Dog tags glorify war (?)

what's wrong with simple?

 

Accusing you of not thinking. hmmmm. Must be joking, because that's..... BULLSHIT!!!!

 

That remark was for the "peanut gallery"

 

There should be an investigation, and if they did it, they and their command should be treated like criminals.

 

Lauging out loud to your own joke eh? I guess since no one else laughed.

And incedintly, you should check your facts before you state them. I never said Iraq begged us to go over there, but if you want to get technical, yes, there were many people in Iraq, particulary in Kurdish regions of Iraq who begged us to intervene through the 90's.

If you'd like to educate yourself, feel free.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345469399/103-0045241-9274260?v=glance&n=283155

http://www.kdp.pp.se/

http://www.krg.org/

That doesn't mean we should have gone into Iraq, but they are a highly targeted ethnicity without a state that have been violently oppresed in Iraq, Iran and Syria, and to a much lesser extent Turkey.

If Iraq was all about oil, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead? We get much more oil from Nigeria the Saudi Arabia, so it's not like we couldn't have done it.

Maybe we're not as war hungry as you insist. And we're not getting much oil out of Iraq, who's oil was cheaper to US during oil for food. Oil for food was piracy though.

I'm not saying Iraq was the right thing to do because I don't think it was, but yes child, war for oil is a profound oversimplification of a complex issue.

 

hey dad explain it any way you want but it was a complex decision made by a simple man.Now if you'd quit being so condescending and get your ass out of your books and looked at the real world,maybe,just maybe,you'd get a clue.The answer is always simple it's getting there thats complex.Wading through all tha bullshit and excuses to kill people.

 

well... as long as there was an investigation...the buck stops where?

 

peanutsss...PEANUTS FOR SALE...peanutsss...

 

who decides who's innocent or who get's killed.are we that much more moral that we have the right?if so why don't doctors have that right .they could pick and chose among us.No more name calling or bullying or hoarding Monopoly dollars,our moral society will simply bomb these people into submission or at least kill them.Things are black and white when you have a gun to your head.

 

The innocent ones aren't involved in genocide.

So does that make us innocent for fighting to protect the innocent? No.

But we do have the vision of whats right and wrong. That vision was very clearly defined by the UN under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Genocide is never acceptable.

War to prevent genocide is.

Our society has lots of peoblems that the world can criticise. I never said our society was perfect, but It is much fucking better then a genocide.

 

The answer is only simple if you have a childish look at politics. I can find killing Ba'athists excusable if it's for the sake of the rest of Iraq.

not wanting to get involved in foreign affiars is simple, but the world we live in makes that inexcusable from a moral standpoint.

Your version of the real world comes maybe from turning on the news every now and then. Unless you've ever escaped from a genocide I'd like to see how you claim to be more wordly on the topic then I.

Hopefully I'm going to the UAE next year, and that will give me more perspective, because I want that. You're politics, seem to be a few picket signs copy and pasted together.

I can totally understand anyone deciding not to go to war, although only if their really educated about the isssue, and not just perpetuating 'blood for oil'.

I can also see someone deciding that war was the best alternative. The UN had Iraq cornered, and instead of defending the people, it let their leader stay as long as he strangled his people for oil. Iraq sanctions we're blood for oil.

I have decided that perhaps an alternative other then a full scale invasion could have been reached, so I don't think Iraq was the best option.

That wouldn't have been through the UN either though, because the security council leaders France, China, and Russia, were content strangling the nation and collecting while they left a genocidal madman as De Facto leader.

 

so to stop genocide we comit genocide on the otherside?Genocide goes back and forth.We have two groups battling each other.Have you ever stepped in on a fight?One guys beating the other to a pulp.You pull him off and hold him back.In the mean time the second guy gets up off the ground and starts punching the first guy that you're holding.Then the first guy hits you and what do you do.Hit him back.All you've done is esculated it,when a water hose would have worked much better.

 

Genocide has a very strict definition. It's also defined in the Genocide Convention. Nothing the US has done in Iraq resembles genocide, and you're just using that word in sensationalistic tone.

You also used a bad analogy to a school fight, which genocide is not. I'm a semi-pro boran fighter and boxer, and you're comparison of a school kid brawl to genocide shows how little persepctive you have.

 

i guess you being a semi pro makes you an expert on the subject of human nature.Genecide is wiping out a race or in this case a religion.Why is that somehow worse than wiping out a population?To the innocent being killed,it's all bad.

 

No, my tact of sport fighting indicates an understanding of what street fighting is, and the crystal clear difference between street fights and war.

