Opinions on war

[Synyster Shadows]

War - we all know how devastating we can be. What are your thoughts on it? Do you think it's necessary? I bring this up because my English class read a fictional short story about a sniper in 1920s war-torn Ireland and we then had a discussion about it. There were definitely some strong points in it.

I, for one, think that it's useless. It should definitely be possible to settle our differences in a civilized, diplomatic manner. We shouldn't have to resort to violence to solve our problems, as it just creates more. Though I understand that some people may think violence might be the only way to get their message across, I certainly don't believe that's true. I think it's definitely possible, and more effective if we sit down at a table and try to resolve our conflicts. That does not mean, however, that I am against fighting if we are under attack. If we did not start the conflict and are being attacked, I am in total support of fighting as it is in self-defense, so to speak. I only look down upon violence aimed at innocent people. As such, I think that most wars are pointless and one of the only truly justifiable wars was World War II. Hitler was pretty much trying to dominate the world and he initiated attacks on people. We came into to defend our country. As a result, I think that was a very good choice.
With something such as the Vietnam War, however, that was a terrible decision. Vietnam is now Communist because of what the US government did. In addition, I was listening to NPR a while back and they were discussing the effect of the US jumping in. Agent Orange, I believe it was called, caused so many birth defects and it's the USA's fault. We're responsible for Vietnam's current status as being Communist and for all of those birth defects.
Besides, soldiers that manage to survive war can suffer from PTSD, which sometimes causes them to commit suicide. It's not worth it to do that to these people.
In addition, there's the economical impact of war. All of those millions and possibly billions of dollars governments spend on the military could be used for so many good things.
Again, I believe that war is pointless and violence in itself is pointless unless it's in self-defense, in which case I strongly support it.
So, what are your thoughts on this topic?

[Kameraden]

The Sniper was a stupid short story.

"And I looked into the eyes of my brother."

Stupid.

But, war is a good thing. It puts people in their place, gives us immense boosts of technology, and makes for excellent reading.

[sqishy]

Controversial.

[Zenos]

Hmm war war war. theres always this talk about alternate ways to settle stuff like talking about the problem.

theres a time and a place for that,but there does come a time when war or a fist fight is the only way to settle or to stop something. Do you think the world would be a better place after all if the nations of the world had not took up arms to stop the Axis Powers.yes it started world war 2 but we had to.

The same with world war 1 when the allies took up arms against the Central powers.


Are what about the Korean war if we'd have just set back and let North Korea take over south Korea? there would be no Koreans at all living in freedom.

Or how about the kids that listen to everyone and never take a stand physically againt the bullies when talk has ran its course.what good does talk do the then?

Or how about those kids that are being bullied that says F this stands up the the bully and physically stops them when talk has run its course. In the case of bullying sometimes a butt whipping is what it takes to get the bully to mend his ways!


As I was saying sometimes talk works but there does come a time when we have to take up arms and spill our fellow humns blood and have ours spilled for something good to come about. yes people will disagree with me but most of them are living in a sheltered pie in the sky world where talk is all it takes .

[Yolo98]

Its necessary, fighting and conflict is bred into humans.

[Synyster Shadows]

I know, Joe. If you'll reread my original post, you'll see that I do condone violence if it is truly justified

Its necessary, fighting and conflict is bred into humans.

But does that necessarily mean we can't sometimes settle our disputes without violence. Again, I understand that are times for violence, but ask yourself this - is that every single time? Is it not possible that sometimes disputes can be settled just through diplomacy and talking rather violently destroying the enemy?

[Zenos]

I know, Joe. If you'll reread my original post, you'll see that I do condone violence if it is truly justified

I know. I was just making a point for those peeps that have been pacified by the media/politicians etc etc into thinking there is no justifiable reason to resort to violence at all

[Synyster Shadows]

I know. I was just making a point for those peeps that have been pacified by the media/politicians etc etc into thinking there is no justifiable reason to resort to violence at all

Oh ok. I see what you're saying. I mean, yeah, the teachers at school are always saying to us "just ignore someone if they're bullying you." That doesn't work. It just tells them that you won't stand up for yourself and they can just keep doing it. I saw something on the site in TWPR and one part mentioned something like "you teach people how to treat you. Don't let them get away with walking all over you. Accept no less than you'd want to be treated and give no less" or something to that effect. This is a good example of that.

[Zenos]

Oh ok. I see what you're saying. I mean, yeah, the teachers at school are always saying to us "just ignore someone if they're bullying you." That doesn't work. It just tells them that you won't stand up for yourself and they can just keep doing it. I saw something on the site in TWPR and one part mentioned something like "you teach people how to treat you. Don't let them get away with walking all over you. Accept no less than you'd want to be treated and give no less" or something to that effect. This is a good example of that.

back in the 1920's the French had the same attitude toward teaching kids not to stand up for themselves and such and when the German army invaded France,well just read history,you'll she what that got France.

A nation never achieves a thing but it's downfall when it does everything to pacify the citizens and when they try to pacify them from a young age at that.


Instead of being taught to take bullying this is the thing we should be taught:


"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." John Wayne, from "The Shootist"

[Synyster Shadows]

It seems that way. I have to wonder what their reasoning is for teaching kids that way.

[Zenos]

It seems that way. I have to wonder what their reasoning is for teaching kids that way.

Well kids and teens are generally very easily molded and what better way to to mold a generation and a nation of sheep then aim for the youth.


Instead of being taught to take bullying this is the thing we should be taught:


"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." John Wayne, from "The Shootist"

[Synyster Shadows]

Well kids and teens are generally very easily molded and what better way to to mold a generation and a nation of sheep then aim for the youth.


Instead of being taught to take bullying this is the thing we should be taught:


"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." John Wayne, from "The Shootist"

I know we're easily influenced at this age. I still don't know what their logic is. Even just telling them to stop could work.

And here's that quote I was referencing earlier. This is a huge one: You teach people how to treat you. If you let someone walk all over you, cheat you, lie to you, etc - and get away with it - you are teaching them that you will tolerate that. So teach the people in your life seeking to get or keep your friendship/company/love what you expect - and neither accept or give any less.

[Vlerchan]

I'm almost sure that I've already expressed my opinion here that in the 21st century Hard Power - power that is partially derived from military strength - isn't going to be half - or even a quarter; or even an eight - as important as it might have been in previous centuries. In todays world it is creating a strong, competitive economic environment that firms can thrive in that is important. War tends to disrupt this. Economic Globalisation and the rise of several Trans-Nation corporations has also meant that the governments are no longer leaders in technological development but rather firms in the private sector are. War causing technology to leap forward decades is no longer a valid - or, at the very least, no longer as valid as it once was - of an argument either seeing as it's no longer governments funding many of the improvements we see in todays world but rather competing firms trying to gain a larger share in the market space directed by private investors. Whilst it is possible that during a time of war a government might push more money into funding new technologies it will have nothing near the effect of what it had in the past. (if that reads all ramble-y I'd like to remind everyone it's 1 AM here - give me a break, like)

Even then, it's doubtful that any of the worlds great powers capable of funding such leaps will ever find themselves going to war against each other again due to the theories of both Democratic Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory) and MAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).

Note: Nothing I said addresses past wars. It only applies to todays economic and political climate.

Vietnam is now Communist because of what the US government did ... We're responsible for Vietnam's current status as being Communist ...
Vietnam had always been on a course for Communism, it was inevitable. Cambodia, however: well that's debatable.

[Synyster Shadows]

I'm almost sure that I've expressed my opinion that in the 21st century Hard Power - power that is partially derived from military strength - isn't going to be half - or even a quarter; or even an eight - as important as it might have been in previous centuries. In todays world it is creating a strong, competitive economic environment that firms can thrive in that is important. War tends to disrupt this. Economic Globalisation and the rise of several Trans-Nation corporations has also meant that the governments are no longer leaders in technological development but rather firms in the private sector are, war causes technology to leap forward decades is no longer a valid - or, at the very least, no longer as valid as it once was - of an argument seeing as it's no longer governments funding many of the improvements we see in todays world but rather competing firms trying to gain a larger share in the market space funded by private investors. Whilst it is possible that during a time of war a government might push more money into funding new technologies it will have nothing near the effect of what it had in the past.

Even then, it's doubtful that any of the worlds great powers capable of funding such leaps will ever find themselves going to war against each other again due to the theories of both Democratic Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory) and MAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).

Note: Nothing I said addresses past wars. It only applies to todays economic and political climate.


Vietnam had always been on a course for Communism, it was inevitable. Cambodia, however: well that's debatable.

True. I forgot about that last point. Thanks for reminding me. And yeah, we can't keep fighting each other. It's reached a point where pretty much all countries depend on everyone else to survive. We can't keep fighting each other and tearing each other apart. It just leads to our own issues too.

[Kameraden]

We will fight until Social Darwinism destroys the weakest groups. It's the step before our next era.

[Cygnus]

War is just the stupid way to solve things. Nobody wins in a war, only one side looses worst. Having a war oriented attitude (like some gringos do) is not beneficial.

[Synyster Shadows]

War is just the stupid way to solve things. Nobody wins in a war, only one side looses worst. Having a war oriented attitude (like some gringos do) is not beneficial.

Agreed. What do you think if someone is being attacked? Do you think it's ok to use violence then?

Random but I looked at your post count. 1776! American independence! Strange but cool haha

[Cygnus]

Agreed. What do you think if someone is being attacked? Do you think it's ok to use violence then?

The only reason why I, a group, or a nation should use violence should be for personal defense. That is not dishonorable.

[Synyster Shadows]

The only reason why I, a group, or a nation should use violence should be for personal defense. That is not dishonorable.

Ok. Just checking since it seemed like you meant it as "I don't condone violence at all". Ok, got that cleared up.

[conniption]

I feel like people sometimes resort to war when it's not necessary. War should be a means of settling disputes that really have no other solution. Wars sucks, but it's necessary and part of life. The universe was created from chaos and chaos is what keeps it moving forward.

[Reserved]

War is interesting...it's the only thing interesting about history. We need more of them (ones in which Australia is not involved)

[Get Outta Compton]

War is useless and only serve the redneck conservatives' goals of enriching themselves on the lives of others.

[Walter Powers]

How in the world do you come to the conclusion the America is responsible for Vietnam's communist status? We fought to keep that from happening! At least we did SOMETHING!

In many cases war in unavoidable. Let me ask you this: how in the world could America gain it's independance without war? The redcoats were determined not to give us a sovereign nation.

And in a more recent example, when we were attacked by terrorists on 09.11.2001 the only thing we could do was wage war against Al Qaeda and their allies? What else could we do, just let them fly planes into our buildings.

I think it's ridiculous how America always seems to be blamed for wars when WE are the ones being attacked, not the aggressors.

The reality is war isn't fun but it's sometimes needed. It's not useless; we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11.

War is useless and only serve the redneck conservatives' goals of enriching themselves on the lives of others.

What have you been smoking? Almost all the major wars we have been involved in have been because of freedom-hating, extreme leftist aggression.

So after 9/11 you think we should have just stood by and let people crash jets into our skyscrapers?

[Sugaree]

How in the world do you come to the conclusion the America is responsible for Vietnam's communist status? We fought to keep that from happening! At least we did SOMETHING!

My grandfather, who was the last marine out of Saigon, would like to respectfully disagree with you. We had no stake in Vietnam. We had no reason to go there and instill anything. We wasted more lives than we care to admit and turned an entire generation into government-hating individuals. And yet, you see nothing wrong with that. My grandfather had to pull his dead buddies out of ditches filled with poisonous snakes and spikes; he watched his best friend of some thirty odd years get shot in the head by a sniper. A lot of people experienced this while they were in Vietnam, but that doesn't matter to you, because at least we did SOMETHING.

Pitiful.

[Hollywood]

My opinion is fairly straightforward. I feel that, in some situations, war is a necessary action. However, at the same time, I feel that war should be avoided at all costs. We should not involve ourselves in conflict unless there is no other option.

[Get Outta Compton]

What have you been smoking? Almost all the major wars we have been involved in have been because of freedom-hating, extreme leftist aggression.

So after 9/11 you think we should have just stood by and let people crash jets into our skyscrapers?

Freedom-hating, leftist aggression? How about the typical conservative ideology that the government should intervene in the least ways possible in the lives of its people in order to protect individual values, BUT that Republicans should decide that abortion should be illegal, birth control should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal, conscription should be mandatory, etc.? Remember that your joke of a Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom, BY A GROUP OF SLAVE OWNERS. Long live America!

As pertaining to 9/11, instead of standing by, we should have prevented Bush's government from deliberately letting the attacks take place. The war in Iraq was planned long before the World Trade Center tragedy, which was a part of it, to further their own agenda, in this case taking/stealing natural resources from another land.

[Kameraden]

Freedom-hating, leftist aggression? How about the typical conservative ideology that the government should intervene in the least ways possible in the lives of its people in order to protect individual values, BUT that Republicans should decide that abortion should be illegal, birth control should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal, conscription should be mandatory, etc.? Remember that your joke of a Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom, BY A GROUP OF SLAVE OWNERS. Long live America!

As pertaining to 9/11, instead of standing by, we should have prevented Bush's government from deliberately letting the attacks take place. The war in Iraq was planned long before the World Trade Center tragedy, which was a part of it, to further their own agenda, in this case taking/stealing natural resources from another land.

Watch your tongue, Canadian. Lest you find it in the grip of the American war machine some day.

[Get Outta Compton]

Watch our tongue, Canadian. Lest you find it in the grip of the American war machine some day.

BREAKING NEWS: The United States of America invade Canada!
OTHER BREAKING NEWS: The rest of the world declares war with the United States of America!

I'll be laughing over your failed attempt long before my tongue finds itself in the grip of the American war machine *cough* fascist army *cough*. ;)

[Zenos]

I feel like people sometimes resort to war when it's not necessary. War should be a means of settling disputes that really have no other solution. Wars sucks, but it's necessary and part of life. The universe was created from chaos and chaos is what keeps it moving forward.


I think past the Korean war we haven't had a justifiable reason for one except 9/11 and then that reason has been corrupted by people from both the democrats and the republicans who just want to meddle with other nations.

[World Eater]

How in the world do you come to the conclusion the America is responsible for Vietnam's communist status? We fought to keep that from happening! At least we did SOMETHING!

In many cases war in unavoidable. Let me ask you this: how in the world could America gain it's independance without war? The redcoats were determined not to give us a sovereign nation.

And in a more recent example, when we were attacked by terrorists on 09.11.2001 the only thing we could do was wage war against Al Qaeda and their allies? What else could we do, just let them fly planes into our buildings.

I think it's ridiculous how America always seems to be blamed for wars when WE are the ones being attacked, not the aggressors.

The reality is war isn't fun but it's sometimes needed. It's not useless; we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11.



What have you been smoking? Almost all the major wars we have been involved in have been because of freedom-hating, extreme leftist aggression.

So after 9/11 you think we should have just stood by and let people crash jets into our skyscrapers?

As Dakota stated we had no stake in Vietnam. But granted I understand 9/11. People were angry and saddened and wanted 'revenge' or 'retribution' whatever you wanna call it. Granted most of the anger and sadness subsided after several years.

Freedom-hating, leftist aggression? How about the typical conservative ideology that the government should intervene in the least ways possible in the lives of its people in order to protect individual values, BUT that Republicans should decide that abortion should be illegal, birth control should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal, conscription should be mandatory, etc.? Remember that your joke of a Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom, BY A GROUP OF SLAVE OWNERS. Long live America!

While I dislike the Republican Party and what it has become, it is what it is. As for the Constitution, yes it was written by slave owners. So what? Despite being slave owning jackasses they were some of the most intelligent men on the planet. It was a different time period. Get over it. Also, the Constitution is pretty vague and the words can change through the passage of a time. I wouldn't call it a joke as you have, just a not so much as important document. Oh well.

