Do you love war?
06 May 2008, 8:29 am
Aspie_Chav wrote:
monty wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
Most people do not understand the science of war. So what is the point in descusing the moral implications of it.
Most people do not understand the science of cancer, but they understand the implications of a cancer diagnosis.
Doctors, who have an understanding of cancer, are responsible for dealing with cancer.
People, who don’t understand the science of war, are making the decisions. They do it in the name of god.
Which implies that all wars are fought for religion, which is not the case. It also implies that all wars are fought blindly, with no concept of cost or cause....
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
06 May 2008, 9:20 am
Saying you're "anti-war" sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond seriously considering diplomatic efforts, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug with a gun not to take your wallet through words alone, then maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
06 May 2008, 9:29 am
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
Lincoln told the Confederates about resupplying Ft. Sumter and made them strike the first blow.
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
06 May 2008, 9:31 am
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
I meant no formal, official, internationally-recognized declaration of war given by a head of state.
Just organized crime.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
06 May 2008, 9:35 am
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
I meant no formal, official, internationally-recognized declaration of war given by a head of state.
Just organized crime.
Vietnam is the same thing because the US Congress never officially declared war on North Vietnam.
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
06 May 2008, 10:24 am
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
I meant no formal, official, internationally-recognized declaration of war given by a head of state.
Just organized crime.
Vietnam is the same thing because the US Congress never officially declared war on North Vietnam.
You know what you can do?
You can deal with my entire post, instead of just trying to impishly throw a stick in the spokes like a loser.
If you're "anti-war", how are you going to respond when another entity threatens you with violence, and you know that that threat is very real?
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
06 May 2008, 12:08 pm
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
I meant no formal, official, internationally-recognized declaration of war given by a head of state.
Just organized crime.
Vietnam is the same thing because the US Congress never officially declared war on North Vietnam.
You know what you can do?
You can deal with my entire post, instead of just trying to impishly throw a stick in the spokes like a loser.
If you're "anti-war", how are you going to respond when another entity threatens you with violence, and you know that that threat is very real?
Subjective to the size, organisation, threat level, placement etc, war may be AN option, but its hardly the ONLY option. Besides, how exactly do you declare war on something so ephemeral and random?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
06 May 2008, 1:09 pm
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Saying you're anti-war sounds wonderful in principle, but what do you do when another people attacks your country without warning and kills 3,000 civilians, and then continues making detailed and well-funded plans for futher attacks against you?
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
Do you cower, and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, please... don't hurt me..."? History shows that diplomacy with terrorists does not work, because terrorists by their nature are beyond considering diplomacy, just as the criminally insane are beyond reasoned approaches to behaving peacefully. If you can convince a back-alley thug not to take your wallet, maybe you have something there with this "anti-war" philosophy, but until then, we must defend ourselves against the very real threats that al-Qaeda has made and continues to make against us.
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
I meant no formal, official, internationally-recognized declaration of war given by a head of state.
Just organized crime.
Vietnam is the same thing because the US Congress never officially declared war on North Vietnam.
You know what you can do?
You can deal with my entire post, instead of just trying to impishly throw a stick in the spokes like a loser.
If you're "anti-war", how are you going to respond when another entity threatens you with violence, and you know that that threat is very real?
Subjective to the size, organisation, threat level, placement etc, war may be AN option, but its hardly the ONLY option. Besides, how exactly do you declare war on something so ephemeral and random?
I agreed with you because deterrents and other things can work more effectively than war itself.
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
06 May 2008, 1:18 pm
JerryHatake wrote:
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
Wrong, what do you mean "we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them."
There where no warnings of the pearl harbor battle. However, after the battle, the USA declared war against japan, no big suprise.
06 May 2008, 1:20 pm
grain-and-field wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
Wrong, what do you mean "we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them."
There where no warnings of the pearl harbor battle. However, after the battle, the USA declared war against japan, no big suprise.
There were warnings, but nobody paid any attention to them.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
06 May 2008, 1:23 pm
Macbeth wrote:
grain-and-field wrote:
JerryHatake wrote:
We knew about along but didn't knew the targets were.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
And we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them.
Wrong, what do you mean "we let the Japanese in the Japanese-American Pacific War to strike first give us the reason to fight them."
There where no warnings of the pearl harbor battle. However, after the battle, the USA declared war against japan, no big suprise.
There were warnings, but nobody paid any attention to them.
Yeah there were warnings, MAGIC find something and no one listen and a radar station pick up the attack but higher ups thought it was our planes coming in.
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
06 May 2008, 1:23 pm
Macbeth wrote:
There were warnings, but nobody paid any attention to them.
Yes, I guess you are right. But, im also right. I mean, warnings about things come "in all the time" [to officials] but most warnings are "fake".
There where warnings, like you say, but certain officials dident believe anything like PH could ever happen, and who can blame them!
So, we are both right. I think.
06 May 2008, 1:30 pm
Quote:
As the first wave approached Oʻahu, an Army SCR-270 radar at Opana Point, near the island's northern tip (a post not yet operational, having been in training mode for months), detected them and called in a warning. Although the operators reported a target echo larger than anything they had ever seen, an untrained officer at the new and only partially activated Intercept Center, Lieutenant Kermit A. Tyler, presumed the scheduled arrival of six B-17 bombers was the source because the direction from which the aircraft were coming was close (only a few degrees separated the two inbound courses);[24] the operators had never seen a formation as large as the U.S. bombers' on radar;[25] and possibly because the operators had only seen the lead element of incoming attack.
The first wave of planes at Pearl plus don't forget the five midget subs before the attack as well.
_________________
"You are the stars and the world is watching you. By your presence you send a message to every village, every city, every nation. A message of hope. A message of victory."- Eunice Kennedy Shriver
06 May 2008, 1:32 pm
grain-and-field wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
There were warnings, but nobody paid any attention to them.
Yes, I guess you are right. But, im also right. I mean, warnings about things come "in all the time" [to officials] but most warnings are "fake".
There where warnings, like you say, but certain officials dident believe anything like PH could ever happen, and who can blame them!
So, we are both right. I think.
Didnt, but should have... Anybody "surprised" by an attack occurring halfway through a global conflict probably isn't paying as much attention as they should. Anybody who, during the same conflict, decides to rank up all their shiny toys like so many lead soldiers is going to pay the price. The shame is, as always, that so many people died in a battle that could have been avoided. Which is a microcosm of the whole concept of war. If it can be avoided, it should be, because those who get hurt the most are those who have the least say in things.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Falling In Love |
01 Mar 2024, 5:40 am |
| Autistic Love Songs |
Yesterday, 9:36 pm |
| I LOVE HANDYCAM RECORDERS |
09 Apr 2024, 2:41 pm |
| Help with finding friends, Love & Hope |
21 Mar 2024, 9:52 am |
