Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Naur on May 22, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
-
I've been reading through a lot of the topics here and something has been sort of tugging at the back of my mind. Is it possible to wage a 'Just' or 'Righteous' War?
I have long thought that WWII was a 'Just' War, but that also clashes with the belief of many that there is no reason to kill, ever. how does this dovetail with certain religious questions. Can a Christian wage war? i have heard of something called 'The Soldiers Dilemma' specifically in regards to the commandment, though shalt not kill. Does it mean though shalt not kill or though shalt not commit murder. is there a difference on the battlefield?
give me your thoughts.
-
I had to Google some of this stuff, because it's been years since I learnt it, but St Thomas Aquinas said that there are three conditions for a just war. It must be started and controlled by the authority of state or ruler, there must be a just cause (eg. self-defence), and it must be for good, or against evil. The church later added that a just war must be a last resort and must be fought proportionally (ie. no more force than necessary).
I personally don't believe that war can ever be justified. Whichever way you look at it, you're still killing thousands of people for personal gain. I agree with the two points that war should only be fought for self-defence and only when no other options are available.
-
How was WW II a "just" war? If it was one, all others are as well and the term has no value.
As it has been said, "Thou shalt try really, really hard not to kill anyone... unless they pray to a different invisible man in the sky than you do."
-
it's hard to tell whether any war is just. There are always arguments to both sides.
More important is the question: is standing by and be pacifist more unjust than fighting?
The answer to that question is different for every occasion and every involved nation. WWII may not have been just, but there were so many involved for so many reasons, it's hard to make a statement about justification at all.
Standing by while a fascist regime rapes a continent and systematically kills millions: saying war is unjust and thereby doing remaining neutral could very well be considered worse that war itself.
-
I belive that war can only be warranted if it's purely defencive. As such, a war ceases to be just the second your forces crosses your own borders as they are then taking up an offencive role. Thus, a "preemptive" strike is always unjust and illegal regardless of any percived threats, real or imaginary.
At the same time, armed intervention can be justified on the purpose of one's forces acting as armed human shields to civilian populations caught between indiscriminate opponents and thus forcing a cessation of hostilities.
-
I think I bring a slightly different world view to the debate. I am a Christian and spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. For me, there is no moral issue with taking a life during a war. I can argue the point from several Biblical directions. But, it is all summed up that the English translation of the Hebrew sometimes is lacking. The Commandment (or word) would be more accurately translated as 'Thou shalt not murder'. Meaning that in self defense or a time of war, there is no prohibition against taking life.
Aquinas' definition of a just war is based on sound reasoning, but I do not fully buy off on it. By his logic the American Revolution was not just, and I would argue that point to the grave. My personal definition of a just war is much different. The first stipulation is simple. "Is mankind as a whole in a better position because of the war?" If the answer is yes, it leads to the second question: "Is there a valid means to accomplish the goal without a war?" If the answer is no, the war is just.
I find pacifists are usually not acting on principle, but out of fear. You can argue any point from the Bible, but trying to claim war is wrong just doesn't work. If one reads the book of Joshua, it is impossible to claim that the Bible precludes war. Looking at the events of that book in light of Malachi 3:6 it is impossible to assert that war is always wrong. In Luke 22:36 Jesus said "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." That is not a pacifist Lord speaking.
As to WWII, it may possibly be the most just war of all time, particularly if you are a Christian or Jew. God's chosen people were being slaughtered by a madman. He was taking land and subjecting a wider population of Jews to torture and death. He had a stated goal of ruling the world, and we all know what the "final solution" was. In Genesis 12:3 God makes it clear that blessing Israel (meaning the people, not the country) will bring blessings. Cursing Israel will bring curses. Matthew 25:32 and Joel 3:2 further speak to those that support Israel or cause it harm. If you look at it from a non-religious stand, how is it not just to go to war and save people from the horrors that were the death camps?
I may be in the minority here, but I believe every war the US has ever engaged in is a just war.
-
Interesting points you make there, Stillwaters.
However, I'd like to reply to you by arguing that following your definition of a just war, I don't think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were just. Especially the latter.
In the case of Iraq, I always opposed that war. Not because I didn't want Saddam to be removed from power. Not because I didn't want to fight terrorists (although no ties with al quaeda were known). Not because I feared that a possible involvement of The Netherlands would kill our soldiers or increase the risk of retaliating bomb strikes.
But, because I strongly felt that mankind as a whole would NOT benefit from this war. Especially not the Iraqi people. I feared it would bring animosity and chaos to the land. That it would destabilise the whole region. That it would heighten tensions and violence between the different ethnic and religious groups. That the different islamic sects would polarize and become more extreme. That Jihad-warriors would jump in to recruit and train terrorists, and mingle in the fighting. That an already popular negative stance against the US and the West would turn to animosity and hatred.
Years later, the war in Iraq is far from won, and I think far from just. At least, not just, when I interpret it from your definition. Another person's definition might change the outcome of the equation.
-
I strongly disagree with you assessment of the war in Iraq. There are no rape rooms, there are no prisons where hundred and thousands of people are held, tortured, and murdered. Children are getting their shots, girls are allowed to go to school, and the schools are not forced to teach lies to prop of Saddam. The average Iraqi is much better off than they were 5 years ago.
The war was just to remove Saddam alone. I will not, and actually cannot, get into all of the reasons leading up to the war. You can choose to believe there were no ties with al Queada or WMDs if you wish, and I will not argue with you. It is something that people have to examine for themselves. As long as you aren't just sitting back and taking the "glowing box's" word on what happened, it is fine with me.
As for Afghanistan, I am actually somewhat offended at the notion that it was not a just war. September 11, 2001 is a historical fact. Planes flew into the World Trade Center. An evil regime known as the Taliban was hiding the people responsible for the cowardly act of terrorism. The conditions people were forced to live in due to a perverted view of Islam kept women as mere slaves. Men could be killed for shaving. Women could be killed for going out in public without an escort. If you honestly believe that mankind isn't better off with those people out of power, I respectfully request that you look at the situation without a bias against the war effort or the current administration.
Iraq is debatable. But, I would answer the call in a second if I was needed there. Afghanistan is beyond debate as far as I can tell. I would have been horrified if they would have failed to invade and eliminate the Taliban/al Queada.
-
I did name Afghanistan in my previous post, but mainly made my point with the Iraq war. So please don't be offended about Afghanistan, because I haven't outlaid my points about that issue. :)
Of course I believe that mankind is better of without the taliban in power.
But please note (and maybe i wasn't totally clear on this) that i made a very technical argument based on the definitions of 'just war'. Strictly following your definition (which may not be mine, i'm very indecided on matters of definition), I think it remains doubtful wether mankind (and not just the average Iraqi) was benefited with this war.
For Afghanistan I'd argue the same: I'm not saying the Taliban should have stayed in power, I'm glad they haven't. I'm not saying 911 shouldn't have been retributed. I was merely thinking wheter mankind was benefited.
I'd be happy to debate more with you on war topics, but maybe we should take that to another thread. Let's keep this on just/unjust definitions.
-
I'd be happy to take it to a different thread, but I don't know if we've really gotten too far off topic.
As for mankind being better for not having Saddam and the Taliban in power or not- I believe that there is a net gain, therefore mankind is better off. There are three groups of people that are impacted by the war. The American service members (and allies), the terrorists/ba'athists, and the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American service members are doing what they want to be doing. I know hundreds of people that have deployed to the two warzones, an the vast majority are in favor of what we are doing. The innocents in Afghanistan are much better off than they were before. In Iraq the evil of the Saddam regime has been replaced by a danger of sectarian violence. In my mind, the threat they face now is less pervasive than the previous threat. As for the terrorists or Saddam loyalists (of which there are very few), I really don't care about their condition.
Thus, I find the two wars to be just by my definition. In my mind the only possible wars the U.S. has been involved in that could be unjust by my definition are Vietnam and Korea. However, my opinion of communists (as practiced by the Soviets and their satellites) is no higher than my opinion of a modern terrorist.
Honestly, what I find unjust are the wars we don't fight. The situation in Darfur, the mutilation of young girls across the Muslim areas of Africa, the starvation of the people of North Korea are all things we should be involved in but are not. Inaction when you are needed is one of the biggest problems in my eyes, and it is something we've been guilty of far too many times.
-
ah...well...hmmm...yes...maybe not...ok.
I believe this is more about points of view. I don't think it's possible for a 'just war' happen. There's always a slight detail that sparks it, that can be glued to reason.
For the above, everything is possible, but anything exists or happens for a reason, something like karma, but not exactly...karma is bound to fate/destiny, and i believe that the reasons are made in the present. Although that implies that they come from the past, so that's why it's like karma, and that's why it's not exactly like it. Very hard to explain, also very simple, and i don't want to explain.
