Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Killing Civilians & Obselesence of War

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

    Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
    It is a revision of history based on new evidence uncovered. The conclusion isn't without merit, even if it isn't held by (I think) the majority of the historical community.
    The last word I heard on it was the japanese military would have fought until the last man, and if not for the emperor, that is exactly what would have happened. I think that is the fact of the matter. If you only look at the way the Japs fought that war towards the end, I think this is obvious.

    The use of nukes ended up saving countless american lives, and for that I am thankful. If Japan would have had nukes, they would have tried to destroy us, let us never forget that.

    None of us here were ever in a world war, and a war that we had no idea how it would turn out. We judge from a safe easy chairs, second guessing. That is so easy to do. Just be thankful you can do that, instead of speaking german or japanese today.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #62
      Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
      ahoy Thorhammer,

      aye me bucko, i knew what ye were gettin' at. imma just suggestin' that i'd guess that folk who be fightin' at the directive 'o thar betters (but who really have no emotional stake in the conflict) might find that folks who feel they be fightin' fer thar own homeland...fer thar brothers and sisters....fer thar god, might fight in a different manner, especially considerin' the tools they have at thar disposal.

      - from pg 73,74 "The Choice", by Bob Woodward

      yarrr!

      - MeadHalPirate
      True words, indeed. This is where a strong esprit de corps is invaluable, IMO. Your enemy may be fighting hard because you are in their country, and they may feel their families and even their religion is at stake. However, you are fighting just as hard because the unit you are a part of has a tradition of fighting hard, going the distance, and never quitting. You will not be the one to let that tradition die.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #63
        Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

        Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
        ahoy Thorhammer,

        mmmm.

        *drinks his mornin' coffee and chews on a piece 'o hard tack*

        the "creed" 'o the west, it seems to me, be fueled by business interests. i mean, i seriously doubt we'd have such a robust military commitment to the middle east if the only thing under the sand thar was more sand.

        the "creed" 'o AQ seems to be mostly based in two idears: self determination (as in, get the west outta the middle east) thats steeped in religeous justification.

        i don't know which be more honorable, nor can i say fer sure which sensibility would lead to greater barbarism.

        aye.

        - MeadHallPirate
        Well, my perception is the american military is used by business interests, the very powerful interests, while we hide this as best we can. And these business interests create enemies, and their military takes care of it. And it's a volunteer military, which aids this, because afterall they volunteered! Parents won't be raising as much hell with their congressmen because they were not drafted and forced to serve, they did it on their own. Business has to have an all volunteer military. It allows them to continue with their activities with the less friction possible.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #64
          Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          The last word I heard on it was the japanese military would have fought until the last man, and if not for the emperor, that is exactly what would have happened. I think that is the fact of the matter. If you only look at the way the Japs fought that war towards the end, I think this is obvious.

          The use of nukes ended up saving countless american lives, and for that I am thankful. If Japan would have had nukes, they would have tried to destroy us, let us never forget that.

          None of us here were ever in a world war, and a war that we had no idea how it would turn out. We judge from a safe easy chairs, second guessing. That is so easy to do. Just be thankful you can do that, instead of speaking german or japanese today.
          Who is second guessing?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #65
            Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

            Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
            Who is second guessing?
            Not me, I was going with the original thoughts on using the nukes. Second guessing are the ones who question the use of such.

            I was only making an observation on the second guessing, while maintaining the original decision was the right one. I think you may have fell for the same thing this guy fell for...

            There was a young man who said though.
            It seems that I know, that I know.
            But what I'd like to see
            Is the "I' that know me
            When I know, that I know, that I know!

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #66
              Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

              Originally posted by Damn Yankee View Post
              A re-write of history...
              Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
              It is a revision of history based on new evidence uncovered. The conclusion isn't without merit, even if it isn't held by (I think) the majority of the historical community.
              Thank you.

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              The last word I heard on it was the japanese military would have fought until the last man, and if not for the emperor, that is exactly what would have happened. I think that is the fact of the matter. If you only look at the way the Japs fought that war towards the end, I think this is obvious.

              The use of nukes ended up saving countless american lives, and for that I am thankful. If Japan would have had nukes, they would have tried to destroy us, let us never forget that.

