NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people would acccuse me of being very Liberal. I admit I do think liberally on various issues, however I just think there's times when certain people need their asses whipped. Hell, if we could have street judges I would approve that. It would save a shitload of tax money that they use on trials, but alas people can't be trusted enough to have such instant field judicial powers.

My main point here is sometimes a war is needed, I'll support a war if I feel as if it is justified and is delcared without all these strings attached and shrouded in shadiness. I don't approve of the war with Iraq, but I certainly did with Afghanistan. If anyone else fucks with me or my allies I'd be all for suiting up and kicking some ass, but apparently certain dumbasses have their own illogical and pure evil agendas. Does anyone else feel the same way as I do?

Public rudeness deserves an ass-kicking.

Not only that, having been ejected from Shea Stadium, I can safely say I do, indeed, act upon that policy.

When they had it comming...

Many people would acccuse me of being very Liberal. I admit I do think liberally on various issues, however I just think there's times when certain people need their asses whipped. Hell, if we could have street judges I would approve that. It would save a shitload of tax money that they use on trials, but alas people can't be trusted enough to have such instant field judicial powers.

My main point here is sometimes a war is needed, I'll support a war if I feel as if it is justified and is delcared without all these strings attached and shrouded in shadiness. I don't approve of the war with Iraq, but I certainly did with Afghanistan. If anyone else fucks with me or my allies I'd be all for suiting up and kicking some ass, but apparently certain dumbasses have their own illogical and pure evil agendas. Does anyone else feel the same way as I do?

A person kicking another person's ass is due when the consequence fits the crime.

In war, we have an outline we MUST follow or we end up in situations like Iraq or Vietnam. The outline is in Article 1 of the US Constitution. War is a situation where atrocities or crimes are so common place, that they REALLY aren't to much to pay mind to. Unless you go holocaust on people which is kind of immoral and unnecessary cruelness in war. Abu Garaib is another example of unnecessary cruelness. Those guys are not exactly all Osama or Al-Queda. They were Iraqi defenders. You have to be reasonable with who you put in that situation.

We need intelligence and we need to not be wussies, but we can't commit actions which are not justified to win the war (in this case the war on terrorism).

In this case, Afganistan is justified. Iraq is just a personal bush vendetta.

Many people would acccuse me of being very Liberal. I admit I do think liberally on various issues, however I just think there's times when certain people need their asses whipped. Hell, if we could have street judges I would approve that. It would save a shitload of tax money that they use on trials, but alas people can't be trusted enough to have such instant field judicial powers.

My main point here is sometimes a war is needed, I'll support a war if I feel as if it is justified and is delcared without all these strings attached and shrouded in shadiness. I don't approve of the war with Iraq, but I certainly did with Afghanistan. If anyone else fucks with me or my allies I'd be all for suiting up and kicking some ass, but apparently certain dumbasses have their own illogical and pure evil agendas. Does anyone else feel the same way as I do?

Most people will tell you the same thing when you ask this sort of question. The general feeling is that you 'won't hurt someone unless they hurt you first,' but the real defining line is how 'hurt' you think you are as a result of other people's actions.

I reject the initiation of violence, but I certainly don't reject the idea of revenge. Of course, given the way we've been sticking our fingers in other peoples' pies for what seems like eons now combat every now and then is more or less a certainty. America is a very belligerent nation; we've had our share of wars in the last 229 years.

Many people would acccuse me of being very Liberal. I admit I do think liberally on various issues, however I just think there's times when certain people need their asses whipped. Hell, if we could have street judges I would approve that. It would save a shitload of tax money that they use on trials, but alas people can't be trusted enough to have such instant field judicial powers.

My main point here is sometimes a war is needed, I'll support a war if I feel as if it is justified and is delcared without all these strings attached and shrouded in shadiness. I don't approve of the war with Iraq, but I certainly did with Afghanistan. If anyone else fucks with me or my allies I'd be all for suiting up and kicking some ass, but apparently certain dumbasses have their own illogical and pure evil agendas. Does anyone else feel the same way as I do?

I agree with the war in Iraq to an extent. Saddam was very cruel and needed to be put in his place.

I'm pretty liberal, but I think's appropriate whenever there's a decent reason for it. Kicking Saddam in the ass wasn't a bad thing. Reducing the Taliban to rubble wasn't bad either. If the asskicking wouldn't just be as selective as it is (I remind you of ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda, while the NATO bombed Belgrade, nobody did anything in Africa).

I'm pretty liberal, but I think's appropriate whenever there's a decent reason for it. Kicking Saddam in the ass wasn't a bad thing. Reducing the Taliban to rubble wasn't bad either. If the asskicking wouldn't just be as selective as it is (I remind you of ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda, while the NATO bombed Belgrade, nobody did anything in Africa).

That's not very liberal. Saying we should be getting into more fights in order to enforce a stricter sense of an already existing "moral" code is a tendancy I notice in the right. It's a cop out to say "whenever there's a decent reason" when you don't tell us what a decent reason is.

Saddam I wouldn't worry about. There was no reasonable evidece support he would be a distinct threat to us. I'd rather have taken the time to watch North Korea and Iran.

Especially during a time where I was heavily invovlved in the martial arts, I would advocate for the return of Dueling. I thought it would be a great way bring respect for eachother back into day to day life. People wouldn't be so mouthy, rude and insulting to eachother of Dueling were once again legal. Especialy in my Fencing Club, there was strong support for the idea. Even people who didn't know the difference between a Foil, Sabre and Epee (eh-pay) would concede I had a good point.

