War!

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So how about it? What are people's general opinion on war? I know we've discussed this a bit in other threads, but I figured there should be a thread dedicated specifically to it.

Personally, I'm against it. I really don't think that there is any reason that we should be flying around the world killing people that we don't agree with. I mean, just because we are so arogant to say that our way of life is right and someone else's is wrong, we need to kill them to prove it? This doesn't even prove that you're right either. It just proves that you have a better militia than the opponant.

I think that the only reason to kill anyone is in self defense. That doesn't mean to go over there and kill them before they have a chance to kill us. That means at the most extreme, kill them while they're on their way over here to try to kill us. Anything worse is supported by too many assumptions to validify.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I am also in general anti-war. You can't have one without someone being very wrong. That would be us in this current conflict. If Saddam was really that bad a ruler (I know he was terrible, I am making a point) then why did we help arm him , and look the other way when he used WMD against the Kurds? Most of you guys are too young to remember, but Buzz will tell you, the photos on the news were terrible. But we were up to our eyeballs in conflict with Iran, and Saddam was also busting the Ayatola"s nuts. Some we have the imfamous photo of Rummy shaking Saddams hand. WWII had Hitler, Franco, Moussolin, and originally Stalin too. He only joined the Allies because Hitler went back on his word and attacked the USSR.
The only place where I might waffle are revolutions. Again someone is ussually very wrong, but it's hard to call them self-defence. I also think to look at true revolutionary warfare you must forget the US and look at the revolutioins of France and Russia. The US didn't try to completly oust George, just free itself from the monarchy. In France and Russia they destroyed the monarchy. They killed both the guilty and the innocent, because they shared the same bloodline. But the shift in system was good, and neccesary. I also am grown up enough to know you just can't have a bloodless revolution, no one would just hand over that kind of power just because you asked nicely. They probably did evil to get it, and would do evil to keep it, and pass it to their children.

[Josh]

"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! "

- A memorable quote from Team America: World Police

[Josh]

I am also in general anti-war. You can't have one without someone being very wrong. That would be us in this current conflict. If Saddam was really that bad a ruler (I know he was terrible, I am making a point) then why did we help arm him , and look the other way when he used WMD against the Kurds? Most of you guys are too young to remember, but Buzz will tell you, the photos on the news were terrible. But we were up to our eyeballs in conflict with Iran, and Saddam was also busting the Ayatola"s nuts . . .


Let's not forget that the "we" you speak of is a different group of people now than it was then, and you are never correct when you generalize like that.

[General Septem]

Sometimes war is necessary for justice. Because like it or not, someone's going to be an idiot. It would be better if he would just stop being an idiot, but if we can stop him from being an idiot, then I say we have to.

[Prometheus]

Let's not forget that the "we" you speak of is a different group of people now than it was then, and you are never correct when you generalize like that.


Do you always talk about shit you havenever researched, nor no anything about. Rumsfeld was part of Bush sr cabinet, and was sent by Reagan to talk to Saddam , as seen in the picture. Not the same fucking we? Most of the same people are still voting, and most of the same politicians are still involved.

[Josh]

Different Bush, bud. All it takes is one example for her generalizations to be wrong. And next time you want to flame me I suggest you bring kryptonite.

[Zzyzx]

Yeah, war sucks. It'd be great if everyone could "just get along" and "make love, not peace", but that ain't reality. War can be unavoidable sometimes.

Iraq? Yeah, that was probably avoidable. I'm not defending that.

Pearl Harbor? I don't care what anyone says. The Japanese forced us into war. We'd all be speaking German if we hadn't stood up and defended ourselves.

We're no different than our ancestors - we still beat each other over the heads with clubs.

[Prometheus]

So replacing one man , with his son, makes a whole new group of people? The players are still the same bastards. So what if now we have George W. instead of George H.W., what diffrence do you really think there is?

[Josh]

Oh well im convinced. They have the same name so they must be the same person, right? Not right; you lose.

And yes one person makes a difference when he has an entire administration behind him and he's the one calling the fucking shots. Stay in school dipshit.

[General Septem]

You think that with W at the helm, all of a sudden his ol' man doesn't still have a say? The two of them run enterprises together. HW has held the presidency before. So obviously W and HW are going to be talking about this stuff over their daily breakfast at the local Char-Pit. If Bush were any more of a copy of his ol' man, he'd be blue from the carbon paper.

[Josh]

And you think that all the same people running the country then are running it today? Please be serious. I made one comment that generalizing shows ignorance and you want to argue conspiracies with me.

[General Septem]

I think the same people have been ruling the country for the last century.

[Josh]

Oh ok that makes sense. Well now that I'm convinced I'll be leaving. But don't worry; I'll be back on later.

[General Septem]

People in the organization have died, and new people joined, but they're all part of whatever you want to call them - the Masons, Illuminati, New World Order, it's all the same shit.