              None of us here were ever in a world war, and a war that we had no idea how it would turn out. We judge from a safe easy chairs, second guessing. That is so easy to do. Just be thankful you can do that, instead of speaking german or japanese today.
              OK...I did NOT write that to say we should not have dropped the bombs but only to support my thesis that terror against civilians is counterproductive in a war. The Japanese lost more people in the fire bombing of Tokyo than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki but all reports are that it never made the people even think of surrendering, let alone demand it; and some of the military tried to overthrow the Emperor (or send him into "retirement" as they had done before sometimes centuries ago) to keep him from surrendering even AFTER the Abombs AND Russia's entry..So I maintain we're BOTH right. The bombs were necessary but the bombs alone would not have done it, and might have made it worse just by themselves.

              Let me put it another way. How did you feel after 9/11? Were you deathly afraid of these terrible arabs who were capable of such horrible things, or were you mad as hell and not about to take it any more? I am a devout member of the First Church of the Compleat Coward and even I was ready to enlist that day. (Our military would have found me far too old and utterly unqualified for any purpose entirely, another reason I often praise their wisdom at their craft, if not philosophy)
              Last edited by John Drake; 07-03-2012, 09:02 AM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #67
                Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                I was only making an observation on the second guessing, while maintaining the original decision was the right one. I think you may have fell for the same thing this guy fell for...
                No one was second guessing the decision.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #68
                  Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                  Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
                  No one was second guessing the decision.
                  I could have sworn the decision of using the atom bomb on japan, and how it was not needed, was the second guess! Ok, nevermind.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #69
                    Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
                    Thank you.



                    OK...I did NOT write that to say we should not have dropped the bombs but only to support my thesis that terror against civilians is counterproductive in a war. The Japanese lost more people in the fire bombing of Tokyo than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki but all reports are that it never made the people even think of surrendering, let alone demand it; and some of the military tried to overthrow the Emperor (or send him into "retirement" as they had done before sometimes centuries ago) to keep him from surrendering even AFTER the Abombs AND Russia's entry..So I maintain we're BOTH right. The bombs were necessary but the bombs alone would not have done it, and might have made it worse just by themselves.

                    Let me put it another way. How did you feel after 9/11? Were you deathly afraid of these terrible arabs who were capable of such horrible things, or were you mad as hell and not about to take it any more? I am a devout member of the First Church of the Compleat Coward and even I was ready to enlist that day. (Our military would have found me far too old and utterly unqualified for any purpose entirely, another reason I often praise their wisdom at their craft, if not philosophy)
                    Oh, I reacted to 9-11 like most americans. Shocked, and then angry about the attack. And wanted to personally kill every AQ member in the world. But that wore off, the personal deal. But I wanted the US to eradicate this threat, and to go after that in full force. Then I saw us going into Iraq!!! WTF???? I saw us trust a tribe of Afghans, when we should have known enough of that culture not to trust them, and we allowed them, to allow OBL to escape into Pakistan.

                    Then I came to my senses and realized after learning more about the M. E. and our presence and meddling there, that we brought this upon ourselves. The radicals did not come to hate us in a vacuum. We had done the things that caused this attack, and as long as we meddle in other areas, for our special interests, this sort of thing will continue. I then discovered that Ron Paul believed the same thing.

                    America would not tolerate the same things we have done over the years, if it were done to us. And that is the foundation of my own personal beliefs on foreign policy. We need to recognize the law of cause/effect. And if we don't want the effect, by all means do not commit the cause.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #70
                      Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      Oh, I reacted to 9-11 like most americans. Shocked, and then angry about the attack. And wanted to personally kill every AQ member in the world. But that wore off, the personal deal. But I wanted the US to eradicate this threat, and to go after that in full force. Then I saw us going into Iraq!!! WTF???? I saw us trust a tribe of Afghans, when we should have known enough of that culture not to trust them, and we allowed them, to allow OBL to escape into Pakistan.

                      Then I came to my senses and realized after learning more about the M. E. and our presence and meddling there, that we brought this upon ourselves. The radicals did not come to hate us in a vacuum. We had done the things that caused this attack, and as long as we meddle in other areas, for our special interests, this sort of thing will continue. I then discovered that Ron Paul believed the same thing.