As pertaining to 9/11, instead of standing by, we should have prevented Bush's government from deliberately letting the attacks take place. The war in Iraq was planned long before the World Trade Center tragedy, which was a part of it, to further their own agenda, in this case taking/stealing natural resources from another land.

Oh for fuck's sake can all of you knock it off with that bullshit about stealing resources. That's an old excuse. Either come up with something new otherwise I'm going to consider your entire post to be a joke, and it won't merit a response. I don't care if it's true. We're not the first ones to do it you know. And how would you know that something you own wasn't stolen hmm?

Watch our tongue, Canadian. Lest you find it in the grip of the American war machine some day.

You're not debating so just stop.

BREAKING NEWS: The United States of America invade Canada!
OTHER BREAKING NEWS: The rest of the world declares war with the United States of America!

I'll be laughing over your failed attempt long before my tongue finds itself in the grip of the American war machine *cough* fascist army *cough*. ;)

He's a troll, so don't engage him.


Now back to the topic at hand, I believe war is a necessary evil. It should be used as a last resort however and I feel there should be a casus belli. If there is no casus belli or if it seems unjust to the UN, then sanctions should be enforced upon the aggressors.

[Lovelife090994]

To be honest, I hate warfare but I am not a pacifist through and through. If necessary after diplomacy has failed time and time over then war may solve it but look at the Middle East. The people there have been at war with themselves even during the days of the Old Testament of the Bible and yet they are still not yet at peace. In some cases if fighting and violence is leading nowhere then what do you do? More war? More diplomacy only to be ignored or challenged? That may bring more people into the problem and be like a math problem with no set answer.

So to me, it depends but generally I strongly oppose the use of warfare.

[Southside]

How in the world do you come to the conclusion the America is responsible for Vietnam's communist status? We fought to keep that from happening! At least we did SOMETHING!

In many cases war in unavoidable. Let me ask you this: how in the world could America gain it's independance without war? The redcoats were determined not to give us a sovereign nation.

And in a more recent example, when we were attacked by terrorists on 09.11.2001 the only thing we could do was wage war against Al Qaeda and their allies? What else could we do, just let them fly planes into our buildings.

I think it's ridiculous how America always seems to be blamed for wars when WE are the ones being attacked, not the aggressors.

The reality is war isn't fun but it's sometimes needed. It's not useless; we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11.



What have you been smoking? Almost all the major wars we have been involved in have been because of freedom-hating, extreme leftist aggression.

So after 9/11 you think we should have just stood by and let people crash jets into our skyscrapers?



Im not sympathizing Al-Qaeda or what they did on September 11th 2001 but they attacked us for a reason and it wasnt our "freedom" or "liberty". 9/11 didnt have to happened, our imperialistic foreign policy of building bases on other peoples homeland and killing their innocent children caused 9/11. Our world police policies are the reason that innocent office workers and military service people were killed on 9/11.

Most of those guys who we are fighting over in Afghanistan arent "Jihadist" or "Radicals", they are farmers who are angry that a foreign army is occupying them and burning their crops. They are people who are angry that their innocent relatives were killed in drone strikes. Honestly Walt, if a foreign army occupied America you wouldnt join some type of milita group?

98% of the time WE ARE the aggressors. The last legitimate war we fought was WW2, everything(except maybe Afghanistan in reponse to 9/11) was us being the aggressor. The Taliban government even said they would hand Bin Laden over if the US came up with evidence that he perpretrated the attacks.

We cause more harm than good in most cases, prime example is how hundreds of people are dying everyday in Iraq due to car bombs and militant attacks. Im not sympathizing Saddam Hussein, he was a tyrant but Iraq was stable under his rule.


Wars only serve corperate interest like the private mercenary groups and defense contractors such as Blackwater who are making millions off of dead American soldiers. Halliburton(Dick Cheney's company) made millions off of the Iraq war.

[Zenos]

War is useless and only serve the redneck conservatives' goals of enriching themselves on the lives of others.

wow stereotypical there aren't you?

I know several rednecks as you call them and funny thing is none of them are like that.Infact they'd rather not be bothered by people nor bother people.

I like that about humans... have an axe to grind? a particular type of people you dislike are hate then by hell toss out a sterotype and an dblame said group.

You are PRIME example as to why I have few dealings with other humans

[Zenos]

Im not sympathizing Al-Qaeda or what they did on September 11th 2001 but they attacked us for a reason and it wasnt our "freedom" or "liberty". 9/11 didnt have to happened, our imperialistic foreign policy of building bases on other peoples homeland and killing their innocent children caused 9/11. Our world police policies are the reason that innocent office workers and military service people were killed on 9/11.

Most of those guys who we are fighting over in Afghanistan arent "Jihadist" or "Radicals", they are farmers who are angry that a foreign army is occupying them and burning their crops. They are people who are angry that their innocent relatives were killed in drone strikes. Honestly Walt, if a foreign army occupied America you wouldnt join some type of milita group?

98% of the time WE ARE the aggressors. The last legitimate war we fought was WW2, everything(except maybe Afghanistan in reponse to 9/11) was us being the aggressor. The Taliban government even said they would hand Bin Laden over if the US came up with evidence that he perpretrated the attacks.

We cause more harm than good in most cases, prime example is how hundreds of people are dying everyday in Iraq due to car bombs and militant attacks. Im not sympathizing Saddam Hussein, he was a tyrant but Iraq was stable under his rule.


Wars only serve corperate interest like the private mercenary groups and defense contractors such as Blackwater who are making millions off of dead American soldiers. Halliburton(Dick Cheney's company) made millions off of the Iraq war.



yeh yeh right, did you ever stop to think that said based are there because we where invited in during the COLD WAR to help protect said region(s) from the spread of communism?

Learn your history

[Zenos]

Freedom-hating, leftist aggression? How about the typical conservative ideology that the government should intervene in the least ways possible in the lives of its people in order to protect individual values, BUT that Republicans should decide that abortion should be illegal, birth control should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal, conscription should be mandatory, etc.?

Remember that your joke of a Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom, BY A GROUP OF SLAVE OWNERS. Long live America!

.

LOL and the JOKE is on you the first legal slave owner in what was to become the UNITED STATES was a black man.

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

[Luminous]

Honestly I've never thought about it. I always just knew it was something that happens and I know that I've never wanted to be personally involved in a war.

[Zenos]

there are afew good things about the military besides the fact they are here to defend us.

1) in an emergency they can help lift supplies to the people,get people out of a storn ridden area,and

2) they instill discipline in people who join them and sadly lots of people to day need a stint in the military for just that reason!

[Get Outta Compton]

While I dislike the Republican Party and what it has become, it is what it is. As for the Constitution, yes it was written by slave owners. So what? Despite being slave owning jackasses they were some of the most intelligent men on the planet. It was a different time period. Get over it. Also, the Constitution is pretty vague and the words can change through the passage of a time. I wouldn't call it a joke as you have, just a not so much as important document. Oh well.

Oh for fuck's sake can all of you knock it off with that bullshit about stealing resources. That's an old excuse. Either come up with something new otherwise I'm going to consider your entire post to be a joke, and it won't merit a response. I don't care if it's true. We're not the first ones to do it you know. And how would you know that something you own wasn't stolen hmm?

He's a troll, so don't engage him.

Now back to the topic at hand, I believe war is a necessary evil. It should be used as a last resort however and I feel there should be a casus belli. If there is no casus belli or if it seems unjust to the UN, then sanctions should be enforced upon the aggressors.

I'm going to reply point by point as best as I can.

First of all, when you say the Republican Party, although you dislike what it has become, is what it is, doesn't make it right and/or tolerable. Racism is what it is, but should we stop there? No, it's not just another opinion, it's morally wrong. Sometimes, you have to put your feet on the ground and say what you really think and feel instead of just accepting everything everyone says, in other words, being relativist. I'm not saying you are, but you get the idea.

About George Washington and cie., I never said they were idiots. In fact, they were probably nothing short of geniuses and I acknowledge that. However, that doesn't make them good/great individuals. Hitler was likely very intelligent, considering how he managed to lead a country to near-exterminate an entire ethnic/religious group. Even if it was another time period, that doesn't justify it. Not saying that the Republicans are even close to be as evil as the Third Reich. I'm just stating that as an example to show you that time doesn't make crimes just.

I may have been overreacting pertaining to the Constitution. It's not a total joke, but some parts of it should really be taken away. We're in the 21st century. Guns? Really? When I hear of all the horrible shooting tragedies that occur in schools too often, I can't believe they're still allowed. Alas, this is for another subject and I hope that we'll get through that problem.

The thing about stealing resources is not bullshit. It may be an old excuse, but that doesn't make it erroneous. Even if it's been a decade from now, time doesn't change facts, nor does it change their relevance. I appreciate the fact that you replied so the debate can be furthered, but I never asked for a response either. I'm not joking. You might think I'm a troll or something, but I'm not. I have other things to do than just going on the Internet to flame. When I offer my point of view to a controversial subject such as this, it's because I believe it's a serious issue that should be remedied. We're talking about war. Killing human beings. I know I won't change the world being a teenager on VT and I also never said you were the first ones to do it. I don't blame America for everything in the world. Actually, I don't have much to blame on the U.S.A. You guys did some truly amazing things, but some just go too far. As for if I own stolen belongings, there's a difference between unknowingly possessing wronged goods and deliberately attacking people to get them.

I had my doubts that guy's a troll, but you never know. In any case, I sincerely hope that you guys don't invade us, because if you do, we're in big trouble! Anyway, I love most Americans. It's some of what their government did/are doing that I can't stand.

To close this, I strongly believe that war is NOT a necessary evil. We're, technically speaking, still animals, but we went beyond that. We're humans. We should be supposed to solve conflicts in ways other than brute force. I'm not sure I know the meaning of the term casus belli, so I will Google it or something to do some research in order to better understand your point of view. By the way, the UN doesn't really seem to be able to manage conflicts, so I don't think I'd put much trust in their judgment and competences or lack thereof.

In any case, I hope you realized that I'm not as close-minded as you think I am because I take the time to respond when people like you reply with real argumentation, even though I don't necessarily agree with you. Thank you for voicing your opinion. I will reflect on what you said. Just know that you can't always find a grey zone. Sometimes, it's black or white. I prefer honestly voicing my opinions, even if I may be wrong, instead of simply failing to do so in case I might be. Even if it irks other people, but that's the point of debating.

P.S.: Sorry if my English isn't perfect, as it is not my mother tongue. I try to write as best as I can.

[World Eater]

I'm going to reply point by point as best as I can.

First of all, when you say the Republican Party, although you dislike what it has become, is what it is, doesn't make it right and/or tolerable. Racism is what it is, but should we stop there? No, it's not just another opinion, it's morally wrong. Sometimes, you have to put your feet on the ground and say what you really think and feel instead of just accepting everything everyone says, in other words, being relativist. I'm not saying you are, but you get the idea.

About George Washington and cie., I never said they were idiots. In fact, they were probably nothing short of geniuses and I acknowledge that. However, that doesn't make them good/great individuals. Hitler was likely very intelligent, considering how he managed to lead a country to near-exterminate an entire ethnic/religious group. Even if it was another time period, that doesn't justify it. Not saying that the Republicans are even close to be as evil as the Third Reich. I'm just stating that as an example to show you that time doesn't make crimes just.

I may have been overreacting pertaining to the Constitution. It's not a total joke, but some parts of it should really be taken away. We're in the 21st century. Guns? Really? When I hear of all the horrible shooting tragedies that occur in schools too often, I can't believe they're still allowed. Alas, this is for another subject and I hope that we'll get through that problem.

The thing about stealing resources is not bullshit. It may be an old excuse, but that doesn't make it erroneous. Even if it's been a decade from now, time doesn't change facts, nor does it change their relevance. I appreciate the fact that you replied so the debate can be furthered, but I never asked for a response either. I'm not joking. You might think I'm a troll or something, but I'm not. I have other things to do than just going on the Internet to flame. When I offer my point of view to a controversial subject such as this, it's because I believe it's a serious issue that should be remedied. We're talking about war. Killing human beings. I know I won't change the world being a teenager on VT and I also never said you were the first ones to do it. I don't blame America for everything in the world. Actually, I don't have much to blame on the U.S.A. You guys did some truly amazing things, but some just go too far. As for if I own stolen belongings, there's a difference between unknowingly possessing wronged goods and deliberately attacking people to get them.

I had my doubts that guy's a troll, but you never know. In any case, I sincerely hope that you guys don't invade us, because if you do, we're in big trouble! Anyway, I love most Americans. It's some of what their government did/are doing that I can't stand.

To close this, I strongly believe that war is NOT a necessary evil. We're, technically speaking, still animals, but we went beyond that. We're humans. We should be supposed to solve conflicts in ways other than brute force. I'm not sure I know the meaning of the term casus belli, so I will Google it or something to do some research in order to better understand your point of view. By the way, the UN doesn't really seem to be able to manage conflicts, so I don't think I'd put much trust in their judgment and competences or lack thereof.

In any case, I hope you realized that I'm not as close-minded as you think I am because I take the time to respond when people like you reply with real argumentation, even though I don't necessarily agree with you. Thank you for voicing your opinion. I will reflect on what you said. Just know that you can't always find a grey zone. Sometimes, it's black or white. I prefer honestly voicing my opinions, even if I may be wrong, instead of simply failing to do so in case I might be. Even if it irks other people, but that's the point of debating.

P.S.: Sorry if my English isn't perfect, as it is not my mother tongue. I try to write as best as I can.

Nah you're good man. You have your views, you responded in a well minded tone and I apologize if I seemed like an ass. And casus belli is cause for war. Granted I don't believe in it as much anymore as I used to. And I agree with you on the UN.

[Get Outta Compton]

wow stereotypical there aren't you?

I know several rednecks as you call them and funny thing is none of them are like that.Infact they'd rather not be bothered by people nor bother people.

I like that about humans... have an axe to grind? a particular type of people you dislike are hate then by hell toss out a sterotype and an dblame said group.

You are PRIME example as to why I have few dealings with other humans

LOL and the JOKE is on you the first legal slave owner in what was to become the UNITED STATES was a black man.

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

You call me stereotypical, then send me a link on a shady, biased and partisan website called the "Council of Conservative Citizens" that presents me with an article obviously written to justify slavery by claiming that the first slave owner was a black man, in order to say that it was then OK for whites to also own them? What? How can I take you seriously?

If you know several people that are not, as I say, rednecks, then those are not the ones I am talking about in the first place! That's like if I said: "Oh, I have several racist friends, but you know what? Funny thing is none of them are racists.". Really? I'm talking about the ones who don't want to be disturbed by others, BUT actually go to great lengths to prevent other groups of people from getting basic rights and access, such as trying to ban abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, etc. They don't want others to meddle in their affairs, but hey! They should have the right to slam anyone not adhering to their religion, racist attitudes and free-market ideologies. True hypocrisy.

I don't have an axe to grind. This is a place for debate. If you don't like other people voicing their opinions, then don't go in the first place. If I really minded about insulting a certain group of people, I would go face to face and tell them they are idiots. You're telling me I blame said group, but then put the blame on me for your inability to deal with other human beings telling you what they think? I'm sorry for you, then. I may have an already made up mind, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to take insults and rantings from people I irk by telling them the truth. Bring it on, I say. I'm open to any response, but don't expect me to just stand by and say nothing. That's ridiculous.

And seriously, the joke is on you for not being able to provide a more reliable source than the one you did.

[Southside]

yeh yeh right, did you ever stop to think that said based are there because we where invited in during the COLD WAR to help protect said region(s) from the spread of communism?

Learn your history

Oh so we were "invited" into my homeland of Panama? We were "invited" into Iraq? We were "invited" into Afghanistan? We forced our way into most of these places we have bases, stop being so blind.

[Vlerchan]

yeh yeh right, did you ever stop to think that said based are there because we where invited in during the COLD WAR to help protect said region(s) from the spread of communism?

