To People Who Oppose War...

[Perseus]

This just a question for people who oppose war. If your country was to be invaded by a foreign power, would you then oppose said war? I know this is a silly question, but I want to see how anti-war people are... I don't know why, though, lol...

Just interesting knowledge, I guess.

[INFERNO]

I'd rather go for a negotiation of some sort, providing it's not too unreasonable (i.e. invading country demands all the money from the country under fire). However, when the attacking country doesn't want to negotiate and is determined to have my country's head on a stick, well then it's either gear up for a fight, try to see if other countries will help against the attacking country, or sit there like sitting ducks and be screwed.

[Camazotz]

It all depends on the situation. A peaceful, diplomatic solution should always be encouraged. However, if push comes to shove, every country should be willing to fight for their freedom.

[Whisper]

Dude day to day life isn't that simple nvm war.
There is no black and white
You can be opposed to war and still understand there are times you MUST fight
You can be for the use of military force and understand some wars are WRONG.

Its not a yes or no across the spectrum answer.

[Perseus]

Dude day to day life isn't that simple nvm war.
There is no black and white
You can be opposed to war and still understand there are times you MUST fight
You can be for the use of military force and understand some wars are WRONG.

Its not a yes or no across the spectrum answer.

I'm just saying because some people are like "all wars are bad". I'm such seeing because this popped in my head and I know some people will oppose something like that.

[Disconected]

....

[Cosmic]

I'm just saying because some people are like "all wars are bad". I'm such seeing because this popped in my head and I know some people will oppose something like that.

All wars ARE bad... and entirely unnecessary. That doesn't necessarily mean I think both parties are wrong; I hate the idea of one group of people forcing their views on another group of people, particularly through violence. So whichever party is forcing the need for a war, they are of course the main problem.

[CaptainObvious]

I'd rather go for a negotiation of some sort, providing it's not too unreasonable (i.e. invading country demands all the money from the country under fire). However, when the attacking country doesn't want to negotiate and is determined to have my country's head on a stick, well then it's either gear up for a fight, try to see if other countries will help against the attacking country, or sit there like sitting ducks and be screwed.

But what counts as reasonable? If everyone is inclined to act as you suggest, it pays off to be an aggressor. That's not the kind of world we want.

[2D]

I personally wouldn't do anything, maybe move to Canada. I'm sure there's plenty of other people that would pick up a gun though. What's one untrained man in times of modern combat?

Pacifist here if you couldn't tell.

Going off on a tangent but here goes. I have a big problem with most most Christian churches. They put pressure on everyone to fight. For instance a few people my brother knows are in the middle east right now. All because they were pressured to go there. Mark, (brother) was also exiled I suppose from tho church. Why? He stenciled this on his bag

"When God said love your enemies, I think He meant don't kill them."

Controversy ensue.

[Perseus]

I personally wouldn't do anything, maybe move to Canada. I'm sure there's plenty of other people that would pick up a gun though. What's one untrained man in times of modern combat?

Pacifist here if you couldn't tell.

Going off on a tangent but here goes. I have a big problem with most most Christian churches. They put pressure on everyone to fight. For instance a few people my brother knows are in the middle east right now. All because they were pressured to go there. Mark, (brother) was also exiled I suppose from tho church. Why? He stenciled this on his bag

"When God said love your enemies, I think He meant don't kill them."

Controversy ensue.

I have never seen a church encourage war.

And also, what if they invade Canada and Mexico and all the world. :P

[2D]

I have never seen a church encourage war.

Weird.

And also, what if they invade Canada and Mexico and all the world. :P

Illogical theory is illogical.

[Whisper]

I have never seen a church encourage war.

I'm sorry its hard to tell online sometimes....was that a joke?