And in terms of the Genocide convention, Genocide includes politicide and large scale targeted mass murder.

In terms of denotation that's correct, so some people use the term democide which is more fitting then the genocide conventions nomenclature.

Innocent being killed is unaceptable. That's why at all costs we should implement a broad strategy for protection of the innocent.

Some types of santions are also war crimes, and we should find another way of dealing with rouge elements aside from sanctions, which in the case of Iraq, we're a crime agnist humanity.

The military should be used as a last resort in protecting the innocent, because a large scale foreign presence can cause innocent collateral deaths.

That's why in the case of Iraq, I don't think it should have been used as it was.

But any situation in which collateral deaths are lower then deaths of 'letting the get it out of their system". Military use is morally justifiable from my point of view.

People don't get democide out of their system. It just gets worse untill countless corpses are pilled at the wake. Geno/Democide is a plauge that must be stoped.

 

so your skill in the gym makes you an expert on the street mentality.i still don't get the connection,but oh well.
You don't stop a plauge by killing tha patient.i guess it would work but it's rather pointless.It's obvious genocide is wrong but to use it as an excuse is also wrong.Why didn't we go in before the genocide?Why didn't we stop the nazi's before they killed the jews.We knew what was going on.How could we not know they were being rounded up?We just turned our heads until it effected us.When we stop making excuses for military action and being passified with the collateral effect,only then can we start to stop the fighting.The only way to stop is simply to stop or keep on going the way we are and we'll simply destroy ourselves.Either way the answer is simple.

 

Not an expert, just lets me understand the difference between thugs fighting and war. If you don't get the comparison as to why it helps, it really doesn't matter.

But the differince between street fighting and war should still be clear. It's more then a measure of scale.

Genocide isn't excusable or an excuse.

It's not an excuse to say that a state that sponsors genocide shouldn't exist however.

We did know what was going on in Germany and should have acted earlier. Don't forget the other ethnic or minorities Hitler targeted, or what was happening to South East Asia because of Japan.

We weren't quite sure of the scope during the Holocaust, and Germany was a large power, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't have intervined earlier. But our intervention did finally come, and with it, came the liberation of Western Europe and Southeast Asia from the cloak of genocide, even despite that not being our main reason of justification to our citizens.

So in that sense, WW2 should serve as a lesson why we should never allow genocide to happen, even if military is the only way to prevent it.

We don't need excuses for military action if the world will descend into strong man rule and imposition of democide otherwise. That's our excuse.

If a nation can't be talked into giving it's citizens a chance to live, then Coercion should be an option. Negotiating with democidal elements doesn't work because their not intrested in trade or peace, they're a gang which only seeks to impose it's rule on elements it can conquor.

Ignoring genocide isn't an option.

Negotiations with or sanctions aginst genocidal states is only an option if they cease genocide immediately.

 

Hate to tell ya,well actually i don't,street fighting is what you call your sport.It's not really real.There is no such thing as a semi pro on the street.It's a grand illusion.
Keep making excuses to have war and we'll just keep on doing it.Like being in a war box,you'll never see peace that way.Your answer to genecide as you say it,is too simple.Go in with guns blazing.That's the past.

 

No I said it helped to give me perspective on what street fighting was.

I very clearly recognise the difference between kickboxing for a little cash, and a street fight. In street fights I assume another party would be trying to kill me and would adjust my tactics accordingly. Of course theres no such thing as a "pro on the street.'' as being blind sighted with a knife comes into play.

War on the other hand, is very differnet from a street fight, which was the comparison you brought up.

I don't know if you're trying to brag about how street you are, it has nothing to do with genocide or war.

If being in a war results in ending genocide, then we should have a final world war. If our government honestly resolved to using it's military to crush any nation that commits acts of democide, I would join the green berets tommorow.

We should spend the next few decades making this a century in which genocide can never again happen. If it costs a million lives then it's still worth it, more then a million people have died in the first 5 years of the year 2000, so it would be worth. Every brave person who died to end genocide, every genocidal militant, and every poor civilian caught in the cross fire will have bleed for the most noble cause.

However going in with guns blazing is an oversimplification, as I've said 5 or 6 times.

War is nothing but pain and death. It should only be used in the most dire cicrumatances. One of those circumstances is large scale slaughter by a government or associated militant groups.

But in some instances the only way of protecting large groups of innocents is having them sheilded with rifles.

 

yeah i'm street man.i'm not bragging about shit,i'm just saying the ability to crush another nation or person doesn't give you insight and that war only brings more war and that we need to find better answers instead of killing.Once again for those of you that are slow why kill the patient?