About soldiers, i think soldiers are bound to rules, so that they do not have such personality of doubt. Soldiers with personality do not follow orders, but it is the way the human being is, i think it's the professionalism of a soldier to hide or not his personality. Anyway, this can give him character, and the character is very important in a soldier, so therefore, every soldier is bound to have a special character for his missions or duties.
That's why things ain't so simple, it's not just right and wrong, black or white, good or evil. That's why most do not believe in an 'axis of evil' *laughs*. This are made simple to a soldier, he has to think of a greater good, he's right and the enemy is wrong, he's good and the enemy is evil..but it's not exactly like that. Most fight for survival, others fight for...what are Americans fighting in Iraq? nothing? well then it's as i said, it's a point of view, Americans fight 'just war', when the 'axis of evil' fights for survival. There's other reasons, I'm just spoiling a bit the unreasonable belligerence side of USA (and for god sake, i mean the nation or the nation army or whatever you want it to mean, i do not mean the people that live in, ofc you're part of it, but that's your problem, Bush owns you)
-
Bush does not own us. Contrary to liberal belief, you cannot impeach someone unless he's done something illegal. Bush himself has not done anything illegal. Hell, Karl Rove is more of a criminal than Bush. We can't impeach Bush just because we don't like him. But just not being able to get rid of him does not make us "owned".
-
i do not mean the people that live in, ofc you're part of it, but that's your problem, Bush owns you)
Ah, but Bush does not own me. He is like the lousy tenant that we have to go through red tape to evict. His time is fast approaching when he'll have to step down. In the meantime, we protest against his policies and demand that our government officials do all they can to stop him from causing further damage. One would hope that the next president will do better than this one. Not to take issue with what you said, Delfos, but I just wanted to clarify it.
I agree. Right and wrong, just and unjust, is no simple thing. There is no true answer to that. There will always be wars that are just in the eyes of those who wage them, just as those who oppose them will believe them to be unjust. It is purely a subjective opinion.
Truth is not an absolute, where there is only one right answer. Think of a sheet of paper. I stand on one corner, "my" corner of the truth. I see things from my own perspective; my experiences, what I "know" to be true. You stand on the opposite corner, "your" corner of the truth, where your experiences may be vastly different than mine, what you "know" may be the opposite of what I "know". Yet we both speak the truth as we know it.
If you ask the union why they're striking, they might answer that the company is hiring non-union workers - they're putting the union workers out of a job because they can hire non-union to work at minimum wage. If you ask the company about that, they might answer that they have to hire some non-union workers in order to keep costs down, otherwise they can't be competitive in the market, and their company will fold. Who's lying? Maybe neither. The union sees things from their corner of the truth. The company sees things from theirs.
Nearly everyone would come up with at least a short list of what would constitute a "just" war. Much of it would be similar from one list to another. Still, it is not hard at all for a government to convince its people that a war is necessary, either for its own good, or for the good of some other people who are being oppressed. It is no simple thing for the common man to know whether they're getting the full picture from what they're told. I stand in my corner of the truth. You stand in yours. Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the whole truth. Perhaps not. But the people who stand in complete opposition to each other believe completely that theirs is the "right" view.
-
Stillwaters: Way to go, brother. The only thing I can disagree with you on is our involvement in Korea; the country was being invaded by the communist Russian puppet government in N. Korea, the brand-new U.N. and the ideals won by WWII were being challenged in such a serious scale for the first time. It would have been a tragedy if we had stood by and watched South Korea be snuffed out of existence. I believe it was a just war, absolutely.
Delfos: Pull your head out of your ass, President Bush doesn't "own" anyone, you knucklehead. Unlike some countries, our politicians are servants of the people, called, and recalled, at our will.
When you want to assess whether a war is "just" or "unjust", you have to consider its net gain. I believe that it is absolutely possible for a war to be 'just.' I don't see how anyone can't. Most wars are always provoked, whether for personal gain or whatnot. Who are we to say it is wrong to defend one's self against such an attack? Or should we just roll over and play dead, because it's "unjust?" Come on people, I don't think you're looking at this realistically. Check out the other options, why don't you, and then give an answer.
WWII was the "good" fight if there ever was one: we stopped Hitler from permanently conquering half the world. And I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant, but without U.S. intervention, France, the low countries, Russia, and most likely the entire globe would probably still be run by Nazis, (who would still be in existence, of course, I'm getting the feeling you're not considering that end of it), the Empire of Japan and a fascist Italy would still be would powers, unless Germany had taken those countries too, and the U.S., Britain, and the other free countries might have also fallen at a later date. Not to mention that the Jewish race would be close to wiped out of existence. So, if I were you Europeans, I'd shut my trap when it comes to telling Americans how "unjust" WWII was. Honestly, it blows my mind that people would say such things... You guys seem to think that everything would be exactly the way it is today, regardless of what happened in the past.
I'm starting to think you guys needed a few more years with Hitler on top of you to smarten you up.
-
Bush does not own us. Contrary to liberal belief, you cannot impeach someone unless he's done something illegal. Bush himself has not done anything illegal. Hell, Karl Rove is more of a criminal than Bush. We can't impeach Bush just because we don't like him. But just not being able to get rid of him does not make us "owned".
I'm not positive about the process for presidents, but, living in California, I recently witnessed former Gov. Grey Davis recalled, not because he did something illegal, but simply because the power who put him in office, namely the people, changed its mind when he continued to pile debt on the state economy.
And Abode, if you don't think removing the Taliban and Saddam from world politics was a benefit to mankind, what else do you need? Do you want somebody to send you a check every month? Would that make it a benefit to mankind? ::) Come on, get real, and call it what it is.
-
By law the president can be impeached for "High crimes and misdemeanors." What that means exactly is up to debate. However, it doesn't matter. If the House passes articles of impeachment and the Senate convicts, the president is out of office. Even if the charge against him was that he dropped a piece of paper on the lawn of the White House. It doesn't matter. As for Bush owning me, that isn't true. He is a president. I disagree with the sentiment here because I believe he is a good one. But, he belongs to the American people, not the other way around. We elected him, he did not elect us.
But, we are getting off topic. There is no need for this to turn into a Republican vs. Democrat debate. We all know that such a debate is circular. You have your beliefs, I have mine. If we agree, great. If not, we're not changing anyone's mind.
Back to the subject of a Just War, if you can honestly say that World War Two wasn't just, then we just have a totally different view of the world. It meets any criteria for a just war that I have ever seen, or that I could possibly come up with. Total aggression and murder by one nation against others would seem to compel anyone that believes war can ever be just to believe that it is just in that situation.
My question is to those that claim there is no just war. If your family would have been in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or in one of the concentration camps, would you honestly believe that the proper response would be to do nothing?
-
As resident philosopher, I'd like to point out that if any single war can be defined as "just" - even though such a term in itself is ridiculous when you think about it - then the justness of the concept of war is negotiable and it can be argued that, from a certain perspective, any war is just.
However, of greater interest to me in this conversation is actually the definition of the word "just." To quote an over-rated lyricist, "who made you God to say, / 'I'll take your life from you?'" People have no inherent right to decide on whether something is good or evil, because at this level of definition, such things do not exist. They are words, maybe even concepts that fall into the neato-category, but as such and nothing more, they are very vague and hold very little real value. Can someone define good and evil so that everyone and everything can agree on?
From the point that Stillwaters brought up in which they state that God allows killing for the sake of personal survival or in war. The latter, though, raises a curious point. Why is there a war in the first place? If your country attacked, then it's not in self defence but murder. If they attacked, it's self defence. The former in this case is quite clearly breaking a commandment. Not to mention that that's only the opinion of one God's followers. Islam, Taoism, Shintoism, the Church of Pha and the Followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn might very well have drastically different views on the matter. Christianity has no monopoly on moral values; not now, not ever.
But anyways, to return to my earlier point now that I'm rambling off, people have no moral upper ground over other people. Or animals for that matter. Or plants. None, zip, scratch, zero, nada. We made morality up and because we, as finite creatures, are its creators, it is finite and, when you look at it for what it is, it isn't all that impressive. No one outside the planet cares, no one on it really agrees. It's just a way for us to cope with reality because we simply can't handle the great various nature of existence. We have to look at everything from a personal, subjective light because we are not physically, mentally or spiritually able to do so in an objective one. It might be genetic, it might be behaviouristic, who knows?
The main point about it is that each of us sees the world in their very own way. They're always right if they're honest with themselves and they're always wrong toward everyone else. Saying something you think, do or say is justified in any way applies only to you and you alone, you're just a small fragment of the mass of humanity. Whether or not anyone likes it, we're all equal in the sense that all that we can even experience is so insignificant that it matters to ourselves only. People live and die all the time and the universe will do its thing, not giving the slightest Planck's damn about any of us while it does so. Life's a beach and then you die - we round down to zero if you bother to think about it.
