this was unnecassry and wrong

this feed was about politics it was about honor and no one sent overseas from the united states to fight in a war has lost their honor becouse of that war

AND AREN'T YOU GLAD THAT THOSE AND THESE SOLDIERS ARE AND HAVE DIED FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BE AN IDIOT

You are a pitiful excuse for a human being. Can't you traitors and hippies be respectful for one day? You are no better than the terrorists our soldiers are fighting. If it wasn't for the soldiers than America would be just like Iraq, car bombs and other terrorist attacks every day.

I wouldn't go quite that far,,, 'quite'as in only minutely less severe.

I am quite suprised to find some people still think that way? especially after the lessons we should have all learn't from the treatment of returning Vietnam vets. You know, shame on us for how we treated them back then but at least it taught us all (most of us anyway sigh) a valuable lesson.

Meh not old enough to be a hippie but I like trees and tye dye. I think they are pretty. I don't always agree with my and many other governments motives and executions of war but by all things right and good in the world how can you say a soldier following orders is dishonorable? War crimes do take place and for someone to not only dishonor the soldiers that do NOT commit such crimes but also the victims of those crimes by saying that a soldier must justify his government is the most narrow minded thing I have heard of. You also don't know your history either. Should the US have not attacked Germany in WWII? They didn't attack us but I cannot imagine living in a world where we left them unchecked to dominate all of Europe and who knows what else. And not discounting the wars before and after you have to see that WWII was/is the perfect example of why totally discounting the rest of the worlds problems and leaving them to their own devices is not a good foreign policy. Can you imagine how much sooner N Korea would have developed nukes if we had not intervened? Can you even imagine how bad your life could be if the country you live in (whatever it may be) did not have soldiers to protect it? Its really easy to hate the horrors of war but never make the mistake of thinking that war is unnecessary in our current era and be glad that there are people who are willing to die for you whether you like them or not.

okay, i agree that most of the wars the U.S. has led are criminal, not the part about individual soldiers. that's a much grayer question. were nazi stormtroopers 'just following orders?' it just depends on the individual, and i'm sure in either regard all soldiers start the career with the noblest intentions. i could have been more clear in my initial response.

which wars have been criminal

Depends on which side your on!

You could say the revolutionary war was illegal. Most of the reasons for the war was trumped up. Like no taxation without representation... our leaders asked for more then what was fair, we did it to pick a fight. Most people would scream bloody murder for the real reason to fight the Brits, Manufacturing. We didn t have the right to manufacture much of anything.

You can even say WWII (everybodies favorite war to say hey it right to fight!). The U.S.A was even sinking german U-boats in 1940! So you could argue that the Japanese had a right to defend their ally as well as avenge themselves against our acts of agression verses them.

Now does that mean they should have been fought? I think so....

which haven't?

the american revolution? that was criminal at least as far as brittain was concerned at the time.

the civil war? it could be cast as a crime against the south's right to self-determination in government. i'm not saying we should have let them succeed (though sometimes i wish we had).

WWII? it was a crime that we didn't get involved sooner, but waited for an opportune moment to enter (using the attack on Pearl Harbor, which we knew about ahead of time, as a pretext).

though i do have to take a step back, because the question forces me to realize the statement itself is a contradiction. crime occurs between the ruling and the ruled. is there a higher authority than government, setting down laws those institutions must abide by? i supposed we could think about crimes against god, nature and humanity, but who enforces those laws?

the ruled. wars are a crime against basic human dignity, which transcends nationality and religion, and in my mind those who wontonly defend war without at least paying a bow to its cost and depravity--i can't help but believe such people have lost touch with their basic humanity. i'm sorry if this offends you or anyone else, but it's my view, no more or less 'right' than any other. you certainly don't have to like it, but nothing short of an end to this country's martial proclivities will change it.

before the attack on pearl harbor the american people wouldn't have allowed us into the war. which is why the attack was allowed to be a sneak attack. although i don't think the powers to be thought the army and navy would be so limp.





this was a british right we were british cit. at the time



the south is the ones that attacked we were defending

the current war we were attacked by terriosts and saddam for over 10 years

just becouse saddam didn't hit anything didn't give him the right to keep attacking us



any subs that we attacked in 1940 was self defense they were attacking our ships in route to england

and we didn't declare war on germany until after they declared on us for declaring on japan