If Canada or an ally are under attack on their home soil then ya
I'm perfectly okay with war.
Although to be honest I can't see anyone invading Canada, they failed miserably the last time they tried -cough-

If western interests are being severely under-minded then again, I'm okay with war in some instances.
Western philosophy has been the dominant force on the planet for hundreds if not thousands of yrs, I have no intention of that slipping under my generations watch.


Personally with everything I've seen, I agree with the war in Afghanistan
Iraq...not so much
But Afghanistan yes
and as far as i'm concerned I'd rather finish the job in both nations even if it means we stay for another decade, then leave with it in shambles so it can collapse into a shitstorm like Sudan. Forcing us to go back yet again excpt in the future we'll also be dealing with a better armed more mobile militia, a public that DESPISES US because we said we'd help, we said we'd stay and defend and then we left. Do you have any idea what Al-Quida will do to the western supporters if we just up and leave? Not to mention we'd be facing a nuclear Iran with a trigger finger
this isn't like the world wars
we aren't trying to pumble our enemy into submission, we're trying to build a democratic nation with gender equality and peace in an area ruled by religious fanatics.

We need to hold to our word
Or 9/11 will seem like a pin prick compared to what they'll do next.


i'm not going to fight with anybody over this either
cause i guarantee you
you will not change my opinion on this matter
I've looked at it from a thousand different angles over the yrs

[Perseus]

I'm sorry its hard to tell online sometimes....was that a joke?



I'm serious, I never have seen a chruch encourage war.

And I'm not trying to change anyones' opinion, just wanting to know.

[2D]

I'm serious, I never have seen a chruch encourage war.

And I'm not trying to change anyones' opinion, just wanting to know.

That's really strange. Most Christian churches are adamant we kill the terrorists. It's definitely a lolwut moment for me.

[Peace God]

Assuming all negotiation possibilities were gone. I wouldnt oppose my country defending itself. I would probably find a way out of the country. If the enemy was in my city shooting at us then i would probably pick up a gun for protection and GTFOutta there.
I have never seen a church encourage war.
One example (well more like 4) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[Magus]

We need to hold to our word
Or 9/11 will seem like a pin prick compared to what they'll do next.

Get your resources correct.

[Whisper]

Get your resources correct.
I will happily clarify anything in my previous statement as soon as you lean how to write a complete sentence.

[Magus]

I will happily clarify anything in my previous statement as soon as you lean how to write a complete sentence.

I think I am more than clear in my post. I don't know why people have tough time understanding me? I am not writing riddles here.

Let me rephrase

"Get your information and resources correct before posting"

I think you have little to no information on 9/11 :yes:

[Perseus]

Assuming all negotiation possibilities were gone. I wouldnt oppose my country defending itself. I would probably find a way out of the country. If the enemy was in my city shooting at us then i would probably pick up a gun for protection and GTFOutta there.

One example (well more like 4) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The Crusades were different. The Catholic Church is all corrupt and whatnot; I'm talking about now a day, I haven't seen a chruch be like, "kill them non Jesus believing towel heads!" or something like that.

[Scarface]

depending on the threat level of the force. if they did something like 911 i would go to war, but if its threat to threat then i would negotiate and move from there

[Sage]

I oppose warfare in general, though I recognize that at times military force is required to deal with certain problems.

[Whisper]

I think I am more than clear in my post. I don't know why people have tough time understanding me? I am not writing riddles here.

Let me rephrase

"Get your information and resources correct before posting"

I think you have little to no information on 9/11 :yes:

I'm sorry but you weren't clear at all, to the point of it being on the verge of spam as far as i'm concerned.
You attacked me with all of 4 words, meaning you didn't even explain on what grounds you were attacking me, nvm giving your own stance or perspective on the subject. Which you still haven't done I might add, so I still don't know...
Thank you for....attempting, to clarify.

