Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Retaliation
    #2369566 - 02/22/04 10:25 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Is this a just cause for war? I doubt anyone here would argue that a nation doesn't have the right to defend itself from attack, but what about after the fact? Take into consideration the fact that a war of retaliation inevitably leads to loss of innocent lives. Doesn't retaliation also lead to further retaliation from the other side, thus resulting in a vicious cycle?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 3 days
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2369589 - 02/22/04 10:32 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Only if you call it "Justice". :smirk:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2369624 - 02/22/04 10:41 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Is this [retaliation] a just cause for war?

Of course. You're not suggesting that America should have let the Pearl Harbor attack slide by, are you?

Take into consideration the fact that a war of retaliation inevitably leads to loss of innocent lives.

As does in many cases the initial act of war, and any subsequent unanswered ones.

Doesn't retaliation also lead to further retaliation from the other side, thus resulting in a vicious cycle?

Doesn't doing nothing invite further attacks, thus resulting in an endless cycle?

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: Phred]
    #2369690 - 02/22/04 10:57 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Is this [retaliation] a just cause for war?

Of course. You're not suggesting that America should have let the Pearl Harbor attack slide by, are you?



Well, should we? Of course everyone knows it was the right thing to do, but everyone's not always right. I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for saying this, but what if instead of sending more Americans to die, we tried negotiating? Find out why they attacked us first, what their demands are, and see if we can negotiate a peace. If negotiations fail, then we would be justified in fighting a war of defense.

Quote:

Take into consideration the fact that a war of retaliation inevitably leads to loss of innocent lives.

As does in many cases the initial act of war, and any subsequent unanswered ones.



I know. I'm asking if two wrongs make a right in such a situation.

Quote:

Doesn't retaliation also lead to further retaliation from the other side, thus resulting in a vicious cycle?

Doesn't doing nothing invite further attacks, thus resulting in an endless cycle?



As John F. Kennedy put it, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Obviously negotiations will fail often, but as I said before, that would turn a war of retaliation into a war of defense, and thus would be more justified.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2369854 - 02/22/04 11:28 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Find out why they attacked us first, what their demands are, and see if we can negotiate a peace.

You mean give them a freebie. Why on earth would you want to do that? Give one guy a freebie and it won't take long before everyone figures they can get one too.

"So you nuked Salt Lake City because Mormons are infidels. Hmmm... I see... well, I have to admit they are a little odd, there's no denying that.

"What to do, what to do...

"Got it! How about if we make Mormonism illegal? If we do that will you promise you won't nuke any more cities? Yes? Great! Will you sign a piece of paper saying that? Excellent! Now remember, if you break your promise we'll have to do something about it next time. And I'm not joking -- I really mean it."

I know. I'm asking if two wrongs make a right in such a situation.

To retaliate is not wrong, it's right. Therefore at the end of it, the total is one wrong and one right. There will never be just one right.

As John F. Kennedy put it, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Obviously negotiations will fail often, but as I said before, that would turn a war of retaliation into a war of defense, and thus would be more justified.

A war of retaliation is already a war of defense and therefore is already justified.

Besides, in the case of the US at least, the commander in chief has no choice. He has sworn a binding oath to protect the citizens of the country. If the country is attacked, the attackers get whacked.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: Phred]
    #2370082 - 02/23/04 12:24 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Find out why they attacked us first, what their demands are, and see if we can negotiate a peace.

You mean give them a freebie. Why on earth would you want to do that? Give one guy a freebie and it won't take long before everyone figures they can get one too.

"So you nuked Salt Lake City because Mormons are infidels. Hmmm... I see... well, I have to admit they are a little odd, there's no denying that.

"What to do, what to do...

"Got it! How about if we make Mormonism illegal? If we do that will you promise you won't nuke any more cities? Yes? Great! Will you sign a piece of paper saying that? Excellent! Now remember, if you break your promise we'll have to do something about it next time. And I'm not joking -- I really mean it."



Negotiating isn't the same as accepting their demands. It just means hearing them out. If the case you described happened, then I think it would be fairly obvious that the people who attacked us did not have a legitimate reason for doing so, and that they are not to be trusted. Then, I think, retaliation might be justified.

Quote:

I know. I'm asking if two wrongs make a right in such a situation.

To retaliate is not wrong, it's right. Therefore at the end of it, the total is one wrong and one right. There will never be just one right.