Also, if anyone read that and still believes that they can point out an unjust war, let me know and I'll tell you why it's just. Works vice versa as well. (just -> unjust)
Posted on: 23 May 2007, 04:33:37
Back to the subject of a Just War, if you can honestly say that World War Two wasn't just, then we just have a totally different view of the world. It meets any criteria for a just war that I have ever seen, or that I could possibly come up with. Total aggression and murder by one nation against others would seem to compel anyone that believes war can ever be just to believe that it is just in that situation.
My question is to those that claim there is no just war. If your family would have been in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or in one of the concentration camps, would you honestly believe that the proper response would be to do nothing?
Concerning WW2:
1. It wasn't just, the Axis lost. And they had every right to want Lebensraum and what not.
2. What on Earth are these criteria?
3. Ever heard the phrase, "they had it coming?"
Concerning response:
1. They are people. We have too many of those already, there is no logical reason for a grown-up, functional adult to fall into emotional shock if the ones that die are ones they know closely. People die at a continuous, accelerating rate. It's a fact of life. Move along, they're dead, no longer in this world, maybe in the next if there is one.
2. The proper response would have been to either pacify the aggressors for the sake of personal survival or to accept that population culling is in fact appropriate and join them.
-
i wasn't even talking about WWII, and Hitler happened, and it was good for him to exist imo. No i would not like to have more years with him, and i would like to not being insulted in this forum. Im expressing myself, the only thing i see you expressing is your dirty mouth.
as for the 'own' issue, i have quite weird way to say things, i hope we all agree in that. i meant as i always meant, he's the representative of the whole, that's why there's presidency elections. Did you Khablan or Myroria or any other american decided if the US army should have gone to Afghanistan/Iraq/any other part? (remember this is about war, stick to war).
i don't even remember the other issue i wanted to discuss, this question is important :p and please do not consider me an evil twisted man, lol
-
he's the representative of the whole, that's why there's presidency elections. Did you Khablan or Myroria or any other american decided if the US army should have gone to Afghanistan/Iraq/any other part?
No, the government didn't ask my opinion before sending out the troops. How does that make Bush my representative? When a politician is elected, it is hoped that he or she will represent the people. That is not necessarily the case. Bush is going against the majority sentiment. Therefore, I can't see how he is a representative of the US.
I don't consider you evil or twisted. A bit short-sided and biased, perhaps, but then that's human nature. Most people are to some degree or another.
-
There is no "just" war. Killing people is never just. Yes, it may be necessary, but just, no.
-
Khab., it was the majority opinion after 9/11, just not anymore. We all know that Iraq is just turning into another Vietnam. We'll be there for awhile, before we eventually pull out and make the US look retarded. And I would like to take Sol's opinion and apply it to Alg's response:
Killing can be viewed as "just" if there is overcrowding and is used as a method of thinning the population so there is more resources per capita. And again, we need to define "just", and yet we cannot as we all have different views on it. Just is a human creation, and as such, the world is probably better off without it.
-
kill some Chinese then..and quick, before they rule the world with it's 'just' population.
that reminds me something my mother likes to say: If all Chinese would put themselves around the Big China Wall and piss to the other side the rest of the world would flood on their piss.
-
kill some Chinese then..and quick, before they rule the world with it's 'just' population.
that reminds me something my mother likes to say: If all Chinese would put themselves around the Big China Wall and piss to the other side the rest of the world would flood on their piss.
oops
-
Stop misinterpreting me!
My point was that if any, ANY, human action is called "just," it is a moral conviction and morality is personal. And here's the great punchline of morality:
We made it up. Period.
There is no higher right for anything, there are no rights for that matter. If you take an objective stance, all actions are equally unworthy to exist.
-
i don't get the higher existence, but anything, yes most of the nowadays actions are unworthy or immoral. I didn't thought we were discussing what morality is. The words in English are weird btw
-
This has wandered into a typical democratic anti-war thread, so I'm done with it. I just have two comments to make.
First, the situation in Iraq and what happened in Vietnam are in no way related. To parrot that talking point of the left simply illustrates that you don't know what you're talking about. The situation in Vietnam was bad because politicians tied the hands of the soldiers and would not let them fight. The situation in Iraq is bad because people say it is. I envisioned 25,000-30,000 KIA during the initial assault on the nation. We're sitting just over 3000 KIA several years later. To compare, 16,592 were KIA in Vietnam in 1968 alone. We have a long, long ways to go before it gets to that point.
Barceleroth I just noticed your flag there. Semper Fi brother- one teufelhunden to another.
-
This has wandered into a typical democratic anti-war thread, so I'm done with it. I just have two comments to make.
What the- I'm
1) not against war. Less people = healthier planet.
2) not democratic, people, outside Taijitu, are stupid and should not have control over anything remotely important.
3) not really happy that you ignored my posts even though they were on the topic you wished to discuss on.
Delf, man, morality is the basis of justice. You have to define what you're talking about before you can get anywhere.
-
what then is the basis of morality? it differs wildly from culture to culture. as well try to define what is good.
-
A-ha! Good question. In my highly educated and grossly superior opinion (yes, I hate the term IMHO), I would say that morality stems from the basic need of man to know where he is at any given time. Morality could best be described as perspective of the world, taking a lamp and shedding it on the mysteries that were unseen before. Some things lie in the shadows and the person dislikes them while others are visible and liked.
Metaphorically speaking, that is.
-
Soly, I didn't address your comments because I didn't see anything to really address. You played the typical philosophical game of not taking an actual stand on the issue. But, if you'd like me to go address points, I will.
Can someone define good and evil so that everyone and everything can agree on?
There is no need to answer, because you later said:
Christianity has no monopoly on moral values; not now, not ever.
By saying this you removed the possibility of talking about the basis of ethical beliefs in the West. I would suppose that, playing by your rules, you get to a point of moral relativism. So, there is no good or evil outside the eyes of the individual. I do not hold that view, but I also refuse to get into a religious debate and drag this thread further from its intended direction.
If your country attacked, then it's not in self defence but murder.
Not true, it would depend on the reason for the attack. If Germany were to attack France tomorrow because they are tired of snobby people that drink too much wine, there is no justification. But, if France attacks Germany tonight because they learned of tomorrow's pending attack, the action is in defense even if it appears offensive to outsiders. More importantly, the commandment is that you shall not murder- which means that killing the line of self defense AND war are both allowable. The act of killing in war is justified whether or not in is a defensive killing.
people have no moral upper ground over other people
That is true if you are a moral relativist, I am not so I disagree.
The main point about it is that each of us sees the world in their very own way. They're always right if they're honest with themselves
No, there is only one truth. Everyone may see things differently, but that does not give us different truths.
I hope those were the points you were wanting me to address. You can't say I didn't make an effort for you.
-
Thanks, I honestly appreciate your effort. I enjoy a depthful discussion where all sides present their arguments well like you did. I'm sorry that I didn't seem to take a stance, even though my personal stance is to be as objective on matters as is humanly possible.
Soly, I didn't address your comments because I didn't see anything to really address. You played the typical philosophical game of not taking an actual stand on the issue. But, if you'd like me to go address points, I will.
Can someone define good and evil so that everyone and everything can agree on?
There is no need to answer, because you later said:
Christianity has no monopoly on moral values; not now, not ever.
By saying this you removed the possibility of talking about the basis of ethical beliefs in the West. I would suppose that, playing by your rules, you get to a point of moral relativism. So, there is no good or evil outside the eyes of the individual. I do not hold that view, but I also refuse to get into a religious debate and drag this thread further from its intended direction.
If your country attacked, then it's not in self defence but murder.
Not true, it would depend on the reason for the attack. If Germany were to attack France tomorrow because they are tired of snobby people that drink too much wine, there is no justification. But, if France attacks Germany tonight because they learned of tomorrow's pending attack, the action is in defense even if it appears offensive to outsiders. More importantly, the commandment is that you shall not murder- which means that killing the line of self defense AND war are both allowable. The act of killing in war is justified whether or not in is a defensive killing.
people have no moral upper ground over other people
That is true if you are a moral relativist, I am not so I disagree.
The main point about it is that each of us sees the world in their very own way. They're always right if they're honest with themselves
No, there is only one truth. Everyone may see things differently, but that does not give us different truths.
I hope those were the points you were wanting me to address. You can't say I didn't make an effort for you.
Am I misunderstanding you if I think that in your opinion killing is justified in war, regardless of the cause of that war?
