General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
auction1
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wen
Power, and propaganda for your own people so bush could stay in office, and to justify having such a big military so that people don't lose their jobs.
Those aren't really reasons. Power potentially could be a reason to go to war, but since we're already vastly superior to any other country I'm going to have to pass on it.

Propaganda could be a cause...If our only news station was fox news, and we didn't have a free press, and the internet was censored completely.

Justify having a big military? I've never really found that the government has trouble concocting reasons (generally invalid reasons) to keep our military spending an order of magnitude over our closest competitors. Besides, they had terrorism to fight, that's surely all the excuse they needed to keep the budget healthy.

Why exactly were we supposed to get involved in WWII earlier? Still waiting on the explanation behind the idea that getting rid of saddam was bad, AND not getting rid of hitler earlier was bad. Far as I can tell both were brutal dictators who had shown a tendency to invade neighboring countries, but I'm sure there's some redeeming qualities I'm missing in saddam. Maybe something along the lines of: He didn't bomb your country, so it's none of your concern perhaps? That's the rediculous international attitude of watch and whine I was talking about earlier, and it disgusts me.
Old 05-01-2005, 09:28 PM auction1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kueller
Those aren't really reasons. Power potentially could be a reason to go to war, but since we're already vastly superior to any other country I'm going to have to pass on it.

....

God damn i hate being an american sometimes. The people here are morons.

Quote:
Propaganda could be a cause...If our only news station was fox news, and we didn't have a free press, and the internet was censored completely.
Ive yet to see any good real non fearmongering news on ANY news station aired.

Quote:
Justify having a big military? I've never really found that the government has trouble concocting reasons (generally invalid reasons) to keep our military spending an order of magnitude over our closest competitors. Besides, they had terrorism to fight, that's surely all the excuse they needed to keep the budget healthy.
In times of peace the united states is not to have a standing military, per our constitution.

Quote:
Why exactly were we supposed to get involved in WWII earlier? Still waiting on the explanation behind the idea that getting rid of saddam was bad, AND not getting rid of hitler earlier was bad. Far as I can tell both were brutal dictators who had shown a tendency to invade neighboring countries, but I'm sure there's some redeeming qualities I'm missing in saddam. Maybe something along the lines of: He didn't bomb your country, so it's none of your concern perhaps? That's the rediculous international attitude of watch and whine I was talking about earlier, and it disgusts me.
We had no justification to attack saddam THIS TIME. We attacked him when he invaded another country, and we pulled out without finishing the job. This time we used him as a scapegoat, and settled a vendetta that the president had against him.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-01-2005, 09:34 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

auction1
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
We had no justification to attack saddam THIS TIME. We attacked him when he invaded another country, and we pulled out without finishing the job. This time we used him as a scapegoat, and settled a vendetta that the president had against him.
cease-fire != peace
He (continually) broke the terms of the cease-fire, perfectly reasonable to remove him. Though asking why the hell we waited so long is another good question.
From a moral perspective we had every reason to take him out for the last 20+ years.



Still waiting on wen to explain why we were wrong to not go in gung-ho after hitler and were also wrong to take out saddam....

Edit: You could at least be consistent in your hate for the US if you said we were wrong to not take saddam out when he first showed himself to be a sadistic dictator. Heck, then you could be mad at the US for being friendly with the Saudis as well, considering what scumbags they are.

Last edited by auction1; 05-01-2005 at 10:43 PM..
Old 05-01-2005, 10:39 PM auction1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Slacker
 
Slacker's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Ive yet to see any good real non fearmongering news on ANY news station aired.

Anyone who depends solely on the teleivision media for their news is sorely misinformed. Fearmongering creates ratings, ratings = money. Media is a business, a very large and profitable business. The truth and objectivity aren't nearly so important as making a buck.

Quote:
In times of peace the united states is not to have a standing military, per our constitution.
What article and section? I just did a search for "army" "war" and "military" in the constitution and I didn't find anything relevant except for a clause in article I section 8: "...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

That idea is just ridiculous in this day and age. You can't just create a million soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen overnight. It takes years to train them, decades if you want good leaders and instructors. Not to mention probably 5-10% of our jobs are directly related to the military.

Quote:
We had no justification to attack saddam THIS TIME. We attacked him when he invaded another country, and we pulled out without finishing the job. This time we used him as a scapegoat, and settled a vendetta that the president had against him.
I won't even bothering arguing over the true reason for the war. Anything that's to be said on the subject has been said a hundred times before in as many threads.
__________________
[M]ilitary [M]ayhem
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy
Old 05-01-2005, 10:57 PM Slacker is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

Aziraphale
 
Wen, I'm glad that ... Green Day summarizes your thoughts. That says a lot about you. When the song is about Media dictating thoughts, and you're using that song to express how you feel ... good work on that one.

What country are you from, anyway?
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-01-2005, 10:59 PM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Aziraphale
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
In times of peace the united states is not to have a standing military, per our constitution.

One of the sole points for the constitution and a federal branch of government was so that we could have a standing military. Patrick Henry was probably the loudest voice against a standing army, but that was only an army that regularly enforced the laws of the state. Our military, generally, does not do the wealth of our law enforcement. While still public branches, there are, obviously, stark differences between local law enforcement and the federal military.

After the constitution was ratified, many anti-federalists shifted their tones to be against how the Constitution does not have a limit of a standing military in times of peace, where as England's bill of rights, or whatever it was at the time, did generally limit that... and subjugate the military below the civilian. Many states adopted regulations--but this was mostly state organized militia.

