|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A war needs an attacker and a defender to be a war.
Sorry mvass, that's a logical fail. 
What I meant was that the defending side is justified in fighting. For them, it's a defensive war.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
|
Doom, the zumwalt destroyer will carry it's own system based on the railguns that will be mounted on one of the Iowa's 
Blizz, it will take time before they become as usefull as manned craft, currently the UAV's used by US have been proven to be a fail for anything else than recon.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 08:44 PM |
|
|
@ DEATH AND DOOMFORGE: Please, forget about the technicalities of war? Not the right thread for that 
Also, any defensive weapon can be used offensively, boys... Unless you have some sort of device that can make everyone forget about killing in a zone roughly the surface of earth...
@ Elodin
Let's start with everything I find wrong about your post:
Quote:
War, a necessary evil
The title immediately sets the mood of what you're about to say, so it's a good title in formative aspect only. Of course, first we must define war to know what is so necessary and what is so evil about it, right?
Quote:
War is the intentional and widespread conflict between communities or nations.
Okay, yes, I get that. Your definition doesn't involve killing, so it a morally necessary act, after all. Conflict is life in a way. without confict, we wouldn't move forward as much as we could, now could we?
Now, what does wikipedia say?
Quote:
War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.
Armed conflict that is aimed at reorganising a geo-politically desired result? That definition is a bit different isn't it? This definition invlves killing. You might say this way of entering debate is immature, childish and drawing it out. It is, but I also would like to point that your view on war is quite different than the definition provided by this biased media-source.
Quote:
War is a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
Is what the definition says and I think we'll both go on from this definition. I think that a conflict by arms is evil, yes, but never necessary.
I won't quote anymore from that paragraph, but just answer your points:
Why can't all nations or groups be rationalised with? Are they deaf? Write it down. Are they blind as well? Then they are not a threat. Everyone in this world has interests and by appealing to these interests you can influence or coerce them into different actions from their desires. Their desires may be unreasonable or they may be hellbent on destruction. These people I would like to call terrorists and they need to be met with police force and that's all there is to it, no need to kill any of them. Is there a nation full of them? Impossible. their people can either be rationalised with or rivalling political movements. Either way, you're not being creative in conflict resolvement.
Also, you argument that war rights a wrong? Is it not that two wrongs don't make a right? And how do you KNOW a wrong will happen? If they really intend a wrong to happen, you will hardly know of it. If they don't, it's just threat and one only threatens when they feel cornered. they key into preventing war is not to make anyone feel threatened. These kinds of talk hence are actually quite bad in general
Next paragraph (self-defense): I accept a someone's right to defend themselves, but that doesn't make a war just.
Next paragraph (defense of other nations): Along with the previous paragraph I talked about this in the blow section I've written out prior to this.
Next paragraph (human rights violations): Idem ditto.
Next paragraph (preemptive strikes): Idem ditto.
Next paragraph (Conducting wars on nations that use... Bla bla): Oops, I might've messed up, here. I talked about my opinion on terrorist groups in the upper paragraphs
To clarify: I do not condone chasing them in enemy nations. I would love nations to hand them out, but if they don't then I suppose the way they handled it is rewarded and the only sanction they'd get from my countr is the fact that should they show up in my country they will have a nice lifelong sentence with perhaps some of the more patriotic inmates. Check traffic of all sorts. Only allow people in under strict regulation to prevent exploiting. You know, like nowaday border patrols. Oh... So we have them!
Next paragraph (use of hit squads): Since this type of war has less deaths of civilians ad more deaths of political enemies, I can accept it more and can be, in a weird way, justified, but it's still aggression and it's in no way just to kill the political leaders of a nation because you disagree with them. Should this political leader be in favor of war, then use the tools of coercion, negotiation and desires to get them to act differently. War should never be an option.
Next paragraph (Proportional response vs Overwhelming Force): section below.
As to me, what I do find right. I find that all wars are unjustified. I don't care what you say, it's not right that humans mercilesly slaughter eachother for whatever reason. I assume there were defensive kills as there were offensive, but one starts another. Every armed conflict in the history of man should have and could have been avoided, if mankind was a better species, but that's a bit of a no true scotsman. If man truly wished to benefit and advance, then war was always avoidable. Now, I don't care who's guilty or the aggressor, it's a childish claim in the end. "He started it!" , you see. At least, to me.