We need to hold to our word
Or 9/11 will seem like a pin prick compared to what they'll do next.
This is all I stated in my entire post that pertained directly to the September 11th terrorist attacks.
So where is my information faulty?
Why would I need sources to begin with?
Why are you attacking my statement whilst giving no grounds or backing for such an action?
Why are you failing so miserably in stating your stance never-mind defending it?
Where are your sources? (since thats become such a popular question)

God were off topic.....I like turtles

[quartermaster]

I'm just saying because some people are like "all wars are bad". I'm such seeing because this popped in my head and I know some people will oppose something like that.

I guess the question here is, are you implying that you are pro-war? I was under the impression that all war is bad, regardless of those involved or the reasons for engagement. Would most of us not prefer a peaceful resolution with all ends met, over war?

Most see war as a necessary evil (I do not, I am adamantly opposed to war), but surly you would not say that such an event is ever...good?

In any event, most here have summed up my views on war; I am against the exertion of coercion and aggression, but I am a strong believer in self-defense. I believe a nation should have a strong defense force, withstanding that it is not excessive (defining excessive, of course, can be difficult), but such a force should not be used in aggression (preemptive or preventative included), but in self-defense. A nation should focus on deterrence, but should not act until acted upon; it is the preemptive view point that allowed a small Balkan incident in 1914 to escalate into a European mobilization crisis.

[Perseus]

I guess the question here is, are you implying that you are pro-war? I was under the impression that all war is bad, regardless of those involved or the reasons for engagement. Would most of us not prefer a peaceful resolution with all ends met, over war?

Most see war as a necessary evil (I do not, I am adamantly opposed to war), but surly you would not say that such an event is ever...good?

In any event, most here have summed up my views on war; I am against the exertion of coercion and aggression, but I am a strong believer in self-defense. I believe a nation should have a strong defense force, withstanding that it is not excessive (defining excessive, of course, can be difficult), but such a force should not be used in aggression (preemptive or preventative included), but in self-defense. A nation should focus on deterrence, but should not act until acted upon; it is the preemptive view point that allowed a small Balkan incident in 1914 to escalate into a European mobilization crisis.

Yes, I guess you could say I'm pro-war because I see it as something that is part of being human. There will always be wars. People will always disagree. Now, I don't think wars should be started unless necessary, such as declaring a war on a nation because they embargo you, that's just unnecessary.

[IanMilo]

id be in my panic room with every weapon our house had in it

[Rutherford The Brave]

Id still say no to war. I'd never surrender my beliefs but I wouldnt raise an fist. It isn't my job to fight for the country. Its the army's and if they fail, they I should be angry at them instead of the invading country, Should I not?

[quartermaster]

Yes, I guess you could say I'm pro-war because I see it as something that is part of being human. There will always be wars. People will always disagree. Now, I don't think wars should be started unless necessary, such as declaring a war on a nation because they embargo you, that's just unnecessary.

Your reasoning for being pro-war is deficient in scope; yes, war is part of the human condition, but so is murder and rape (which are not mutually exclusive, in regards to war), but would you say you are pro-murder or pro-rape? Just because one acknowledges war as being inevitable does not mean that they should support the application of it; the proper response to such an inevitability, would be to try to stop its application whenever possible.


I should be angry at them[the army] instead of the invading country, Should I not?

Why would you get angry at the victim of the exertion of coercion? If a woman who took self-defense classes for three years was brutally murdered in her house, along with her entire family, would you blame that person for the death of her family, for failing to properly defend everyone? Or would you blame the murderer, the person who initiated the coercion? What foolish logic you have there, to blame the victim and not the entity that takes the coercive action. I do not take issue with your unwillingness to fight, after all, nationalism is an absurd idea, but I take issue with your logical reasoning.

[Sage]

Id still say no to war. I'd never surrender my beliefs but I wouldnt raise an fist. It isn't my job to fight for the country. Its the army's and if they fail, they I should be angry at them instead of the invading country, Should I not?

If the army failed and my country was being invaded, I'd be more concerned with how much ammo I have left in my gun.

