Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2076681 - 11/06/03 10:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

the fundamental principle in these two situations is identical -- in the act of defending others (the people of the enslaved countries) innocent civilians were killed.

the fundamental principle is not the same. you are showing your prejudice and ignorance. any student of history would see that there are huge differences between WWII and the invasion of Iraq. your comparisons are meaningless.

You keep claiming there are different principles involved, but I can't help but notice you fail to identify the principles to which you refer. Which principle was operating in the Allied invasion of Europe which was not operating in the coalition's invasion of Iraq?

I failed to identify the different principle?!?! did you actually bother to read what I wrote? does "self-defense" mean anything to you?

What self defense?

you got it here. so apparently, I didn't "fail to identify" the principle. maybe you just didn't like the answer. or didn't understand.

When did Germany attack America?

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 240 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.

SS City of Flint was seized by a German warship but her captain's diplomacy, and the intervention of Norway eventually freed the ship. Oct. 9, 1939
El Sonador (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk near the Shetland
Islands on February 18, 1940. Casualties unknown.
SS City of Rayville struck a German mine off the Australian coast. Nov. 9, 1940. Crew 1 killed
SS Charles Pratt torpedoed on Dec. 21, 1940 (Panamanian flag, U.S. owned and crewed) Crew 2 killed
SS Robin Moor torpedoed by a U-Boat in the South Atlantic. May 21, 1941. No casualties
SS Iberville mine dropped by German aircraft in Red Sea. August 11, 1941. No casualties
Longtaker [former Danish Sessa, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on August 17, 1941. Crew 24 killed, 3 survived
SS Steel Seafarer attacked by German aircraft in the Gulf of Suez. Sept. 5, 1941. No casualties
Montana [former Danish Paula, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 11, 1941. Crew 26 killed
Pink Star [former Danish Landby, Panama] torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 19, 1941. Crew 13 killed
I. C. White (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in South Atlantic on Sept. 27, 1941. Crew 3 killed
Bold Venture (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Oct 16, 1941. Crew 17 killed, 17 survived. This was a former Danish vessel taken over by the U.S.
SS Lehigh torpedoed and sunk off the African coast. Oct. 19, 1941. No casualties
Meridian (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Nov. 11, 1941. The entire crew of approximately 38 was lost (4 of the crew were Canadian, citizenship of others unknown).
SS Astral, a tanker, vanished, torpedoed in the North Atlantic. Dec. 2, 1941. Crew 37 killed
SS Sagadahoc torpedoed in the South Atlantic. Dec. 3, 1941. Crew 1 killed
SS Cynthia Olson torpedoed in pacific one hour before attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. Crew 33 killed. 2 Army passengers killed

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html
.....

the fact is Germany fired the first shots in WWII. and any one of these incidents could have been cause for war, but we resisted involvement for years while the Nazis were conquering Europe. and when we finally did get into the war, it wasn't for humanitarian reasons, it was for self-defense.

We were defending those Germany had already conquered. In other words, we were defending others.

are you really this ignorant of history? or are you pretending to be for sake of argument? do you really believe that we were only "defending those Germany had already conquered"?!? wtf? WWII was not fought solely in order to defend others, in fact, we did NOTHING while Europe was being overrun by the Nazis. it was only when Germany formally declared war on us that we decided to get involved in Europe.

That is the only principle under discussion here

no, that's the only principle that you choose to see. get a clue. these are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

So the declaration of a megalomaniac with no way of backing up his hollow declaration with actual acts of war makes it morally permissible to kill civilians? Fine. What other declarations make it morally permissible to kill civilians? Would a violated conditional agreement ceasefire fit the bill? If not, why not?

no, you missed the point. all I'm saying is that a formal declaration of war changes the principles involved. when someone declares war on you for whatever reason, you are entitled to fight back in self defense. it's too bad you're having trouble understanding this. you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

why this fixation on specifics? can't you see the big picture?

