|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 3, 2003 21:03:57 GMT -5
nobody likes to kill. but in attempting to get rid of a leader who will kill millions neways, war is acceptible anwswer So basically you're pointing out Saddam Hussein and the situation with Iraq. But what's your view on the Korean and Vietnam Wars and all of the "peacekeeping actions" that the United States has been a part of over the years? |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 3, 2003 21:10:58 GMT -5
Yes, killing is justified under some circumstances. Namely when a person in acting in self-defense, killing is acceptable. The same applys to a nation, especially when a nation is eleminating a facist and terrorist supporter, who abuses his power to oppress his own people. Would you mind defining just what you mean by self defense? Killing is never right and is rarely, if ever, justified; there are far too many calls of "self defense" in this world. The ancient Romans justified their expansionist policies by saying it was in their best interests in defense. Of course that's a load of bull. They wanted more power, wealth and land. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 3, 2003 21:11:39 GMT -5
So basically you're pointing out Saddam Hussein and the situation with Iraq. kinda narrow minded view, kosovo(sp) bosnia are other modern day examples. but as for vietnam and korea, both attempted (though we failed in vietnam) to prevent opressive, murdering dictators taking over regions that did not want that type of gov't. granted the south vietnam government was not always a group of saints, but they were the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 3, 2003 21:16:55 GMT -5
kinda narrow minded view, kosovo(sp) bosnia are other modern day examples. but as for vietnam and korea, both attempted (though we failed in vietnam) to prevent opressive, murdering dictators taking over regions that did not want that type of gov't. granted the south vietnam government was not always a group of saints, but they were the lesser of two evils. And could you maybe name these oppressive dictators? The only reason the US got involved in these conflicts was because they felt their own security was being threatened. They weren't out to help anyone or any of that idealistic stuff. Same thing with Kosovo and Bosnia. That #### had been going on for hundreds of years and they only took action when it suited their needs. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 3, 2003 21:20:48 GMT -5
no i cant name the leaders cuz im not a encyclopedia and im dont feel like looking in up cuz it doesnt matter what their names were. part, probably most, or the reason was to defend us against communism; but could u seriously say that ur good ole democrat friends JFK and LBJ felt no sympathy for those being killed and oppressed by the communist regimes?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 3, 2003 21:25:57 GMT -5
no i cant name the leaders cuz im not a encyclopedia and im dont feel like looking in up cuz it doesnt matter what their names were. part, probably most, or the reason was to defend us against communism; but could u seriously say that ur good ole democrat friends JFK and LBJ felt no sympathy for those being killed and oppressed by the communist regimes? I'm saying that there were no big bad oppressive leaders. They didn't exist. It was an entire nation they went to war with. They weren't just out to remove a dictator. I can say that they didn't go to war just because they "felt bad" for the people being oppressed. There motives were not nearly so idealistic. And no, Lyndon Johnson was an idiot and JFK was just a pretty face. For the last time, I am not, nor shall I ever be a Democrat. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 3, 2003 21:28:31 GMT -5
No, we responded in Kosovo and Bosnia at the request of NATO and several other balkan states. It did not serve any of the intrests of the United States, except to end mass murder and genocide. Still, the action in Kosovo and Bosnia is directed by NATO.
I think it was unwise to get involved in the Vietnam War, the only time you'll hear me say that! However, given the time and the threat of communism you can start to why we got involved. It was: 1. with French requests that we got involved in Vietnam with military advisors to help them keep their colony, prevent despotism, and communism from spreading 2. We decided advisors were not enough and sent troops 3. We began to bomb 4. We realized our error and withdrew under Nixon. With the Korean war, that was a U.N. action guided by the U.N. thorughout the whole war. The Soviet Union didn't even argue. The ability to not finish that war resulted in the situation we see today. Lastly, self-defense is any action taken to preserve our nation and its ideals. The president swears to uphold and defend the consitution of the United States of America and that's exactly what President George Bush has done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 3, 2003 21:52:26 GMT -5
here's a name, kim il sung ruled North Korea from 1948-1994 and killed 1.6 million in purges and concentration camps. this number will only grow over time as more secret documents get uncovered
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 3, 2003 21:54:46 GMT -5
Absolutly. Good research as I presume that's howw you got that information.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 3, 2003 21:58:56 GMT -5
Even though it may seem like I'm admitting defeat by doing this but I don't really care. I don't care enough about what we're talking about to continue our current discussion. If some new topics are brought up, I'll comment on them, but for now I'm going to bail on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 3, 2003 22:35:38 GMT -5
yeah, vietnam was a weird war indeed. We had a lot of trouble in there. People were being drafted and the public support sucked. I think if we had had our nation behind us, and more competent leaders we could have won. One weird thing is that everyone says we lost, but did North Vietnam win? We kicked the living shit out of them in the Tet Offensive. We could have done more, but we just pulled out, we didn't necessarily surrender.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 4, 2003 0:50:59 GMT -5
No, we did not surrender and the United States has never surrendered in a war yet. We did kick the shit out of them in the tet offensive. However, the Soviet Union and the PRC began to increase their support for them in the U.N. and militarily. We got worried that we would be at war soon with the Soviets who were a nuclear power and decided to mediate with the North Korean puppets of the Soviet Union. They set a boundary line that still exists today and that's the source of our problem today, unfortunatly.
Many Generals and military historians suport you in your conjecture about the Vietnam War. Had we had more public support and went in from the beginnig with a full military force the chaces that we would have betan the communist off is very high, but that didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 4, 2003 1:03:35 GMT -5
good vietnam coverage...but i go further back...it is never right to kill...you have no right to say wether your life is worth more than any others...what if they kill you...then change...and save millions of lives, support charities, and cure cancer, and make a tight anime series with hit video games...( i hope i touched based with everyone)...ooh...and it has a killer soundtrack...
i presume, in any situation, killing is wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Mildrid the Nut Schlapper on Nov 4, 2003 1:05:08 GMT -5
I'm gonna go opposite of that. Firstly, I have the right to ensure my own protection, the sheer fact that someone intends on killing me implies the explicit right that I can kill him to prevent my own death. Also, woh cares if they go and produce something good...they still commited a mortal sin by killing for no reason or a stupid one, and can and should be charged with murder1 and locked up for the rest of their life; if not killed by the state! Also, I was never saying that their life is worth more than mine, in the U.S. everyone's life is the same, so is a life in the world, but if someone with a weapon was threating myself, family, or country I'd kill in one second.
Also, I am not that intrested in anime, but if someone could tell what's good, I may look in to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 4, 2003 21:19:46 GMT -5
I'm gonna go opposite of that. Firstly, I have the right to ensure my own protection, the sheer fact that someone intends on killing me implies the explicit right that I can kill him to prevent my own death. Also, woh cares if they go and produce something good...they still commited a mortal sin by killing for no reason or a stupid one, and can and should be charged with murder1 and locked up for the rest of their life; if not killed by the state! Very true. Any person has the right to protect his own life, or the lives of others. No one has a right to kill without this reason. If someone kills another for a reason other than preservation of his/her life, then it is a sin, and is punishable. I would say that for people that would cause harm to others even if they were in jail or released, they should be put to death. |
|
