The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: LC EFA on January 26, 2009, 06:16:47 PM
-
The primitives ability to ignore their own hypocrisy is astonishing.
JeffreyWilliamson Donating Member (704 posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:34 PM
Original message
Is there EVER a valid reason for a country to go to war?
This spirited conversation got me wondering, aside from a country being directly attacked by another, is there ever valid justification for a nation to go to war?
The rise of a global menace like Hitler? Brutal human rights violations and war crimes, such as the Holocaust? Neither of these situations involved the US being attacked by the Germans but I doubt anyone would seriously say that stopping the Nazis was wrong. If we had not been attacked by the Japanese, would it have become immoral for us to join that war, or would it always have been immoral for us to sit it out?
What about the American Revolution? Our people were oppressed to a degree, but nothing like we have seen in modern times. Was it wrong for the States to wage war on the British, or was it a nobel cause?
If terrorists operating under the support of one nation attack another, is the attacked nation justified in moving against the government sponsor?
Is there ever any situation where it becomes immoral to NOT stand up and do something, even if a nation has not personally been attacked, (the Holocaust example)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8142605
Over to your fellow inmates for discussion ...
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. yes
anyone who thinks war can always be avoided is naive. This doesn't mean it should be the first option though.
Just how many "options" did we give Saddam in the "race to war" again ?
Posteritatis (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. It should definitely be at/near the bottom of the options pile
(Short of a direct attack on a country or its allies, of course.)
It's too complicated an issue to just boil down to one universal answer from on high saying "no," not that there won't be a lot of that. I think it can be avoided a hell of a lot more often than it has been the last several decades, but I'm also a fan of R2P and don't believe there are situations that trump "I can do whatever I want to 'my' people in my borders." There's some governments on this planet which are simply an obscenity, as the Taliban were, and just like at the sub-national level there are going to be times occasionally where violence is the "best," or perhaps only, option to remedy or get clear of a situation.
Others will disagree, of course; I've always remembered a 'great' thread on here a few years ago where a few people were saying that the US should've stopped the Pacific offensive in WWII the moment the Battle of Midway was won. Takes all kinds, I guess.
It doesn't seem to be too complicated for many of your fellow inmates. Provided a Republican is in power the answer is "NO".
I wonder if we're going to continue to see acres of those ghastly "no war" posters that seem to pop up at leftist gatherings.
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Direct attack is the only reason I can think of
Anything else is at best a slippery slope, at worst a crime.
A direct attack. You mean like the direct attack on 9/11 ?
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Once again, he was appeased early on, which allowed him to march
But given that our allies were directly attacked, I believe this would still fall under my original conditions.
For example, if Canada or Mexico were directly attacked, I would support helping them defend themselves, in our own interests.
You have to read the thread to actually see that he's not talking about OBL and Al-Q.
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. In modern times, only if there is genocide going on
Going after Al Qaeda may seem justified, but "war" as a means of doing it doesn't seem quite right, IMO.
What are you suggesting ? That you can sit down with these people and negotiate with them? Are you insane ?
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. When it can accomplish certain clearly defined, historically, & mutually shared goals and when those
who fight have historically been and currently are Free/Aware enough to make fully informed decisions about any and all alternatives, past, present, and future.
Drugs. You are on them.
-
Come on now DUchebags.
The only valid reason for going to war is if a democrat president says so.
-
This statement by the OP mystifies me . . .
What about the American Revolution? Our people were oppressed to a degree, but nothing like we have seen in modern times.
Care to elaborate, DUmb****? As in, actual instances of "oppression?"
-
This statement by the OP mystifies me . . .
Care to elaborate, DUmb****? As in, actual instances of "oppression?"
Well he's true, but not quite in the way he thinks. The whole taxation without representation thing... well the colonials where paying a fraction of the taxes that we pay today WITH representation (and we know who to thank for that).
