{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/1/2020 3:52:53 PM
71
Only would an American think this is a good idea. Nobody but Americans think that war/combat prowess is something to be proud of. If you’re wondering why this doesn’t gain more traction, it’s because this isn’t normal elsewhere.
English
-
[quote]Only would an American think this is a good idea. Nobody but Americans think that war/combat prowess is something to be proud of. If you’re wondering why this doesn’t gain more traction, it’s because this isn’t normal elsewhere.[/quote] Said the sheep to the lion.
-
I get that. I don’t think it’s DISrespectful. But it also endorses militaries of countries for no reason. I’m proud of my country because it’s citizens are decent human beings, not because we can invade a small country and conquer it in a day. I’m saying, it’s weird to take pride in something that is not something to be prideful about.
-
I said that in response to someone else, but then there’s no accountability. A general gives an atrocious order to be carried out, and a soldier carries it out. The soldier was just following orders, so who’s to blame? I’m not saying a soldier would deliberately commit an atrocity, but under a false premise from their higher up, they might. The service men and women are the arm through which corrupt/evil actions are performed. Again, not to say they ARE, but they cannot be separated from the whole of the machination.
-
Yeah, I did. “Good” is a matter of perspective. What’s good to Americans may not be to citizens of Australia. There’s always someone on the other side convinced YOU’RE the evil one. For example, the opposite side of your coin, you’re looking at all the good and neglecting all the bad? In theory, one should take it as a whole. I consider the good, but there’s still a lot of bad. It’s also difficult to critique something you approve of, but very easy when you disapprove.
-
You are very confused. Just because someone committed a crime in the past, does that negate any good they do in the future? Does it negate the good that they have done? It's easy to shrink it down to a small scale and talk about a person, but the truth is that we are talking about an organization. Sure, there have been bad acts committed by this organization and some of it's members, but do we judge them all based on that? No. The good far outweighs the bad.
-
It’s even easier when we scale it up to a nation. A single person didn’t make the decision to drop two nukes on Japan. A single person isn’t deciding to keep children in cages at the US-Mexico border. A single person didn’t decide that 10 year olds were to be considered combat threats in Vietnam. When you look it on that scale, it becomes even more disgraceful because multiple hands had a play in the result. “Good” is also super relative. Good for Americans, maybe. Every time I there’s a military conflict, one side wins, and one loses, but both still at costs. The losing side does not see any “good.” America is fortunate enough to be a military super power, so we don’t know much defeat. Maybe it would humble us.
-
Is that a serious question? Are you suggesting the US military has never had questionable acts? Because there’s lots. And so what, when it happens just be like “BAD!” and that solves it? That’s better than having a continuously questioning attitude wherein everyone is held accountable BEFORE a terrible event happens? Am I missing something? Does what you suggest literally not just provide less resistance to terrible acts by making it reactionary instead of proactive?