Killing innocent people as retribution for the actions of their leaders is right?

Quote:

As John F. Kennedy put it, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Obviously negotiations will fail often, but as I said before, that would turn a war of retaliation into a war of defense, and thus would be more justified.

A war of retaliation is already a war of defense and therefore is already justified.



I am sure that in some or even most cases it might be, but is that always the case? Did our retaliatory war in Afghanistan make us any safer from Al Queda? I think that especially when dealing with terrorists, retaliation only makes them stronger, at least when the retaliation claims innocent victims along with the guilty parties. It seems that both America and Israel have yet to learn this.

Quote:

Besides, in the case of the US at least, the commander in chief has no choice. He has sworn a binding oath to protect the citizens of the country. If the country is attacked, the attackers get whacked.



If the commander in chief truly protected the citizens of the country to the fullest extent, then there would be nothing to retaliate against, as we would intercept any attack that came at us. Obviously this is the real world, and as such it is not possible to intercept every attack, but my point is this: The first question we should ask ourselves in matters of war and diplomacy is not "What does the attacker deserve?" but rather "What will make us safer?"

For the record, I don't mean to suggest that retaliation is never the answer. It often is. However, it should only be done out of concern for our safety, not out of vengeance. I don't believe that the fact that the other side started it is justification in itself(remember using that line on your parents when you and your siblings used to fight?).

I basically started this thread out of curiosity. I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore. As a man of peace, I believe that any time when war can be reasonably avoided, it should.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2370816 - 02/23/04 06:43 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Three words, typical liberal ignorance. Those that know the idiocy of ss7's post don't need to put into words why it is so ignorant, and those that can't see it are probably not smart enough to understand why he is so wrong, even with tons of pages of contradicting evidence


Lets say that the Jews went to Hitler and said "Well golly Mr Adolf, after you killed 6 million of us, we think it's tiem we have a good ole' sit down and chatter with you. What have we done to make you hate us? Oh, you think we are controlling the banks/media to destroy white people, well, geez, we aren't doing that but the liberal definition of peace (pacifism to evil) says we shouldn't fight back, we'll all report back to Auschwitz"


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2370832 - 02/23/04 06:56 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Negotiating isn't the same as accepting their demands. It just means hearing them out. If the case you described happened, then I think it would be fairly obvious that the people who attacked us did not have a legitimate reason for doing so, and that they are not to be trusted. Then, I think, retaliation might be justified.




Who decides if their is a legitamite reason or not? You've just added another twist to your thought process. It went from "Negotiate first, then defend" to "Have someone decide if their point is vaild and legitimate, if so, negotiate, if not, maybe possibly retaliate". Were the perpetrators of this action so much less "right" than the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor?
Quote:


Killing innocent people as retribution for the actions of their leaders is right?




If they support the leader, then they are a party to the attack. The whole "innocent people' thing is crap, the kids dying in Iraq certaintly aren't "guilty" of any criminal conduct, so why aren't they "innocent people"? Unless you've been convicted by a war crimes tribunal, you are an "innocent person", you are just a hostile fighter.
Quote:


I am sure that in some or even most cases it might be, but is that always the case? Did our retaliatory war in Afghanistan make us any safer from Al Queda? I think that especially when dealing with terrorists, retaliation only makes them stronger, at least when the retaliation claims innocent victims along with the guilty parties. It seems that both America and Israel have yet to learn this.




Now wait here, at the beginning of this post you arbitrarily, without calling for a discussion of the points of grief with the terrorists in the hypothetical situation, said that they didn't have a legitamite point. You go from telling how we should talk with them, to arbitrarily saying who deserves and doesn't deserve it, back to saying that we should deal with them. The situation describing the nuking of Ohio and 9/11 are very close to each other. Whacky arabs killing innocent peoplewith no overt goal in mind. At least the Japs had a goal (taking of the Pacific Islands), the arabs just like to see dead innocent people. Retaliation maeks them stronger? Oh come on, ever hear of Libya? If we retaliate hard enough, the base of people that were terrorist simply won't exist. As for "innocent" parties, read above. America and Israel don't specifically target innocents, if some happen to die because Arabs lke to hide their warriors in school buildings and in crowded towns, tough shit. The Arabs use every thing that they possibly can to kill innocent Jews and, in a few cases, Americans. If America and Israel were to do the same thing to win the war on terror, it would just be one blinding light and the problem would be solved. The middle east glass works would be open for business after the radiation died down.
Quote:


If the commander in chief truly protected the citizens of the country to the fullest extent, then there would be nothing to retaliate against, as we would intercept any attack that came at us. Obviously this is the real world, and as such it is not possible to intercept every attack, but my point is this: The first question we should ask ourselves in matters of war and diplomacy is not "What does the attacker deserve?" but rather "What will make us safer?"




