Quote:
Originally Posted by / / ///AutoZone
edit* defending army is always justified. as in the comment i was replying to (that you said you read). am i being trolled, or are you really this anal?
You mean this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
It is not that I think these are unfair points, but does not this line of thinking ultimately lead us to justify almost any war? My logic being that in almost any war the sides will presumably think that "something" is a threat or hindrance to their way of life?
Yeah... The word "army" has never appeared in this thread before this point. Nor has militia or any other word that would suggest an armed standing force of some type. The logic of the post is that "in almost any war the sides will presumably think that "something" is a threat or hindrance to their way of life."
The observation you responded to had nothing to do with defending armies or anything of the type. It was that it seems possible to broadly justify virtually any war. And your comment was a specific example of a broad justification:
Quote:
Originally Posted by / / ///AutoZone
it's a simple case of invader vs defender. defender is always justified.
The "defender" is not always justified.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. All you're doing is further contextualizing your claim, which only serves as greater justification for my position. But notice also that you're engaging in exactly the type of rationalization that your original post was responding to. You can probably justify wars on a wide range of grounds with a broad collection of rationalizations.
You can think of yourself as being trolled, but really you're just not that good at constructing arguments. Perhaps if you took more time to think through and learn about what it is you're arguing about rather than arguing from the top of your head, you might do better. Your habit of inserting extra ideas and not staying on point are going to continue to hinder your success.