As for moral relativism, that is a completely different argument altogether. Those who agree with it see that there is no actual God that has given commandments and affects our daily lives. Those who disagree with it hold a contrary view and they have their right to do so as much as anyone else. However, personally - being a Medeist as I happen to be, though I was raised as a Protestant Christian in a deeply religious family - I believe that everything and everyone is equal in rank with others of their kind and that it is their individual right to forge what they want out of their lives and possibly the lives of others if they are capable of doing so.
I must admit, I like your stance of believing and acknowledge that it is good in my eyes. Faith is a glorious device we have and we should not condemn it even though some may misuse it for purposes that are not classified as divine.
-
Stillwaters, self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground, just because someone might do something that could hurt you or even is likely to do something that could hurt you still don't ammount to any right to strike first, if you do, you are no longer in defence, period.
Also, on the theme of christian values, the right to judge and administer retribution has been reserved by the entity we call god, it is his, and his alone, we as humans do not posess any such right, as we don't own it, we can't delegate it either, thus 9/11 shouldn't have been followed by any military action outside the US as that crosses the lines of both what is self defence and what is god's domain. On the other hand you would have had all the right in the world to close your borders and declare that anyone trying to cross would be shot at first and asked questions later.
-
Stillwaters, self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground, just because someone might do something that could hurt you or even is likely to do something that could hurt you still don't ammount to any right to strike first, if you do, you are no longer in defence, period.
It's comparable to arresting and sentencing a person because you have good information he will commit a crime tomorrow.
-
Which is still not right as he hasn't done anything wrong. The only right thing to do would be to convince him to abandon those plans.
-
Soly, I do not believe you have to be religious to avoid moral relativism. Right is right and wrong is wrong with, or without, any notion of a higher power. Example: Genocide is wrong. I took the extreme, but would make the same argument down from there. There is no gray area.
I believe that everything and everyone is equal in rank with others of their kind and that it is their individual right to forge what they want out of their lives and possibly the lives of others if they are capable of doing so.
I agree with the statement you made. However, in my way of thinking they must do it through moral actions. It is OK for a person to decide at an early age that they want to be President- study hard, go to good schools, and set their life on that path. It is not OK to decide that they want to rule the country and try to kill those in power to seize the position.
Empire, I disagree whole heartedly. Self Defense is defined by lawyers as:
Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the use of unlawful force.
Property and location are not limiting factors of self defense. Moreover, you miss the point that killing in a war is justified with, or without, the self defense aspect.
Your comments about war ring true if you only examine the New Testament. However, even a cursory glance through the Old Testament shows a different picture. I have mentioned Joshua in this thread, so I will use a different example. David, who is said to be a man after God's own heart and was so loved by God that the Messiah had to come from his lineage was a warrior. The story of Goliath can be summed up easily:
David left his home to visit family that was away fighting a war. Goliath was a problem, so David killed him. By your definition, this was wrong because it didn't happen where he lived- he had to travel to the fight.
And just to throw it out there, if it is known that a person is going to commit a crime, they are often arrested in advance and charged with conspiracy.
-
Wars can be justified.
-
join with metaphysics and you have a religion.
Moral is not the only factor. If you want to survive there's no moral in it. it's immoral to fight those who want to survive or are in advantage...i guess...that's the basis of FAIR PLAY :p
-
Since when does fairness even enter into war?
-
not in war but before, or is USA going to war with Lebanon in support to Israel?
-
Let's not get ridiculous, please.
And if you honestly think 'fair play' even enters into things when politicians are deciding whether to go to war or not, then you truly are innocent about politics.
-
is USA going to war with Lebanon in support to Israel?
Lebanon? Probably not. Syrian backed groups in Lebanon? Possibly is Israel can't do it themselves.
-
Stillwaters, i don't know what Bible you studied
More importantly, the commandment is that you shall not murder- which means that killing the line of self defense AND war are both allowable
In any religion i know about, killing in ANY way is a sin. Only the catholics/islamics of medieval times did allowed the killing in holy war. Now only extremism allows, or i do not know the religion you studied, could you help me in this?
You shall not murder, that means you shall not kill, you shall not take life that has been given by 'god'. there's another popular commandment: every men (or women) are equal to god's eyes, so the infidels are men (or women) that shall not be killed.
---
And if you honestly think 'fair play' even enters into things when politicians are deciding whether to go to war or not, then you truly are innocent about politics.
yes, and no. Not the way you emphasize, plus 'fair play' was a joke. I doubt Bush ever thought about 'fair play', but UN exists for that: fair play regulation lol
Why do we aid countries that are willing to be independent if not 'fair play'? Like in Serbia, like in East-Timor, Lebanon, and like in other similar wars. US government (so that i don't use the term USA or else Americans would boil up) actually supported Indonesia, so there's no Fair Play...
I start to question if they ever thought about Fair Play...maybe you're right Khablan, but other governments think otherwise.
Why will New Delfos aid Jutensa? Because we want Prince Delfos to sexually engage Carlotta Bianchi?
Anyway war is not just offense, and don't forget the perspective.
and don't forget Fair Play in a nomination I'm using to describe morality.
-
Yes, I know the old testament has a whole different view on the use of force, the thing is, if you are indeed a christian, the new testament overrules the old testament in EVERY SINGLE DIFFERENCE. Thus, eye for an eye is overruled by the golden rule of do only to others what you want them to do to you and so on. That's the whole point with making a new deal, to start over from scratch. A sincere cristian follows only the old testament where there are no guidance at all in the new one to set a precidence.
And no, killing in war is not justified by default, the taking of a life is NEVER justified by default regardless of circumstances.
And that may be how lawyers define self defence and I can agree with that, the point there being that use of force is NOT the same as killing.
Self defence is only defence until the agressor is incapacitated by the least ammount of nessesary force. If the aggressor turns and run away due to too heavy resistance then the defence has been sucessful and any actions on your part after that is NOT defence.
And in my definition of one's own ground I include the space a human occupies physically at any given moment, rough estimate a 3' radius.
-
self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground...
...And in my definition of one's own ground I include the space a human occupies physically at any given moment, rough estimate a 3' radius.
By that definition, then you're defending yourself if someone is standing close enough to touch and thrusting knife at you. But if you attempt to stop someone who is 10 or 20 feet away and about to shoot you, or throw a ranged weapon, or trigger a bomb, then it is no longer self defense, but murder.
-
Soly, I do not believe you have to be religious to avoid moral relativism. Right is right and wrong is wrong with, or without, any notion of a higher power. Example: Genocide is wrong.
You have no moral upper ground here outside your own mind here. Nothing wrong with killing millions of people.
-
That sort of detachment seriously alarms me.
-
First, Soly you're smarter than that. You know that there is something wrong with millions of people. You're just trying to be difficult now.
Delfos, you are free to believe anything you want to believe, but that is not Biblical teaching. The Bible is God's word, and God never changes. There are no differences in the New Testament and the Old Testament, just further revelation. I didn't say anything about a holy war, and I am not about to sit and allow you to twist my words into something I didn't say. What I said was that killing in a war is justifiable. It is not murder, and that is what the Hebrew word in the 10 Commandments means- and it is clearly a different word than killing in the original language.
Christ did not teach to discard the sword. Rather he taught the sword in its proper place, and that those whose only resource was violence would inevitably perish by it. Christ actually teaches us to be prepared to provide for our own security vis a vis the personal weapon of the day – the sword.
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
We can argue about the meaning of this Scripture if you wish, but the fact remains that Christ directly told His men to arm themselves. When He had sent them out originally, He told them to take nothing but faith and that all would be provided for them. They obeyed and it was as The Master had taught. They lacked nothing. But this time it was different.
When they returned to him with two swords, he did not correct them as He did at other times when they mistook His teachings, but rather told them that two swords were enough. Perhaps only two of them were physically able to use sword, perhaps two is all they could afford, but the point is His men were packing.
The sword was meant for physical protection, not specifically - as some commentators write – some sort of spiritual precursor to the Bible. The sword was meant for fighting and likely killing the evil men who would try to do the same to them in a fallen world. The sword was not to be relied upon exclusively, but rather kept in its proper place, for its proper use, at the proper time.
For what it is worth, I study the King James, New King James, NIV, and HCSB. I am also a seminary student. Thanks for asking!
-
imo the Bible is a moral guidance book, created to lead mankind to better ways. Every religion have the similar concept. This is my own point of view, and everyone have their own. The extremists of Islam say the same thing you are saying but from their own Bible, so that's why i want to clarify your standings.
-
First, Soly you're smarter than that. You know that there is something wrong with millions of people. You're just trying to be difficult now.
Ah, so you agree that there's something wrong with millions of people and hence they deserve death. Go genocide, eh?
But seriously, aren't you being a bit patronising now? Cute, but no dice. Ignoring my point of view as stupid or inane isn't going to expand your view of the world one bit. I'd kill a lot of people to get what I want if I felt that it was worth it, so would anyone else. There's a certain limit to what people are willing to do for something, it's higher for some and lower for others, but when you make the something valuable enough, anyone can do anything, even mass murder.