If their is an unprovoked attack from a party that hasn't tried to negotiate with us whatsoever, then it's obvious that that party isn't interested in diplomatic relations. Japan never tried to ask us to concede any islands or territory, they just attacked us. This shows that they aren't interested in a two-party negotiation, they attacked a nation that was, at the time, not a war-ready nation, expecting us to cower. But, again, the bright flash in the sky showed them who was boss :-) Maybe we could learn a lesson from this. . .
Quote:


For the record, I don't mean to suggest that retaliation is never the answer. It often is. However, it should only be done out of concern for our safety, not out of vengeance. I don't believe that the fact that the other side started it is justification in itself(remember using that line on your parents when you and your siblings used to fight?).




If someone aggressivly attacks you, you know that they are most likely going to do it again. Retaliation prevents them from doing so (in theory).
Quote:


I basically started this thread out of curiosity. I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore. As a man of peace, I believe that any time when war can be reasonably avoided, it should.




When dealing with people that pull sneak attacks, it usually acn't be avoided.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2370867 - 02/23/04 07:21 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

TheOneYouKnow said:
Three words, typical liberal ignorance. Those that know the idiocy of ss7's post don't need to put into words why it is so ignorant, and those that can't see it are probably not smart enough to understand why he is so wrong, even with tons of pages of contradicting evidence



You know, that sounds a bit like a flame.


Quote:

Lets say that the Jews went to Hitler and said "Well golly Mr Adolf, after you killed 6 million of us, we think it's tiem we have a good ole' sit down and chatter with you. What have we done to make you hate us? Oh, you think we are controlling the banks/media to destroy white people, well, geez, we aren't doing that but the liberal definition of peace (pacifism to evil) says we shouldn't fight back, we'll all report back to Auschwitz"



Wow, you sure missed a lot. First of all, Hitler never lived to see any retaliation against him. Second, I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. Defense is a totally justified reason for war.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2370899 - 02/23/04 08:01 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
You know, that sounds a bit like a flame.




Hardly. It questions your intellectual ability to understand things, it doesn't insult you.
Quote:


Wow, you sure missed a lot. First of all, Hitler never lived to see any retaliation against him. Second, I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. Defense is a totally justified reason for war.



Hitler saw Berlin fall, wasn't that "retaliation" enough? We didn't retaliate against Adolf Hitler, we retaliated against the Nazi army that declared war on the USA.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2370900 - 02/23/04 08:01 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

TheOneYouKnow said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Negotiating isn't the same as accepting their demands. It just means hearing them out. If the case you described happened, then I think it would be fairly obvious that the people who attacked us did not have a legitimate reason for doing so, and that they are not to be trusted. Then, I think, retaliation might be justified.




Who decides if their is a legitamite reason or not? You've just added another twist to your thought process. It went from "Negotiate first, then defend" to "Have someone decide if their point is vaild and legitimate, if so, negotiate, if not, maybe possibly retaliate". Were the perpetrators of this action so much less "right" than the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor?



I would consider "legitimate" reasons to be something along the lines of ending an oppressive action abroad. Any demand which seeks to limit others' freedom is illegitimate. Also, even in such a case, we should demand reparations for the families of the victims and demand that those in charge be reprimanded. It would also be fair to demand that they disarm to ensure that they could not repeat such an attack. If they failed to meet these demands, retaliation would be justified, as their refusal to cooperate endangers our safety. Basically, retaliation is justified when it makes us safer.

Quote:

Quote:


Killing innocent people as retribution for the actions of their leaders is right?




If they support the leader, then they are a party to the attack. The whole "innocent people' thing is crap, the kids dying in Iraq certaintly aren't "guilty" of any criminal conduct, so why aren't they "innocent people"? Unless you've been convicted by a war crimes tribunal, you are an "innocent person", you are just a hostile fighter.



