In response to Travis¡¦s post (this is kind of long, but I need it to prove my point. That and it may prove to be more educational then what they might¡¦ve taught Mr. Travis in school):

Part 1:

I don¡¦t know what you have been thinking, but it clearly reflects our left-wing, anti-violent media. I¡¦d like to start off by saying that I do not approve of the war in Iraq, but I do believe that war is a viable form of foreign policy, and that what you have said about how war is dishonorable and such is completely based on what the media has fed you, and that¡¦s truly sad.

First of all, to start off, our soldiers are not mere ¡¥robots¡¦ who are ¡¥pawns¡¦ of our government policies. Our soldiers are some of the smartest, most professional and creative men in the world. What¡¦s even more important, however, is the fact that they are all volunteers. They are willing to serve our country and its policies knowing completely their situation and their mission. Your description of them as mere pawns and machines would have been correct of we have a conscript army. But we don¡¦t. Our soldiers are not forced to fight for a cause they don¡¦t believe in. In a country of democracy, we will honor that, and if they chose not to fight this war, we wont¡¦ force them to.

Now, onto your ¡¥honor¡¦ issue. I don¡¦t know how you may define ¡¥honor¡¦, but you need a wakeup call: it has been centuries since the wars of chivalry. Our knights and warriors are no longer clothed in chain mail and a suit of armor, hacking away at each other with swords and arrows.

No, warfare has evolved into something greater, more profound. Since the introduction of projectiles, we have always tried to find ways to kill each other while protecting ourselves. We build trenches, bunkers, and other forms of fortifications to lessen the danger of our side while increasing the danger for our enemies. Every single side has realized this, so warfare has turned into taking ¡¥cheap shots¡¦ at the enemy from hiding spots.

That might not be as honorable as standing out in the open, but consider this: warfare involves not only achieving victory, but achieving victory while lessening the bloodshed. For a soldier, survival is the first thing that comes to mind, THEN one may consider the possibility of victory. If I were to send you into hostile territory, would you stand out in the open, an easy target, just so you can have an honorable form of warfare? Would you like to repeat Pickett¡¦s charge, wasting lives of men in a pointless and futile struggle?

Part 2:

Now, I will explain to you why chivalry and the such doesn¡¦t work anymore.

World War 2 was the last truly modern war that we have fought. What about the likes of Korea and Vietnam, you ask? Our Congress never declared war in those instances, because we had no clear enemy. Those were wars of shadows, and they were mainly small affairs compared to the magnitude of the first two world wars.

However, the wars of today are drastically different. A new form of warfare has evolved: State sponsored terrorism. Many poor, third world states may have political and economical agendas, but they do not have a military mean to achieve that agenda. They have resorted to funding small groups to conduct clandestine warfare, while publicly denying, or at least ignore, the protest of the world community. If any atrocity is lined to their government, they can simply reply that they did not endorse their activity and that it has no part in their administration. Easy, said, done, while the real bad guys got away with delivering their strike but no one else officially or truly to blame.

This kind of enemy does not conduct open warfare. They use hit and run tactics, then they hide in the wilderness. They train, arm, and brainwash ordinary civilians to fight for ¡¥freedom from oppression¡¦. They are wild, irrational, and they believe that what they do will bring them to martyrdom. Such enemies have no concept of chivalry as you do, Travis. They do not share your moral values, and therefore you cannot expect them to change and mold themselves into an enemy that you want them to be.

Part 3

This is in response to your ¡¥war is shit and pointless¡¦ comments. This is the part that I think was the most pathetic of all.

History is the ultimate proof of Darwinism: Stronger nations prevail, while weaker nations are absorbed or completely demolished.

I personally believe that there are only 2 sources of guidance: the Bible, and history, and in that order. Wars have been along since the first days of man, when nomadic tribes battled for territory and survival. Your comments on how ¡¥warfare is crap¡¦ is directly against what I value almost as highly as my primary form of spiritual guidance. Warfare is a way of life. Deal with it. It has been part of human history, and forever will be as long as we exist. It is a matter of fact, a way of life. It has solved numerous conflicts in which there is no other solution, delivered justice when there is no other way of doing so. Man does not relish taking the life of another, but when your survival is at stake, history proves us that there is no other way of doing so.

Appeasement will not work. Diplomacy will only delay it, so don¡¦t think that war is an option: it might seem so on paper, but sometimes it is the ONLY option.

Semper Fidelis,
Fobby, Out!

Uh, you can use my house. My parent's dont' care :-P

That, and my thoughts for the day:

Really, really, terrible week. I spent most of it in a depression and other whatnots, riding the high and low tides of my emotions. Fun.
But hey, what does not kill me makes me stronger. Lesson of the week

Emotions = being human
Being human = make mistakes
Being emotional = make mistakes

So, yea, it sucks to be emotional. But since perfectionists don't make mistakes, may be they're not human! (perfectionist n; see "Tifffanie") So, unless you are completely devoid of emotions, do not hope to get a perfect GPA

*update
My dad is a backward fascist luddite. While I was watching Children of Dune on SciFi, his lack of comprehension and mastery of the english language led him to decide that, well, anything shown on SciFi has nothing to do with science and is therefore witchcraft, a direct affront to his 'Christian beliefs'

After arguing with him for 10 minutes, I found out that I am smarter than my father. His last words: "I raised up an undisciplined and rebellious son, who has too many opinions of his own." I almost scoffed at that, because he indirectly admitted that he is incapable of thinking for himself (in the intellectual sense). Yet, because he IS my father, he holds more control over me than I do over him. What a great dilemma

Fobby, out