Sometimes wars are fought to defend human rights. Besides even though I do believe any conflict could be resolved with diplomacy and compromise the problem is that not everyone wants to sit down and resolve the conflict. There are and always have been those who profit from causing and continueing conflict and those that profit from doing nothing about it. That is not the same as saying all combatants involved have no honor and it is also not the same as saying that all wars fought by the US had illegitimate reasons, which I think (could be wrong happens a lot) is what you where claiming dystopic? You agree that crime and legality don't exactly apply as much as legitimacy and "right" action? But at the same token can you really say that WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the like did not have at least a partialy legitimate reason? The execution of the conflict aside and the aftermath not withstanding I do think liberation from oppressive regimes that threaten global security is a good reason to blow something up if that is your last resort. I think the civil war may have not been legal because states did have the right to secceed (leave the union) but at the same time I doubt that the fragmented states would have survived as long as they have had they remained fragmented. I think Lincoln and others realized that whether they followed the letter of the law or not. I also think that even if manufacturing was an issue in the Revolutionary War it is also obvious that wanting to be governed by your peers is legitimate and "right" isn't it? As far as WW2 goes it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that officials knew that an attack would be made on that day on that target but even if they did ( I think they probably recieved that staticy message that day and knew it was coming) they where contending with the same moral delima of rightness and legitimacy you seem to be in favor of. Provocation gives legitimacy is the idea there. Surely there are conflicts ( the term war is often avoided for no good reason by the government) that are not provoked but that does not mean they are not right and just. I think part of humanitarianism should include the willingness to intervene and forcibly prevent the opression of others if neccessary. The pretty side of the coin is helping rebuild and teaching ideas of due proccess and justice and liberty. The ugly side of the same coin is when you have to deal with those who do not want due process or justice or liberty they want vengeance power and control. Sometimes you have to fire up the guns at least until the world can become more united. The degree to which some administrations cross this line is appalling but it does not make the occasional neccisity of force any less real. Even if the world was united in one government and we no longer had a need for war between nations we would always have those who would wish to use force and refuse any other means of resolution. How else do you defend against them than by using overwhelming force in return? I really do think there is a right answer to these questions and although I am not saying you are wrong in your feelings I do think they might cloud some of your assertions dystopic. Either way always good to read your posts

if these were individuals in a courtroom, saying "my wife wouldn't let me stop our neighbors from being murdered" wouldn't defend against a charge of criminal neglegence. moreover, the american people "wouldn't let us get involved" because of how sanitized the news reporting was. no one in the U.S. had a real idea (only rumors and hearsay) of what was going on in Europe until after the war was over.



close, and a little different. i'd say all the wars we've fought have had both legitimate and illegitimate motivations. i don't doubt that one reaons we're in Iraq is to free them of a tyrant and bring them democracy. but in a situation like that, you have to look at details to determine which motivations, the selfish or the altruistic, are a more deciding factor in a war. as oil is to Iraq, rubber was a major issue at stack in Viet Nam. shipping in Korea. WWII was a nice way to revitalize our manufacturing industries. and the federal, northern-dominated government had a lot to gain in the form of dependance by keeping slavery out of new U.S. territories. i doubt it's ever totally clear what factors are really in charge, but what i rail against is how gungho so many americans are about war. that's what really bugs me.

Parliament was willing to give us represtation but we demanded more then a English county got.... We were basicly what we call a territory to them. American cits. don t get a vote in congress if they live permantly in Guam, Peurto Rico, Samoa, or the Virgin Islands. They just get delegates.



No, many subs were sunk on behalf of British ships which is a voilation of neutrality.

Understand I am talking about legalities here. Not weather or not it should have been done.

Huh? Actually police would also advice you not to put your life in danger to save the neighbours!

In Australia, police have actually charged several guys with assault after they restrained a rapist... so the lesson there is, never help anyone.

In my opinion, every type of violence which is not a direct, immediate response to an attack in order to prevent further harm, is unethical. And even in pure defense, if not absolutely unavoidable, violence has to be kept to a minimum.

In terms of wars, this means that any war that is not fought on a country's own territory is unethical and should not be rewarded in any way. There are other things to influence things outside your souvereign territory. Diplomacy, trade, welfare and so on. But never ever war.

I'm pretty sure the brave men and women who fought and died for their country had their reason. But if they fought outside the borders of their state, they participated in an unethical conflict. No offense, but not in the least should we reward such unethical behaviour with an official memorial day.

Please keep in mind that this is just a very very coarse overview suitable as a rough guideline for the ideal, average case. In reality however there are lots and lots of special cases which need to be reviewed in detail on a case-to-case basis.

Terrorism always requires two parties: The terrorists and the one that let themselves get terrorized. Ignore the terrorists and the problem will solve itself.

Oh, and it were the USA that initially supported the former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Please, your point has bigger holes in it than the Titanic.... Even after being broken in half and sitting on the ocean floor all these years the Titanic is still more sea worthy than your post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was awesome.

we tried that for 8 years or did you forget bill clinton


you can not ignore a bully

you have to stand up to him/her

We all post in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine...

It doesnt make martial sense to do the minimum. The only way to win a fight is to be more violent then your opponent.