[Dive to Survive]

If the army failed and my country was being invaded, I'd be more concerned with how much ammo I have left in my gun.

:D I like that response

[INFERNO]

But what counts as reasonable? If everyone is inclined to act as you suggest, it pays off to be an aggressor. That's not the kind of world we want.

Sorry, I didn't see your post. By reasonable, I can only give examples as it'd be context-dependent. For example, if a country says "Give us 80% of your economic wealth and material possessions or we'll blow you all to hell", then to me that's an unreasonable demand and I'd support my country going to war in that issue. If however a country says "We don't like the [insert beer company's name] ads involving women so change them or we'll nuke you", then if their threats will be carried out (i.e. they have nukes ready to go and we have much less), then I'd say change the ads. These may be unrealistic examples but they demonstrate what I mean, unless you have an example of your own to use.

[quartermaster]

Sorry, I didn't see your post. By reasonable, I can only give examples as it'd be context-dependent. For example, if a country says "Give us 80% of your economic wealth and material possessions or we'll blow you all to hell", then to me that's an unreasonable demand and I'd support my country going to war in that issue. If however a country says "We don't like the [insert beer company's name] ads involving women so change them or we'll nuke you", then if their threats will be carried out (i.e. they have nukes ready to go and we have much less), then I'd say change the ads. These may be unrealistic examples but they demonstrate what I mean, unless you have an example of your own to use.

Interesting, are you not worried about the precedent your country has set by giving in to such demands? Worried that perhaps the said country will soon have more demands, perhaps even usurping on the rights of the people, as you, as a country, have undermined your legitimacy to that country? Would you sacrifice certain rights and freedoms within your country for peace, a tenuous peace at that? (This is assuming, of course, that another country is the one exerting aggression).

Even taking the beer company example at face value, is not forcing the company to change their ads, name etc. just one possible step to future abuses of freedom by the other power? In the end, I guess it is down to what you value more: freedoms and possible war (after all, threats are an issue of credible commitment) or usurpation with a blank check for future abuses, but peace...for a season.

Just want to get your take on this issue...

[Perseus]

Your reasoning for being pro-war is deficient in scope; yes, war is part of the human condition, but so is murder and rape (which are not mutually exclusive, in regards to war), but would you say you are pro-murder or pro-rape? Just because one acknowledges war as being inevitable does not mean that they should support the application of it; the proper response to such an inevitability, would be to try to stop its application whenever possible.

You've got me there. I never thought of it like that.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Your reasoning for being pro-war is deficient in scope; yes, war is part of the human condition, but so is murder and rape (which are not mutually exclusive, in regards to war), but would you say you are pro-murder or pro-rape? Just because one acknowledges war as being inevitable does not mean that they should support the application of it; the proper response to such an inevitability, would be to try to stop its application whenever possible.




Why would you get angry at the victim of the exertion of coercion? If a woman who took self-defense classes for three years was brutally murdered in her house, along with her entire family, would you blame that person for the death of her family, for failing to properly defend everyone? Or would you blame the murderer, the person who initiated the coercion? What foolish logic you have there, to blame the victim and not the entity that takes the coercive action. I do not take issue with your unwillingness to fight, after all, nationalism is an absurd idea, but I take issue with your logical reasoning.

Thats totally irrelavent either, It isn't the womens job to protect her family of course I wouldnt blame her. However, with a motto like protect and serve you better be doing alot of protecting.

[INFERNO]

Interesting, are you not worried about the precedent your country has set by giving in to such demands? Worried that perhaps the said country will soon have more demands, perhaps even usurping on the rights of the people, as you, as a country, have undermined your legitimacy to that country? Would you sacrifice certain rights and freedoms within your country for peace, a tenuous peace at that? (This is assuming, of course, that another country is the one exerting aggression).