I can not respect a war under any conditions. I can accept it. I can accept a civil war, to a point in that matter. The fact people had to draw weapons in order to make their point is just wrong, in the end. If people did not allow oppression, they would not have been oppressed. The people get the government they deserve. But I can accept it if force is the only way to liberate themselves, so civil war to this point I can understand, but that's it. Any other ideological or any territorial war (and, may I remind you that there are no other types of war) is wrong and will forever be wrong. One side is usually no better than the other, because there is no way to quantify the betterness of a human, now is there? Is a man right to kill someone at his doorstep. I will concede that this man is understandable and it may have been necessary in order to survive, since a man has duties to a point, but it was in no way just, good, right or a way that humans should interact with eachother.
Attacking another country in defense of another nation isn't just either. I think in today's society, many nations can be coerced by trading embargoes. Bit naive on my part, but everything I wrote has been naive, so whatever, let's roll with this train
The defender is not to be punished of course and, perhaps, even free of blame, since he did not seek conflict, but it does not justify any further killing. retaliation is not justified. I can understand it, of course, but I think it's not justified today. Of course, the wars of today will be wars that make retaliation impossible. In dutch, the difference between buying and taking is only one letter. I think that if a nation is small it will be taken, if it's large people will buy from them.
Now, this may be a bit controversial of me, but when there is war, I think it's unfeasible to think there's such thing as a fair war or a regulated war. Everything goes, no matter what the council of vienna or the UN dictates. If a weapon is superior to another, people will use it. We are past the age of chivallry, after all. Only weapons that should not be used are weapons that go for mass destruction and destroy things on a great environmental scale. I don't really worry about the crawlers and animals around, I just don't want areas with nuclear fallout.
Of course, all this idealism is not very practical, but I think we should try to stick close to our ideals, shouldn't we? Anyway, I believe the following:
Quote:
There always is an option where everyone lives.
And I think I'm contradicting myself of a few months ago, but I suppose we all evolve. I believe it should be a core belief of several phlosophies and I believe that it shouldn't sound stupid to say such things.
Quote:
Thus civilian casualties often can't be avoided.
But are unacceptable, either way.
Anyway, conclusion:
War is bad and there are no winners.
Quote:
There are times when war is not only morally permissible but morally necessary.
It is necessary to murder someone else? Elodin! I thought you were so christian! You are a holier-than-thou, aren't you?! What? Templar and Hospitaller ways, then?
I will put my say in it: there are times when war is ridiculous and a show of nothing but a lack of human resourcefulness or an inherent wrongness in the nature of humanity. When are these times? All the time.
PS: I support my claims and I apologise if I offended anyone. I did not mean anything in an insulting way. I only ridiculed elodin a bit... I love you all oogie boogie much and only wish harm upon emilsn for not posting here and him being unlikely to have read until this point.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doom, the zumwalt destroyer will carry it's own system based on the railguns that will be mounted on one of the Iowa's
Iowas are out of commission and are not planned to be put back into commission unless something changed within last two months I checked. I doubt it. Iowas are WW2 technology. I don't want to go in detail but it's ancient technology right now, and rather then restoring them, you can build a new platform for rail guns if you have to.
Face it, Iowas are a beautiful peace of junk. (visit the battleship forum, btw )
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 09:34 PM |
|
|
They will remain in Navy reserve thingy but will be used as test platforms for the first railguns.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 09:45 PM |
|
|
|
Their "being in reserve" means rusting in ports.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Anyway, what we need is an international police force worth the name, with all necessary authority, working independent from all nations.
Too much consolidation of power is not a good idea. That would inevitably lead to an Emperor of the world. Too much power in the hands of one person, whoever the director of policd forces would be.
It is much to be prefered for individual nations to have thier individual armies and to work together against aggressor nations. Each naion must be free to protect its own interests.
And I certainly don't trust the UN. It does not represent and protect the interests of all member nations equally and favors certain political views (socialism.) It also came very close to making speaking anything negative against Islam a hate crime.
@ DagothGares
I'm sure I could find a number of definitions of war that don't match the wikipedia. And it is obvious from my what I wrote that I was speaking of the conflict being armed.