Learn your history
I've already alluded to this but I can only wonder if the history of Cambodia got stricken out of American history textbooks. I'll explain; it's really quite interesting (and depressing in a way.) Basically - and I'm excluding the bit about America helping to overthrow Cambodia's king and then installing their own Pro-American Prime Minister - America (under Nixon) decided to secretly - to put it crudely - bomb the shit out of neutral Cambodia (who North Vietnamese Communists were shepherding supplies through) at the cost of 500,000 civilians killed or injured and large tracts of their infrastructure destroyed. Enter Pol Pot and the Khmer Rougue. Pol Pot, a communist and nationalist leader; similar to Ho Chi Minh in that regard, pretended to help Cambodians, filling their heads with thoughts of overthrowing the current Pro-American government (who supported the country responsible for bombing their country) and revert them back to being the great Empire they once were. Rebellion ensued, which was only made easier by the governments bombed-to-shit infrastructure, and Communists took Cambodia. Genocide came next: 3 million died, chief numbers among them being the wealthy and the educated.

This also backs up SouthsidePro's point that when you attack peoples countries they tend not to be particularly happy about it.

Also, while we're on the topic of not-so-wanted American foreign policy, Vietnam didn't want American help either; a large proportion of southerners supported Communism. Actually, when it was put forward that the Vietnamese might decide themselves what direction their own country was heading America (or American-backed Diem, same thing), fearing Communism would win, blocked the elections.

I think the moral of the story - and I can provide plenty of other examples if you want, Reagan tended to be particularly problematic for the idea of World Peace - is that regardless of how anyone tries and dresses it up, American actions are only ever done in order to benefit American interests, not those of the peoples who they happen to be 'inflicting' these actions on. There is, admittedly, cases where American actions have benefited the people, but these are few and far between, really.

[Zenos]

You call me stereotypical, then send me a link on a shady, biased and partisan website called the "Council of Conservative Citizens" that presents me with an article obviously written to justify slavery by claiming that the first slave owner was a black man, in order to say that it was then OK for whites to also own them? What? How can I take you seriously?

If you know several people that are not, as I say, rednecks, then those are not the ones I am talking about in the first place! That's like if I said: "Oh, I have several racist friends, but you know what? Funny thing is none of them are racists.". Really? I'm talking about the ones who don't want to be disturbed by others, BUT actually go to great lengths to prevent other groups of people from getting basic rights and access, such as trying to ban abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, etc. They don't want others to meddle in their affairs, but hey! They should have the right to slam anyone not adhering to their religion, racist attitudes and free-market ideologies. True hypocrisy.

I don't have an axe to grind. This is a place for debate. If you don't like other people voicing their opinions, then don't go in the first place. If I really minded about insulting a certain group of people, I would go face to face and tell them they are idiots. You're telling me I blame said group, but then put the blame on me for your inability to deal with other human beings telling you what they think? I'm sorry for you, then. I may have an already made up mind, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to take insults and rantings from people I irk by telling them the truth. Bring it on, I say. I'm open to any response, but don't expect me to just stand by and say nothing. That's ridiculous.

And seriously, the joke is on you for not being able to provide a more reliable source than the one you did.



Nope I was not being stereotypical,just showing the ORIGIN of slavery in America,not that it was right.

Oh so we were "invited" into my homeland of Panama? We were "invited" into Iraq? We were "invited" into Afghanistan? We forced our way into most of these places we have bases, stop being so blind.

i'nm not talking about todays bases,i'm talking about bases that where in place during the COLD WAR in short bases that where in [place either since world war two,after then of world war two based on treaties made during the war,and bases in place during the cold war in nations that invited us in in an effort to keep out communists from the region! not 90's and on up bases that where put in places we went to war with.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Oh so we were "invited" into my homeland of Panama? We were "invited" into Iraq? We were "invited" into Afghanistan? We forced our way into most of these places we have bases, stop being so blind.

Whoops I thought you were being an American Nationalist (*cough cough* Republican *cough cough*) until I saw the phrase forced ourselves.
War is unnecessary but inevitable.

[Jaster]

Most of the time its not the best option, but the only option.

[britishboy]

the only wars in recent history completely justified was the Falklands conflict and Afghanistan, however Afghanistan has gone on for to long

[Get Outta Compton]

Nope I was not being stereotypical,just showing the ORIGIN of slavery in America,not that it was right.

Fine, but what's the point of telling me that? IF the first slave owner really was a black man, which I strongly doubt to be the truth, that doesn't change at all the fact that George Washington and his companions who founded America were slave owners themselves. Whether or not they were the first ones doesn't matter. They're still hypocrites. I'm not saying they're idiots. They're just not great men as many people think they were.

On whether you were stereotypical or not, I'm sorry as I think my choice of words was poor. What I meant is that your source cannot be trusted, as it is clearly biased and most likely made up.

[Synyster Shadows]

the only wars in recent history completely justified was the Falklands conflict and Afghanistan, however Afghanistan has gone on for to long

I don't know much about the Falklands conflict but I agree, I think the conflict in Afghanistan is justified. They attacked us and showed obvious contempt and we were just trying to defend ourselves. I also agree that conflict has been going on for too long. It's a good thing that the US is only leaving a few to help stabilize everything, but has pulled out pretty much everyone else.
What do you think about WWII, Jack? Would you say that was justified? That one seems to be a hot topic.

[Vlerchan]

Fine, but what's the point of telling me that? IF the first slave owner really was a black man, which I strongly doubt to be the truth, that doesn't change at all the fact that George Washington and his companions who founded America were slave owners themselves. Whether or not they were the first ones doesn't matter. They're still hypocrites. I'm not saying they're idiots. They're just not great men as many people think they were.

On whether you were stereotypical or not, I'm sorry as I think my choice of words was poor. What I meant is that your source cannot be trusted, as it is clearly biased and most likely made up.

It depends how you define slavery, really. Many would consider the indentured Irish to be among the first slaves (http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery/55-irish-slavery-main-page/106-the-irish-slave-trade.html) in the American colonies even if they were only forced to serve a limited number of years and were never officially considered such under the eyes of the law. Zenos is correct in his assertion however that blackman, Anthony Johnson (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)), a former indentured citizen himself, was the first official slave owner in the American colonies of the British Empire - it was already ungoing elsewhere in the British Empire by white men (not that makes a difference, really) before him, however - after courts legally authorised him ownership of one of his indentured for life.

How that takes away from your argument, though, I'm completely unsure of. Slavery is wrong regardless who practices it.

[britishboy]

I don't know much about the Falklands conflict but I agree, I think the conflict in Afghanistan is justified. They attacked us and showed obvious contempt and we were just trying to defend ourselves. I also agree that conflict has been going on for too long. It's a good thing that the US is only leaving a few to help stabilize everything, but has pulled out pretty much everyone else.
What do you think about WWII, Jack? Would you say that was justified? That one seems to be a hot topic.

yeah I would say ww2 is comply justified, we swore to protect Poland, we told Germany if they didn't leave there would be war, and we stuck to our promises

as for the allies that helped Britain, they was defending an ally

and when America eventually joined, that was because of pearl harbor

[Stronk Serb]

No war is justified. Murder and torture of innocents is not justified. All wars are waged for gredd, or some foolish doctrine or both.

[Korashk]

How in the world do you come to the conclusion the America is responsible for Vietnam's communist status? We fought to keep that from happening! At least we did SOMETHING!
Considering that the only "something" we did was get thousands of people killed, I'm going to have to stand with other posters and claim things would have been better had we not done something.

In many cases war in unavoidable. Let me ask you this: how in the world could America gain it's independance without war?
Well most of these countries figured it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

And in a more recent example, when we were attacked by terrorists on 09.11.2001 the only thing we could do was wage war against Al Qaeda and their allies? What else could we do, just let them fly planes into our buildings.
Are you seriously saying that America is at war with a group of people whose membership numbers less than 2000 people? You're using the term a bit liberally.

I think it's ridiculous how America always seems to be blamed for wars when WE are the ones being attacked, not the aggressors.
America hasn't been attacked by a sovereign nation since 1941, and I'm pretty sure we haven't been unjustifiably attacked since 1812.

The reality is war isn't fun but it's sometimes needed. It's not useless; we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11.
Lack of terrorist attacks has absolutely nothing to do with war.

So after 9/11 you think we should have just stood by and let people crash jets into our skyscrapers?
Eh, we probably should have realized that the reason they were flying planes into skyscrapers is because we'd been killing them in their own countries for 50 years and stopped doing that instead of doing it way more.

[LuciferSam]

"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

This explains why wars start, though morality is a different issue. In my opinion, war is never a completely good thing, but at times it can become necessary to prevent to propagation of worse things.

[Vocabulous]

Sure, most people frown on people killing people, but its not like we can get rid of it. War has some good traits, too. For instance, it creates jobs, boosts the economy(if you win), and boosts morale(also if you win)

[Zenos]

Fine, but what's the point of telling me that? IF the first slave owner really was a black man, which I strongly doubt to be the truth, that doesn't change at all the fact that George Washington and his companions who founded America were slave owners themselves. Whether or not they were the first ones doesn't matter. They're still hypocrites. I'm not saying they're idiots. They're just not great men as many people think they were.

On whether you were stereotypical or not, I'm sorry as I think my choice of words was poor. What I meant is that your source cannot be trusted, as it is clearly biased and most likely made up.

You can find info on the guy all over the net.
the sad fact is he was the first slave owner and to convince the colonial government of the day to insitutute slavery he must have had a good case.

wait a minute..you doubt the first slave owner was black? how si that hard to believe seeing as Blacks in Africa where selling blacks to Arab slavers and then eventually to whites.So please tell me how hard is it to accept this fact? just wondering..ok now back to the program.

[Walter Powers]

My grandfather, who was the last marine out of Saigon, would like to respectfully disagree with you. We had no stake in Vietnam. We had no reason to go there and instill anything. We wasted more lives than we care to admit and turned an entire generation into government-hating individuals. And yet, you see nothing wrong with that. My grandfather had to pull his dead buddies out of ditches filled with poisonous snakes and spikes; he watched his best friend of some thirty odd years get shot in the head by a sniper. A lot of people experienced this while they were in Vietnam, but that doesn't matter to you, because at least we did SOMETHING.

Pitiful.

It's one thing to argue we had no stake in Vietnam, it's completely another to have the audacity to say we're the reason Vietnam is currently communist! That's what the OP said. You don't agree with THAT, do you?

I think We should take a step back. Honestly, I really am not all that familiar with the Vietnam war. I just have a basic principal when it comes to this, and sure as hell know that we aren't THE REASON that country's flag is red and white.

I think war is needed to free people who want to be freed, and accept the responsibility of freedom, from tyranny. Not only is that morally justifiable, it is in our national interest to assist a people in liberating themselves. Now I'm not all that familiar with the war in Vietnam, however this is the general policy I'd go by when determining whether to intervene in a conflict, Syria, Vietnam, whatever. WOMD, of course, change the equation a bit to, but this should be the main determining factor.

Freedom-hating, leftist aggression? How about the typical conservative ideology that the government should intervene in the least ways possible in the lives of its people in order to protect individual values, BUT that Republicans should decide that abortion should be illegal, birth control should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal, conscription should be mandatory, etc.? Remember that your joke of a Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom, BY A GROUP OF SLAVE OWNERS. Long live America![/b]

So the USSR wasn't freedom-hating leftist aggression? Nor the Nazis? Give me a break.

You are sidetracking from what's important. If you think the biggest threat to freedom in the world today is the Republican Party, you are crazy.

Back on topic: We are talking about war, not domestic politics. I know that the liberal establishment really wants us conservatives to bring out our AK 47s and start a war so they can label us extremists and indoctrinate people like yourself further, however that's not going to happen because most conservatives have principals.

As pertaining to 9/11, instead of standing by, we should have prevented Bush's government from deliberately letting the attacks take place. The war in Iraq was planned long before the World Trade Center tragedy, which was a part of it, to further their own agenda, in this case taking/stealing natural resources from another land.
That's just crazy. You just lost the little respect I have left for you if you prescribe to that garbage. Bush didn't orchestrate 9/11! And if Who's telling you this that you trust more then almost every other living soul on this planet?

And if Bush was in on it, which again your crazy if you believe, why, of all places, would he have a plane fly into the Defense Departments HQ (the Pentagon), if he wanted to fight a war?

So were all the Democratic congressmen who voted for the war in Iraq were in on this too, then?

As Dakota stated we had no stake in Vietnam.

I'm not taking a side on Vietnam yet. I don't know enough. All I was saying that it's crazy for the OP to say we're THE REASON that country is communist.


But granted I understand 9/11. People were angry and saddened and wanted 'revenge' or 'retribution' whatever you wanna call it. Granted most of the anger and sadness subsided after several years.

Not just revenge, we need justice. We can't just let people plan terrorist attacks and get away with it.


While I dislike the Republican Party and what it has become, it is what it is. As for the Constitution, yes it was written by slave owners. So what? Despite being slave owning jackasses they were some of the most intelligent men on the planet. It was a different time period. Get over it. Also, the Constitution is pretty vague and the words can change through the passage of a time. I wouldn't call it a joke as you have, just a not so much as important document. Oh well.

Good points. However, the constitution is actually pretty specific, or as specific as it can be to still be relevant. Which is why it's on of the most brilliant things ever written.

Im not sympathizing Al-Qaeda or what they did on September 11th 2001 but they attacked us for a reason and it wasnt our "freedom" or "liberty".

What was the reason, then? All the terrorist organizations themselves essentially say after they claim responsibility for the attacks (which they almost always do eventually) the reason is we're unholy in allowing our people to do a lot more then in the middle east, and things like letting girls go to school. What am I missing?

Regardless, it's certainly not our fault. Unless of course you think it's our fault because we let girls go to school.

[9/11 didnt have to happened, our imperialistic foreign policy of building bases on other peoples homeland and killing their innocent children caused 9/11. Our world police policies are the reason that innocent office workers and military service people were killed on 9/11.

This is one of the biggest pieces of political BS out there.

What exactly did we do that aggravated them that wasn't justified?

Most of those guys who we are fighting over in Afghanistan arent "Jihadist" or "Radicals", they are farmers who are angry that a foreign army is occupying them and burning their crops. They are people who are angry that their innocent relatives were killed in drone strikes. Honestly Walt, if a foreign army occupied America you wouldnt join some type of milita group?

Of course I would, to protect myself, but I certainly wouldn't become a terrorist and kill innocent people. Nor would I join a group of religious fanatics who want to destroy people they don't agree with.

98% of the time WE ARE the aggressors. The last legitimate war we fought was WW2, everything(except maybe Afghanistan in reponse to 9/11) was us being the aggressor. The Taliban government even said they would hand Bin Laden over if the US came up with evidence that he perpretrated the attacks.

Wait, so now you do agree with the war in Afghanistan? You're flip flopping, you say 9/11s our our fault but you agree with the war?

We cause more harm than good in most cases, prime example is how hundreds of people are dying everyday in Iraq due to car bombs and militant attacks. Im not sympathizing Saddam Hussein, he was a tyrant but Iraq was stable under his rule.

We had intelligence saying that they might have nukes, we were wrong, it was a net positive for those who wanted freedom and democracy. Better safe then sorry. Can you even begin to imagine what would happen if a modern nuclear weapon was used? We have to take these things very, very seriously. Those have the potential to kill tens of millions if targeted in the right spot.


Wars only serve corperate interest like the private mercenary groups and defense contractors such as Blackwater who are making millions off of dead American soldiers. Halliburton(Dick Cheney's company) made millions off of the Iraq war.
Actually, most of those companies are making money off saving American lives on the battlefield. All of our war machines are the best in the world because of these corporations. During the cold war, the USSRs government built death traps were far inferior to our corporate built Boeing fighters.

No war is justified. Murder and torture of innocents is not justified. All wars are waged for gredd, or some foolish doctrine or both.