And it's not about what can be given to you either. I know I'd do a lot if someone guaranteed a long time of torture without relief if I didn't. Sure, most of us would have issues with it afterward, but that's just being narrow-minded considering all things. And just in case you might happen to want to bring in the Christian concept of "sanctity of life," remember who made that up as well. We did, 'cause we don't like getting killed.
-
Before entering fully into this.....Could I just ask for some definition of terms....specifically the terms War and Justification???
-
War: armed conflict between parties.
Just: righteous; guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.
-
Regarding self-defense: I'm in favor of it. If someone is trying to kill me or my loved ones, I will stop him. If I can stop him without killing fine, if not, I'll shed no tears. However, the problem with pre-emptive self-defense is that if you're wrong, then it isn't self-defense, but murder.
For example: if I'm told that my neighbor, who hates me, bought a Big Honking Gun and is coming to kill me & rape my GF, I have no moral problem with getting him before he gets me. But if I go to his house, shoot him, and discover that there IS no BHG, then I've just become a murderer.
-
Well...By that definition...Any discussion of self defence is moot surely....(As self defence pertains to one person defending themselves)
Anyhoo...back on topic....War is never...I repeat....never....justifiable....no matter what way you twist religious references or ethical attitudes....It is plain and simple wrong...
-
soly you forgot to mention morality lol
-
Hokey-koke, this looks like a damn good debate. As a current student of War Studies, this kind of thing makes me more excited than I'd normally like to admit. I'd like to make a few points about Just War, before sticking my oar in (no doubt where it isn't wanted) about some of the more general points raised here - that will be in my next post.
It is possible to wage a "just war", but that will always be subjective. You have to convince yourselves that it is the just fight, because let's face it, you arn't going to convince the enemy are you? Today just war theory is used to justify war to democracies. In the Middle Ages, princes used just war theory to justify their fight to God. I could give you all a history lesson here about the Medieval use of war, but I'll spare you that for today!
So what do we mean by "just war theory"? The theory as it stands today gives seven determiners:
1) Legitimate Authority
2) Just Cause
3) Proportionality
4) Last Resort
5) Prospect of Success
6) Right Intention
7) Just Conduct
These are known as jus ad bellum - justifications for war. Number 7 also covers jus in bello - just conduct, what we would recognise as the rules of war (think Geneva, the Hague etc.).
So for a war to be just, it must first be sanctioned by legitimate authority. In the era of divine right, the LA was God. When the state took on its current sovereign form, LA became the state. It is often argued that post-1945, the UN forms the LA, and most of the time it does, but the State is still the major LA.
2 - Just Cause. This is the big grey area. Your cause must be just. Who decides that? Well, it's all subjective, and certainly not black and white enough to say that self-defence is always right. This is subject to the trends of the day. In the Cold War, fighting communism was "just" as far as the West was concerned. Today, it is spreading democracy. These are incompatible, given that the US toppled legitimately elected governments which were suspected of Communism, but they belong to different ages and were considered at least by some to be "just" in their time.
3 - Proportionality. You can have all the LA you need and the most just cause in the world, but if you act out of proportion, you are in the wrong. This too comes under jus in bello. Let's take an example. If the Falklands War of 1982 was just, which you may or may not believe but let's say it was for this, then that is great. But if the United Kingdom nuked Buenos Aires in the furtherance of her aim (taking the islands back), then it is no longer a just war.
4 - Last resort. War always kills a great deal of people who had no choice. You must have finished the jaw-jaw before you move to the war-war. And finished means actually trying, with the intention of preventing war, not just going through the motions until all your units are in position.
5 - Prospect of Success. A lot of people are going to get killed by beginning a war. If there is no reasonable chance of success, then this will be in vain and the war will have been unjust. Leading your country to certain doom for some sense of honour is not just.
6 - Right Intention. You must enter the war seeking to achieve the just aim. Iraq may have been just, but if Bush or Blair were thinking of oil, or of annexing Iraq, then this invalidates the justness even if their entourages were not thinking these thoughts. Similarly, if Falklands was just but the UK used it as a pretext to invade Argentina, the justness goes out the window.
7 - Just conduct. The laws of war must be adhered to. The USSR may have been justified in kicked Germany out in 1944, but the raping spree embarked upon by its soldiers once they crossed the border negates the justness under this framework.
So that's the modern framework. It is never black and white, even self-defence is not good enough to justify war in itself as a cover all disclaimer. I do believe that wars can be justified, and that this framework is of use to everyone from Christians to Atheists in trying to judge a war "just".
-
I have to applaud you, Cartwrightia, for an intelligent and worthwhile bit of input on the subject.
-
As I see it, what Cartwrighthia describes is indeed the terminology used by governments to decive it's populace in attempts at justifying the injustifiable crime of mass murder.
Thus, in my eyes, an offencive war is never truly justified, the numbers who support it doesn't matter. No human has the right to force anyone else's fate and one can't delegate any right one doesn't posess.
But I would like to know what could make organized self-defence unjust?
-
Thank you, Khablan.
But I would like to know what could make organized self-defence unjust?
Any of the 7 criteria could make it unjust. First of all, do you have a right to be where you are defending? If not, that will affect your just cause. The areas taken from Germany and given to Poland and Czechoslovakia after the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, had no right to be given to them except victor's justice. So, to my mind, Czech "self-defence" of their German plundered lands was unjust.
Proportionality. If your self-defence is disproportionate, you are unjust. Let's say that Sweden is a nuclear power, and is invaded by Russia. Russia gets to within 50 miles of Stockholm and are winning easily. Stockholm pushes the button and wipes Moscow off the face of this earth. Sweden = 9m people, Moscow alone = 10m. Sweden are in the wrong, even though they were invaded.
Likelyhood of success. Sweden is unlikely to succeed against the undivided might of Russia. However, they put up a fight anyway out of some sense of honour. That "honour" will get more people killed, since a bloodless invasion could have been allowed but instead, because of your "honour", you chose a shooting war.
Then there is jus in bello. In this hypothetical war, let's now say that the Swedes are not being steamrollered. They have won a few battles and are in control of territory still. In the last battle, a Swedish regiment took 100 prisoners. Understandably angry with these invaders, they line them up against the nearest stone wall and gun them down. And bang! There goes their justification.
Need I go on? War is never black and white.
-
I sure understand your sentiment and agrees with you on all but one point, the one of likelihood of success.
In the example you use, which isn't too unrealistic by the way, you say that it would be unjust for Sweden to take up arms against a Russian invasion that we have no hope to stop right, but from seeing how Russian troops conduct themselves in other theaters, we can pretty much assume that, provided the low population in Sweden, we, as a people would be more or less extinct if such an invasion succeeded. Would it still be wrong to make an as organized and determined last stand as possible so as many civilians as possible may escape south to Denmark and central Europe?
-
No it wouldn't be wrong, if "success" in this case is evacuation rather than repulse of the enemy. You'd still have to fulfil all the other categories while undertaking that stand, though.
-
By the way, does anyone here care whether a war - or any other action for that matter - is just?
-
What is just? no matter what you say, war is Just for one side, and un-just for the other.
An army cant fight if it doesnt believe what its fighting for is just. Trust me, im probably one of the very few people on this board who has had the misfortune of having to fight, and when your laying on the ground with someone spraying automatic rounds over your head, you dont care whether you should be there on not.
To decide wether a war is just or not, you have to look more deeply, you can argue for any war human-kind has ever had, was the alliance wrong for going into Iraq? well some say they were, for whatever reason, some say they are not? what difference does it make to the people of Iraq? none, it just means someone else is responsible for the countless deaths these people have to suffer. Vietnam, another prime example, should America of got involved? What give The US and UK governments the right to interfere in other nations doings, why are we so mighty? You can sit here and argue wether war is just or not, as long as you can sit here argue wether a glass is half-full or half-empty.
-
this guy is good to explain the self-defense issue. Could you apply that to people vs criminals instead of nations so that they see the self-defense issue you were explaining above? It's probably easier and will 'unjust' the killing of the criminal.
The crime is done, he must repay the society for his crime, money? jail? forced social work? why not just killing him?
Let's not forget most actions from people to self-defense are made before a crime has been commit. So the 'criminal' is actually innocent. I see a guy pointing me a gun, BANG i shoot him. "self-defense, self-defense!" he didn't even shot anyone, he's as guilty as you are. That's how i see it...
(omg i just moved a dead discussion to an active topic)
~Plus Hendrix says exactly what i think. Specially in wonder why do Americans think they are so mighty :p
-
There you go again, Delfos, stereotyping us. I personally don't think I'm any different, mightier, better or worse in any way, than anyone else in the world. So there goes another one of your theories of how Americans think.