If they don't have a democratic government, then how can you be sure they support the leader? In many countries, military service is mandatory. And I won't even go into the civilian casualties.

Quote:

Quote:


I am sure that in some or even most cases it might be, but is that always the case? Did our retaliatory war in Afghanistan make us any safer from Al Queda? I think that especially when dealing with terrorists, retaliation only makes them stronger, at least when the retaliation claims innocent victims along with the guilty parties. It seems that both America and Israel have yet to learn this.




Now wait here, at the beginning of this post you arbitrarily, without calling for a discussion of the points of grief with the terrorists in the hypothetical situation, said that they didn't have a legitamite point. You go from telling how we should talk with them, to arbitrarily saying who deserves and doesn't deserve it, back to saying that we should deal with them. The situation describing the nuking of Ohio and 9/11 are very close to each other. Whacky arabs killing innocent peoplewith no overt goal in mind. At least the Japs had a goal (taking of the Pacific Islands), the arabs just like to see dead innocent people. Retaliation maeks them stronger? Oh come on, ever hear of Libya? If we retaliate hard enough, the base of people that were terrorist simply won't exist. As for "innocent" parties, read above. America and Israel don't specifically target innocents, if some happen to die because Arabs lke to hide their warriors in school buildings and in crowded towns, tough shit. The Arabs use every thing that they possibly can to kill innocent Jews and, in a few cases, Americans. If America and Israel were to do the same thing to win the war on terror, it would just be one blinding light and the problem would be solved. The middle east glass works would be open for business after the radiation died down.



I'm not saying that America and Israel are wrong and the terrorists are right. What I am saying is that using traditional warfare on them just strengthens their cause. As for Libya, that's a country, not a terrorist organization. I mean ya, maybe we got them to stop sponsoring terrorism, but I seriously doubt that did anything to actually reduce the number of terrorists. Terrorists have no nation. They are united by an ideology and a common enemy. The more we use military force in their area of the world, the more the people in that area will hate us and become sympathetic to the terrorists' cause. Now, I'm all for capturing terrorists and bringing them to justice, but bombing the hell out of the countries they live in will only provide them with new recruits.

Quote:

Quote:


If the commander in chief truly protected the citizens of the country to the fullest extent, then there would be nothing to retaliate against, as we would intercept any attack that came at us. Obviously this is the real world, and as such it is not possible to intercept every attack, but my point is this: The first question we should ask ourselves in matters of war and diplomacy is not "What does the attacker deserve?" but rather "What will make us safer?"




If their is an unprovoked attack from a party that hasn't tried to negotiate with us whatsoever, then it's obvious that that party isn't interested in diplomatic relations. Japan never tried to ask us to concede any islands or territory, they just attacked us. This shows that they aren't interested in a two-party negotiation, they attacked a nation that was, at the time, not a war-ready nation, expecting us to cower. But, again, the bright flash in the sky showed them who was boss :-) Maybe we could learn a lesson from this. . .



I understand what you mean about attackers not being interested in diplomacy(though there is some speculation that FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese into attacking), and I have to concede your point there. But let us get away from discussing Pearl Harbor for a moment. Imagine if, after the slaves were freed in America, they all killed their masters. Would this be justified? What about if all the Holocaust survivors killed a bunch of Germans? Or how about if all the African nations retaliated against their former colonial rulers? My point is that retaliation sometimes puts people in greater danger, rather than making them safer. Also, there should be some sort of statute of limitations on retaliation.

Quote:

Quote:


For the record, I don't mean to suggest that retaliation is never the answer. It often is. However, it should only be done out of concern for our safety, not out of vengeance. I don't believe that the fact that the other side started it is justification in itself(remember using that line on your parents when you and your siblings used to fight?).




If someone aggressivly attacks you, you know that they are most likely going to do it again. Retaliation prevents them from doing so (in theory).



Which is why I would demand that they disarm, and if they didn't, then retaliation would make sense.

Quote:

Quote:


I basically started this thread out of curiosity. I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore. As a man of peace, I believe that any time when war can be reasonably avoided, it should.



When dealing with people that pull sneak attacks, it usually acn't be avoided.