So if an enemy is launching rockets you can t invade?

this isn't a school yard, and we're not talking about lunch money. terrorism isn't grounded in jealousy or covetousness anymore than it's grounded in religion. these people are doing the things they're doing because they feel it's the only means they have left to preserve their way of life. ever read The Tempest? 9/11 was Caliban's curse. we let our companies move in and dominate their economy. we send our soldiers in if they try to stop that. we export our popular culture, laden in violence, sex and stupidity. we play their political divisions against each other for our own convenience and economic gain. we build factories and remove their children from the fields and villages, only to earn enough to squeak by where they are and not even around to help the family anymore.

it's the same thing we did to our own inner cities. once cars and highways were cheap enough, the entire middle class up and moved to the 'burbs. and since they no longer had to see the poor and wretched souls because everyone was crammed together in a city, they stopped devoting their resources to things like equality. everyone likes to think charities are there, but charities are receiving less and less every year. so the cities turned to warzones becuase the only realistic option most of the people had to make money was selling crack, heroin and speed. and what did we do about that? we declared war! and now we've got thousands of black and chicano men crowding rapists and killers out of our prisons due to mandatory sentencing; meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, private business offers to build, maintain and otherwise manage new and existing prisons across the country because there's money to be made.

this is a phyrric defeat: we're losing our wars, but those in charge are making so much money while they do it that they've got no incentive to win. that's the reality of things once you stop equating nations and institutions to schoolyard chums.

and dammit, i wasn't going to soapbox in this thread.

Some countries can't have an independent democracy without Americans complaining. Oh wait I forgot, the British Government isn;t independent and you're complaining.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu the diffrence between an Individual and an Army is organization.



But you are talking about "lunch" money. I can t remember who said it but, "what causes a squable among neighbors, breeds war among princes." I don t know if that was an exact quote but its close enough.

They don t have to take on our culture if they do so it is their choice. The ones who are fighting are trying to take choices away.

While I don t care much for alot of Pop culture, the sex and violence can be quite fun! Look one of our founding father Ben Franklin said that we need a new nation BECAUSE we are more VIOLENT then the British. He also was very fond of sex. He sired around 27 known bastards and he was a member of the Hell Fire Club. The Hell Fire's are (it still exists today) a bunch of wanton people!



The Amish are inside of the United States and they have been able to keep their children in their fields. I don t hear Amish folk going around and killing in a war-like fashion.

fair enough, but that's not a meaningless difference.



more like seed money. lunch money is given to a child by a parent. the bullied child probably won't starve to death. still, i have to commend you on a good point, so let's stick with the schoolyard metaphor, for the sake of argument.

are we, the U. S. of A., the poor bullied child? not by the way we talk about ourselves bringing democracy to poor, oppressed peoples of the world. no, in this metaphor we set ourselves up as the school authorities, settling others' disputes. a school authority doesn't beat up the offending bully. ideally, he or she tries to counsel him, investigates potential problems at home, etc. even if the bully blows up the authority's office, the authority reacts through bureaucratic channels. no, we're like the kid who takes karate for revenge and ignores all the lessons about judicious use and balanced mind.



you reversed the order of what i was saying. kids go off to work in enormous factories ('export processing zones', they're often called). it might not be the worst thing in the world if their labor was completely voluntary. but at best they're in a form of indentured servitude, and quite often they're detained by armed guards. if that were to happen here (and when it does) people are outraged, and rightly so. labor rights have to be fundamental in a society where paid labor is the primary, if not only, means of survival.

let's take another point. let's also imagine that tables were turned, and suddenly when you turn on the tube here in the U.S., on 9 out of 10 channels all you see is muslim religious preaching poorly dubbed into broken english. i'm sure you can imagine the raction, since we can already see a muted form of it in many places where spanish broadcasting has proliferated - and the social values of that programming isn't even any different than mainstream english stuff.

you're right again, the extremists grown in conditions such as these are fighting to take away choice in their own societies. we have the luxury of such overwhelming economic power that we don't need to fight to take away their choices; we can just purchase them away. no, they don't need to sell them off, but it's not like anyone else ever stood a chance at making a counter offer. and, we don't need to make an offer in the first place; if nothing else, we could at least apply a bit more conscience in our economic imperialism. we penalize tobacco companies for selling a product they know is bad for the target consumers, but we don't do anything at all similar to companies selling things aborad that are bad for cultures.

is that our responsibility? as a political state? no. as a democracy? if we vote it so. as human beings? i think most definately so.

No we are not the poor bullied child. What I hope we are the warrior who realizes that though this enemy is weaker than us that anybody on any given day can defeat a superior.

No matter what we have done to the muslim world does it mean we should roll over and die to right it.



Spanish channels are here cause someone thinks they can make money off it. Same as why there are American movies playing in muslim countries. If suddenly we had 9 out of ten channels of Imams preaching we would have lost an invasion!

The diffrence is how the tables would be turned... can a muslim come to this country and still pray towards Mecca? Yes. Would I allowed to live as a pagan ( for an easy explaination of my religon) if the calipate is created? Nope.