By the way, does anyone here care whether a war - or any other action for that matter - is just?
I do. If people are dying, there had better be a darn good reason to make it necessary.
-
I think the oldest one is the best one. They pray to a different invisible man apart from the one you do.
-
So Hendrix was referring to him and his parents when he said 'we'? What's the matter with stereotyping? Most of the posts in this topic stereotype. What's so Taboo?
-
the government of any democratic society if a physical representation of the people it serves, it the government decides that that country is going to do something, then usually it is the will of the majority of the people, therefore, i stand by my recent comment, the US and the UK do believe they are higher and mightier than most countries, however we digress from the point, i still believe that all wars are just for one side, and un-just for the other.
-
the government of any democratic society if a physical representation of the people it serves, it the government decides that that country is going to do something, then usually it is the will of the majority of the people
Alright, let's analyze that. At every election, we are given two possible choices, neither of which are necessarily good. I personally know absolutely no one who didn't feel that they were voting for the lesser of two evils in the last few presidential elections. The one who wins is generally the one who can most successfully convince us that he will be the most accurate representation of the majority's opinions and morals, through rhetoric and manipulation. What he does once in office may be in complete opposition to what the majority would want, yet we're stuck with him for the next four years. Bush is a prime example.
So in essence, politicians are elected in the hopes that they will represent the majority but it does not necessarily follow that their actions will meet that goal.
-
its not a hope that political elections will represent the majority, they DO represent the majority, if 40%vote for A, 50% for B, and 10% third party, then the majority is B. Democracy by its very nature means that some people's votes will raise a winning party, and some people votes will not, otherwise there would be no need for democracy if everyone wanted the same thing.
-
if you do not agree with either choice, you can vote blank, or not vote at all. That's why there's those possibilities. If a large majority votes blank or doesn't vote at all in an election, the government/president (depending which election it is) can call for a delay, like another election in 6 months. This doesn't happen much because people tend to vote whether they like it or not. Voting in something you believe is better than the other is already good. Not voting at all is bad, because your person didn't elect anything. That's why that USA government does a bad role in UN when it refuses to come when Iran (for instance) is at discussion. If you ain't there, you do not have a word.
-
Actually, (and you Bush-haters should know this already) recently America's been voting by less than half the voting population (49%, i believe). So if you get 50% of 50%, than you're really only supported by a quarter of voters.
-
And that low voting percentage screws any democratic system over big time. Any election with less than 70% of the population participating should be void by default and result in automatic reelection,
-
but then a portion of the population could simply boycott any vote if they thought they would not win.
-
Hendrix, as a Brit I would have thought you know that the current government received fewer votes overall than the Tories last time around, but because of our system, Labour still won. Democracy in this country is not even a tyranny of the majority.
-
Politicians, they're all thieving bastards. I live in London, and all that the Livingstone has done is increase the bus fare to £2 and £10 odd to go into the city in your own car.
-
i don't hate Bush, i just don't like him. Or more likely, quoting Hugo Chavez, he's the devil. lol
-
wars can be just to give an example the republican fight against Franco during the Spanish civil war was a just fight (admittedly they cocked it up so badly (dam those pesky Stalinists)). World War Two was also a just fight to a certain point, its effect was good (end of Hitler and co) but the reasons for getting into it not so good (now if we'd gone in when they re-occupied the rhine land or took over austria or when they did chekislovakia (if you haven't noticed I can't spell worth a dam) then we'd have had a legal excuse to go and crush his lot).
most wars have definitely not been just fights, WWI, Kosovo, Iraq, Malaysia, Vietnam, Chechnya, Angola, Grenada, the iraq-iran war, the yugoslavian civil war, somalia, abysinia, afganistan (however many times its been now), etc, etc.
A just war is one that is fought for reasons other then the fact it benefits the rulers of the nations involved (obviously these have to be good reasons i.e. them being fascists or shelling over your border unprovoked something like that, rather then they have a resource you want or are doing something that disadvantages your nation economically)
The current Iraq war is a farce, Iraq had nothing to do with september the 11th attack and was a highly secular country (in fact osama bin ladin begged the US to let his forces attack saddam during the first gulf war) they didn't have WMD's (all the ones we had sold to them had gone off by this point and they wern't able to build their own) and their military had been screwed by the sanctions. The war was about oil (not for supply to the US directly but it still benefits those in control there) and now foreign oil companies are looting the oil wealth of Iraq (contracts now being agreed give profits of 60-99% compared to the normal level of 15%). Anyone who says that Iraq is about humanitarian intervention is either an ill informed idiot or a liar, sanctions and the actions of the occupying forces have killed many more Iraqis then sadam ever could have. Anyone who says that its to stop the Kurds or marsh arabs from being attacked is also ill informed or a liar as what sadam has done to them Turkey is doing just as bad over the border to the Kurds and the Armenians. To say its to stop sectarian violance why is it that it is mainly forces backed by the occupying forces that commit these acts and when local people form organisations to protect themselves they get attacked by coalition forces, there has even been direct evidence that coalition forces are directly fanning the flames of religious hatred (a number of british special forces soldiers wearing the garb of members of the mehdi army were arrested for possesing bomb making equipment by Iraqi police, after the first attempt to release them was prevented by the local inhabitants the army returned later that night and drove an IFV through the police station killing several police officers) also it must be noted that the mehdi army's leader muctader al sader (might have spelt that wrong I can't remember how its spelt so i've done in phenetically) has called for unity between the resistance to throw the occupying forces out to make Iraq a place for Iraqi's regardless of religion and that the mehdi army is now working with other resistance groups to drive out al quaida and the US (its ironic that the reason for this is the fact that the US locked up some high ups in various resistance groups together regardless of religion and so promoted this newfound unity).
In afganistan now people are flocking to the taliban on the grounds that they are standing up to the nato forces unlike almost all other groups in afganistan.
I hate Bush but I hate Kerry, Clinton and all the others, the democrats are just as bad as the republicans (as one person put it to me recently both of them are screwing us up the ass the only difference is the democrats use lube).
-
I actually like Clinton (the man), i think he was one of the best presidents USA ever had. Great that he didn't gave up and is now present in alot of important debates.
I think you should try O'Bama or how the hell he is called. He seems promising.
-
Well I'm a British socialist so even Nader seems at best center right to me. The democrats are about the position of the mainstream right wing party in Britain (and thats the left of the democrats). Also the democrats as a whole voted to support the war unconditionally (admittedly not most of their leadership candidates their not that stupid).
The best president of America that I know of is nixon but even he not that much.
-
At least Clinton was honest.
-
Not just honest, great president. NATO was used for it's actual propose instead of just an American accessory of war. (this just to be in-topic)
-
what that disaster in Kosovo?
The one where we stood back and bombed the hell out of everyone causing a teetering government widely despised to bounce back.
The one where we littered the area with huge amounts of depleted nuclear materials which we knew caused genetic defects and radiation poisoning in service men/woman and civilians in the area used on.
The one where with our precision weapons we managed to blow up the Chinese embassy.
The one where if it hadn't been for a British officer refusing his orders NATO forces would have engaged those of the Russian Federation and possibly caused war between the two powers armed with enough nuclear weapons to end all human life on this planet.
The one where there is still all these years later huge amounts of ethnic tensions which have if anything been only exacerbated by foreign involvement.
Yeah that was a great success
Add this to his huge funding for the idiotic war on drugs, faith based initiatives, cutting funding to those organizations which promote the use of condoms in areas of Africa where AIDS is a major problem, supporting death squads in various countries around the world, helping dictators who were friendly to the US, kowtowing to big business, continuing the bombing of Iraq while supporting sanctions that killed millions of Iraqi civilians......
Yeah great guy
-
Honest about being full of s***! ;D
-
I don't care what he does with cigars and interns its the rest that bothers me.
-
as i pointed to be in-topic, NATO was used to it's reason. Bombings were claimed as accidents. Not quite the same as in Afghanistan where they bomb entire villages with people in.
-
its quite similar its just that in afganistan you really can't say you were bombing tanks or whatever as there arn't any.
Also its less of a darling of the middle class left
-
if there's no tanks, why bombing at all?
-
yes what I'm saying is that during serbia the bombing was just as destructive of civilians if not more so, however in serbia they could say oh its a tragic accident we were aiming at the tanks and missed regardless of the truth and as the war was "a good war" people ignored it, in Afganistan its just more obvious what they are doing.