If you want to play that game, I could say that your definition doesn't specify what they are armed with. According to your definition a war could be between people only armed with spit balls.
Quote:
I accept a someone's right to defend themselves, but that doesn't make a war just.
How exactly can you say you support a nation's right to defend itslf and yet not call the defense ejust? Unless you are sying individuals have a right to self defense but nations do not. And that makes no sense.
You say a nations should not be allowed to chase terrorists into another nation. Fine. If I were leader of a nation attacked by terrorists and I would nuke the nation giving them safe haven then.
About the hit squads. I wasn't talking about assassinating someone for a simple disagreement. I refered to for instance a dictator who is threatening to nuke a nation without provocation.
It is nice to say "war should never be an option" but I leve in the real world. People like Hitler have to be fought. They can't be reasoned with.
Quote:
It is necessary to murder someone else? Elodin! I thought you were so christian!
Murder is the willful killing of a known innocent person who poses no threat to anyone.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 10:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I certainly don't trust the UN. It does not represent and protect the interests of all member nations equally and favors certain political views (socialism.)
Right because you prefer the USA which favors capitalism. Naturally.
Quote:
How exactly can you say you support a nation's right to defend itslf and yet not call the defense ejust? Unless you are sying individuals have a right to self defense but nations do not. And that makes no sense.
I'm sorry but as far as I know, for the individual example, it's not called "self-defense" to go after the murderer of your family. It's called revenge.
You can end up in jail.
Of course not so with nations, look at USA.
Morality comes second, I'm pretty sure for you might comes first.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 10:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Murder is the willful killing of a known innocent person who poses no threat to anyone.
Which would include most civilians.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 10:43 PM |
|
|
@Dagoth: Quote:
The fact people had to draw weapons in order to make their point is just wrong, in the end.
Wrong but realistic.
How can you make a point towards someone who won't listen? Someone who threatens you? Some people only know one language and it is called force. You have to speak their language to get your point across.
Less fairytales help, even though as you can see I disagree with Elodin's fanatic defense of USA's interests.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 11:02 PM |
|
|
Let's start again with a definition:
Quote:
War is a conflict carried on by force of arms
You know he means firearms. Or violence... And killing with spit balls is killing, even though other things may have been used on the way.
Quote:
Unless you are saying individuals have a right to self defense but nations do not. And that makes no sense.
Only in the eyes of the person combatting me. A nation is not a person. I can accept a community that defends itself, though, but a nation is usually nothing but a ruler in war. And how the ruler kills many by the will of a single person is not just. Killing is never just in any way.
But you're diverting the attention away from the crux of the problem:
War and defense are not the same things. A war is a conflict, as a defense is only a stance in a conflict. Both are part of eachother, but both are not the same, you see? That's how a war can not be just. A conflict where people are killed is inherently wrong, because it's people killing people and everyone loses.
Also, I'd like to say that in all conflicts there is no right and no wrong side. There is a strong side and a weak side. The strong never kill eachother, they just take an invisible stab at eachother once in a while. In the end there'll be excuses, but a real war is always that.
Last statement on that argument: Self-defence is never justofied. people have to live with the fact they killed for the rest of their lives. If they aren't burdened by this, then that's okay. It's just that people seem to forget they always had a choice, since birth.
Quote:
It is nice to say "war should never be an option" but I leve in the real world. People like Hitler have to be fought. They can't be reasoned with.
This may come as a shock to you, but Hitler is dead, elodin! The war is over! It has been for 64 years! The nazis are all dead, Hitler shot himself in the head when the allies approached. No more is the holocaust turning! Joy and celebration!
Anyway, your statement is something I find quite ridiculous. First, he doesn't need to be fought, he's dead. Second, where is he? third, If your way of thinking is "the enemy" and "the ally" your way of thinking shall not understandmine. I give you a friendly warning, because you will not understand me very well. The notion that pacifism is naive (my own words) and that there Hitlers to be fought (your words) is... The fact that it is valid in your eyes is downright sad. What that is is dangerous as well. You need an enemy, if that is your way of thinking. If that is the situation you assume, then that is an incredibly dangerous mentality.