You are the one insisting (correctly) that we look at context. Fine. Let's look at the context. Germany was an ocean away, with no way of delivering any kind of military power against the United States -- with the possible exception of some commando teams landed by U-boat.


LOL! what a classic response. I ask you to forego specifics and see the big picture and you respond by mentioning "commando teams landed by U-boat" lol. that's not exactly what I meant. I'm talking about CONTEXT, do you understand? - the Big Picture - as in WWII, the Big One, being a war between world powers lasting six years and taking millions of lives, and maybe it's just a little bit different (in principle and in context) than what happened in Iraq, where a superpower completely overwhelmed a helpless country that posed no threat. maybe it's different because our ships were attacked by Germany prior to our involvement in WWII, maybe it's different because Germany actually declared war on us, or because Germany's ally Japan attacked us, or because Germany actually posed a credible threat to us. do historical facts matter to you? still you say: "Do you honestly not recognize that in principle, these are identical situations? Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp" :lol: uh huh, yeah identical situations :rolleyes:.

I'm sorry that you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to justify the Iraq war in your mind. I almost wish that we would find some WMD. then, we would at least be spared this BS about waging war to save the Iraqis, and how it's morally justified "in principle" :lol:
   


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2077512 - 11/06/03 03:28 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

the fundamental principle is not the same. you are showing your prejudice and ignorance.

And you are showing your bullheadedness. The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken that resulted in the deaths of non-combatants.

any student of history would see that there are huge differences between WWII and the invasion of Iraq.

Of course there were differences. No two wars are ever identical. There were, however, no differences in principle between invading Europe (an action which was not required in order to protect Americans from German attacks) and invading Iraq (an action which was not required in order to protect Americans from Iraqi attacks). Both invasions were unnecessary from the standpoint of self defense.

I failed to identify the different principle?!?! did you actually bother to read what I wrote? does "self-defense" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does. However, you seem to be denying the connection between self-defense and defense of others. Your position is that it is okay to kill innocents in the course of defending yourself, but it is not okay to kill others in the course of defending a friend or ally. If you want to treat the corollary of the principle as an entirely separate principle, we can do that.

I point out that the US did not kill innocents in the course of defending itself, it killed innocents in the course of defending others -- specifically the others in occupied Europe. According to your principles, this is not allowable.

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 240 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor.


How does the right to defend convoy ships in international waters which were engaged in bringing supplies to Germany's enemies justify invading mainland Europe? Clearly the US had the right to attack the German warships responsible. Further, they had the right to declare war and then proceed to attack on sight any German warship found anywhere. They even had the right to blockade any ports those German ships were using. Note the common thread here -- warships manned by combatants.

Do you grasp the principle involved here? One action involves combatants. The other action involves non-combatants.

are you really this ignorant of history? or are you pretending to be for sake of argument? do you really believe that we were only "defending those Germany had already conquered"?!? wtf?

Rant and rave all you want. The act of invading Europe had nothing to do with protecting America or Americans. As we have already seen, the worst Germany was able to do was to sink American ships. Ships can be defended by other ships and by aircraft. It is not necessary to invade a continent to prevent enemy warships from leaving port. Simply blockading the ports and bombing port facilities is all that is required.

WWII was not fought solely in order to defend others...

Nor was the war in Iraq fought solely to defend others.

in fact, we did NOTHING while Europe was being overrun by the Nazis.

Correct. Do you believe the US should have taken pre-emptive action? When? After the first country was invaded? The second? At what point before Germany formally declared war on the US did it become permissable for the US to invade Europe?

it was only when Germany formally declared war on us that we decided to get involved in Europe.

So what made it moral for the US to kill non-combatants was not the attacks on US ships, but a formal declaration of war by Germany? Okay, then.

no, that's the only principle that you choose to see. get a clue. these are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

You appear to have a hard time grasping the difference between a principle and the set of circumstances by which that principle is illustrated.

when someone declares war on you for whatever reason, you are entitled to fight back in self defense.