Can't be or isn't? I agree with you for the most part, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Also, retaliation sometimes leads to retalition which leads to retaliation and so on, until you have a Hatfields vs. McCoys type of situation. Look at the Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides keep attacking each other in retaliation for the last thing that the other did(I realize suicide-bombing is a bit different from tanks and guns, but considering that the Palestinians don't have such weapons, it's either that or rocks), and the violence can only stop if both sides agree to put down their arms and negotiate a peace between them(Of course there will always be some extremist Palestinians who want to destroy Israel completely, but I'm pretty sure they're in the minority).


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2370902 - 02/23/04 08:03 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

The act of attacking someone without warning or discussion (9/11, pearl harbor) is such a criminal act that theyd on't deserve to have a chance to give their side of the story. Commiting the criminal offense merits punishment, regardless of the validity of the point of the criminal party.


If an anti-Bush party were to blow up the white house and kill Bush, his family, and all staff members contained therein, it wouldn't be seen as an opening move in a two-party discussion, and regardless of the validity of the points of the aggressor, justice must be served. A huge attack on innocent people is not an opening step in negotiation, rather it is an invitation t owar.


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2370905 - 02/23/04 08:08 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

TheOneYouKnow said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
You know, that sounds a bit like a flame.




Hardly. It questions your intellectual ability to understand things, it doesn't insult you.



Fair enough. I've tried to avoid such statements about you, even though there have been plenty of times when such statements would be warranted, but to each his own.

Quote:

Quote:


Wow, you sure missed a lot. First of all, Hitler never lived to see any retaliation against him. Second, I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. Defense is a totally justified reason for war.



Hitler saw Berlin fall, wasn't that "retaliation" enough? We didn't retaliate against Adolf Hitler, we retaliated against the Nazi army that declared war on the USA.



Hitler was one of the biggest threats the world had ever seen, so fighting him and the Nazis could be considered defense by virtue of the fact that we were making the world safer. We weren't really "retaliating" against the German army, either. We were engaging them as enemy combatants. The high-ranking Nazi officers were retaliated against, but not through war, but rather by trying them as war criminals at Nuremburg.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2370910 - 02/23/04 08:13 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

TheOneYouKnow said:
The act of attacking someone without warning or discussion (9/11, pearl harbor) is such a criminal act that theyd on't deserve to have a chance to give their side of the story. Commiting the criminal offense merits punishment, regardless of the validity of the point of the criminal party.



I agree, but we don't always need to declare war in order to bring the perpetrators to justice(though I admit that that is often the case).

Quote:

If an anti-Bush party were to blow up the white house and kill Bush, his family, and all staff members contained therein, it wouldn't be seen as an opening move in a two-party discussion, and regardless of the validity of the points of the aggressor, justice must be served. A huge attack on innocent people is not an opening step in negotiation, rather it is an invitation t owar.



Ok, scratch the negotiation part. Still, if this attack on Bush were to happen, we most likely would not need to declare war. We could simply launch a manhunt and bring the perpetrators to justice by due process of law.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2370991 - 02/23/04 09:23 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I think that you are a very intelligent person, but you are misguided. I am making it my duty now to lead you to the light.

I recognize and applaud the virtues of a peaceful planet. However, it seems that many people try to associate peace with allowing evil to continue to exist, rather than use force to remove it. This is not the case. Using force to remove an evil entity doesn't mean that you are not for peace.

If a particular country has a grievance with another and their first method to deal with the grievance is war, then usually the grievance is not discussable. For example, if Japan/Germany/Italy would have come forward and said "OK world, just let us take over and be in charge, this is non-negotiable", what would the world have done? Laughed at them most likely, but certaintly not capitulated to their demands. Knowing this, they went for their goal in the only remaining method, violence.

If it would be possible to negotiate with people who's first method of trying to get their point across is a violent attack on innocents, then I might support doing so. However, if someone does this, they usually have a viewpoint where the only thing they want is unchecked victory. If we had said, after 9/11, lets see what these people want, they'd have said "Ok, give us your country, nuke Israel, and we'll be fine". Obviously this isn't a negotiation that is based in reality. The only thing that people that perpetrate things like this want is total victory.


--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2371022 - 02/23/04 09:52 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

TheOneYouKnow said:
I think that you are a very intelligent person, but you are misguided. I am making it my duty now to lead you to the light.

