This is what would happen if DODT is repealed

[briareos]

Yep.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Tuddrussell,

If your going to just say a one liner that you heard someone else say, at least make the effort to spell the words correctly. If you aren't going to think for yourself, at least try to do something else right.

Nihil novi sub sole. Also I don't believe in speel cheque, it breads clemancy.

My point is that countries win or lose wars, militaries either adequately preform their functions or they fail to do so.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who is it important to?

Apparently, a great many people. Every gay American who wants to serve their country but can't, it's important to them. Every straight American who objects to discrimination on irrational grounds. And besides, discrimination should be fought out of principle alone.

 

[briareos]

Tudd,

har har har...

I don't believe that's your point at all, even if you think it is.

I imagine your not very pro military and regard military in something other than high esteem. I could be wrong, but that's my theory.

 

[Tuddrussell]

The military is an important, or dare I say it necessary organization. I may disagree with how they do things on occasion, but I have never thought of them as anything other than a group of highly trained warriors who serve an important societal and political function.

That being said the military is nothing more than the sword that a country weilds, and as a sword it is imperative that we treat it with the respect it deserves. It is our duty to insure that the sword remains untarnished, and well maintained.

When two swordsmen clash blades, it is not the strength of the sword or the man that determens the winner. It is the strength of the swordsman, as one is nothing without the other.

 

[Jro]

The military is an important, or dare I say it necessary organization. I may disagree with how they do things on occasion, but I have never thought of them as anything other than a group of highly trained warriors who serve an important societal and political function.

That being said the military is nothing more than the sword that a country weilds, and as a sword it is imperative that we treat it with the respect it deserves. It is our duty to insure that the sword remains untarnished, and well maintained.

When two swordsmen clash blades, it is not the strength of the sword or the man that determens the winner. It is the strength of the swordsman, as one is nothing without the other.

So, in ancient history, the country was the swordsman, which was wielding a sword made up of other swordsman themselves wielding swords?

 

[Incariol]

The military is an important, or dare I say it necessary organization. I may disagree with how they do things on occasion, but I have never thought of them as anything other than a group of highly trained warriors who serve an important societal and political function.

That being said the military is nothing more than the sword that a country weilds, and as a sword it is imperative that we treat it with the respect it deserves. It is our duty to insure that the sword remains untarnished, and well maintained.

This isn't accurate. Fortunately, the military has evolved beyond the role of professional killers. This evolution should continue.

Army Hospitals Search US

US Army Corps of Engineers - HQ

U.S. Army Bands

 

[Tuddrussell]

So, in ancient history, the country was the swordsman, which was wielding a sword made up of other swordsman themselves wielding swords?

Yes. Also bowmen, and engineers, and healers, and trenchdiggers...

Warrior does not mean professional killer.

 

[Jro]

So does the strength of the sword depend upon the swordsman or the swordsman? And which sword would be the strength we're trying to measure? Also, wouldn't the strength of the sword itself figure into it?

 

[Tuddrussell]

...What?

 

[Jro]

It's like, your metaphor, man.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Well, then the answer is yes, total strength matters, and yes.

 

[Jro]

Well, then the answer is yes, total strength matters, and yes.

Well then if the strength of the sword matters in determining the strength of the swordsman, shall we say that there are two parts of the sword as well, namely one part which makes up the portion of the sword that contributes to the swordsman's strength and another portion of the sword that does not?

 

[Tuddrussell]

We can say that, sure. There's nothing stopping either of us from doing so.

 

[briareos]

Tudd,

I disagree with your last response to me. It is not inaccurate to say that a battle that service members are fighting that is won, is in fact their victory and that they did in fact win it. To say that military's do not win wars is not accurate. To say that the country did not win the war but rather the military is also inaccurate.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Countries win wars, is the military not a part of the country in your mind?

 

[briareos]

I am disagreeing with these statements.

My point is that countries win or lose wars, militaries either adequately preform their functions or they fail to do so.

The milatary wins wars in the same sense that genatalia wins at sex.

It is not rightly said that the Military does not win wars.

 

[Tuddrussell]

In neither case did I say that militaries did not win wars. They do, just not in and of themselves. They perform their function, and in performing their function they participate in victory as they are a part of the winning nation.

 

[Jro]

We can say that, sure. There's nothing stopping either of us from doing so.

So then the sword is itself made up of swordsman (who contribute to the strength of the sword) and swords (which do not, except in part), meaning that nations were composed of swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords, which were swordsmen holding swords,

 

[Tuddrussell]

Exactly. I'm glad we worked this out. Continue.