To defend one's self (in this case the United States of America), sure. We are both agreed on that. But you seem convinced that in order to defend the United States of America from Germany's military might, it was necessary to invade Europe, killing thousands of innocents in the process. Clearly, it was not necessary.

you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

Iraq invaded Kuwait -- a clear declaration of war on Kuwait. A coalition of countries came to the aid of Kuwait, entering an ongoing war. Iraq was now not only at war with Kuwait, but with Kuwait's allies as well. Those allies defeated Iraq's military forces, and a conditional ceasefire was signed by representatives of Iraq, conditionally ending hostilities -- putting the war on hiatus until such time as the conditions of the ceasefire were met. None of the conditions of the ceasefire were met after a dozen years. The war resumed.

LOL! what a classic response. I ask you to forego specifics and see the big picture and you respond by mentioning "commando teams landed by U-boat" lol.

If Germany had capabilities of landing more than small commando teams in America by transportation other than U-boat, feel free to list them for us.

I'm talking about CONTEXT, do you understand? - the Big Picture - as in WWII, the Big One, being a war between world powers lasting six years and taking millions of lives, and maybe it's just a little bit different (in principle and in context) than what happened in Iraq, where a superpower completely overwhelmed a helpless country that posed no threat.

I'm talking about context as well. Like it or not, the context at the time was that Germany had no chance whatsoever of posing a direct military threat to the United States of America. All of Germany's military might was an ocean away, with no hope in hell of crossing that ocean. That's context.

maybe it's different because our ships were attacked by Germany prior to our involvement in WWII, maybe it's different because Germany actually declared war on us, or because Germany's ally Japan attacked us, or because Germany actually posed a credible threat to us.

As I have demonstrated, Germany actually posed no credible military threat to the United States of America.

And I repeat, the differences you mention don't change the fundamental principle involved in both the invasion of Europe and the invasion of Iraq -- is it or is it not allowable to put non-combatants at risk in the course of defending others?

do historical facts matter to you?

Apparently they matter to me more than they do to you. It is a historical fact that Germany posed no direct threat to the United States of America. America could quite rightly have limited itself to attacking German warships. That's all it took to keep Germany from posing a threat to the United States of America.

uh huh, yeah identical situations.

In principle, they are identical -- when it comes to the principle you are discussing; self defense. Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. America could have let the Europeans liberate themselves. America could have let the Iraqis liberate themselves. America could have adopted purely defensive measures in WII -- i.e. blockading ports and attacking German shipping. America could have adopted purely defensive measures in Iraq -- i.e. keeping troops stationed nearby and/or maintaining UN sanctions and UN inspection teams.

Face it, there was no need to invade Europe on D-Day in order to defend America. The action was taken for reasons other than self defense -- at least self defense the way you define it.

I'm sorry that you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to justify the Iraq war in your mind.

All I point out (correctly), is that by the same principle (self defense) you cite, if it was immoral to invade Iraq in 2003, it was also immoral to invade Hitler's Europe on D-Day. If you still claim it was moral to invade Europe, you therefore must provide a justification other than self defense, because the self defense argument just doesn't hold water.

then, we would at least be spared this BS about waging war to save the Iraqis, and how it's morally justified "in principle"

Since I have demonstrated that the invasion of Europe was not justified by "self defense", by what other ethical principle do you justify it?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2079577 - 11/07/03 02:03 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others




Germany had invaded several countries, were commiting genocide against an entire religion and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America. To compare the Iraq situation is ridiculous. It is obvious that the differences far outweigh the similarities. To try and make out that the defence of the Iraqi people was primary in the US/UK minds is either cynical or stupid.

Quote:

Both invasions were unnecessary from the standpoint of self defense.





Wrong. As I have already pointed out it is common knowledge the Germans were close to developing nuclear weapons which could have been used against America if the German threat was not countered. That pretty much renders the rest of your post pointless so I wont bother commenting on it.