-
I wonder if we're going to continue to see acres of those ghastly "no war" posters that seem to pop up at leftist gatherings.
First, you're going to have to have leftist gatherings to protest the war, and I'm just not seeing that on the horizon with a Dem as prez. I'll put it this way; if A.N.S.W.E.R. or any other kook group does have one, you'll see the majority of the DUmmies not happy about it.
.
-
Just how many "options" did we give Saddam in the "race to war" again ?
About 12 years worth.
-
This statement by the OP mystifies me . . .
Care to elaborate, DUmb****? As in, actual instances of "oppression?"
Kind of puzzled by that DUmmie's turn of phrase, too. I wasn't sure if the DUmmie meant US people in modern times (ridiculously stupid comparison if so) or other instances of oppression in modern times that led to revolt (Rumania, The Easter Rising, Cuba, etc. which makes a lot more sense in one way but seems more of a reach).
-
This statement by the OP mystifies me . . .
Care to elaborate, DUmb****? As in, actual instances of "oppression?"
I wonder if he is alluding to their great obsession that they (DUmmies) are oppressed in this country by evil Republicans and corporations.
Everything always has to be about them and their woes in life.
-
This statement by the OP mystifies me . . .
Care to elaborate, DUmb****? As in, actual instances of "oppression?"
It just exemplifies the inability of many over there to place history in context. During revolutionary war times there were debtor prisons, people could be put into slavery for a period of usually 7 years to pay back their passage to the US(how would the DUmmies like it if their trip 'home' to the 'motherland of gold' that is Europe or Canada cost them 7 years in servitude to the individual paying it to pay it off), inidivuals actually were enslaved and even civilized nations thought this a viable use of human resources, your home could be confiscated at the will of a monarch, etc. But yes, I suppose not having access to 'free' healthcare is so so much worse as one amplifies any health issue while they sit at their Playstation or computer that was bought with their EITC. ****ing idiots.
-
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
-
Amazing how these morons think that going to war is somehow the first option and never taken off the table.
DUmmies? The difference between you and me is simple in this instance. I see war only as a last resort. You see it as a never resort. THIS is why you're going to get your asses handed to you every single time.
-
Amazing how these morons think that going to war is somehow the first option and never taken off the table.
DUmmies? The difference between you and me is simple in this instance. I see war only as a last resort. You see it as a never resort. THIS is why you're going to get your asses handed to you every single time.
I was thinking that too, NH. They have this lazy misperception that those of us here on the right think it is a FIRST option when that is further from the truth. That said, many of us recognize a simple fact that is true for children when they misbehave in a very outrageous and dangerous manner and a terrorist: you act in a swift and decisive manner to send a message that it will not be tolerated. The bottom line is what was said in this thread already: these people only think it is justified when they like who is in office. So far, I have not seen that here: for the most part if an action is justified by the aggression of a foreign country, conservatives support the effort of ANY sitting president--this makes liberals insanely political and as has always been said a danger to the country and its people. They politicize everything and its the reason Obama gets his ass handed to him(at least by conservatives) for daring to talk of politicizing anything.
Protecting one's borders from aggression and terrorism is NOT a political issue DUmmies. I wonder if they were protecting their own lives from a terrorist act if they ask themselves if Obama would approve this message? :whatever:
-
"Fight the unbelievers until all summit to the will of Allah"......sounds like a good enough reason to me.
-
I guess that little spat we had with King George way back in the late 1700's was wrong too then eh asshats?
-
Well he's true, but not quite in the way he thinks. The whole taxation without representation thing... well the colonials where paying a fraction of the taxes that we pay today WITH representation (and we know who to thank for that).
Slight correction - in today's America everyone is represented, but not everyone pays taxes.
"Taxation if and only if representation." The founders only got it half right.
-
Hey East, who the hell did you piss off to get 19 bitchslaps and only 21 Hi5's? Are you trying to compete with Freedumb or something? :-)