                      America would not tolerate the same things we have done over the years, if it were done to us. And that is the foundation of my own personal beliefs on foreign policy. We need to recognize the law of cause/effect. And if we don't want the effect, by all means do not commit the cause.
                      It's REALLY hard to make an analogy here, but let me try...Let's say along about 2030 our present Depression is still going on. We are really a true basket case of a country compared to our former selves...Now suddenly, the Mexicans (who have done really well since 2012 and Romney's election) decide that it's time to re-establish Aztlan and begin massing troops along Texas, CA, Arizona and NM, then they actually take Arizona...but suddenly, out of the blue, a resurgent Canada, now the Greatest Power, sends troops to Texas and uses them to kick our brethren south of the border, south of the border.

                      Do you REALLY think the Koch Brothers would be even SLIGHTLY justified in blowing up the Toronto Needle because the Canadians dared to put troops near sacred Amarillo ? :rolleyes:
                      Last edited by John Drake; 07-03-2012, 04:32 PM.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #71
                        Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                        Originally posted by John Drake View Post
                        It's REALLY hard to make an analogy here, but let me try...Let's say along about 2030 our present Depression is still going on. We are really a true basket case of a country compared to our former selves...Now suddenly, the Mexicans (who have done really well since 2012 and Romney's election) decide that it's time to re-establish Aztlan and begin massing troops along Texas, CA, Arizona and NM, then they actually take Arizona...but suddenly, out of the blue, a resurgent Canada, now the Greatest Power, sends troops to Texas and uses them to kick our brethren south of the border, south of the border.

                        Do you REALLY think the Koch Brothers would be even SLIGHTLY justified in blowing up the Toronto Needle because the Canadians dared to put troops near sacred Amarillo ? :rolleyes:
                        Only justified if the Kochs were Jewish, the Canadians were Nazis and Amarillo was held to be sacred, and the Jews were as rabidly religious as the muslims. Now, I might not understand the feelings of justification, not being jewish or muslim, or religious in the usual sense, but those Koch brothers in this case obviously felt the justification. If the Canadians would have taken the time to know the situation, they would have never invaded to begin with. They aren't like americans in this respect. Thank God.

                        Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you would solve a lot of problems that tend to be violent in nature and very dangerous for human life. This rule recognized the great irrefutable power of human egos, and how to minimize the chaos that arises from the clash of egos. People have a habit of dying in great numbers the farther you move away from this very old rule of conduct. Odd, isn't it?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #72
                          Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                          Originally posted by John Drake
                          Well, were I resident of a country very likely to be invaded by a very unpleasant dictator who had just invaded my bordering ally and was now threatening me I would certainly not kill 3000 random people from the country that made him leave my ally and stop threatening me, and after al Qaeda did just that we killed nearly all of them, so I guess you're right.

                          Seriously, do you think the Kuwaitis would have been better off under Saddam? Because that WAS why we invaded Iraq the first time and the troops we brought into Saudi THEN were the ones that made Osama so angry.
                          No, I do not think Kuwait would have been better under Saddam. I also do not think it was any of our business what these arabs were doing in their part of the world. I wonder just what sort of business interests some of our elites had in Kuwait?

                          If you will recall, Kuwait was side drilliing, stealing Iraqui oil. I don't think Saddam liked that shit. He put out diplomatic feelers, testing the waters on what america would do if he invaded Kuwait, to teach em a lesson about stealing his oil by taking all of their oil. He wasn't an idiot. When he got no negetive responses from american diplomats he took that as a green light. Afterall, america had given him help in his war with Iran. I am sure our diplomats drank brandy and smoke cuban cigars with him on many occassions.

                          Once he made the move, we forgot about the feelers he had put out to test the american waters. Apparently some corporation had great business interests in Kuwait.

                          Bush Sr refused to take the fight to bagdad, because as it was said in the press of that day, America does not invade sovereign nations and remove its leader. And that was american policy until the neocons came into power vis a vis Bush Jr. They already had laid out the plans for the subjugation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. All they needed was a reason to launch this grand plan of reformulating the middle east. 9-11 was used for that justification, and of course the make believe yellow cake uranium fiasco, the supposed horrible intel from the Brits. All very convenient.

                          America used to be the light unto the less free world. These days we have fewer people looking to that light and more in fear that we might invade them next if they do something not condusive to corporate interests. And in doing this, we are creating future conflicts. We are giving other people reasons to hate america, who interferes not for noble reasons but for corporate interests. If the nation mean little to business interests, like Rwanda, let the genocide begin! You can bet your ass if we had elites with business interests there, there is no telling how many american lives would have been lost as we sent our powerful military there in force.