EDIT:
*=thankyou to Stonedphucker for pointing out that the Germans were not actually close to making a nuclear weapon. But as this was not known until after the US had entered the war it does not affect the point I am making.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Edited by GazzBut (11/07/03 04:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2079937 - 11/07/03 04:31 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America.




Quote:

Wrong. As I have already pointed out it is common knowledge the Germans were close to developing nuclear weapons which could have been used against America if the German threat was not countered.




The Nazi nuclear program was primitive at best, the man in charge (Heisenberg who also helped discover fission) had serious ethical objections to the project hence he only asked for a couple of million marks from Speer for the entire project. Coupled with the sabotage of the heavy water producing factory in Norway the Nazi A-Bomb was never going to become a reality. Even if they did ever develop a nuclear weapon America would have been safe as the Nazi's would have had no way to deliver it, as the USA was way beyond the range of any nazi aircraft and the third reichs lack complete lack or aircraft carriers....
The closest the Nazi's got to a nuclear weapon was a large dirty bomb, the V4, it was never launched and the material it contained was sent to Japan but never made it due to Germany's surrender..

So all in all, Germany never posed a direct threat to the USA and your above statements were wrong..


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2079970 - 11/07/03 04:47 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

This is all well and good in hindsight but I doubt the Americans were fully aware of this when world war 2 was still raging.

Link

Heres is the pertinent section...

"The Allies knew that Werner Heisenberg, one of the great scientific minds of the twentith century, was the head of the German nuclear effort. During the war, those working on the Manhattan project, many of whom had known Heisenberg and his colleagues before the war, were convinced that they were in a close race with the Germans to develop an atomic bomb. As the Allies advanced on Germany, the Alsos Mission, whose scientific director was Samuel Goudsmit, was sent to Europe to gain information about the progress of the German nuclear efforts. In France, at the University of Strasbourg, Goudsmit was able to examine the papers left behind by one of Heisenberg's colleagues, Carl Friedrich Von Wezsacker. Goudsmit discovered that the Germans had made little progress toward the construction of an atomic bomb. In fact, as it turned out, the Germans had made little progress obtaining a fission chain reaction and they never constructed a working nuclear reactor, which is the first step to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons."

So it would appear the Americans would not have been aware of the shortcomings of the Nazi nuclear program at the time they entered WW2. Nice try though.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080255 - 11/07/03 07:57 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Germany had invaded several countries, were commiting genocide against an entire religion and were close to developing real WMDs with which they could have easily wreaked havoc in mainland America. To compare the Iraq situation is ridiculous.

Iraq had invaded three countries, launched missiles against another, were committing genocide against the Kurds and had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America. Gee, no similarities there.

You want to rethink your statement?

And, like infidelGOD, you ignore the fact that in principle, the invasion of Hitler's Europe and Hussein's Iraq were the same. If you're going to try to pooh-pooh a statement which reads "The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken which resulted in the deaths of non-combatants," you had better try to address the actual principle.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080446 - 11/07/03 09:22 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No I dont want to rethink my statement. The Iran-Iraq war had been going on with the support of the US government. I dont think that the UK and the rest of Europe were approving of Germany's invasions nor were they lending them vast sums of money whilst they were invading these countries. You are drawing upon superficial similarities and are struggling to make any valid points.

As I have already pointed out, the US werent merely defending others in WW2 they were defending themselves as they believed the Germans to be close to gaining nuclear weapons. Anyway you are contradicting yourself because you say: "Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. "

Then you say refering to Iraq that they "had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America."

It is obvious that you are trying to portray America as some noble force for peace and humanity in the world because they supposedly act in the defense of others with no thoughts for themselves. It has been adequately shown that this is not the case and we havent even touched upon economic motivations yet.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #2080497 - 11/07/03 09:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Even if they did ever develop a nuclear weapon America would have been safe as the Nazi's would have had no way to deliver it, as the USA was way beyond the range of any nazi aircraft and the third reichs lack complete lack or aircraft carriers....