So World War II wasn't justified? America should have just surrendered to the Nazis, learned German, and accepted Hitler as our ruler? Or should we have allowed the Japanese to invade instead?

Considering that the only "something" we did was get thousands of people killed, I'm going to have to stand with other posters and claim things would have been better had we not done something.

Again, I'm not taking a stance on Vietnam. I'm not familiar with it. However, I DO know we aren't THE REASON Vietnam is communist!


Well most of these countries figured it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

You don't know anything about the revolutionary war if you think King George III was going to let us secede peacefully.


Are you seriously saying that America is at war with a group of people whose membership numbers less than 2000 people? You're using the term a bit liberally.

Actually, I've read their membership is about 10 times that. And yes, we are at war with them and the evil governments who help them. It's called the "War on Terror" for a reason!


America hasn't been attacked by a sovereign nation since 1941, and I'm pretty sure we haven't been unjustifiably attacked since 1812.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The Japanese Bombing Pearl Harbor was justified?




Lack of terrorist attacks has absolutely nothing to do with war.

It does when terrorist attacks trigger wars.


Eh, we probably should have realized that the reason they were flying planes into skyscrapers is because we'd been killing them in their own countries for 50 years and stopped doing that instead of doing it way more.

The reason they flew planes into our skyscrapers was our status as a free country, and radical Muslims hate freedom!

"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

This explains why wars start, though morality is a different issue. In my opinion, war is never a completely good thing, but at times it can become necessary to prevent to propagation of worse things.

My thoughts preciously.

[Blood_Thorn]

In my opinion war is not as bad as everyone thinks, its natures way to deal with overpopulation.
Look at how with a population of 7 billion people, resource wise the earth is going down the drain both when it comes to fuel for energy production and transportation, the various materials we use for building and other purposes, and nutrition wise.

If we did not have any war at all, the exponential increase of our population would would have an even steeper gradient. This would stress much of the infrastructure we have for the production of clean water and food leading to both food and water shortages, which then could quite possibly allow diseases to spread easier. An increased rate of spread for diseases would allow epidemics and pandemics to become more common.
If the world was to be afflicted with a serious enough pandemic, the whole world could eventually degenerate into anarchy, and violence. So violence war quite possibly could be a result of "world peace".

So the only possible way I see "world peace" working is through the annihilation of the entire human species. Else we will naturally fight and wage war on each other.

[Get Outta Compton]

So the USSR wasn't freedom-hating leftist aggression? Nor the Nazis? Give me a break.

You are sidetracking from what's important. If you think the biggest threat to freedom in the world today is the Republican Party, you are crazy.

Back on topic: We are talking about war, not domestic politics. I know that the liberal establishment really wants us conservatives to bring out our AK 47s and start a war so they can label us extremists and indoctrinate people like yourself further, however that's not going to happen because most conservatives have principals.


That's just crazy. You just lost the little respect I have left for you if you prescribe to that garbage. Bush didn't orchestrate 9/11! And if Who's telling you this that you trust more then almost every other living soul on this planet?

And if Bush was in on it, which again your crazy if you believe, why, of all places, would he have a plane fly into the Defense Departments HQ (the Pentagon), if he wanted to fight a war?

So were all the Democratic congressmen who voted for the war in Iraq were in on this too, then?

The Nazis? Leftists? Are you stupid? They were a fascist regime! In other words, extreme right. Learn your political spectrum before labeling anyone who has a different opinion than yours as communists.

So talking about anything else than war is sidetracking from what's important? I didn't know conservatives held such a deep love for killing other people. You guys really have your priorities at the right place, eh? The Republicans are still one of the biggest threats to freedom in America, except if you think it's normal to suppress the rights of every minority you don't understand.

I think you meant "principles"? I'm not surprised you spelled it wrong considering you probably don't even know what they really mean. If your principles consist of threatening democracy and diplomacy with ransom and economic chaos as the Republicans are currently doing, I pity you. It's also ironic how you accuse me of being indoctrinated while you're clearly brainwashed yourself by the conservative agenda.


So, telling you the truth you're not willing to accept is crazy? Garbage? Nice argumentation. Also, do you really think that "every other living soul on this planet" believes Bush was innocent and a righteous president? You're right if by those, you mean Southern Americans. The rest of the world is actually intelligent enough to read something else than the Wall Street Journal. As if I care if you don't have any "respect" left for me. You obviously never had any, as I'm only a delusional socialist in your eyes.

Again, calling me crazy for adhering to a different opinion than yours without even explaining why is, to say the least, sad.

[Emerald Dream]

Let's please stick to the actual topic, and refrain from personal insults.

That goes for everyone.

[Southside]

It's one thing to argue we had no stake in Vietnam, it's completely another to have the audacity to say we're the reason Vietnam is currently communist! That's what the OP said. You don't agree with THAT, do you?

I think We should take a step back. Honestly, I really am not all that familiar with the Vietnam war. I just have a basic principal when it comes to this, and sure as hell know that we aren't THE REASON that country's flag is red and white.

I think war is needed to free people who want to be freed, and accept the responsibility of freedom, from tyranny. Not only is that morally justifiable, it is in our national interest to assist a people in liberating themselves. Now I'm not all that familiar with the war in Vietnam, however this is the general policy I'd go by when determining whether to intervene in a conflict, Syria, Vietnam, whatever. WOMD, of course, change the equation a bit to, but this should be the main determining factor.



So the USSR wasn't freedom-hating leftist aggression? Nor the Nazis? Give me a break.

You are sidetracking from what's important. If you think the biggest threat to freedom in the world today is the Republican Party, you are crazy.

Back on topic: We are talking about war, not domestic politics. I know that the liberal establishment really wants us conservatives to bring out our AK 47s and start a war so they can label us extremists and indoctrinate people like yourself further, however that's not going to happen because most conservatives have principals.


That's just crazy. You just lost the little respect I have left for you if you prescribe to that garbage. Bush didn't orchestrate 9/11! And if Who's telling you this that you trust more then almost every other living soul on this planet?

And if Bush was in on it, which again your crazy if you believe, why, of all places, would he have a plane fly into the Defense Departments HQ (the Pentagon), if he wanted to fight a war?

So were all the Democratic congressmen who voted for the war in Iraq were in on this too, then?



I'm not taking a side on Vietnam yet. I don't know enough. All I was saying that it's crazy for the OP to say we're THE REASON that country is communist.



Not just revenge, we need justice. We can't just let people plan terrorist attacks and get away with it.



Good points. However, the constitution is actually pretty specific, or as specific as it can be to still be relevant. Which is why it's on of the most brilliant things ever written.



What was the reason, then? All the terrorist organizations themselves essentially say after they claim responsibility for the attacks (which they almost always do eventually) the reason is we're unholy in allowing our people to do a lot more then in the middle east, and things like letting girls go to school. What am I missing?

Regardless, it's certainly not our fault. Unless of course you think it's our fault because we let girls go to school.



This is one of the biggest pieces of political BS out there.

What exactly did we do that aggravated them that wasn't justified?



Of course I would, to protect myself, but I certainly wouldn't become a terrorist and kill innocent people. Nor would I join a group of religious fanatics who want to destroy people they don't agree with.



Wait, so now you do agree with the war in Afghanistan? You're flip flopping, you say 9/11s our our fault but you agree with the war?



We had intelligence saying that they might have nukes, we were wrong, it was a net positive for those who wanted freedom and democracy. Better safe then sorry. Can you even begin to imagine what would happen if a modern nuclear weapon was used? We have to take these things very, very seriously. Those have the potential to kill tens of millions if targeted in the right spot.


Actually, most of those companies are making money off saving American lives on the battlefield. All of our war machines are the best in the world because of these corporations. During the cold war, the USSRs government built death traps were far inferior to our corporate built Boeing fighters.



So World War II wasn't justified? America should have just surrendered to the Nazis, learned German, and accepted Hitler as our ruler? Or should we have allowed the Japanese to invade instead?



Again, I'm not taking a stance on Vietnam. I'm not familiar with it. However, I DO know we aren't THE REASON Vietnam is communist!



You don't know anything about the revolutionary war if you think King George III was going to let us secede peacefully.




Actually, I've read their membership is about 10 times that. And yes, we are at war with them and the evil governments who help them. It's called the "War on Terror" for a reason!



ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The Japanese Bombing Pearl Harbor was justified?






It does when terrorist attacks trigger wars.



The reason they flew planes into our skyscrapers was our status as a free country, and radical Muslims hate freedom!



My thoughts preciously.

Well the people running the US intelligence agencies must be some of the dumbest fuckers in the world considering Iraq's only nuclear reactor was destroyed by a Israeli airstrike in the early 1980s.

On the Afghanistan, I think we should have been pulled combat troops out(5-6 years ago) and just had training staff in.

Stop with the freedom or liberty bullshit Walt, they attacked us on 9/11 because we had been killing their innocent family members for 10-15 years prior to 9/11. They are attacking us currently in Afghanistan because were burning their crops and blowing up their villages with drone missiles.

Though of course, 3000 American lives obviously are more important than 100,000+ Iraqis and Afghani lives


Why do you think Austria or Switzerland has never been attacked by foreign terrorist? Because they don't go around being the world police..

9/11 probably would have never happened if we hadn't did what we did in the Middle-East prior to 9/11

[Korashk]

-Vietnam snip-
Backpeadaling I see. Then you thought it was good that we did something, now you don't have an opinion. Reeks of intellectual dishonestly up in here.

I think war is needed to free people who want to be freed, and accept the responsibility of freedom, from tyranny. Not only is that morally justifiable, it is in our national interest to assist a people in liberating themselves.
That's a nice sentiment in a perfectly functioning world, but we don't live in one of those. America doesn't go on "freedom-sprees". America goes on "protect national interest-sprees" which almost always causes the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

So the USSR wasn't freedom-hating leftist aggression? Nor the Nazis? Give me a break.
Uhh, they weren't? Nazi Germany was socially conservative and capitalistic. The USSR was extremely socially conservative that only instituted Stalinistic and Leninistic communist policies.

You are sidetracking from what's important. If you think the biggest threat to freedom in the world today is the Republican Party, you are crazy.
Why is that so crazy an idea? Sure, some groups in the world are more freedom-limiting than Republicans in an ideological sense, but those groups don't have a fraction of the power.

What was the reason, then? All the terrorist organizations themselves essentially say after they claim responsibility for the attacks (which they almost always do eventually) the reason is we're unholy in allowing our people to do a lot more then in the middle east, and things like letting girls go to school. What am I missing?
You've been told the reason but you just choose to ignore them. I literally told you the reasons in the post of mine you quoted. I'll even respond to all your responses where you claim not to know the reason for emphasis even though I know you don't care and will continue ignorantly believing the lies and half-truths told to you by talking heads on Fox News.

You're just incapable of getting it. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid fed to you by leaders in the conservative right.

Regardless, it's certainly not our fault. Unless of course you think it's our fault because we let girls go to school.
It's also our fault for overthrowing their governments and installing pro-American tyrants (like Saddam Hussein and Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi); Instituting sanctions in their countries causing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children to starve to death in Iran alone; nigh constant bombings causing the deaths of thousands more; troops on the ground all throughout the second-half of the 1900s fighting proxy wars with the USSR causing even more casualties.


This is one of the biggest pieces of political BS out there.

What exactly did we do that aggravated them that wasn't justified?
Overthrowing their governments and installing pro-American tyrants (like Saddam Hussein and Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi); Instituting sanctions in their countries causing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children to starve to death in Iran alone; nigh constant bombings causing the deaths of thousands more; troops on the ground all throughout the second-half of the 1900s fighting proxy wars with the USSR causing even more casualties.

Of course I would, to protect myself, but I certainly wouldn't become a terrorist and kill innocent people. Nor would I join a group of religious fanatics who want to destroy people they don't agree with.
So you're saying you might join to cast out the ones overthrowing your governments and installing pro-American tyrants (like Saddam Hussein and Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi); Instituting sanctions in your country causing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children to starve to death in Iran alone; causing the nigh constant bombings causing the deaths of thousands more; troops on the ground all throughout the second-half of the 1900s fighting proxy wars with the USSR causing even more casualties.

We had intelligence saying that they might have nukes
So what? Why do people like you think that people like Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government would use nukes?

it was a net positive for those who wanted freedom and democracy.
Eh, I guess. Lots of people died, the country is a mess, and if it weren't for America helping Saddam into power in the first place maybe he wouldn't have needed to be removed from power.

So World War II wasn't justified? America should have just surrendered to the Nazis, learned German, and accepted Hitler as our ruler? Or should we have allowed the Japanese to invade instead?
Last time I checked Hitler never attacked America and Japan only did because our sanctions against them (in response to a war we weren't even supposed to be involved in) were crippling their economy. If you honestly think that America was in any danger because of WWII then I don't even know what to say to that.

The war in Europe was won because Hitler got too ambitious and tried to fight on both the Eastern and Western European fronts and suffered the same fate as Napolean. America's most important contribution to the war was supplying allied forces with supplies. It was basically over before America even had troops on the ground in Europe.

You don't know anything about the revolutionary war if you think King George III was going to let us secede peacefully.
Okay, I'll ask again since you didn't seem to notice the question: If there was no way that the British Empire would allow America to secede how did most of the countries on that list achieve peaceful secession?

Actually, I've read their membership is about 10 times that. And yes, we are at war with them and the evil governments who help them. It's called the "War on Terror" for a reason!
You're right. The number has grown to about 10 times that since I looked it up about 6 years ago. I guess i'm honestly not surprised.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The Japanese Bombing Pearl Harbor was justified?
Yeah.

They attacked a military target and limited casualties almost exclusively to members and facilities of the military and they did it in response to actions by our government against their country as a whole.

It does when terrorist attacks trigger wars.
http://forum.nationstates.net/images/smilies/sm_facepalm.gif
Way to uh, miss the point of the statement entirely. Wars don't stop terrorist attacks. They make them occur more frequently. Plus you're wrong if you think that 9/11 was the reason for the most recent Iraq War.

The reason they flew planes into our skyscrapers was our status as a free country, and radical Muslims hate freedom!
Mmmmm, that's some good Kool-Aid isn't it?

[Stronk Serb]

So World War II wasn't justified? America should have just surrendered to the Nazis, learned German, and accepted Hitler as our ruler? Or should we have allowed the Japanese to invade instead?

You were not attacking. You were defending against the insane doctrines of Hitler. The Axis forces had no reason to start the war. And get over it, Hitler couldn't have invaded you. He couldn't invade the UK nor the USSR. He had a channel separating him from the Brits. and he had 10 million Soviet troops and harsh Russian winter separating him from conquering the USSR plus the good Soviet propaganda machine. Between you and Germany there is the Atlantic, your fleet, your submarines. He could invade and take half of the US, but he couldn't hold it.

[Left Now]

War is deception.

[britishboy]

War is deception.

how to you mean?

[CharlieHorse]

War is terrible. It's unnecessary.
However, it will always be present. Humans will always want to fight other humans.
It will take something like an alien invasion for us to band together as one species, one people.

[Left Now]

how to you mean?

War is an absolute deception.They always say that "War For Peace!",while they themselves know this well that war will bring nothing except another war following it.

You only have to fight those who attack you,not those who are defending their lands."Like Pa....estinians who have fought against I...raei..is since about 70 years ago to free their lands."

[britishboy]

War is an absolute deception.They always say that "War For Peace!",while they themselves know this well that war will bring nothing except another war following it.

You only have to fight those who attack you,not those who are defending their lands."Like Pa....estinians who have fought against I...raei..is since about 70 years ago to free their lands."

I see you point, I think you should of course defend yourself and allies but if something really bad is going on, it would be terrible to turned a blind eye, for example, imagine how horrible it is in North Korea? if they was invaded and liberated they could live free lives

[Left Now]

I see you point, I think you should of course defend yourself and allies but if something really bad is going on, it would be terrible to turned a blind eye, for example, imagine how horrible it is in North Korea? if they was invaded and liberated they could live free lives


Even if you have a good reason to attack,still you cannot ignore the interests of your own,can you?

