Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Good idea?
yes 38%  38%  [ 5 ]
no 62%  62%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 13

MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

27 May 2009, 7:49 pm

pakled wrote:
The book is Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was based on it....loosely..very loosely...;)

The actual point was that you couldn't vote at all unless you'd been through the military.


No, and that would be a horrible, horrible idea.

This was one of the first books he wrote that wasn't actually published until the 1990s.



ladyinred
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 229

27 May 2009, 7:53 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
That would indicate he was psychotic.

"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia" - Thomas Szazs.


The OP did mention a vote wouldn't be required for self-defense.


He was likely doing what most people do when they say things like that; ie. recalling all the things that Christianity preaches about what is good (in our founding father's sense freedom, liberty, hope) and that far more likely than hearing God's voice he just had that warm fuzzy feeling that he was doing the right thing for an oppressed people - thus God told him without words.

Which, I'll have to mention, we really need to be careful about advocating war on those grounds; ie. there was by chance a guy names Sun Tzu who lived...oh, maybe a milennia and half ago or two who said quite specifically that if your PR and morale wars have lost, that's when ground war comes and ground war, or bombing, or anything, are really a sign that what's been tried already has been failed. So, I think there are far more productive ways to scratch that itch or guide a despot off of his pedestal as his people's psychology swings out from under him. Originally though I thought the idea of taking Iraq though was as such where it was to depose a tyrant who was in the right kind of place geographically to aid revolution from within in other 'Axis of Evil' countries and lowering our need to have to do any more nation building than we already were looking at. Can't really say if it has paid off we don't know how the region would be otherwise today if Sadam were still in power, two nuclear despots rather than one could have been a possibility though and I can see where that's hard to laugh off.


Axis of evil was just a bunch of spin s**t. Saddam needed to be dealt with, but in a way where a war hasn't dragged on for 6 years too long.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,154
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

27 May 2009, 8:05 pm

ladyinred wrote:
Axis of evil was just a bunch of spin sh**. Saddam needed to be dealt with, but in a way where a war hasn't dragged on for 6 years too long.


Bush's biggest f'up definitely had to be not sending in enough ground troops in to begin with -less room for foreign insurgency's success, more people forthcoming with information as they're not fearing for their lives quite as much, fewer of the police infiltration and assassination issues (probably far more expedient and quality training), we'd probably be at a very low level presence by now.



ladyinred
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 229

27 May 2009, 8:34 pm

Maybe. I think it was linking Osama with Saddam though.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,154
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

27 May 2009, 8:40 pm

ladyinred wrote:
Maybe. I think it was linking Osama with Saddam though.


Yeah, that....the cup games played on the weapons inspectors, the gifts to families of Palistinian suicide bombers, firing at planes patroling the no fly zones, it was more a lot of small irritations and issues with his stridance it seemed. That and we found out later, the Oil for Food apparatus was a big grease payment network to attempt to get himself back on track to doing exactly what he wanted to do; as he did back in the 80's and 90's.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

27 May 2009, 9:13 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
ladyinred wrote:
Axis of evil was just a bunch of spin sh**. Saddam needed to be dealt with, but in a way where a war hasn't dragged on for 6 years too long.


Bush's biggest f'up definitely had to be not sending in enough ground troops in to begin with -less room for foreign insurgency's success, more people forthcoming with information as they're not fearing for their lives quite as much, fewer of the police infiltration and assassination issues (probably far more expedient and quality training), we'd probably be at a very low level presence by now.

Actually it was Donald Rumsfeld who ignored the military's recommendation for more ground troops.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,154
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

27 May 2009, 9:22 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Actually it was Donald Rumsfeld who ignored the military's recommendation for more ground troops.


I know a good portion of it was Rumsfeld, I've forgotten though - did congress drag their heels on that one as well? I know the Turks backed out on us which hurt our ground op efficiency as well.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

27 May 2009, 10:29 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Actually it was Donald Rumsfeld who ignored the military's recommendation for more ground troops.


I know a good portion of it was Rumsfeld, I've forgotten though - did congress drag their heels on that one as well? I know the Turks backed out on us which hurt our ground op efficiency as well.

Congress didn't have a say in troop levels.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

28 May 2009, 7:18 am

On the issue of God ordering war...or for that matter, can a Christian participate in a war.