I think you misunderstand the nature of wars. They arn't fought solely to prevent your own country being "invaded". They are fought to protect your countries interests and spheres of influence. A world consisting of a Nazi reich from Europe to the middle east, with Japan mopping up the rest of south east asia would have effectively written off the US economically.

It really isn't about being "out of range" of Nazi aircraft.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2080500 - 11/07/03 09:46 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Exactly.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080670 - 11/07/03 10:50 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

*=thankyou to Stonedphucker for pointing out that the Germans were not actually close to making a nuclear weapon. But as this was not known until after the US had entered the war it does not affect the point I am making.




Nazi Germany was a leader of theoretical physics. A large portion of their scientists defected to the US after WW2 to work on cold war nuclear projects to advoid war crime charges. I'll even name some names of anyone is interested.

They certainly had the brainpower and resources to develop these weapons and probably would have done so within a few years.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2080761 - 11/07/03 11:23 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

As I have already pointed out, the US werent merely defending others in WW2 they were defending themselves as they believed the Germans to be close to gaining nuclear weapons.

Ah! The key word here is "believed". The US had no hard evidence that Germany was close to gaining nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, in December of 1941, no one in the entire world even knew it was possible to build a functioning nuclear bomb.

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had possessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world. Not only that, but Hussein had actually used his chem weaponry on several occasions.

If you are going to justify the invasion of Europe on "beliefs", you must therefore also justify the invasion of Iraq on beliefs.

Anyway you are contradicting yourself because you say: "Germany had no way of directly targeting its weaponry against American soil. Neither did Iraq. "

Then you say refering to Iraq that they "had actually developed and repeatedly used WMDs with which they could easily have wreaked havoc on mainland America."


Speed up. I was mocking your own claim in the second sentence.

In actual fact, Germany had no way of delivering their existing weaponry (artillery shells, aerial bombs) against American soil. But things are different today. It is simplicity itself to smuggle a cannister of VX into the US and introduce it into the ventilation system of a subway or a theater or whatever.

t is obvious that you are trying to portray America as some noble force for peace and humanity in the world because they supposedly act in the defense of others with no thoughts for themselves.

You are reading into my statements things that aren't there. I never said the US had no thoughts for themselves. Of course they do. I merely point out (and both you and infidelGOD keep evading) that the invasion of Europe was completely unnecessary from the point of view of America's self defense.

The best you can come up with to justify that invasion is that maybe one day Germany might have developed an atomic bomb and found some way to deliver it to American soil, therefore it was necessary not to just protect America from Germany's actual military capabilities, but to pre-emptively engineer a regime change in Germany to protect America from Germany's possible future capabilities.

pinky

*edited for spelling mistake


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (11/07/03 11:29 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080773 - 11/07/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had ossessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world.




:nut:    :shake:


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2080774 - 11/07/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

Nazi Germany was a leader of theoretical physics.

"A" leader, yes. Not "the" leader. America was the leader in theoretical physics at that time, in large part due to German scientists and other European scientists who had fled Europe.

A large portion of their scientists defected to the US after WW2 to work on cold war nuclear projects to advoid war crime charges. I'll even name some names of anyone is interested.

This is true. It doesn't change the fact that the best minds in theoretical physics were already located in the US during the war.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2080834 - 11/07/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I actually have a distant relative that was a mathemitician that defected when Germany invaded Poland.

Quote:

It doesn't change the fact that the best minds in theoretical physics were already located in the US during the war.




That's hard to say. Germany was up there. The physics used to build the bomb was allready about twenty years old when the Manhattan project started.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/07/03 11:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2081009 - 11/07/03 12:51 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But in the case of Iraq, not only did the US believe Iraq had possessed functional WMDs, they knew it -- and so did every other intelligence agency in the world.