Look at US now.They always say that they attacked Iraq to free its people and to destroy WMDs.While during 8 years of war between Iran and Iraq,they were completely silent about the chemical weapons which had been used by Saddam against Iranian civilians and instead of accusing Iraq,they accused Iran for defending.It shows that all countries will first look to their national interests,then pretty mottos like "Freedom" and "Humanity".

[Soulless]

War isn't supposed to be nice, and shouldn't be nice, then people get desensitised to it.

[smashmouth42]

The way i see it, war is never ideal, but is often "necessary" for at least one side of the conflict. No one ever goes to war thinking "we're the bad guys here, what we are doing is wrong", often both sides think that they are making sacrifices for the greater good. Its just that history is always written by the victor. As Yolo98 said, conflict is in our genes, our ability to develop technology for warfare is the only reason humans have adapted and survived today, its in our blood (literally). Its not like we are the only species that do it, look at ants, they are some hardcore mutha fu**en fighters thats fo sho

[darthearth]

I generally agree with the OP, but it's a difficult question for me. In general I only support defensive strikes. I support the American Revolutionary War because a declared independent nation (U.S.A.) was being attacked, I also support defending against Germany in WWII, but I can't say I support the American Civil War though. Most of me feels like the confederacy should have been left alone. Why not use economic sanctions to change slavery? That is what we do now isn't it? But this is a gray area too, the line between defense (like a large independent country being declared or current one being defended) and simple social order (bringing a Waco Texas cult to justice) seems a bit arbitrary.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I support the American Revolutionary War because a declared independent nation (U.S.A.) was being attacked

But that's the problem, from what I've personally studied in history (For some reason Nz students need to know about the US revolution) the US wasn't being attacked, they were rebelling.They weren't a separate nation till long after the tea party, they were just a colony. There is a difference between those. Just because you don't like how you are being ruled, and are being forced to (Rite-fully IMO) pay for the defense of your nation, that doesn't give you the right to claim you are under attack. The only reason they were attacked by the British is because they attacked first, I.E. The Boston tea party. That was what spawned Lexington and Concord, and the whole war. If I declare my house separate from the rest of my nation, then stockpile guns, attack the trucks transporting things for the rest of NZ because I don't like the price of it, then I am probably not allowed to do that, and the NZ army has the right to defend NZ by attacking me. I'm not defending myself if I fight them, because I threw the first stone (If that makes sense)

I realize I probably don't know half as much about the revolutionary war as most Americans, and If im wrong please feel free to correct me.

[The Trendy Wolf]

War - we all know how devastating we can be. What are your thoughts on it? Do you think it's necessary? I bring this up because my English class read a fictional short story about a sniper in 1920s war-torn Ireland and we then had a discussion about it. There were definitely some strong points in it.

Yes, our English class read that story as well.

War, in my opinion, is only caused when people become intolerant. War is not necessary, and there should not be any form of war, conflict, or arguments if everyone learns to accept one another, because, ultimately, we are all humans more than anything, no matter what people may think of us.

[Left Now]

Yes, our English class read that story as well.

War, in my opinion, is only caused when people become intolerant. War is not necessary, and there should not be any form of war, conflict, or arguments if everyone learns to accept one another, because, ultimately, we are all humans more than anything, no matter what people may think of us.

Sometimes war happens because of human's ambitions and thirst for power.I believe war is sometimes necessary,but not war itself in fact!If you were attacked,then you have to defend yourself and if you do not do that,then you haven't done anything except letting those ambitious persons(or cause)continue ignoring your rights and the rights of other people.

"Fight those who fight you but do not transgress..."

[The Trendy Wolf]

Sometimes war happens because of human's ambitions and thirst for power.I believe war is sometimes necessary,but not war itself in fact!If you were attacked,then you have to defend yourself and if you do not do that,then you haven't done anything except letting those ambitious persons(or cause)continue ignoring your rights and the rights of other people.

"Fight those who fight you but do not transgress..."

Those who are 'power-hungry' are also intolerant of others, and they are selfish and inconsiderate of the rest of the people. I agree that fighting back is an option, but at that point it is nearly impossible to prevent that person's (or multiple persons') intolerance or perception of others. War is in all ways preventable, mainly because the intolerance from one person is derivative of another's intolerance. We are born with no means of hatred, but our experiences are what may potentially create these selfish biases.

"There is nothing more natural than for the cat to love the mouse."

[Left Now]

War has to always be the last option and the least necessary one.

[tovaris]

We should do everething in our power and more to prevent any and all war. War is something that belonges to the past and should newer be repeted.

War is useless and only serve the redneck conservatives' goals of enriching themselves on the lives of others.

In conplet agreement.

H

In many cases war in unavoidable. Let me ask you this: how in the world could America gain it's independance without war? The redcoats were determined not to give us a sovereign nation.



Hmmm. I dont know.... how did most of other british colonies gain independance? You know, biting the hand that feeds you isnt wery nice.

[Sir Suomi]

As Theodore Roosevelt once famously said, "Speak soft, and carry a big stick." I believe war, if at all possible, should be avoided. I don't like the fact that we, as human beings, haven't evolved to the point to where we can peacefully reach a compromise that leaves both parties happy. However, since we are human beings, fighting each other is in our DNA, so to speak. So, I believe that having a strong standing military force to back up your standing in an argument helps. People tend to become more cooperative when they realize that they will suffer heavily if they do not try and negotiate.

[tovaris]

As Theodore Roosevelt once famously said, "Speak soft, and carry a big stick." I believe war, if at all possible, should be avoided. I don't like the fact that we, as human beings, haven't evolved to the point to where we can peacefully reach a compromise that leaves both parties happy. However, since we are human beings, fighting each other is in our DNA, so to speak. So, I believe that having a strong standing military force to back up your standing in an argument helps. People tend to become more cooperative when they realize that they will suffer heavily if they do not try and negotiate.

That is rarely the case. People will jell even harder agained you when you flash them a big gun.
Such a case is enbodied by the fraze Боље рат него пакт (better war than a packt) that was yeled in the streets of Belgrade when the crone signed a treaty with Hitler, forcing them to renounce their joining to the tripple packt and enraging Hitler. The nation knew whel that thy would suffer greatly but stil chose to defend themselves with fists rather than to sleep wit the satan (the great satan).

My opinion is fairly straightforward. I feel that, in some situations, war is a necessary action.

It should NEWER be considered necesary to start a war!

Watch your tongue, Canadian. Lest you find it in the grip of the American war machine some day.

Seriously? And than people ask me where we get all the american steriotipes from.

USA could never acheve dominance over Canada frew war.



I'll be laughing over your failed attempt long before my tongue finds itself in the grip of the American war machine *cough* fascist army *cough*. ;)

I don't know much about the Falklands conflict but I agree, I think the conflict in Afghanistan is justified. They attacked us and showed obvious contempt and we were just trying to defend ourselves. I also agree that conflict has been going on for too long. It's a good thing that the US is only leaving a few to help stabilize everything, but has pulled out pretty much everyone else.
What do you think about WWII, Jack? Would you say that was justified? That one seems to be a hot topic.

Who did afganistan atack?

yeah I would say ww2 is comply justified, we swore to protect Poland, we told Germany if they didn't leave there would be war, and we stuck to our promises

as for the allies that helped Britain, they was defending an ally

and when America eventually joined, that was because of pearl harbor

NO war can be justified!

But first you gave half of czekoslovakia to Hitler for free...

Jea lets go to war with them because they colonized our land and raped our woman.

Where does the economic state of the us fit into this?




No war is justified. Murder and torture of innocents is not justified. All wars are waged for gredd, or some foolish doctrine or both.

In conplet agreement.


"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

This explains why wars start, though morality is a different issue. In my opinion, war is never a completely good thing, but at times it can become necessary to prevent to propagation of worse things.

Beasts know no war, only man does.

Sure, most people frown on people killing people, but its not like we can get rid of it. War has some good traits, too. For instance, it creates jobs, boosts the economy(if you win), and boosts morale(also if you win)

That is why inicsent civilians should be bombed (caugh atempt in Syria caugh)

In my opinion war is not as bad as everyone thinks, its natures way to deal with overpopulation.
Look at how with a population of 7 billion people, resource wise the earth is going down the drain both when it comes to fuel for energy production and transportation, the various materials we use for building and other purposes, and nutrition wise.

If we did not have any war at all, the exponential increase of our population would would have an even steeper gradient. This would stress much of the infrastructure we have for the production of clean water and food leading to both food and water shortages, which then could quite possibly allow diseases to spread easier. An increased rate of spread for diseases would allow epidemics and pandemics to become more common.
If the world was to be afflicted with a serious enough pandemic, the whole world could eventually degenerate into anarchy, and violence. So violence war quite possibly could be a result of "world peace".

So the only possible way I see "world peace" working is through the annihilation of the entire human species. Else we will naturally fight and wage war on each other.

The earth is not owerpopulated. We humans are just stupid.

[darthearth]

But that's the problem, from what I've personally studied in history (For some reason Nz students need to know about the US revolution) the US wasn't being attacked, they were rebelling.They weren't a separate nation till long after the tea party, they were just a colony. There is a difference between those. Just because you don't like how you are being ruled, and are being forced to (Rite-fully IMO) pay for the defense of your nation, that doesn't give you the right to claim you are under attack. The only reason they were attacked by the British is because they attacked first, I.E. The Boston tea party. That was what spawned Lexington and Concord, and the whole war. If I declare my house separate from the rest of my nation, then stockpile guns, attack the trucks transporting things for the rest of NZ because I don't like the price of it, then I am probably not allowed to do that, and the NZ army has the right to defend NZ by attacking me. I'm not defending myself if I fight them, because I threw the first stone (If that makes sense)

I realize I probably don't know half as much about the revolutionary war as most Americans, and If im wrong please feel free to correct me.

I was referring to the Declaration of Independence, once independence was declared the colonies' intention of breaking away from Great Britain and forming their own country was formalized. Once a new country is declared in such manner the former ruling country becomes an aggressor, and the newly formed country is now the defender. It is rather unrelated to the circumstances under which independence is declared. Like I stated in my post, the line between this view and simply maintaining public order in the face of small groups declaring independence does have an aspect of arbitrariness.

[Polansek]

War is something that should be eradicated from this planet.

[Danny_boi 16]

War is illogical, and there is not logical argument in the defense of war. It the biological destiny of species is to reproduce. To kill Homo sapiens defeats this purpose. Killing off our species serves no purpose whatsoever. War is a barbaric practice, that must end.

[Marius44]

War is necessary at some points in History to stop the stagnation of society. War brings technological advancements, a shift in social life and shuffles the power that some people have. I'm not saying we should have total war on at all times, but once in a while it is necessary. Long periods of peace are good as well, but there needs to be a balance.

[Henry VIII]

I believe everything humanly possible should be done to avoid war.

I agree implicitly with this quote from series 1 episode 1 of The Tudors:

Thomas Moore-As a humanist I have an abhorrence of war. It's an activity fit only for beasts yet practiced by no kind of beasts so constantly as by man.

[Kahn]

War brings out the best and worst of men. It's exciting, invigorating, dramatic. But it grows tiring. It exhausts a people and, depending on the outcome of the war, could destroy a people. Innocents are killed, children men and women of all ages colors and size. It does what it's meant to do; and that is devestate.

We're at a time in human history where diplomacy really is the best option. With instant communication, changing worldviews and the threat of nuclear Armageddon if a major war tears the geopolitical fabric asunder should be enough motivation for us to try to work issues out with no bloodshed. That is highly unlikely, though, as we are stuck in our ways of slaughter.

[Elvalight]

In my opinion, death should be avoided at all costs, but sometimes there is no other way.
Like the ones who oppose you could attack you first, and I for one would not sit an watch my side die. War is a last resort, and a future that will cause much heartbreak and take years to heal, so yeah, I hate war unless it's the only option.

[darthearth]

War is necessary at some points in History to stop the stagnation of society. War brings technological advancements, a shift in social life and shuffles the power that some people have. I'm not saying we should have total war on at all times, but once in a while it is necessary. Long periods of peace are good as well, but there needs to be a balance.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding you. If there is a state of peace that can last forever with all parties completely satisfied, you would disrupt it with war just because you wish to "shake things up" every once in a while? Please correct me if I misinterpret.

[Synyster Shadows]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding you. If there is a state of peace that can last forever with all parties completely satisfied, you would disrupt it with war just because you wish to "shake things up" every once in a while? Please correct me if I misinterpret.

I agree. That doesn't really make sense to me either. I see no reason to start a war just because one could for the sake of doing it.

[Scottishdanny]

War is necessary, and it will never stop, as much as it would be beneficial in most ways if it did. War can be beneficial, despite the loss of lives. That loss can mean many more survive.

Violence is part of human nature: it's part of nature itself as a matter of fact. Conflict and violence are natural things, regardless of how detrimental they are - they will always exist, and it is simply impossible to remove them. So, violence will exist, regardless. It's impossible to stop it: but is it impossible to stop war?:

If war didn't exist at all, then the world would be a better place. That's a fact. However, in reality, and in the world we live in, war can be the only way to solve an issue.

If a genocide is occurring in a country, how are you meant to stop it without using armed force against the oppressive regime or group doing it? They're not going to listen to reason if they're opposed to a group, race or organisation to the extent that they are willing to perform a genocide to eradicate them. The only way to deal with a situation like that is by actually using force to stop it - the only way to solve it, is war. Sure, you could say 'Alternatively, prevent it before it happens', but even that is impossible. If you manage to prevent an extremist faction or government from coming to power and managing to perform a genocide, without using military force, and doing it via diplomacy or a wee chat, then pigs can fly. It is simply impossible to achieve stopping every single group that would do things such as this, from being able to do it: especially those that don't make their intentions for genocide clear, as history has show as.

Defending yourself against attack, is that right? Absolutely. Is the war in itself, caused by the attacker right? No.

When is war completely unacceptable, unjustifiable and wrong? Most of the time. When it's a war of conquest, or simply a war that isn't to actually help people. Saying that, the wars in the Middle East by the Western Cultures were to solve issues there (or, if you're one of those people, to get the oil) and they didn't go to well. I in no way support war, nor do I think it's a good thing, but sometimes it's the only thing that can be done, unfortunate as that is.

[Sir Suomi]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war")

In other words, peace sometimes cannot be achieved without fighting. Although there is never such thing as a "good" war, wars that have a justifiable reason, in my opinion, are acceptable. For example, World War II. For the Allies, we defended ourselves after Nazi Germany invaded, and after the United States entered, pushed backed and helped liberate occupied regions, and ended the brutal reign of the Nazis. The war even contributed to many Oceanic and South E. Asian countries finding their independence.

[Harry Smith]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war")

In other words, peace sometimes cannot be achieved without fighting. Although there is never such thing as a "good" war, wars that have a justifiable reason, in my opinion, are acceptable. For example, World War II. For the Allies, we defended ourselves after Nazi Germany invaded, and after the United States entered, pushed backed and helped liberate occupied regions, and ended the brutal reign of the Nazis. The war even contributed to many Oceanic and South E. Asian countries finding their independence.


It always seems a lot nicer when your 5,000 miles away from the actual conflict, I always take it with a pinch of salt when Americans throw up WW2 as an example of a just total conflict but I can assure you that the US did not experience total warfare. I know that many Americans troops fought very well during the war and their performance can't be questioned, I just doubt weather WW2 had such a detrimental effect on the US compared to nations of Europe.

I believe the countries that got Independence tended to be propped up Dictators getting paid by the US government, so yeah they were liberated from Japan and given straight over to the US

[Sir Suomi]

It always seems a lot nicer when your 5,000 miles away from the actual conflict, I always take it with a pinch of salt when Americans throw up WW2 as an example of a just total conflict but I can assure you that the US did not experience total warfare. I know that many Americans troops fought very well during the war and their performance can't be questioned, I just doubt weather WW2 had such a detrimental effect on the US compared to nations of Europe.