This is a hard issue because war is NEVER a simple affair. Perhaps as long as man has been around, the reasons for war were often more than just matters of defending yourself against an aggressor. Most every time, it involved matters of resources...need vs. want, sharing vs. taking by force.

In the Bible, we see that God ordered the extermination of people He judged to be worthy of eradication. If we flow from the premise that God is the only being righteous enough to make such a proclamation and order, then the question remains...Does God still order the extermination of people?

The answer is, "NO." Since the days of Jesus Christ and the new dispensation of grace, God has never ordered anyone to carry out the systematic extermination of any person or race. We are told that such a time will come, but it is not man who will be the instrument of judgment.

So, when can a Christian take a life? The answer is spelled out quite clearly. God prohibited the shedding of innocent blood. This preserves the freedom to kill another in an act of self-defense or the defense of someone in immanent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Killing someone for the defense of property is really not justifiable, but that angle gets muddied because many property thieves are armed and willing to harm/kill someone who tries to stop them.

The problem with war and the Christian is that wars are routinely sold to the common man as an effort in self-defense or defending an innocent nation from a horrible aggressor. Sadly, historical evidence shows that most every time, such situations are based on lies.

Going backwards over prior military actions....

Iraq 2 - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect.

Afghanistan - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. The basis for Afghanistan was the alleged harboring of Usama Bin Laden. The fact is that Usama denied involvement in 9/11, and established extradition treaties required that Afghanistan follow due process before allowing his extradition. The US government had plans to invade Afghanistan over oil issues and it twisted the situation to say "you're with the terrorists" so the people would support an illegal invasion and occupation. If the USA followed international treaties we signed to, we would go to Afghanistan, make a case that Usama was likely involved in 9/11 and then we would have a legal right to have Afghanistan turn him over. Refusal to do so after that point would be a basis for military action, not before.

Iraq 1 - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. Saddam asked for permission to invade Kuwait. The USA told him it was none of our concern. After he invaded, the US government changed it's tune and used the war effort against Saddam to test the ability of the "world community" to invest in a military operation against a sovereign nation.

Panama - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. Dictator in power stopped playing nice with the CIA boys who helped him get into power. So, we decided to take him down.

Grenada - ??? Students held hostage. Limited military operation. Unknown if there were ulterior motives for what happened.

Vietnam - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. We took over a failed war. Vietnam is the bastard child of Asia. Routinely conquered then left alone to rule itself. Soviets gained little to nothing by winning South Vietnam.

Korea - ??? South Korea wanted to be free. Unknown if there were ulterior motives behind operation.

WWII - LIE. Need for self-defense was self-inflicted. We helped create the "innocent" party to protect. Hitler was the wonder child for the globalists and industrialists of his time. American companies helped to built the Nazi war machine. When he started gassing Jews, he became an embarrassment. Those in power approved of Hitler's beliefs, but they couldn't put a harmless spin on his open acts of genocide. Likewise, going to war with Japan was provoked by the USA by delivering demands to the Emperor of Japan which were tantamount to a declaration of war. This went unnoticed by most Americans as the average man did not comprehend the Japanese psyche and the strict obligations that went with the preservation of personal and national honor. We discovered that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor and the military-industrial complex allowed it to happen so the bloodshed would move Americans to vote for war.

WWI - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. War was started by an assassination engineered to throw Europe into chaos for the benefit of the rich and powerful.

That just about covers the 20th and early 21st centuries.

Now, we can examine the ethical issue of the American Revolution. That's a tough question. Citing Biblical principles, the Founding Fathers felt justified in casting off the tyranny of the British Crown. The American colonies were heavily taxed, given no representation before the king, they had resources stripped from their land and sent to England with practically nothing in return and the British troops in the colonies were there more to maintain the power of the Crown over the subjects rather than provide security and defense. Add to that the fact that most Americans fled England to get away from a king who thought he was God's spokesman on Earth, and you can see why they felt a revolution was in order.

As I understand the circumstances, the Crown was basically a thief and a thug to the colonists. This made an issue of self-defense more prominent as the treatment got worse. The colonists really wanted little more than to eject the British troops and install self-governance. That the Crown responded with violence only escalated the matter.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

28 May 2009, 8:11 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
ladyinred wrote:
Maybe. I think it was linking Osama with Saddam though.