[Josh]

If you read that in a book then it must be true. Who needs any..thing to support your theories when a good ol' conspiracy just sounds too.. entertaining to deny.

[General Septem]

Well if you don't want to take the idea of the "NWO" or Illuminati literally, then fine - I'm just saying it doesn't matter who we elect, it's all the same bullshit. May not be an organisation. It just doesn't matter.

[Josh]

"it's all the same bullshit."

Way to specify. That reply is much better supported

[General Septem]

I don't really get your point anyway. Regardless, we armed them and now we are invading their country. I don't know why we initially armed them. I don't think it matters. I still think going in and taking out Sadaam is a good thing, because he was a really shitty dictator. I don't think all of our reasons for going over there are just though. But the just reasons can be worth going to war over.

[Josh]

My point is just because we're all part of the same country doesn't mean we should all be blamed for our "fathers'" (figuratively and literally) mistakes.

"We" armed him because Saddam couldn't lead a country in that area without military support. Today we're invading because it turns out he's a backstabbing psycho. Is that an answer to your question?

[General Septem]

My point is just because we're all part of the same country doesn't mean we should all be blamed for our "fathers'" (figuratively and literally) mistakes.

That's my point too actually.


"We" armed him because Saddam couldn't lead a country in that area without military support. Today we're invading because it turns out he's a backstabbing psycho. Is that an answer to your question?
Yeah, that's basically what I figured. So whether "we" was the same back then as it is now, saying, "why are we invading when we armed them in the first place" is not a good argument, because just that - we didn't expect him to be a psychopath.

[Josh]

I didn't mean to get so off track. It's just when I hear "we we we" "you you you" "america america america" I can't help but despise how ignorant people can be for making such fallacious generalizations.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Let's not forget that the "we" you speak of is a different group of people now than it was then, and you are never correct when you generalize like that.


I beg to disagree, when I say we armed him, I have that image of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in my head. George W. was raised by George HW, and educated in the same schools. His vice president was his fathers Secratary of Defense for desert storm, his Secratary of Defense Rumsfeld was S.O.D. in 1975-1977 and an advisor to Reagan, Karl Rove his advisor and campaign manager was also these same things for his father, anf finally his fathers Secratary of State James Baker, was W's Chief Legal advisor and special envoy in post-war Iraq. I may not have listed these specifics, but believe me I was not just generalizing. Maybe I should have said they did it.

[Josh]

I don't "believe you." When you don't list specifics you are "just generalizing."

[Paisleyspeaker]

my bad, I often forget that not everyone know/is thinking the same things as me. In this case I forgot that I was discussing politics with people too young to vote. If you are 16 then you were too young to remember the hostage crises, and the long tension with Iran, and the puctures of all the Kurds that Saddam gased. At the same time we were his 'buddy', and Reagan sent Rummy to aid him in his battle against Iran. I am not ignorant, you are a child, an intelligent child, but you are a child all the same. You don't have the experience and the body of knowledge my extra years have givin to me. To say that Amercian foriegn policy has helped create the political and martial problems we now face in the Middle East, is not a fallacious generalization, it is fact. Just a fact you don't seem to like.

Glad to see you did finally notice that I am a her , not a him.









+

[Josh]

"To say that Amercian foriegn policy has helped create the political and martial problems we now face in the Middle East" is not what you said; you did generalize. I can't tell you how smart I am or how smart you are, but excuse me if I don't take you seriously.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I can survive you not taking me seriously, on here I am not always serious. And as a man you are logical and practical. I am a woman emotional and etheric. We operate on diffrent wavelengths.

[joshua]

Sometimes war is necessary for justice. Because like it or not, someone's going to be an idiot.


im living in lebanon where israel is destroying everything ,,roads, bridges cow frams ,airport,seaports,and all of that is because some dum fuck hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers ,but does that give israel the right to a complete destruction of my country,,this is not justice,..

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

War is never necessary. Having these idiots is not necessary, but it is unavoidable. It will cause a war, but that doesn't mean that it's acceptable. I think that it would take an extreme ammount to prove that anybody is worth killing, and a disagreement of cultures is almost never nearly extreme enough to fall into this category.

Different cultures have different understandings of justice, and the least that should happen is IF we are going to a different culture to deliver justice, THEN we need to deliver it in the in a way that they would define it as just.

[Paisleyspeaker]

There is seldom ana exuse for violence, but there is often only one cause. Disrespect. When I was in college we had an author come and speak, his name was James Gilligan, he was a psychologist who worked with the Hauge. He had done an epidemological study of violence, as one might study a virus. He found that the root cause of almost all violence is disrespect. Even if you go all the way to the first recorded murder, Cain and Able, the cause was disrespect. God had shown Able's offering disrespect by honoring his brother's offering over his.

[melanie]

i'm anti-war. i'm against it because it ruin lives and that's my view regarding the subject