Even taking the beer company example at face value, is not forcing the company to change their ads, name etc. just one possible step to future abuses of freedom by the other power? In the end, I guess it is down to what you value more: freedoms and possible war (after all, threats are an issue of credible commitment) or usurpation with a blank check for future abuses, but peace...for a season.

Just want to get your take on this issue...

You have a point and I suppose my answer to this would be that when demands continue that really benefit neither country but are there just to show my country is inferior, then I'd be less willing to give into them. If there is a purpose, other than an insignificant amount of money or service, or simply for the purpose of demonstrating a power gradient, then I may let it slide once or twice simply to maintain good connections but after that, enough is enough.

I'd also suppose that I'd attempt to get the aid of other countries whom I have good connections with to assist if the power demands don't stop. I'm lenient on giving into some demands but when the demands jepordize the rights and freedoms of my people, then I'm not for it.

So I guess it'd be more of an in between stance because where I draw the line isn't necessarily arbitrary but it depends on factors, such as how close of connections (economic, political, social, etc...) I have with the country prior to demands, what the demands are, what I'm capable of fulfilling, etc... . I'm not willing to have a poor country with temporary peace because to me that's unsuccessful.

[quartermaster]

Thats totally irrelavent either, It isn't the womens job to protect her family of course I wouldnt blame her. However, with a motto like protect and serve you better be doing alot of protecting.

My point was, which was obviously lost to you, that under any other circumstance you would not blame the victim, but the entity exerting coercion; that would be the logical progression of thought.

In the case of this woman, she took self-defense classes for her own protection and perhaps the protection of her family. This woman failed to defeat the attacker, for whatever reason, however, you would not blame her for the failure, because in the end, the blame lies solely on the applier of coercion. Applying that same premise, the military is created for the protection of the country and its citizens, however, if it is attacked and defeated(assuming they were not exerting coercion, themselves), it would be erroneous to blame them for their failure, over the entity that actually attacked and exerted coercion.

Your argument is quite simply all-together faulty, as "to protect and serve" does not denote invincibility, nor does it denote that before defeat, they weren't "doing alot of protecting," as it were; surly you can see how absurd your reasoning is. I'd venture to say that your response is based more on a general dislike for United States military forces, than any actual a priori reasoning. In that sense, I would not fault you for not approving of the military, but at the very least, put your cards on the table.

[Rutherford The Brave]

My point was, which was obviously lost to you, that under any other circumstance you would not blame the victim, but the entity exerting coercion; that would be the logical progression of thought.

In the case of this woman, she took self-defense classes for her own protection and perhaps the protection of her family. This woman failed to defeat the attacker, for whatever reason, however, you would not blame her for the failure, because in the end, the blame lies solely on the applier of coercion. Applying that same premise, the military is created for the protection of the country and its citizens, however, if it is attacked and defeated(assuming they were not exerting coercion, themselves), it would be erroneous to blame them for their failure, over the entity that actually attacked and exerted coercion.

Your argument is quite simply all-together faulty, as "to protect and serve" does not denote invincibility, nor does it denote that before defeat, they weren't "doing alot of protecting," as it were; surly you can see how absurd your reasoning is. I'd venture to say that your response is based more on a general dislike for United States military forces, than any actual a priori reasoning. In that sense, I would not fault you for not approving of the military, but at the very least, put your cards on the table.

All Im saying is that these men are trained too protect us. If something goes wrong and for some odd reason we are unable to beat the opponant and our country falls. Then someone has to have done something wrong. Its like this to me, I choose not to blame an attacker because they obviously tried harder. When I say that, Im not saying the American Military is lazy. In the end I guess Im saying that some where down the line someone must've been slacking off and missed a vital oppurtunity. It's totally plausible. Its not necessairily, oh you suck thanks for not protecting me. Its more of a, what happened? Or how could this happen what must've gone wrong. In the end, I wouldnt blame the men out in the field. Just the men who are in the capital and such running the army. Because you should always have a backup if defeat is imminate, shouldnt you?