Yeah, that....the cup games played on the weapons inspectors, the gifts to families of Palistinian suicide bombers, firing at planes patroling the no fly zones, it was more a lot of small irritations and issues with his stridance it seemed. That and we found out later, the Oil for Food apparatus was a big grease payment network to attempt to get himself back on track to doing exactly what he wanted to do; as he did back in the 80's and 90's.


That's more-or-less true, but it does not constitute a casus belli ("cause for war") or a reason for a just war. As international law stands today, the only war allowed to fight without a mandate of the UN or to prevent genocide is in self-defence of a state (Art. 51 UN-Charter).

---

Back to topic: So the legal framework to avoid war is today quite strong - it "only" needs to get implemented.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

28 May 2009, 8:41 am

More from legal point of view:

zer0netgain wrote:
Going backwards over prior military actions....

[...]

Iraq 1 -


There was a mandate from the UN - therefore this war was legal.

zer0netgain wrote:
Afghanistan - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. The basis for Afghanistan was the alleged harboring of Usama Bin Laden. [...] If the USA followed international treaties we signed to, we would go to Afghanistan, make a case that Usama was likely involved in 9/11 and then we would have a legal right to have Afghanistan turn him over. Refusal to do so after that point would be a basis for military action, not before.


There was also an UN-mandate: Also prior the invasion there was no government in Afghanistan capable of an extradition of Bin Laden. Being a sovereign state does also implement duties in international law: E.g. executing this sovereignty inside the border in a way that the states does not cause a permanent thread to international security. In such a case the UN is entitled to issue a mandate to introduce a basic state order to prevent such danger.

Because Nato declared 9/11 as a case according to Article 5 of the Nato-Treaty, a so-called "casus foederis" was constructed and the UN Security Council had to become active.

zer0netgain wrote:
WWII - LIE. Need for self-defense was self-inflicted.


Germany declared the USA War on 11 Dec. 1941.

zer0netgain wrote:
WWI - LIE. No need for self-defense.


As international laws stood prior 1914 it was the right for any state to start war whenever it pleases.

zer0netgain wrote:
Now, we can examine the ethical issue of the American Revolution. That's a tough question. Citing Biblical principles, the Founding Fathers felt justified in casting off the tyranny of the British Crown. The American colonies were heavily taxed, given no representation before the king, ...


The colonies were founded by Royal Charter. As such they were "enterprises" of the crown and no need for a representation was constituted. No one was forced, except in the case of criminals and soldiers, to move into the colonies. Anyone how left the UK to live in the colonies was aware regarding this fact.

zer0netgain wrote:
Add to that the fact that most Americans fled England to get away from a king who thought he was God's spokesman on Earth, and you can see why they felt a revolution was in order.


Which is quite nonsense - even in Britain was hardly someone how believed this. The role of the King was stronger than today, but even in those times the real power was vested with Parliament. The House of Hanover, to which George III belonged, was in fact only on throne because of the will of parliament, otherwise it how have almost no claim at all. Don't confuse the British monarchs in the 18th century with the Plantagenet monarchs or the Tudors.

zer0netgain wrote:
As I understand the circumstances, the Crown was basically a thief and a thug to the colonists.


The colonists were tenants of the crown - living on property of the crown and protected by Royal Charters to they voluntarily submitted by moving into the colonies.



JoJerome
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 261
Location: Lake Powell/Page AZ

28 May 2009, 10:17 am

I have advocated for some time now that when I am elected Empress of America, I will be implementing some new vote-for-policy initiatives, politely titled Put Your F**king Money Where Your F**king Mouth is.

The only reason I voted 'no' here is that I would not advocate the draft for people who voted no or for people who didn't vote. If our military doesn't have enough willing participants to wage the war, then apparently that war is not what our country as a whole wants and we shouldn't be in it.

But otherwise, I think it's more than fair to say going to war would require a majority vote of those physically able to carry a gun on the front line. And your 'yes' vote is simultaneously your enlistment.

**Edit for lack of proofreading. Man - I really need to wake up more before I try typing!



MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

28 May 2009, 10:22 am

Still can't remember the title of the book - but the main character was a man from the 1930s who's in a car accident and wakes up more than a century in the future.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

28 May 2009, 11:54 am

Dussel wrote:
More from legal point of view:

[snip]


Drop the legal B.S. I'm talking about the historical facts behind why we went to war. There would be no UN mandate if there were not people acting to provoke incidents so they could go to the Security Council and seek a mandate to go to war.

You look at things quite superficially.