Prior to Britain being kicked out of Iraq it was decided that occupation with ground forces was too costly in manpower, so they came up with the concept of rule by aireal bombardment which meant that if you did anything the British didn't like we bombed you, late with taxes bombed, looked funny at a British official bombed, attacked a oil refinery bombed, talked out against British rule bombed, tried to unionize bombed
-
Clinton was honest? When? I must have missed that day. The man exuded falseness through every pore. And I mean right from campaigning for the election. Does anyone remember how hard they pushed the Kennedy similarities? Good Lord, they even had Hillary bake cookies and wear a headband to make her look the part of Jackie. They moved Kennedy's old desk back into the Oval Office so they could pose Clinton with it and use that as one more thing to compare the two. How obvious can manipulation be? Was it any surprise that Hillary ditched those headbands the minute her husband was elected? Clinton's just a politician like every other. He made good connections and learned how to walk the walk and talk the talk.
Reagan was popular too. The man wasn't even a president in any real sense other than the fact that he was elected to the office. His entire purpose was to be the "face" for the administration who really ran the show. How anyone actually bought into the "trickle-down theory" is beyond me. I was astounded when he was re-elected.
Kennedy was good. Carter was good but was thwarted on all domestic issues and so concentrated his efforts mainly on the international, and people have somehow forgotten all the good he did - they only remember what he wasn't able to do. Out of the presidents we've had since I was born, those were the ONLY two I'd say were any good at all.
And people wonder why the number of voters here have declined so much. Because either we vote for one of two very sucky candidates, or we throw our vote away. Sure, we can write in a candidate, or vote no to all the above, but one of the two are still going to win and we know it. So to many people, it isn't even worth getting up off the sofa.
-
And that is wrong, because you can let the worse one win. That's why when there's multiple candidates and there's a 2nd turn of 2 of them, all left supports the left candidate and all right supports the right one. I guess what USA needs is an election like in France. (However I'm not sure it's that effective when people that are supposed to be affected by social welfare voted for right wing, probably eluded)
Politicians can lie, but some lie too much ^^
-
A war against some wacko like Adolf is always just.
-
some say against USA
(rhymes and all)
-
Honestly, Delfos. What sort of comment was that? You remind me of a child who lights a bag of dog doo on the porch, rings the bell, and runs so they won't know who did it.
Just war my ass. Think. Who do wars kill? It would never touch Bush or the other politicians. It would kill a great many of our people, many of whom never had an opportunity to vote either for or against him. You don't like Bush. Neither do most of us, and WE are the ones you'd be killing.
-
Yes, and the people of Dresden was less innocent? Enough so that they deserved a carpet bombing 24/7 lasting for more than a week? (British bombers by night, American by day, both carrying a mix of high explosive, Magnesium rods Incendiaries and incendiaries with an early form of napalm, all fitted with a calculated mix of either impact or delayed fuses. The delayed bombs intended to kill and maim rescu personell and civilians looking for their missing loved ones in the rubble.
The thing with Dresden was also that it had neither military targets nor industrial targets of any significance.
The main victims of a war is ALWAYS the innocent! Thus making a war on a nutcase equally unjust as any other war of aggression. If the target is a single nutcase, espionage and assassination would be better by far!
-
War is just if the cause is right. Namely, eugenics, which, obviously, is always righteous from any point of view.
-
lol why getting like that, i like to state what people tend to forget, i never said i would like Americans killed (however i bet they will some day, keep avoiding a crash because it's your shield), can't you imagine that there's people hating Americans? Can't you imagine that they wouldn't think it would be a damn just war to start by dropping a pair of nukes in American soil?
I think there's people hating Portuguese, maybe the English because we won so much against them in football, or even Americans because I'm always poking their eyes lol
hey let's battle Hitler, let's battle Saddam, let's battle Bin Laden, let's battle Bismark, I'm sure there's another side of the coin willing to pull your teeth/nails/eyes out because of the whole suffering.
So, picking in what Emp was saying, the guys from Dresden would surely be qualified to make a just war on any ally. If you accept this 'payback' as a just war, then any middle eastern country could make a just war against the USA.
-
Yes, and the people of Dresden was less innocent? Enough so that they deserved a carpet bombing 24/7 lasting for more than a week? (British bombers by night, American by day, both carrying a mix of high explosive, Magnesium rods Incendiaries and incendiaries with an early form of napalm, all fitted with a calculated mix of either impact or delayed fuses. The delayed bombs intended to kill and maim rescu personell and civilians looking for their missing loved ones in the rubble.
The thing with Dresden was also that it had neither military targets nor industrial targets of any significance.
The main victims of a war is ALWAYS the innocent! Thus making a war on a nutcase equally unjust as any other war of aggression. If the target is a single nutcase, espionage and assassination would be better by far!
KR, you needn't tell me anything about the innocents since the entire family of my Grandfather was killed during such a bombing!
Though at times when EVIL is being aggressive the good ones need to act.
I am saying that acting against EVIL is justified and NOT the killing of INNOCENT people. DUH
-
Sure, but in this day, what is evil and what is good is completely open for debate. Especialy when it comes to the actions of the last 40 years of US and UK administrations, not to mention the actions of 1st world multinational corporations such as Chiquita and other foodstuff corporations that frequently can be classified as outright evil.
-
If the target is a single nutcase, espionage and assassination would be better by far!
We tried against Hitler. We failed. So we tried something else. Like, a full scale invasion.
-
Honestly, Delfos. What sort of comment was that? You remind me of a child who lights a bag of dog doo on the porch, rings the bell, and runs so they won't know who did it.
Just war my ass. Think. Who do wars kill? It would never touch Bush or the other politicians. It would kill a great many of our people, many of whom never had an opportunity to vote either for or against him. You don't like Bush. Neither do most of us, and WE are the ones you'd be killing.
Very much like Bush and the populations of US and UK not liking Saddam, so killing (or rather, creating the conditions necessary for them to be killed, mostly by each other) 100,000+ Iraqi civilians over 4 years.
-
^great point Cart. Continuing on that line, Khab, how large part of the Iraqi population do you think supported Saddam? And how many of them aren't dying each day due to the situation caused by the occupation?
-
i would dare to compare the numbers before and after the US invasion...
-
Get offa mama Khab. She was using that point to have Delfos stop pegging the US for our politicians.
-
While you as US citizens unilaterally reserve the right to pegg other nations for theirs? I think not!
-
not again...
When I say Portugal it's the name of the Portuguese nation. It doesn't represent people. Politicians/Presidents represent not only people, but also the nation they lead.
"Bush Invaded Iraq!" <-Possible, since he represents not only the American people but also 'rules' USA and US Army.
"USA Invaded Iraq!" <-I rather use this, because who ever actually invaded Iraq was representing USA.
Leading to: Colin Powell caring about what non-Americans think of USA. :clap: :clap: :clap:
I would also like to say that Khab had a great point when said something like voting in USA is the same has choosing between 2 devils. Get more presidents, vote in the greens, whatever. This time you will have more than 2 presidents, i hope Americans make a giant loop for mankind.
-
Clinton was honest? When? I must have missed that day. The man exuded falseness through every pore. And I mean right from campaigning for the election. Does anyone remember how hard they pushed the Kennedy similarities? Good Lord, they even had Hillary bake cookies and wear a headband to make her look the part of Jackie. They moved Kennedy's old desk back into the Oval Office so they could pose Clinton with it and use that as one more thing to compare the two. How obvious can manipulation be? Was it any surprise that Hillary ditched those headbands the minute her husband was elected? Clinton's just a politician like every other. He made good connections and learned how to walk the walk and talk the talk.
I agree with your general point, but you chose a very small example. Clinton characterized Ehud Barak's throwing of crumbs to the Palestinians as "the best deal they will ever get." He sold NAFTA on the basis that it would create jobs and stimulate the entire economy, when it in fact caused massive capital flight and only benefitted the largest corporations. He gave the impression in '92 that he'd fight to the death for health-care reform, and then acquiesced meekly to Gingrich and his anarcho-capitalist dittoheads in '94. Not to mention "welfare reform." I'm sure there's more, but I was less than ten years old during the Clinton administration, and don't remember much of it.
Reagan was popular too. The man wasn't even a president in any real sense other than the fact that he was elected to the office. His entire purpose was to be the "face" for the administration who really ran the show. How anyone actually bought into the "trickle-down theory" is beyond me. I was astounded when he was re-elected.
Remember, in the middle of Iran-Contra, how he went on TV and said "I don't believe that we traded arms for hostages, but the evidence tells me we did,"? *shudders*
Kennedy was good. Carter was good but was thwarted on all domestic issues and so concentrated his efforts mainly on the international, and people have somehow forgotten all the good he did - they only remember what he wasn't able to do. Out of the presidents we've had since I was born, those were the ONLY two I'd say were any good at all.