Furthermore, it could be argued that this is not a time of peace.
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf
Old 05-01-2005, 11:09 PM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aziraphale
Furthermore, it could be argued that this is not a time of peace.

What country are we at war with?
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-01-2005, 11:27 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kueller
cease-fire != peace
He (continually) broke the terms of the cease-fire, perfectly reasonable to remove him. Though asking why the hell we waited so long is another good question.
From a moral perspective we had every reason to take him out for the last 20+ years.

20 years ago we were still friends with saddam.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-01-2005, 11:29 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

Aziraphale
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
What country are we at war with?

It would make logical sense for you to present the article in the constitution that says that we are not to have a standing military in peacetime, and reply to the crux of my post ... than to take the last sentence, which is entirely irrelevent if the first two paragraphs are true.

Now, to answer your question, we are not officially at war with any country... in that there is no, atleast not anymore, congressional or executive declaration of war that is still being sustained. However, "peace" does not mean "not at war." If there were world-wide peace, then you could make an argument for not having a standing army (though I don't think it's sufficient anymore, maybe 220 years ago, before the US developed itself into a world power)... but there is not world wide peace. Quite the contrary the world is in flux... whether it's genocide in the Darfur, man-made-famine in North Korea (with rumors of a crazy dictator launching missiles at the Allucian [sp] Islands, and reports of rockets being shot over neighboring, relatively peaceful countries [Japan]), and what seems like rather constant fighting in the Middle East ... I would not say that the world is in a state of perpetual peace. There may not be a world war, but there is certainly no world peace.

Now, if you provide the example of why we aren't to have a standing military in times of peace, passed in our federal constitution, then I will stand corrected in my original argument, and we can continue with this one (whether "not at war" is the same as "peace.")
__________________
I've been locked out for a month ... wtf

Last edited by Aziraphale; 05-01-2005 at 11:54 PM.. Reason: edit--replaced "Sudan" with "Darfur"
Old 05-01-2005, 11:52 PM Aziraphale is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

auction1
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
20 years ago we were still friends with saddam.
Saddam used nerve gas in the iran-iraq war (80-88), should be all the moral justification anyone needed to take him out. Last I checked 2005 - 1980 = 25. But my math might be a little fuzzy.
Old 05-01-2005, 11:56 PM auction1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kueller
Saddam used nerve gas in the iran-iraq war (80-88), should be all the moral justification anyone needed to take him out. Last I checked 2005 - 1980 = 25. But my math might be a little fuzzy.

Who helped saddam get/use those?

...

U...s...a....
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 05-02-2005, 01:19 AM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

BlackNova
 
I didn't read most of this thread, but I successfully won a mock trial accusing Truman of war crimes... some points to consider in the opposition:

1) There was very little forwarning of the attacks
2) WHy could they not have demonstrated the power of the nuke in the open for Japan to see its devastation without casualties?
3) There was only 3 days between the dropping of the first and second bomb, which was not enough time for Japan to realize they'd been bombed and go throught he motions... chances are afetr the first they could have negotiated a surrender
4) Truman went against the advice of his top advisers, from my understanding on what I read a long time ago during the mock trial

there is some other stuff but i can't remember, if I repeated anything, forgive me too little time to read through everything
__________________
The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.
Mark Twain

72ff950f8588f4d55a971c6b0a6bc1ac
Old 05-02-2005, 01:41 AM BlackNova is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

auction1
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Who helped saddam get/use those?

...

U...s...a....
You're trying to expand the scope of my argument when I specifically limited it to what I could defend. Sorry but I'm not going to be dragged into that discussion as it has no relevance to my original question. Which was, for those who've forgotten, why the US was wrong to not move against hitler sooner AND wrong to move against saddam at all?
Old 05-02-2005, 02:02 AM auction1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

Slacker
 
Slacker's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
Who helped saddam get/use those?

...

U...s...a....

Why are you changing the current thread of discussion? Are you going to defend your statement that the Constitution specifically states we're not to have a standing military? Or should I consider your evasion a sign that your argument has no basis whatsoever?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
In times of peace the united states is not to have a standing military, per our constitution.
__________________
[M]ilitary [M]ayhem
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy
Old 05-02-2005, 02:15 AM Slacker is offline  
Reply With Quote
#74  

2slow
Whatsisname
I'm a pederast. 12yr old boys turn me on!
 
2slow's Avatar
 
1) We told them "we have a weapon more powerful than you can imagine." Of course they won't take it seriously. Thats a mistake they have to pay for.

2) A weapon is useless unless you are willing to use it. We only had 4 ( i think) atomic bombs made, they were extraordinarily expensive, and they could not be wasted.

3) Bullshit. 3 days time is plenty. They knew and refused even after nagasaki. It was only after we told them we had a third with "tokyo" written on it did they surrender.

4) So fucking what, he's president, he makes the call, end of story.

War crimes, what a load of shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNova
I didn't read most of this thread, but I successfully won a mock trial accusing Truman of war crimes... some points to consider in the opposition:

1) There was very little forwarning of the attacks
2) WHy could they not have demonstrated the power of the nuke in the open for Japan to see its devastation without casualties?
3) There was only 3 days between the dropping of the first and second bomb, which was not enough time for Japan to realize they'd been bombed and go throught he motions... chances are afetr the first they could have negotiated a surrender
4) Truman went against the advice of his top advisers, from my understanding on what I read a long time ago during the mock trial

there is some other stuff but i can't remember, if I repeated anything, forgive me too little time to read through everything
__________________
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU
DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU

RMS of the [M] GNU\Linux Krew 2006
Old 05-02-2005, 02:30 AM 2slow is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.