What it does is create enemies and it creates conflict. And if people are very convinced of their enemies and their conflict, they take arms. Maybe it's philosophie slike these that cause wars. By the way, how do you know Hitler couldn't be reasoned with? I'm pretty sure it could be done if you found him somewhere befoe WWI... Or even shortly after.
Quote:
You say a nations should not be allowed to chase terrorists into another nation. Fine. If I were leader of a nation attacked by terrorists and I would nuke the nation giving them safe haven then.
this statement is something I fail to wrap my magnificent brain around. Could youtry using smaller words... or clarify what you mean? You suggest blowing yourself up... Why?
Quote:
About the hit squads. I wasn't talking about assassinating someone for a simple disagreement. I refered to for instance a dictator who is threatening to nuke a nation without provocation.
Let him threaten. Kim-jong needs all the goodwill he can get. If he doesn't blow anything up, he'll get plenty f it and that's the equilibrum. Kim-jong is the only one who fits the bill and I crossed him off the list. All other ones you'd be killing would be peopl you disagree with. Of course, in your eyes they'd be 'hitlers' wouldn't they?
Quote:
Murder is the willful killing of a known innocent person who poses no threat to anyone.
In that case, only the killing of a blind paralysis victim who is a mute is murder. Redefine murder.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
Anyway, what we need is an international police force worth the name, with all necessary authority, working independent from all nations.
Too much consolidation of power is not a good idea. That would inevitably lead to an Emperor of the world. Too much power in the hands of one person, whoever the director of policd forces would be.
It is much to be prefered for individual nations to have thier individual armies and to work together against aggressor nations. Each naion must be free to protect its own interests.
And I certainly don't trust the UN. It does not represent and protect the interests of all member nations equally and favors certain political views (socialism.) It also came very close to making speaking anything negative against Islam a hate crime.
I have a problem imagining more power than destroying the whole world. Think society. If your members have only handguns, your police forces don't need that much. There would be ONE director, at least I can't imagine that.
For the rest I strongl disagree. Nations have to disarm themselves to a certain point. Everyone who's IN can't be aggressor nation. Everyone who's NOT is a potential aggressor nation.
Nations are historical nonsense, if you ask me. As are duchesies, kingdoms or anything else. We all have a common interest on this planet: survival and prosperity for all - who cares about nations?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 11:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:23, 28 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
We all have a common interest on this planet: survival and prosperity for all - who cares about nations?
This is not true. Most have a not very common interest, and it's survival and prosperity for themselves and their nation or their ideology. Most historical wars are based on this concept. (nevermind that there are few others who have other goals)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
i think JJ is correct. If north korea and iran would have traded oil with the states,or other resources forget all the problams.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 02:43 AM |
|
|
|
Well, I think the US would still take issue with Iran and N Korea threatening to nuke them. And Iran sponsoring terrorist activity. Sorry, the whole "US is the ultimate evil of the universe" thing is just silly.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 02:44 AM |
|
|
It feels like its the US that want to pwn these countries and steal their oil instead of paying for it
And then they can make lots of propaganda as an excuse to attack.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, the whole "US is the ultimate evil of the universe" thing is just silly.
It is half silly.
The US is no different than others, except that it has much more might and power. That's all.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 05:41 AM |
|
|
|
Wars will never go away. It was "created by evoloution" to stop overpopulaton (orginally). Seems like nature failed there, big time xD
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:16 AM |
|
|
Do you have any idea how retarded that idea sounds, xerox?
What? Cavemen were fighting because they were too many? Huh? What you're saying sounds more pretentious than smart, xerox, so either explain or get out of the thread, because these inane statements add nothing to this place.
Quote:
You have to speak their language to get your point across.
I can understand that when we are speaking against individuals. That's why police force is there, but do you honestly believe there can be a nation of these people. And even IF there is a nation these fabled hitlers like elodin and you speak of, then still, STILL it's wrong to go after them and it STILL does not make war just in any way. It makes it all the more regrettable.
Also, death, I thought you were against responding in contact. Aren't you lowering yourself to their level then? We sure have changed since the first time I saw you argue something.
Quote:
Less fairytales help
I thought you were in favour of universal laws that apply to everything? What could be more simple than don't kill anyone? And instad of calling me naive you can always answer one of the very few real points I make
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:16 AM |
|
|
|
Wars have nothing to do with either overpopulation or nature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