                          I believe the US should leave the world alone, stop the meddling and grant to other nations the same thing we want granted to us. That is, to keep their noses out of our business. If another nation wants our help to combat an aggression that should go before congress and let them do their duty and decide.

                          We should set the example of non aggression, to build bridges instead of bombs, and to herald the virtues of democratic forms of gov't. That would make the world a much better place than the one we have created and perpetrated by our incessant meddling and pushing ourselves upon different cultures as corporate interests dictate.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #73
                            Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            No, I do not think Kuwait would have been better under Saddam. I also do not think it was any of our business what these arabs were doing in their part of the world. I wonder just what sort of business interests some of our elites had in Kuwait?

                            If you will recall, Kuwait was side drilliing, stealing Iraqui oil. I don't think Saddam liked that shit. He put out diplomatic feelers, testing the waters on what america would do if he invaded Kuwait, to teach em a lesson about stealing his oil by taking all of their oil. He wasn't an idiot. When he got no negetive responses from american diplomats he took that as a green light. Afterall, america had given him help in his war with Iran. I am sure our diplomats drank brandy and smoke cuban cigars with him on many occassions.

                            Once he made the move, we forgot about the feelers he had put out to test the american waters. Apparently some corporation had great business interests in Kuwait.

                            Bush Sr refused to take the fight to bagdad, because as it was said in the press of that day, America does not invade sovereign nations and remove its leader. And that was american policy until the neocons came into power vis a vis Bush Jr. They already had laid out the plans for the subjugation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. All they needed was a reason to launch this grand plan of reformulating the middle east. 9-11 was used for that justification, and of course the make believe yellow cake uranium fiasco, the supposed horrible intel from the Brits. All very convenient.

                            America used to be the light unto the less free world. These days we have fewer people looking to that light and more in fear that we might invade them next if they do something not condusive to corporate interests. And in doing this, we are creating future conflicts. We are giving other people reasons to hate america, who interferes not for noble reasons but for corporate interests. If the nation mean little to business interests, like Rwanda, let the genocide begin! You can bet your ass if we had elites with business interests there, there is no telling how many american lives would have been lost as we sent our powerful military there in force.

                            I believe the US should leave the world alone, stop the meddling and grant to other nations the same thing we want granted to us. That is, to keep their noses out of our business. If another nation wants our help to combat an aggression that should go before congress and let them do their duty and decide.

                            We should set the example of non aggression, to build bridges instead of bombs, and to herald the virtues of democratic forms of gov't. That would make the world a much better place than the one we have created and perpetrated by our incessant meddling and pushing ourselves upon different cultures as corporate interests dictate.

                            Well... the policy of regime change was common, long before the "evil neocons" came to Washington. Or what do you think der US tried in the Korean war with the North? And there is also a long list of coup d`etats wich were promoted by the CIA. Chile comes in Mind. Think about Reagans Contras in Nicaragua or Clintions bombing raid in Belgrade, which also leads in regime change. But i think that most of these actions were justified and made the World a little bit better.

                            Or what du you think would have happend, in the US didn`t intervene in Kuwait? The US would have lost influence and friedly states would have questioned the reliability of the US as a partner.Maybe other states would come to the conclusion, that they can possibly invade weaker neighbours without fear of consequences.
                            And to be sure: The nonintervention in Ruanda was one of the biggest political and humanitarian mistakes. And non aggression is no virtue in times of genocide and massmurder. And i think that the Bosnian people would agree.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #74
                              Re: Killing Civilians &amp; Obselesence of War

                              Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                              ...recognize war is the worst of big government programs. We, the little guys, pay for it, with our treasure and our lives. Thoughts?
                              If you have studied history you will find that small governments, tribes or clans, are the worst offenders. The current age, since WWII, has been remarkably war free.

                              But "we" are not all "little guys". Within the democracies, decisions to go to war take a lot of time and discussion. From mid-2002 until March of 2003, the US debated and discussed going into Iraq. And we were all part of the discussion.

                              Do not expect the UN to solve anything. Nearly 40% of the members are autocracies, nations whose foreign policy, and choice to go to war, are decided based on the personal whim of an autocrat. Russia is returning to this group and is a growing danger. China remains a significant danger.

                              But war is useful. War is responsible for removing more evil than any other method. Evil doesn't "go way", doen't negotiate itself out of a job. Most often, it has to be killed, and that requires the "little guy" to stand up and be a "big man" and go to war.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X