I believe the countries that got Independence tended to be propped up Dictators getting paid by the US government, so yeah they were liberated from Japan and given straight over to the US

Oh I do not doubt that the Europeans suffered greatly in that war. But it was a conflict started by Europeans, not America. America would have have loved to stay neutral in that conflict, and we more than likely would have had it not have been for the Japanese. I hate to be the one who says this, but more than likely, had America not intervened (Along with the ill-fated invasion of Russia, a.k.a Operation Barbossa) Great Britain would have eventually fallen.

Oh and Britain is sinless?

[Harry Smith]

Oh I do not doubt that the Europeans suffered greatly in that war. But it was a conflict started by Europeans, not America. America would have have loved to stay neutral in that conflict, and we more than likely would have had it not have been for the Japanese. I hate to be the one who says this, but more than likely, had America not intervened (Along with the ill-fated invasion of Russia, a.k.a Operation Barbossa) Great Britain would have eventually fallen.

Oh and Britain is sinless?

I'd very much say that the US foreign policy in Asia very much caused the war, not only the oil embargo but loaning the Chinese vast amounts of money and weapons. It wasn't much of a surprise when Japan attacked considering the US had been the only thing keeping mainland china aloft.

Hitler would of had a very hard time getting past our Navy and air-force in 1941 even if he didn't invade Russia. It would of taken him at least 6 years to built a Navy that could match ours, and by them our Army would of fortified the coast. Hitler missed the boat in 1940.

Britain certainty isn't sinless, we committed a whole host of crimes in the period-we just don't try and bullshit about them

[Kameraden]

Hitler would of had a very hard time getting past our Navy and air-force in 1941 even if he didn't invade Russia. It would of taken him at least 6 years to built a Navy that could match ours, and by them our Army would of fortified the coast. Hitler missed the boat in 1940.


They didn't need to build a matching Navy -- they needed air power.

[Harry Smith]

They didn't need to build a matching Navy -- they needed air power.

The air power would of been useless, they or the rest of the world didn't have the tech to take out capital ships on such a large scale especially if the fleet is in docks in Scotland

[PythonProject]

Air power is everything, you have to have control if the skies to win a war. Germany had the tech to take out ships in docks. The Germans had a less advanced version of the storm shadow that was radio controlled to take out ships in the Mediterranean Sea. We didn't see a plane in sight. Take for example the v2 bomb, that was way ahead of time to that period. If we hadn't had the war we would have possibly only just gone to space. The v2 could have been launched from Norway against the docks of Scotland.

[Sir Suomi]

I'd very much say that the US foreign policy in Asia very much caused the war, not only the oil embargo but loaning the Chinese vast amounts of money and weapons. It wasn't much of a surprise when Japan attacked considering the US had been the only thing keeping mainland china aloft.

Hitler would of had a very hard time getting past our Navy and air-force in 1941 even if he didn't invade Russia. It would of taken him at least 6 years to built a Navy that could match ours, and by them our Army would of fortified the coast. Hitler missed the boat in 1940.

Britain certainty isn't sinless, we committed a whole host of crimes in the period-we just don't try and bullshit about them

We aided the Chinese to support their fight against the Japanese, who were invading China at the time. The oil embargo was meant to force Japan into a peaceful solution. The aim wasn't to aggravate Japan, even though it's what ended up happening.

The reason Operation Sea Lion was a failure was due to the Luftwaffe's choice in targets, i.e, instead of focusing all of their effort upon eliminating British military targets, they targeted British civilian targets, in an attempt to strike down their morale and force a surrender. And regardless, you have to agree, if Germany had been able to commit the vast majority of their forces, that eventually the U.K would have fallen, and right now you'd be listening to Es zittern die morschen Knochen right now.

[Harry Smith]

We aided the Chinese to support their fight against the Japanese, who were invading China at the time. The oil embargo was meant to force Japan into a peaceful solution. The aim wasn't to aggravate Japan, even though it's what ended up happening.

The reason Operation Sea Lion was a failure was due to the Luftwaffe's choice in targets, i.e, instead of focusing all of their effort upon eliminating British military targets, they targeted British civilian targets, in an attempt to strike down their morale and force a surrender. And regardless, you have to agree, if Germany had been able to commit the vast majority of their forces, that eventually the U.K would have fallen, and right now you'd be listening to Es zittern die morschen Knochen right now.

But you didn't give Poland any aide when they were invaded, or Somali in 1936, or Albania in the same year. It wasn't anything to do with wanting peace- it was the US trying to exert their influence over Japan and it really could of been averted however I fully respect the US's right to defend themselves.

Nope, sea lion failed because they didn't have enough boats to get their troops across the channel and they lacked any specialist equipment. Look at what the Allies had in 1944- floating tanks, mullberry harbours, three airbourne divisions- compared to the 500 paratroopers the Germans. They just didn't have the means to launch anything on the scale of D-day.

Look when we tried it in 1942-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid

Ah yes, we'd all be German wouldn't we? What everyone seems to forget is that the German Navy after Norway was done for. They would of had to wait about 5 years to rebuilt it just for combat.

[Sir Suomi]

But you didn't give Poland any aide when they were invaded, or Somali in 1936, or Albania in the same year. It wasn't anything to do with wanting peace- it was the US trying to exert their influence over Japan and it really could of been averted however I fully respect the US's right to defend themselves.

Nope, sea lion failed because they didn't have enough boats to get their troops across the channel and they lacked any specialist equipment. Look at what the Allies had in 1944- floating tanks, mullberry harbours, three airbourne divisions- compared to the 500 paratroopers the Germans. They just didn't have the means to launch anything on the scale of D-day.

Look when we tried it in 1942-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid

Ah yes, we'd all be German wouldn't we? What everyone seems to forget is that the German Navy after Norway was done for. They would of had to wait about 5 years to rebuilt it just for combat.

Oh, so now you say that America should intervene in foreign conflicts? I thought you were against America fiddling with other countries? Regardless, a good deal of your militaristic resources that were used in the defense of Britain were sent from America. Hell, we even had some of our own pilots assisting you. Had America truly remained neutral, you may not have been able put up as good as a fight.

And as for the Germans, time was on their side. They had the vast majority of Europe under their control, and could have built up a massive invasion force, if they were completely focused on the U.K. Eventually, the Wehrmacht would have been on your shores and pushed through until all of it was under their control. However, they were unable to devote all of their resources and troops to invade Britain, seeing as Hitler thought they could stage a 2 front war. Germany lost the war the minute they stepped in Russian territory.

[Harry Smith]

Oh, so now you say that America should intervene in foreign conflicts? I thought you were against America fiddling with other countries? Regardless, a good deal of your militaristic resources that were used in the defense of Britain were sent from America. Hell, we even had some of our own pilots assisting you. Had America truly remained neutral, you may not have been able put up as good as a fight.

And as for the Germans, time was on their side. They had the vast majority of Europe under their control, and could have built up a massive invasion force, if they were completely focused on the U.K. Eventually, the Wehrmacht would have been on your shores and pushed through until all of it was under their control. However, they were unable to devote all of their resources and troops to invade Britain, seeing as Hitler thought they could stage a 2 front war. Germany lost the war the minute they stepped in Russian territory.

The US have every right to defend them-self from a attack by another sovereign nation on their naval base- I'm not that much of a dove. I just don't support foreign wars looking for a terrorist leader who happened to be in his house for 10 years. I was showing the fallacy in the your argument by pointing out the US didn't care about many other wars that were going on.

Hitler lost the war the minute he started it, the German economy wasn't ready for warfare until at least 1944 that's what nearly every single person within Germany. They had a good army but they lacked a strategic plan to invade- as I've said about three times a navy isn't easy to build or train- this isn't hearts of Iron. By the time they had this Navy say what 1946 the British coast would look like the Maginot line plus the Canadian, Australian, New Zeland, Indian and British army behind it plus the home guard- you've got well in excess of half a million troops defending a 50 mile coast. Unless the Germans have Alien space bats they're fucked

Sure, I'll agree that America did help us a lot in the war and I'm thankful for that. At least we won the war in the end

[Stronk Serb]

The Brits could technically hold by themselves. Building all the things needed for an invasion would take years despite Germany's large industrial capacity. They would need thousands of sea mines, transport craft, auxiliary ships, landing craft, transport planes plus escorts and capital ships. It took years for the Canadians, Americans and the Brits to do it, it would take longer for the Germans.

[Hyper]

All completely fucking irrelevant as both Hitler and Stalin had plans to backstab each other. Hitler just blew his paranoia nut over Russia earlier.

Oh, so now you say that America should intervene in foreign conflicts? I thought you were against America fiddling with other countries?

No he was pointing out in reverse how naive/flawed the argument of ''helping China'' or ''forcing peaceful'' solution was.

Japan was emerging as an empire of its own and the US agenda was simply to stop that from happening. They didn't give 2 shits about China.

Look to proxy wars and similar ''forcing peaceful solution'' actions or just ''helping hand'' transactions across modern history. Like training and supplying freedom fighters in Afghanistan to fight Russia, you know those guys who ended up being anti American terrorists and so on.

It's all just a big bs game to protect ''national interest'' or rather ''imperial interest'' because that's what being a supower/regional power is all about!

So yes the US was an agressor against Japan prior to Pearl Harbour. Not through direct military action but through direct economic action.

[CosmicNoodle]

Well, on the up side:
HUGE advances in tech, we only seem to do that when killing each other, LOGIC
Thats about it^

On the down side:
Do I even have to say?

In my opinion war is, obviously, inherently bad. But it is a needed evil in the world, without it the NAZI party may still hold Germany, America would have less oil (Zing!), so on so fourth. But I do think that war seems to be the default option, "Hmm, this problem is hard to solve....lets just kill the problem and be done with it...."

[AlexOnToast]

I don't like war no matter what the circumstance is.

[SecretlyKnown]

War is the Earth killing itself

[thatcountrykid]

All completely fucking irrelevant as both Hitler and Stalin had plans to backstab each other. Hitler just blew his paranoia nut over Russia earlier.



No he was pointing out in reverse how naive/flawed the argument of ''helping China'' or ''forcing peaceful'' solution was.

Japan was emerging as an empire of its own and the US agenda was simply to stop that from happening. They didn't give 2 shits about China.

Look to proxy wars and similar ''forcing peaceful solution'' actions or just ''helping hand'' transactions across modern history. Like training and supplying freedom fighters in Afghanistan to fight Russia, you know those guys who ended up being anti American terrorists and so on.

It's all just a big bs game to protect ''national interest'' or rather ''imperial interest'' because that's what being a supower/regional power is all about!

So yes the US was an agressor against Japan prior to Pearl Harbour. Not through direct military action but through direct economic action.

So japans slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians, sailors, and soldiers was justified.

[Tenoka]

Don't take one side and fight for that side, be open and look at others people point of view.

[tovaris]

War is the Earth killing itself

More like humans killing echother, the planet has nothing to do with it.

[Stronk Serb]

So japans slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians, sailors, and soldiers was justified.

Civilians? I didn't know that there were US civilians in the Pacific theatre.

[thatcountrykid]

Civilians? I didn't know that there were US civilians in the Pacific theatre.

I meant Pearl Harbor

[Stronk Serb]

I meant Pearl Harbor

It was a military installation strike. The only targets were military targets like ships, airfields, and supply or oil stockpiles. There were no civilians involved. The US actually slaughtered thousands in their bombings of Japan, even before the atomic bombs were dropped.

[Body odah Man]

It's a terrible thing. Seriously all it leads to is mutilation, devastation, pillaging, destruction, maiming, killing and slaughter, corruption of the soul and spirit, etc. etc.
We'd be better off without it

[thatcountrykid]

It was a military installation strike. The only targets were military targets like ships, airfields, and supply or oil stockpiles. There were no civilians involved. The US actually slaughtered thousands in their bombings of Japan, even before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Look it up. Pearl Harbor is military and civilian. The didn't just target military property.

[Hyper]

So japans slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians, sailors, and soldiers was justified.

Where does initial US economic aggression = justified military action by the Japanese.

i said nothing about that.

Strawmen. Don't do them.

[thatcountrykid]

Where does initial US economic aggression = justified military action by the Japanese.

i said nothing about that.

Strawmen. Don't do them.

So it must be okay because the us didn't give the Japanese oil. It's all Americas fault for the war in the pacific. America wasn't the agressor.

[Stronk Serb]

Look it up. Pearl Harbor is military and civilian. The didn't just target military property.

They didn't target civilians. I looked it up on, only 48 - 68 were civilians, most killed by unexploded American anti-aircraft shells landing in civilian areas.

[thatcountrykid]

They didn't target civilians. I looked it up on, only 48 - 68 were civilians, most killed by unexploded American anti-aircraft shells landing in civilian areas.

Are you for war or against it.

[Stronk Serb]

So it must be okay because the us didn't give the Japanese oil. It's all Americas fault for the war in the pacific. America wasn't the agressor.

Technically, yes.

Are you for war or against it.


I am against it, but people saying Japanese were cruel and targed civilians is bullshit. Look what the Ameficans did to them.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I know I have already commented my views on this, but I have to say that people who truly believe that we can all coexist as separate nations peacefully for the rest of time are clearly not well read in world history.

[ImAurora]

War is a necessary evil. As much as we hate to admit it, war will never go away. There will always be things people disagree on, which can eventually lead to war. It makes the world go round, and as much as we want to, we can never escape it. There always has and always been conflict, since millions if not billions of years before the existence of humanity. As long as there is life, and there's differing views, war will never go away.

[PinkFloyd]

I think wars should be fought only when completely necessary. Like, how about millions of innocent people being systematically killed? THAT would be a perfect reason.

But if you're fighting for oil, than no.

[thatcountrykid]

Technically, yes.




I am against it, but people saying Japanese were cruel and targed civilians is bullshit. Look what the Ameficans did to them.

No whats bullshit is the fact that the japanese would strap bombs to children knowing American soldiers would stop and help them! Thats bullshit! Or that they started invading nations in the pacific including our allies and we ge blamed because we're not gonna supply them. America not this bully country that goes romping around the world asking for land in foreign wars. The only land we ever ask for is enough to bury our dead.

[Stronk Serb]

No whats bullshit is the fact that the japanese would strap bombs to children knowing American soldiers would stop and help them! Thats bullshit! Or that they started invading nations in the pacific including our allies and we get blamed because we're not gonna supply them. America not this bully country that goes romping around the world asking for land in foreign wars. The only land we ever ask for is enough to bury our dead.

Ummm, the children part is total bullshit. There were no children for the Japanese to strap bombs on when fighting against the Americans, or not enough explosives to waste on that. But what some fanatical soldiers did is strap explosives on themselves and run to the Americans, while detonating them. You had very good relations with Japan before 1937. they thought you were their friends, and all of a sudden, you embargo them and ruin their economy. America did a lot more bad to the Japanese then they did to you. You killed 350,000 Japanese civilians just with the atomic bombs. Not to mention about the napalm bombings of major population areas. Those houses were made out of wood. You burned the elderly, women and little children. They were fried alive, imagine jumping into the boiling oil in McDonald's, the oil in which they make french fries, this is probably a hundred times worse. You don't need land, you need puppets which are going to dance when you pull the strings. Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, South Korea. The latter two were puppets.

[thatcountrykid]

Ummm, the children part is total bullshit. There were no children for the Japanese to strap bombs on when fighting against the Americans, or not enough explosives to waste on that. But what some fanatical soldiers did is strap explosives on themselves and run to the Americans, while detonating them. You had very good relations with Japan before 1937. they thought you were their friends, and all of a sudden, you embargo them and ruin their economy. America did a lot more bad to the Japanese then they did to you. You killed 350,000 Japanese civilians just with the atomic bombs. Not to mention about the napalm bombings of major population areas. Those houses were made out of wood. You burned the elderly, women and little children. They were fried alive, imagine jumping into the boiling oil in McDonald's, the oil in which they make french fries, this is probably a hundred times worse. You don't need land, you need puppets which are going to dance when you pull the strings. Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, South Korea. The latter two were puppets.