Kennedy wasn't good at all. He ordered the CIA to go ahead with its attack on Cuba. He was incredibly cautious on Civil Rights (he took actions to purge the militants out of the '63 March on Washington), he insisted on keeping missiles in Turkey, and he got us committed to Vietnam. Carter was, I agree, far better, but the reason he was defeated domestically was that he didn't have the fortitude to challenge the conservative-liberal consensus that dominated the Cold War.
And people wonder why the number of voters here have declined so much. Because either we vote for one of two very sucky candidates, or we throw our vote away. Sure, we can write in a candidate, or vote no to all the above, but one of the two are still going to win and we know it. So to many people, it isn't even worth getting up off the sofa.
That or Direct Action...
-
The main victims of a war is ALWAYS the innocent! Thus making a war on a nutcase equally unjust as any other war of aggression. If the target is a single nutcase, espionage and assassination would be better by far!
Very much like Bush and the populations of US and UK not liking Saddam, so killing (or rather, creating the conditions necessary for them to be killed, mostly by each other) 100,000+ Iraqi civilians over 4 years.
^great point Cart. Continuing on that line, Khab, how large part of the Iraqi population do you think supported Saddam? And how many of them aren't dying each day due to the situation caused by the occupation?
I think you're forgetting something here. I'm against our presence in Iraq, and also against such "gray area" wars in general. I agree with you both on all the above points. So you're targetting the wrong person.
While you as US citizens unilaterally reserve the right to pegg other nations for theirs? I think not!
Since when is it rational for -anyone- to blame the people for the actions certain politicians commit? I've been saying that all along. I'm not sure why you even said that, since from what I've been seeing in this forum, it hasn't been the Americans among us who were doing that. It particularly makes no sense to do so when the general sentiment among those people is against those actions. It's like yelling at the waitress because the chef didn't cook your steak properly.
Get more presidents, vote in the greens, whatever. This time you will have more than 2 presidents, i hope Americans make a giant loop for mankind.
One can always hope.
Kennedy wasn't good at all. He ordered the CIA to go ahead with its attack on Cuba. He was incredibly cautious on Civil Rights (he took actions to purge the militants out of the '63 March on Washington), he insisted on keeping missiles in Turkey, and he got us committed to Vietnam.
Kennedy was and is extremely popular among Americans. Truthfully, I was so small when he was in office that I don't have a great deal of personal knowledge regarding his presidency to draw from. Civil rights did progress a great deal under his leadership. As I recall, Cuba was a setup. I can't blame the man for that one. The Vietnam War started far before Kennedy took office, but he did increase the number of troops sent over by a large amount - the military bigwigs were insisting that they needed far more troops if they were to accomplish anything there. That could conceivably be considered equal to starting the war, since it in effect made it a great deal more serious. He was planning to end the war shortly after his assumed re-election, but was assassinated before that happened.
-
I am no mind reader, and so, Khab, I apologize for preaching to the choir.
My position is that there is no such thing as universaly justified wars, anyone who claims there is is deciving themselves and worse, trying to decive others.
EDIT:
Though at least one part of course have to belive they have the right to force their will on others by killing them or else there wouldn't be a war. What I am saying is thus that their reasoning is ALWAYS wrong in at least one way.
-
it's always good to state your point(s)
-
Kennedy was and is extremely popular among Americans.
Popularity is no measure of how a politician's policies actually effect his/her constituents. It is only a measure of how good his/her damage control team is, how honest he/she is able to appear. Kennedy derived his popularity from shamelessly touting the archetype of progress, appealing to young people even though he was in his forties, and having an attractive wife. His actual positions had very little to do with his popularity, much as Obama's actual positions have very little to do with his popularity.
Civil rights did progress a great deal under his leadership.
He did everything he could to derail civil rights. I refer you to Malcolm X: "It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the...white power structure in Washington D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capitol, they called in...these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them 'Call it off,' Kennedy said. 'Look, you all are letting this thing go too far.' And Old Tom said, 'Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it.' I'm telling you what they said. They said 'I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it.' They said, 'These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us.' And that shrewd old fox, he said, 'If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it.
...It was a takeover. They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown." Furthermore, Kennedy was far more cautious than Johnson when it came to appeasing the Southern democrats.
As I recall, Cuba was a setup. I can't blame the man for that one.
Well, if I may be blunt, you're wrong. It's quite true that the CIA had planned the coup during the Eisenhower administration, but Eisenhower had deliberately left it on his desk, untouched, for the next President. Kennedy was not locked into anything. It was his decision to make whether to invade Cuba or not, and he made it. Indeed, he took full responsibility for it on national television.
The Vietnam War started far before Kennedy took office, but he did increase the number of troops sent over by a large amount - the military bigwigs were insisting that they needed far more troops if they were to accomplish anything there. That could conceivably be considered equal to starting the war, since it in effect made it a great deal more serious. He was planning to end the war shortly after his assumed re-election, but was assassinated before that happened.
Way to make my point. Kennedy escalated the war far beyond any levels that Eisenhower had contemplated. And the buck cannot be passed to the "military bigwigs." Kennedy was perfectly free to make any choice he wanted to, unrestricted by a compliant Congress and in the absence of a War Powers Act. As with Cuba, the decision to escalate in Vietnam can be laid entirely at Kennedy's feet. As for the plans to end the war after his re-election, the documentation for that is flimsy at best, and promises meant to be kept after elections are, as we have seen many times, easily broken.
-
a man I admire very much once said "we have what few things we have because we fought for them, the moment we stop fighting is the moment they take them away again"
-
So, we're fighting against the course of nature? Do we really need those few things, then?
-
the few things that were being referred to are things like:
-Free at point of delivery health care
-free at point of delivery education
-the right to have a union
-anti child labour laws
-the minimum wage
-industrial safety laws
-laws protecting workers from unfair dismissal
-laws protecting tenants from landlords
-food adulteration laws
Things like that
To me they are worth fighting for
And we are not going against nature we're going against the greed of people who already have more then they can use for the good of those who have none
-
Ah, but what if those stopped fighting as well?
-
that reminds me of Cuba LLANYDERN, and they did fought for them, but i only see peace there, and repression from USA.
-
I am no mind reader, and so, Khab, I apologize for preaching to the choir.
My position is that there is no such thing as universaly justified wars, anyone who claims there is is deciving themselves and worse, trying to decive others.
No offense taken, Empire, and no need to apologize. And you're right, of course, both sides in any war think they're right, or they wouldn't engage in it. They all see the "truth" from their own unique standpoints.
Popularity is no measure of how a politician's policies actually effect his/her constituents. It is only a measure of how good his/her damage control team is, how honest he/she is able to appear.
Absolutely. The fact that Reagan was a popular president rather proves that point on its own. It's all about how good the PR team is, and how good the politician is at being charismatic and manipulative. I wasn't trying to say that Kennedy was a good president because he was popular - I was just mentioning it as a side fact.
And I wasn't trying to argue your point about Vietnam. That's why I wrote the following...That could conceivably be considered equal to starting the war, since it in effect made it a great deal more serious.
Perhaps I just wasn't being clear. I was really just relating what I remembered from his administration, which was when I was quite small. As far as that goes, you may be right, and Kennedy may not have been as good a president as people credit him.
And we are not going against nature we're going against the greed of people who already have more then they can use for the good of those who have none
Ah, but what if those stopped fighting as well?
Then we would not have to fight for it, because they would no longer be trying to take it away. Unless that happens, then we will fight, for ourselves, for our children, and for our children's children.
-
and it's for our children's children we're building renewable power source centrals, like huge wind turbine fields, bio-diesel and stuff like that.
-
So, we're fighting against the course of nature? Do we really need those few things, then?
Define "the course of nature" please. If you mean that we're fighting against self-interested human nature, I have one phrase for you. Prove it.
Prove that greed, self-interest, competition, is natural, rather than created. Trouble is, now that you've brought the topic up, you have the burden of proof. Good luck :trout:
-Free at point of delivery health care-free at point of delivery education
-the right to have a union
-anti child labour laws
-the minimum wage
-industrial safety laws
-laws protecting workers from unfair dismissal
-laws protecting tenants from landlords
-food adulteration laws
Things that are being taken away, have been taken away, or that we have never had are crossed out. So basically, we've got education and the minimum wage. We're fucked.
-
Entropy.
-
The word "entropy" is a synonym for chaos, and has little to do with self-interest. Furthermore, entropy and its sister concept the uncertainty principle, operate on the level of quantum mechanics, and are thus hardly applicable to human affairs, which conduct themselves on a Newtonian rather than a Planckian scale. To further demonstrate the fallacy of your argument, I would state that entropy is a concept of the physical sciences and relates to particles, and does not have bearing on the social sciences, or relations between human beings.
Try again. This is fun.
-
still words can be used in writing to mean different things, like using homologue that means that 2 objects are similar or the same or in the same rank (if I'm not mistaken), and is used to compare people in the same rank.