I recognize and applaud the virtues of a peaceful planet. However, it seems that many people try to associate peace with allowing evil to continue to exist, rather than use force to remove it. This is not the case. Using force to remove an evil entity doesn't mean that you are not for peace.



I am all for putting a stop to evil. However, acts are evil, not people. No one person is 100% good or evil. That said, I will say that there are some dangerous people in the world, and sometimes it is necessary to use force to remove them from power(though not always) in order to promote peace. However, if this can be done by non-military means, then it should.

Quote:

If a particular country has a grievance with another and their first method to deal with the grievance is war, then usually the grievance is not discussable. For example, if Japan/Germany/Italy would have come forward and said "OK world, just let us take over and be in charge, this is non-negotiable", what would the world have done? Laughed at them most likely, but certaintly not capitulated to their demands. Knowing this, they went for their goal in the only remaining method, violence.



I've already retracted my statement about negotiations. Still, my point remains that retaliation does not always result in making the world safer, and this should be taken into consideration before taking such actions.

Quote:

If it would be possible to negotiate with people who's first method of trying to get their point across is a violent attack on innocents, then I might support doing so. However, if someone does this, they usually have a viewpoint where the only thing they want is unchecked victory. If we had said, after 9/11, lets see what these people want, they'd have said "Ok, give us your country, nuke Israel, and we'll be fine". Obviously this isn't a negotiation that is based in reality. The only thing that people that perpetrate things like this want is total victory.



Their demands were a little different from "Ok, give us your country, nuke Israel, and we'll be fine." It was more like "Stop giving military support to Israel and pull your troops out of Saudi Arabia," which I think are reasonable demands, though this is not to say that I condone what those terrorists did. I do believe that we should actively pursue those who were behind the 9/11 attack(tho I prefer that they be captured and brought to trial rather than bombed indiscriminately along with innocent civilians), but I also think we should look at their reasons behind it and give it some serious thought and consideration if we want to prevent another such attack from happening.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2372027 - 02/23/04 03:02 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

silversoul7 writes:

Also, even in such a case, we should demand reparations for the families of the victims and demand that those in charge be reprimanded. It would also be fair to demand that they disarm to ensure that they could not repeat such an attack. If they failed to meet these demands, retaliation would be justified, as their refusal to cooperate endangers our safety.

Unpaid reparations? Failure to disarm? Hmmm... let me think for a few minutes here... why, that describes Iraq to a "T"!

So retaliation against Hussein's regime was justified since it failed to fufill the terms (any term) of the conditional ceasefire? Hussein's refusal to cooperate endangered our safety?

This is a startling turnaround from your previous position. Congratulations.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: Phred]
    #2372041 - 02/23/04 03:08 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Unpaid reparations? Failure to disarm? Hmmm... let me think for a few minutes here... why, that describes Iraq to a "T"!



With one exception: Iraq never attacked us.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Retaliation [Re: silversoul7]
    #2372230 - 02/23/04 03:47 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

So the concept of allies is an invalid one? So much for World War II for starters, then.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Retaliation [Re: Phred]
    #2372819 - 02/23/04 06:21 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Well, there is another thing: If Saddam failed to disarm, then where are those pesky WMD's anyway? And then of course there's the part about how we told Saddam before the Gulf War that we had no interest in inter-Arab conflicts--not the kind of thing you say when it's your ally that's going to be invaded, unless of course you're trying to be manipulative. I will say, however, that as much as I opposed the war, and as suspicious as I am of the reasons behind it, I am glad that Saddam is out of power. Not because he was a threat to us--I highly doubt he was--but because he was a murderous, tyrannical dictator(though if we plan to depose every murderous, tyrannical dictator, we've got our work cut out for us).


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction FrankieJustTrypt 1,414 11 12/13/04 06:00 PM
by afoaf
* N.Korea: Japan Sanctions Would Be War Declaration Great_Satan 670 5 12/18/04 02:26 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Retaliation is legitimate
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Crobih 3,622 93 11/14/04 02:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Japan had the bomb in WWII Los_Pepes 934 5 08/17/05 08:38 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 706 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* US Retaliates after Black Hawk Crash PsiloKitten 466 4 11/08/03 09:20 PM
by SquattingMarmot
* CSTO and CSO conduct war games in retaliation to US threats. The_Red_Crayon 736 4 09/06/06 06:20 AM
by The_Red_Crayon
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 5,551 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,305 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.152 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.