Look it up buddy and see how cruel the japanese where to their people. Forcing them off of cliffs instead of surrender. Torturing our soldiers in prison camp. Yeah we dropped the bombs on them and i only regret that we didnt do it sooner. Winning war means destruction of their rescources but the japanes didnt have seperate factory ares They were right in the middle of homes.. You know what the japanese did? They were sprouting all their freindship crap to us a month before pearl harbor. They got pissed when we stopped giving them oil lafter attacking a llies. That would be like supplying north korea today even though they are threatining nuclear war.

Did you read what i said? The only land we ask for after any war is enough to bury our dead soldiers and half the time we don't even get that.

[Harry Smith]

Look it up buddy and see how cruel the japanese where to their people. Forcing them off of cliffs instead of surrender. Torturing our soldiers in prison camp. Yeah we dropped the bombs on them and i only regret that we didnt do it sooner. Winning war means destruction of their rescources but the japanes didnt have seperate factory ares They were right in the middle of homes.. You know what the japanese did? They were sprouting all their freindship crap to us a month before pearl harbor. They got pissed when we stopped giving them oil lafter attacking a llies. That would be like supplying north korea today even though they are threatining nuclear war.

Did you read what i said? The only land we ask for after any war is enough to bury our dead soldiers and half the time we don't even get that.

Christ someone ordered a nice serving of US propaganda, the claims about suicide actually stem from the Battle of Okinawa and were proved largely un-true. Any cases of suicide were happily committed by the Japanese who didn't want to face the american soldiers.

Your history is very very confused as well. The Japanese were not being friendly at all in the prelude to pearl harbour- the Americans shouldn't of had there battleships lined up like ducks.

Your whole argument kinda sucks because you attack the Japanese for torturing US soldiers which yes I disagree with but you then state it's okay to burn children with a nuclear bomb. That's very hypocritical.

Typical US foreign policy wank.

And if you want to talk about cruelty talk to the African Americans who died in the war even though they couldn't vote

[hockeyfan]

It is harmful. Many ppl killed and injured. It's tragic however countries don't always look at it that way.

[thatcountrykid]

Christ someone ordered a nice serving of US propaganda, the claims about suicide actually stem from the Battle of Okinawa and were proved largely un-true. Any cases of suicide were happily committed by the Japanese who didn't want to face the american soldiers.

Your history is very very confused as well. The Japanese were not being friendly at all in the prelude to pearl harbour- the Americans shouldn't of had there battleships lined up like ducks.

Your whole argument kinda sucks because you attack the Japanese for torturing US soldiers which yes I disagree with but you then state it's okay to burn children with a nuclear bomb. That's very hypocritical.

Typical US foreign policy wank.

And if you want to talk about cruelty talk to the African Americans who died in the war even though they couldn't vote

Ok,so it's Americas fault for having our ships in OUR HARBOR a place that they had no right to be in. Crap happens in war and yes civilians die but we never tortured surrendering soldiers.

Honestly people need to stop whining and moaning about crap that's over. They get to vote now and besides they chose to go thankfully like and proud and brave person would.

[Harry Smith]

Ok,so it's Americas fault for having our ships in OUR HARBOR a place that they had no right to be in. Crap happens in war and yes civilians die but we never tortured surrendering soldiers.

Honestly people need to stop whining and moaning about crap that's over. They get to vote now and besides they chose to go thankfully like and proud and brave person would.

Oh yeah, American simply shoots surrendering soldiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre

[Stronk Serb]

Ok,so it's Americas fault for having our ships in OUR HARBOR a place that they had no right to be in. Crap happens in war and yes civilians die but we never tortured surrendering soldiers.

Honestly people need to stop whining and moaning about crap that's over. They get to vote now and besides they chose to go thankfully like and proud and brave person would.

Some didn't choose, they were conscripted. Forced to go an fight for a government that violated their basic human rights.

[thatcountrykid]

Some didn't choose, they were conscripted. Forced to go an fight for a government that violated their basic human rights.

Its called the draft. Every American man signs up for it at 18.

[Southside]

It was a military installation strike. The only targets were military targets like ships, airfields, and supply or oil stockpiles. There were no civilians involved. The US actually slaughtered thousands in their bombings of Japan, even before the atomic bombs were dropped.

54 Civilians were killed in Pearl Harbor but I understand the point your trying to make. Japan wasn't aiming for any civilians, they were aiming solely at military targets such as the ones you pointed out.

[thatcountrykid]

Oh yeah, American simply shoots surrendering soldiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_massacre

Honestly i have no problem with the killings of nazi ss in the concentraion camps. Arent you big on punishment for crimes against humainty.

[Stronk Serb]

Its called the draft. Every American man signs up for it at 18.

They were forced during WWII. What if someone didn't want to go? Look at it from a black person's perspective, he can't vote, he legally can never be equal with a white man. Why would he go and possibly die for that country?


Honestly i have no problem with the killings of nazi ss in the concentraion camps. Arent you big on punishment for crimes against humainty.

No matter what someone has done, he has a right for a fair trial, not to get shot.

[Romaana]

Its bullshit.

[Harry Smith]

Honestly i have no problem with the killings of nazi ss in the concentraion camps. Arent you big on punishment for crimes against humainty.

I wonder how you would feel if Al-Qauda did that at Guantanamo bay?

[Hyper]

So it must be okay because the us didn't give the Japanese oil. It's all Americas fault for the war in the pacific. America wasn't the agressor.

You seem to be quoting my post but not reading it.

[baseballjock]

i realy dont know if im going to get baned for this im sorry if i say wrong but..... deadmou5 has it all down .... pro war shoot america should join with china and rule the world!!!

[Coprocephalus]

Nobody can't do anything about wars, unless there would be one government for the whole Earth and even then... there would probably be civil wars and stuff like that. Also... wars are different now, its no longer about soldiers caving skulls in or sticking a sword up your stomach... nowadays it's just about drones, atom bombs and shit like that.

[thatcountrykid]

They were forced during WWII. What if someone didn't want to go? Look at it from a black person's perspective, he can't vote, he legally can never be equal with a white man. Why would he go and possibly die for that country?




No matter what someone has done, he has a right for a fair trial, not to get shot.

If you find tem running a camp just shoot them on the spot. It doesnt matter if someone doesnt want to go. Its required by law because you are being called upon by your country in a dire situation. Race shouldnt matter. Be proud and fight for the country you live in and actually back then it was very hard for blacks to get in and they often weren't allowed.


I wonder how you would feel if Al-Qauda did that at Guantanamo bay?

Al qauda could never reach gb and if they did and managed to breach a US military instalation i'll tie myself up.

[Stronk Serb]

If you find tem running a camp just shoot them on the spot. It doesnt matter if someone doesnt want to go. Its required by law because you are being called upon by your country in a dire situation. Race shouldnt matter. Be proud and fight for the country you live in and actually back then it was very hard for blacks to get in and they often weren't allowed.

Great, let's gear up and assault Guantanamo Bay and kill all Americans there. Prisoners are treated unfairly there, they are tortured. That must be stopped.

[thatcountrykid]

Great, let's gear up and assault Guantanamo Bay and kill all Americans there. Prisoners are treated unfairly there, they are tortured. That must be stopped.

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.

[AlexOnToast]

Yeah we dropped the bombs on them and i only regret that we didnt do it sooner.

Wow...just....wow....

[Vlerchan]

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals[1] for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.
[1]:Suspects*.

I've seen no evidence that most of the individuals being held in American concentration camps against their wills are guilty of any crimes, let alone war crimes. It's why there's been so many releases. (EDIT: source removed; not entirely supportive of what I was saying:/)

Aside: I'd stop whilst I'm behind thatcountrykid.

[Harry Smith]

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.

Crap happens in war and yes civilians die but we never tortured surrendering soldiers.

That's what you said like 5 posts ago-keep up mate

[Stronk Serb]

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.

I didn't know an Arab taxi driver who came to the US for work is a serious war criminal. Those people are held and tortured indefinitely, which is a violation of international law. Just like the Jews were, those prisoners are innocent.

[thatcountrykid]

[1]:Suspects*.

I've seen no evidence that most of the individuals being held in American concentration camps against their wills are guilty of any crimes, let alone war crimes. It's why you constantly hear news about releases (Example) (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/18/congress-bipartisan-deal-release-some-guantnamo-detaines).

Aside: I'd stop whilst I'm behind thatcountrykid.

Most of them are classified cases bud which means you dont see the evidence.

That's what you said like 5 posts ago-keep up mate

There a difference between surrendering soldiers and potential terrorist/leaders.


I didn't know an Arab taxi driver who came to the US for work is a serious war criminal. Those people are held and tortured indefinitely, which is a violation of international law. Just like the Jews were, those prisoners are innocent.

I dont give a crap about the un and their laws because what happens tk the us doesnt affect them. We detain and investigate people just the same as you would for your average murder.

[Vlerchan]

Most of them are classified cases bud which means you dont see the evidence.Here's the thing: whilst I haven't had a look at what the evidence has to say I do know where it comes from - thanks to WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/). Most of the evidence against current detainees comes from the testimony of co-detainees as received under torture and other forms of coercion. That's it. Hardly reliable evidence regardless of it's content. I can guarantee you that it wouldn't hold up in court - which is why I classify it as non-evidence. (Source) (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/25/112796/wikileaks-just-8-at-gitmo-gave.html)

There a difference between surrendering soldiers and potential terrorist/leaders. He's right here: torturing an individual who you've solid proof was trying to do you and/or your country harm (soldier) is somewhat more ethical than torturing an individual who you only suspect was trying to do you and/or your country harm (potential terrorists/leaders)

Both options are still awful however.

We detain and investigate people just the same as you would for your average murder.The detention of the 'average murderer' requires that some reliable evidence be presented against said 'average murderer'. As explained: The US don't go about sourcing this reliable evidence before detaining people.

[thatcountrykid]

Here's the thing: whilst I haven't had a look at what the evidence has to say I do know where it comes from - thanks to WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/). Most of the evidence against current detainees comes from the testimony of co-detainees as received under torture and other forms of coercion. That's it. Hardly reliable evidence regardless of it's content. I can guarantee you that it wouldn't hold up in court - which is why I classify it as non-evidence. (Source) (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/25/112796/wikileaks-just-8-at-gitmo-gave.html)

He's right here: torturing an individual who you've solid proof was trying to do you and/or your country harm (soldier) is somewhat more ethical than torturing an individual who you only suspect was trying to do you and/or your country harm (potential terrorists/leaders)

Both options are still awful however.

The detention of the 'average murderer' requires that some reliable evidence be presented against said 'average murderer'. As explained: The US don't go about sourcing this reliable evidence before detaining people.

Actually we do. We have strict rules if engagment.

[Stronk Serb]

Most of them are classified cases bud which means you dont see the evidence.



There a difference between surrendering soldiers and potential terrorist/leaders.




I dont give a crap about the un and their laws because what happens tk the us doesnt affect them. We detain and investigate people just the same as you would for your average murder.

That usually means there is little to no evidence. Why hide it?

Actually we do. We have strict rules if engagment.

Military rules of engagement? Like shoot first, ask questions late? Three warning shots in the back?

[thatcountrykid]

That usually means there is little to no evidence. Why hide it?



Military rules of engagement? Like shoot first, ask questions late? Three warning shots in the back?

No it means it sensitive information.

Look up our rules of engagement. They are very strict.

[Stronk Serb]

No it means it sensitive information.

Look up our rules of engagement. They are very strict.

The public deserves to know on what basis those people got arrested andd tortured. That is yet again against International Law and many conventions which the US has signed and which it must obey.

[thatcountrykid]

The public deserves to know on what basis those people got arrested andd tortured. That is yet again against International Law and many conventions which the US has signed and which it must obey.

The US doesn't need to do crap. When I say it's sensitive information it's to hold it from the enemies we are fighting.

[Stronk Serb]

The US doesn't need to do crap. When I say it's sensitive information it's to hold it from the enemies we are fighting.


They should treat POWs better because they signed the Geneva convention. That's a must, and they should be prosecuted for breaking it.

[Harry Smith]

They should treat POWs better because they signed the Geneva convention. That's a must, and they should be prosecuted for breaking it.

It's funny how about two pages ago he was giving the Japanese shit for doing it yet when America does it then it must be okay...

[Stronk Serb]

It's funny how about two pages ago he was giving the Japanese shit for doing it yet when America does it then it must be okay...

Yeah. During the Yugoslav Civil War, everyone who rallied people to commit or commited war crimes is in Hague on trial. The Japanese had the trials, the Germans did, but people think the USA is above national law and the conventions they signed.

[Harry Smith]

Yeah. During the Yugoslav Civil War, everyone who rallied people to commit or commited war crimes is in Hague on trial. The Japanese had the trials, the Germans did, but people think the USA is above national law and the conventions they signed.

Funnily enough Noam Chomsky summed it up pretty well.

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

[thatcountrykid]

They should treat POWs better because they signed the Geneva convention. That's a must, and they should be prosecuted for breaking it.

We treat regular POWs fine but when it's terrorist leaders and terrorists then selfs that we question them. We don't, however, torture regular soldiers. Who's gonna prosecute a whole country.

[Stronk Serb]

We treat regular POWs fine but when it's terrorist leaders and terrorists then selfs that we question them. We don't, however, torture regular soldiers. Who's gonna prosecute a whole country.

You torture terrorists who in fact are prisoners of war and are protected by the Geneva convention. And I did not mean prosecute the whole country but the leadership responsible for giving the orders. From president to the petty officer.

[Zenos]

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.

Dozens of times before WWII, the “6,000,000″ number has been invoked as the amount of Jews on the verge of death and destruction during various periods of turmoil and conflict in Europe and Russia.

Also:


Jewish Estimate Sees Number of Holocaust Dead Drop To 2.8 Million!

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/jewish-estimate-sees-number-of-holocaust-dead-drop-to-2-8-million/


This site gives you the total amount of people who died in the Nazi prison camp system:


a total of 403,713 .

Of those 403,713 a total of 73,137 died at Auschwitz. Of those 73,137 who died at Auschwitz, 38,031 were Jews.

[Stronk Serb]

Dozens of times before WWII, the “6,000,000″ number has been invoked as the amount of Jews on the verge of death and destruction during various periods of turmoil and conflict in Europe and Russia.

Also:


Jewish Estimate Sees Number of Holocaust Dead Drop To 2.8 Million!

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/jewish-estimate-sees-number-of-holocaust-dead-drop-to-2-8-million/


This site gives you the total amount of people who died in the Nazi prison camp system:


a total of 403,713 .

Of those 403,713 a total of 73,137 died at Auschwitz. Of those 73,137 who died at Auschwitz, 38,031 were Jews.

I doubt the data. There were dozens of thousands of Jews just in Belgrade, which was not a lot compared to other European cities. The state gained ownership of their land after the war because there were no kin left to inherit. There are stories that Jews were executed in my school's basement. The place gives me the creeps.

[tovaris]

Theres a difference between torturing war criminals for intelligance and slaughtering six million innocent jews.

The jews were exicuted for their crimes too... You see the USA is no better then the III Reih

[Zenos]

I doubt the data. There were dozens of thousands of Jews just in Belgrade, which was not a lot compared to other European cities. The state gained ownership of their land after the war because there were no kin left to inherit. There are stories that Jews were executed in my school's basement. The place gives me the creeps.

well I don't doubt the data.

I mensa

[thatcountrykid]

The jews were exicuted for their crimes too... You see the USA is no better then the III Reih

Oh dont even compare it. The USA isnt invading countries for the purpose of land. The USA isnt exterminating people for no reason.

[Stronk Serb]

well I don't doubt the data.