So how come Colin Powell said the exact opposite in 2001, as did Condy Rice? Perhaps they were using extra-planetary intelligence services...who it now appears were right all along.

The US and the UK lied through their teeth and it is plain for all to see.



--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2081042 - 11/07/03 01:01 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Amen  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2081091 - 11/07/03 01:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Glory glory hallelujiah! I was listening to the local rap station the other day. They are playing one of those "Right Thurr" songs and right after it is done.. in busts in a black preacher, his voice, the complete opposite of the rap that was just playing.

He does a little mini sermon.
He says hell alot.

It is very southern baptist..

You know..
beautiful hymn, little white church quaint. And then, back on comes the rap after a mix of "When the Saints Go Marching in". This time it's the ghetto rap of my youth, all Bone Thugs Harmonies.

I was thinking about how we have fought wars for religion and morality in virtually every war since the civil war. Civil wars seem to be the only wars worth fighting. The only just wars.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2086354 - 11/09/03 10:57 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

you are showing your bullheadedness. The fundamental principle is identical -- in the act of defending others, actions were deliberately taken that resulted in the deaths of non-combatants.

you haven't really addressed any of my points and you're just repeating yourself. I've already shown that we were not merely "in the act of defending others" when we invaded Hitler's Germany. we were also retaliating against attacks on American ships and responding to a formal declaration of war and yes, we were also defending ourselves from a serious threat to our own security.

you keep saying that "the principle involved is identical", so can you tell me when Iraq declared war on us?

Iraq invaded Kuwait -- a clear declaration of war on Kuwait. A coalition of countries came to the aid of Kuwait, entering an ongoing war. Iraq was now not only at war with Kuwait, but with Kuwait's allies as well. Those allies defeated Iraq's military forces, and a conditional ceasefire was signed by representatives of Iraq, conditionally ending hostilities -- putting the war on hiatus until such time as the conditions of the ceasefire were met. None of the conditions of the ceasefire were met after a dozen years. The war resumed.


gee, all that and you didn't even answer the question. when did Iraq declare war on us? you're the one saying that the "the principle involved is identical". so are you saying that invading a country after it attacks you and after it declares war on you is indentical in principle to invading a country that has NOT attacked us and has NOT declared war on us? these are "identical situations"???



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2086361 - 11/09/03 11:00 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

yes, we were also defending ourselves from a serious threat to our own security.

Unquestionably. A third reich from europe to the middle east with Japan mopping up south east asia would have have given the axis powers just as much control of the US as an invasion of the country itself.

that has NOT attacked us and has NOT declared war on us?

But you're forgetting the threat posed by WMD...


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2086362 - 11/09/03 11:01 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You are reading into my statements things that aren't there. I never said the US had no thoughts for themselves. Of course they do. I merely point out (and both you and infidelGOD keep evading) that the invasion of Europe was completely unnecessary from the point of view of America's self defense.

actually, you're not merely pointing that out. your position is a bit more extreme than that: you're saying that because I accept the morality of the allied invasion of Europe, I must also accept the morality of the invasion of Iraq, because the situations are "identical" in princple.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,185 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* John Kerry's War Vote: Profiles in Political Calculation? Ancalagon 759 3 08/22/04 07:18 PM
by zappaisgod
* Support for War in Iraq Hits New Low RandalFlagg 336 0 01/19/05 05:50 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Poetry about politics and war PsiloKitten 574 3 04/11/03 06:41 AM
by PsiloKitten
* Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race fft2 1,065 11 08/19/04 08:03 PM
by Ed1
* All the evidence to indict Sharon on War Crimes nugsarenice 1,241 4 06/15/02 09:10 PM
by nugsarenice
* A preacher's view on The War on Drugs Phred 1,185 2 07/19/01 10:52 PM
by fuzzysquirelnuts
* Oh Brave leader....take us to war whiterasta 1,090 9 11/13/03 07:42 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,217 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.02 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.