby than a woman is. She knows what its like to have a baby inside her, the pains, the agony, the joy. You don't. You never will. That's experience and intuition you'll never have. She will know something you don't. Why are you so afraid to accept that your opinion might be baseless in some situations?

For instance I'd rather listen to my girlfriend about what a woman goes through during pregnancy or abortion than you. I'd trust her more as a source, because she'd actually have gone through it.

[Squeezer]

First of all, I ain't Finnish, so don't be a stereotypical dumbass American, because I know you're not.

Second of all:



All Finnish males have to go through basic training, thus according to your logic, they know more about war and shit than you do.

They are better trained to survive than I am. They do not know more about war. Also, lighten up buddy all you central euros are the same anyway .

Mantra-bramileoplacediderz.

[Mattey]

Yeah, women can't know anything about war, and men can't have opinions about abortion! You just lost the game.

[Squeezer]

Thank you for summing up why squeezer's point is retarded. The only thing finnish males know more about is crippling depression

haha okay. Keep thinking you know about war. You know man, you know!

[Mattey]

First of all, I ain't Finnish, so don't be a stereotypical dumbass American, because I know you're not.

Looks like danish males know more about having no sense of humor whatsoever.

[Galleleo]

No because your dumb army doesn't fight in anything that counts.

First of all, I ain't Finnish, so don't be a stereotypical dumbass American, because I know you're not.

Second of all:

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.

All Finnish males have to go through basic training, thus according to your logic, they know more about war and shit than you do.

[Mattey]

itt: All Finnish males know more about war than others.

Thank you for summing up why squeezer's point is retarded. The only thing finnish males know more about is crippling depression

[Squeezer]

itt: All Finnish males know more about war than others.

No because your dumb army doesn't fight in anything that counts.

[Galleleo]

itt: All Finnish males know more about war than others.

[Squeezer]

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:

Maybe not necessary, but I would rather have someone that has had experience. If I was to listen to someone about war, I would prefer a first hand experience. It's possible to be a good general without ever actually fighting in a war, I suppose. I'd still rather go with the guy that has seen fighting personally (a guy that knows the toll of war on every individual like Eisenhower). Whatever though, part of the reason the president is the head of our military forces is because he should maintain a cool head in situations where we may have to fight. The one thing about soldiers is that they're trained to fight, so they usually want to fight to solve things.

You don't need experience to have an opinion. Does that mean your opinion will be well regarded? Probably not. Do you think Colin Powell and GWB or Dick Cheney were on the same page when it came to waging war?

edit: or for another perspective, would I be listened to if talked about "the morality of war" if I was sitting around a table with a group of veterans? Or do you think they would tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? What about if I started spouting off the best ways to advance on an enemy?

[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?

[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]

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