I mensa

Just by saying you don't doubt the data and that you are in Mensa doesn't mean it's true, in fact what bothers me more is that there are no reliable sources listed to back the claims. Just in the Jasenovac Concentration Camp 75,000 Jews, 15,000 Gypsies and 150,000 Serbs met their deaths, but some sources say the casualties range from 400,000- 700,000. That's more then half of the casualties you state, or almost two times as much. And it was a small concentration camp compared to the ones in Poland.

[tovaris]

Oh dont even compare it. The USA isnt invading countries for the purpose of land. The USA isnt exterminating people for no reason.

The not invanding countris for LAND is corect, but they are still F.... INVADING other countries, for purposes known. And yes they have and do extermenate people, let me remind you of the famous drone thing... not to mention the american concentratikn camps

[Harry Smith]

Oh dont even compare it. The USA isnt invading countries for the purpose of land. The USA isnt exterminating people for no reason.

So what where the colonists doing to the native Americans then?

They marched across their lands and destroyed villages purely for land.

he USA isnt exterminating people for no reason

Everyone has a reason to commit genocide, that doesn't' justify it does it?

[thatcountrykid]

The not invanding countris for LAND is corect, but they are still F.... INVADING other countries, for purposes known. And yes they have and do extermenate people, let me remind you of the famous drone thing... not to mention the american concentratikn camps

Thise are surgical strikes on known military leaders and instalations. America foesnt have concentration camps.

So what where the colonists doing to the native Americans then?

They marched across their lands and destroyed villages purely for land.



Everyone has a reason to commit genocide, that doesn't' justify it does it?

I was saying the USA isnt comminting genocide. And thise colonists were british man. Britain has done the same exact thing.

[Southside]

Thise are surgical strikes on known military leaders and instalations. America foesnt have concentration camps.



I was saying the USA isnt comminting genocide. And thise colonists were british man. Britain has done the same exact thing.

Surgical strikes on villages packed with hundreds of civilians just to get one or two militants? Come on man..

What if China was flying drones over your neighborhood, how would you feel? Every time we fly drone missions over Pakistan or Yemen, we are violating their territorial sovereignty. Those drones cost a couple million dollars too...

[thatcountrykid]

Surgical strikes on villages packed with hundreds of civilians just to get one or two militants? Come on man..

What if China was flying drones over your neighborhood, how would you feel? Every time we fly drone missions over Pakistan or Yemen, we are violating their territorial sovereignty. Those drones cost a couple million dollars too...

Most if those bombs only take out what we want them too. If china were flying drone here yes i would be mad but i know we would go to war. I have no sympathy for a nation that harbor radicals like al queda or taliban.

[AlexOnToast]

Surgical strikes on villages packed with hundreds of civilians just to get one or two militants? Come on man..

What if China was flying drones over your neighborhood, how would you feel? Every time we fly drone missions over Pakistan or Yemen, we are violating their territorial sovereignty. Those drones cost a couple million dollars too...

Me Like This Post Very Much

[Southside]

Most if those bombs only take out what we want them too. If china were flying drone here yes i would be mad but i know we would go to war. I have no sympathy for a nation that harbor radicals like al queda or taliban.

Pakistan and Yemen aren't harboring radicals, they fighting against them too. You just said you'd be mad if China was flying drones over your head, how do you think the innocent civilians over in Pakistan or Yemen feel when a foreign nation conducts military operations and killing innocent people in the process?

We CREATE radicals every time we kill innocent civilians over there. Example, a drone strike kills a couple innocent people in Pakistan, one of their family members who wants revenges goes and joins a militant group

[Zenos]

Just by saying you don't doubt the data and that you are in Mensa doesn't mean it's true, in fact what bothers me more is that there are no reliable sources listed to back the claims. Just in the Jasenovac Concentration Camp 75,000 Jews, 15,000 Gypsies and 150,000 Serbs met their deaths, but some sources say the casualties range from 400,000- 700,000. That's more then half of the casualties you state, or almost two times as much. And it was a small concentration camp compared to the ones in Poland.

well the data was from Nazi records captired by the Russians are you going to dispute their own records?

[CharlieHorse]

Oh dont even compare it. The USA isnt invading countries for the purpose of land. The USA isnt exterminating people for no reason.

It did though.

Pushed millions of Native American people out of their land.
Slaughtered them.
It was hideous. Not many Americans know about it. It's one of the Nation's secrets.

[Stronk Serb]

well the data was from Nazi records captired by the Russians are you going to dispute their own records?

There were no sources stating that. There were no links to other sites.

[tovaris]

Thise are surgical strikes on known military leaders and instalations.


Yeah you keep saing that while they violate foreighn air space and murder people.


America foesnt have concentration camps.


It did (WWII american Japanies) and it does(guantanamo...).

[thatcountrykid]

Yeah you keep saing that while they violate foreighn air space and murder people.



It did (WWII american Japanies) and it does(guantanamo...).

Internment camps. We didnt kills the people there. We are flying to kill our enemies. I dont care about their airspace. We had tp do it to get bin laden.

[Stronk Serb]

Internment camps. We didnt kills the people there. We are flying to kill our enemies. I dont care about their airspace. We had tp do it to get bin laden.

Because of this type of attitude almost everyone hates the United States and fights them.

[Vlerchan]

I've long since realized that this discussion is going nowhere but this caught my interest:

Internment camps.

What's the difference between an internment camp and a concentration camp? And I'm talking about concentration camps as being distinct from extermination camps here - because concentration camps and extermination camps are not the same thing (contrary to popular belief).

[Harry Smith]

Internment camps. We didnt kills the people there. We are flying to kill our enemies. I dont care about their airspace. We had tp do it to get bin laden.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/we-spent-10-years-looking-for-bin-laden-meme.jpg

[tovaris]

Internment camps.

concentration camps.


What's the difference between an internment camp and a concentration camp? And I'm talking about concentration camps as being distinct from extermination camps here - because concentration camps and extermination camps are not the same thing (contrary to popular belief).


this

Internment camps. We didnt kills the people there. We are flying to kill our enemies. I dont care about their airspace. We had tp do it to get bin laden.

you cant just go around murdering people! that is simply out MURDER!!!
nether can you violate soverain air space of a country! that is ilegal! thwre are international laws!

[Zenos]

I've long since realized that this discussion is going nowhere but this caught my interest:



What's the difference between an internment camp and a concentration camp? And I'm talking about concentration camps as being distinct from extermination camps here - because concentration camps and extermination camps are not the same thing (contrary to popular belief).

No difference between a internment camp and a concentration camp their just a prison to hold enemies

Just by saying you don't doubt the data and that you are in Mensa doesn't mean it's true, in fact what bothers me more is that there are no reliable sources listed to back the claims. Just in the Jasenovac Concentration Camp 75,000 Jews, 15,000 Gypsies and 150,000 Serbs met their deaths, but some sources say the casualties range from 400,000- 700,000. That's more then half of the casualties you state, or almost two times as much. And it was a small concentration camp compared to the ones in Poland.


well take a good look at this why don't you and try doing research as well


http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[tovaris]

No difference between a internment camp and a concentration camp their just a prison to hold enemies

And what else is a concentration camp?
Tell me again how citizents of japanies origin living in the USA were enemies?




I was saying the USA isnt comminting genocide. And thise colonists were british man. Britain has done the same exact thing.

Actuly it was after the independance when the american genocide started

[Stronk Serb]

well take a good look at this why don't you and try doing research as well


http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

You still keep putting shaky sources.

[Harry Smith]

well take a good look at this why don't you and try doing research as well


http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

Ah great a holocaust denier-I've missed that.

[Gamma Male]

If America took just half of the money it spends on "defense" each year and instead spent it feeding clothing and educating the poor of the world, we wouldn't need to spend near as much money on war as we do now.
And yes, I know I sound like an idealistic hippy, and I know the MIC would never actually allow for this to happen.
But it's the truth.


Edit: I guess I should introduce myself. I'm a libertarian, gay, vegan, and atheist. I support the legalization of all hard drugs and prostitution. I think the government should just stay out of marriage altogether. I don't support gun control, or "big government".(But I'm not a hypocrite about it like republicans.)

[Zenos]

If America took just half of the money it spends on "defense" each year and instead spent it feeding clothing and educating the poor of the world, we wouldn't need to spend near as much money on war as we do now.
And yes, I know I sound like an idealistic hippy, and I know the MIC would never actually allow for this to happen.
But it's the truth.


Edit: I guess I should introduce myself. I'm a libertarian, gay, vegan, and atheist. I support the legalization of all hard drugs and prostitution. I think the government should just stay out of marriage altogether. I don't support gun control, or "big government".(But I'm not a hypocrite about it like republicans.)



Dude that's the problem we spend more money helping the people of other nations what about our poor our hungry our homeless.We need to solve our PROBLEMS FIRST

[Cpt_Cutter]

Dude that's the problem we spend more money helping the people of other nations what about our poor our hungry our homeless.We need to solve our PROBLEMS FIRST

It's Kind of hard to fix america From what I can tell, due to the way the government is dominated by the 2 party system that blocks each-other at every turn. Plus that whole 15 trillion dollar debt thing. The poorer sections of the world might (MIGHT) be fixed easier than America. That would eliminate alot of things that hinder the world I.E. Piracy in Somalia.

[Zenos]

It's Kind of hard to fix america From what I can tell, due to the way the government is dominated by the 2 party system that blocks each-other at every turn. Plus that whole 15 trillion dollar debt thing. The poorer sections of the world might (MIGHT) be fixed easier than America. That would eliminate alot of things that hinder the world I.E. Piracy in Somalia.


Actually we are a multi-party system it's just the republicants and the democraps get the most attention.there's the independants,etc

[Gamma Male]

America has it's problems, but compared to a lot of other countries this place is a gaddamn utopia.
Would you rather be a lowermiddle class single mom in inner Detroit, or live in Somalia or North Korea?

Actually we are a multi-party system it's just the republicants and the democraps get the most attention.there's the independants,etc

But because the majority almost always supports one of the two main parties, third parties are essentially useless. Just off the top of your head, can you actually name any libertarian/ green/ independent senators?

Please do not double post. -Cygnus David

[Miserabilia]

America has it's problems, but compared to a lot of other countries this place is a gaddamn utopia.
Would you rather be a lowermiddle class single mom in inner Detroit, or live in Somalia or North Korea?

I aggree completely.

[tovaris]

America has it's problems, but compared to a lot of other countries this place is a gaddamn utopia.
Would you rather be a lowermiddle class single mom in inner Detroit, or live in Somalia or North Korea?

I would chose Somalia. Mush less violance, it isnt a police state, no secret organjsation monetering your every move, stable economie, a lot of kat, and a shopping mall.

[Vlerchan]

Would you rather be a lowermiddle class single mom in inner Detroit, or live in Somalia or North Korea?


I'll try remember this next time I'm speaking to another inner-city Detroit based single-mother-of-three who's working two back-to-back eight hours jobs just to keep at sustenance level.

"Remember," I'll begin, "you're in America now: land of the free - where you too can be free to spend all your waking-hours working to profit other people in order to simply just not starve to death." Then I'll wink, presumably, because I can't think of any other way to appear even more condescending.

I would chose Somalia. Mush less violance, it isnt a police state, no secret organjsation monetering your every move, stable economie, a lot of kat, and a shopping mall.

You've never been to Somalia, have you? It has been at constant war with itself since the early nineties.

[tovaris]

I'll try remember this next time I'm speaking to another inner-city Detroit based single-mother-of-three who's working two back-to-back eight hours jobs just to keep at sustenance level.

"Remember," I'll begin, "you're in America now: land of the free - where you too can be free to spend all your waking-hours working to profit other people in order to simply just not starve to death." Then I'll wink, presumably, because I can't think of any other way to appear even more condescending.



You've never been to Somalia, have you? It has been at constant war with itself since the early nineties.

Actuly the break away state of somalyland is wery stable, and btw the ciwil war is ower.
In any case its better than the USA

[Harry Smith]

Actuly the break away state of somalyland is wery stable, and btw the ciwil war is ower.
In any case its better than the USA

It's really not, even your tin hat must disagree with that statement. Somalia is ruled by gang-lords and Al-Qaeda

Nearly every single geographic indicator such as life expectancy, healthcare, government welfare and litereacy rates indicate that the US is simply a much better place to live. I know you don't want to accept that because it goes against your communist rabble but there's no comparisons between Somalia and the US

[Vlerchan]

Actuly the break away state of somalyland is wery stable ...

... as compared to the rest of the region, yes. Though being stable still doesn't make it a pleasant place to live.

and btw the ciwil war is ower.
No it's not. The war is still ongoing.

In any case its better than the USA

Define: "better." By almost all measures Somalia - Somaliland included - is doing a lot worse than the US. It's pointless arguing otherwise.

[tovaris]

It's really not, even your tin hat must disagree with that statement. Somalia is ruled by gang-lords and Al-Qaeda

Nearly every single geographic indicator such as life expectancy, healthcare, government welfare and litereacy rates indicate that the US is simply a much better place to live. I know you don't want to accept that because it goes against your communist rabble but there's no comparisons between Somalia and the US

1. Two states, old Somalia and break away Somalilynd.
2. Newer said helth was better, the govermant in somalyland is stable and thy got rid of all the pirates and gangs.
4. Helthcare in bots states is private, yes it is better in us but i stil have to pay for it.
5. Literacy rate in us is encradebly small for a country as deweloped... plus wery little people have, want or know how to use the Internet in the US
3. I rather get shot protecting my house from extremist militias in the suthern part of aomalia than be controled frew ewery chanel in say... new jersy

... as compared to the rest of the region, yes. Though being stable still doesn't make it a pleasant place to live.


No it's not. The war is still ongoing.



Define: "better." By almost all measures Somalia - Somaliland included - is doing a lot worse than the US. It's pointless arguing otherwise.

I agre being stable isnt everething look at the NATO pakt, slovenia vith its crumbeling sistem, and the us with its poLice state

It's

...e.

To you both, I never intended to start an open compareson between the two countries. I merly stated that I would rather live in Somaliland than the us.
Now can we pleas get back on topic before a mod goes balistic.

[Cpt_Cutter]

1. Two states, old Somalia and break away Somalilynd.

Almost no other Nations recognize that Somaliland is its own state, they still follow the belief that it is part of Somalia. Also, Somalia is currently technically partly a puppet state due to (IIRC) Kenya helping remove the gangs and terrorists with direct military action (Invasion) sanctioned by the UN.

[Zenos]

1. Two states, old Somalia and break away Somalilynd.
2. Newer said helth was better, the govermant in somalyland is stable and thy got rid of all the pirates and gangs.

4. Helthcare in bots states is private, yes it is better in us but i stil have to pay for it.

( You get what you pay for)

( Nothing is free, someone has to pay for stuff even if it seems free. say the government pays for healthcare programs,and your paying taxes your a grade A idiot to think your not paying for it)

5. Literacy rate in us is encradebly small for a country as deweloped... plus wery little people have, want or know how to use the Internet in the US

( total BS more people in the USA know who to read then do people in the Thrid world nations.,and lots of people have,or want and know how to use the Internet in the USA..plus we where the nation that was ONLINE long before the rest of the world...so please stop spewing your commie approved BS)

3. I rather get shot protecting my house from extremist militias in the suthern part of aomalia than be controled frew ewery chanel in say... new jersy


( um again u know not what you say)


I agre being stable isnt everething look at the NATO pakt, slovenia vith its crumbeling sistem, and the us with its poLice state





To you both, I never intended to start an open compareson between the two countries. I merly stated that I would rather live in Somaliland than the us.
Now can we pleas get back on topic before a mod goes balistic.


LOl but you went right on with it

[Stronk Serb]

LOl but you went right on with it

There is a difference between knowing to read and understanding what you just read. There are a lot of people in first world countries who cannot read a book and understand the whole thing.

Amyways, in my opinion, I would rather live in Somalia/Somaliland then the USA. I don't like people watching what I do.