But now, I think that it is precisely this kind of attitude which contributed to the US & UK declaration of War on Iraq. It just reinforces that might (or in the case of Fencing, skill & speed) will make right. The motivation to begin with comes from the right place, a desire to see justice done, and quckly. I don't think its possible for Justice to be both swift AND true. It can be swifty and MOSTLY true, but by that token, it at times becomes swift and wrong, rather than true.

I'm a pacifiist. I've had just enough personal experience with War to be absolutely horrified at just the thought of it. Sometimes War is neccassary and there are rare times when it is also truly justified. WWI is an example of a neccessary War, while WWII is an example of justifiable war.

If you've ever been friends with an Afghani, you've experienced why they are known for making hospitality an art form unto itself. To see what first the Russians and then the Taliban inflicted on that nation is heartbreaking. In neither instance did people of Afghanistan provoke what was inflicted upon them. It was one of those sad times where War is justifiable. The righteous indignation of the US government was well placed, and my country (Canada) along with many others didn't for a moment question it. But I think the motivation of the US was coloured and tainted with something that should never be accepted as an excuse for war: REVENGE.

Why is it that the plight of the people of Afghanistan became important only after a series of atrocities carried out by a group of people who had illegally seized control of Afghanistan. The world did nothing but sit and watch from afar as a nation battered by 20 years of brutal war was deprived of their freedom so swiftly after that nation had finally won its freedom. NOTHING can justify what the Taliban and Al-Queda did with their terrorism. But the response of the US, while swift and overwhelming, seemed to me at least, to be in part a response rooted in a desire for retaliation. Thats not entirely a bad thing. Justice must be done. But it made it easier for the US Governemnt to declare war motivated by revenge, which is like an older,uglier much meaner brother of Retaliation.

IF you're going to war for what you feel is Justice, make sure then that evrything you do from that point on is rooted in a Justice as pure and true as humanly possible. In terms of action and policy, the US government carried out the war in Afghanistan as matter mostly of retribution rather than justice. Once the Taliban was "bombed back to the stone-age", the US switched its sights to Iraq, completely dropping the ball in terms of reconstruction in post-Taliban Afgahanistan. That is what makes me think that even in Afghanistan, the US was involved in a justifiable war, but for the wrong reasons. I think that if it had been entirely up thcitizens and soldiers of the US, more effective and long term actions would have been taken in Afghanistan.

I think it is entirely possible for a war to be justifiable, but nonetheless carried out for the wrong reasons. Revenge may taste sweet, but it almost always just leads to more grief further down the road. WWII was justified, but Russia's motivations for pressing on through eastern Europe and into Germany had nothing to do with justice. Stalin just wanted more land and power. He used the Russian peoples understandible desire for revenge as a way of getting it. While Bush is in no way like Stalin (who was much smarter), he did use his nations desire for justice and retribution to acheive his own desire for revenge.

agree? disagree? apply blindfold and line up against wall?

Never

My main point here is sometimes a war is needed, I'll support a war if I feel as if it is justified and is delcared without all these strings attached and shrouded in shadiness. I don't approve of the war with Iraq, but I certainly did with Afghanistan. If anyone else fucks with me or my allies I'd be all for suiting up and kicking some ass, but apparently certain dumbasses have their own illogical and pure evil agendas. Does anyone else feel the same way as I do?

So your saying that its wrong to free people that are oppressed and suffering?

I merely say this because I have quite a few friends that are over there right now fighting in a war you say is not justified. What strings are attached to this war?

You might say that its because Bush has to finish what his father "didn't."

That is more of a case of, wasnt allowed to finish. The mandate was for the liberation of Kuwait only and there would have been no support for a further campaign.

Is democracy such a horrible thing to spread? All over the middle east there are people that are aching to be freed of the Fundamentalist Theocracies that they live under. Democracy will give them the right to choose how to be represented and how to be ruled. Countries like Syria are loosening their stranglehold on their citizens. In Saudi Arabia women are finally being recognized and given the right to free speech and to live as they want to, not as the Koran demands. Is this all a bad thing? Its happening because the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are being allowed to control their own futures. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

The war was never about oil. If it were, then we wouldnt be paying 2.30 a gallon for gasoline here in the US. If anything, the inaction that France, Germany, and Russia wanted was for oil. They were profiting by trading oil for food.

The people in Iraq want us there. They are glad to have us there. The soldiers that have been spoken of are not defenders of Iraq, they were bodyguards and thugs led by a dictator. Most of the people that are detained now are foreigners. Ones that filter into the country and fight against the democracy that is forming.

By the way Unchained, you said

I'd rather have taken the time to watch North Korea and Iran.

Are you aware that a war with NK for instance would have required millions of US soldiers? Are you also aware that that war would cost the lives of 10-100 times what we lost in Iraq? Sun Tzu said in "The Art of War" that a good general only fights a battle after it has been won. You cant just pick fights that will lead to long, drawn out campaigns. The battles need to be picked where they are already won. We knew that going in to Iraq would be easy. Thats why we invaded Iraq and not Iran or NK.

If you have any questions you would like asked of someone that has been over there, please feel free to ask. I know quite a few people that have been there and are still over there.

Never

Sour Grapes. You have no legs and therefore could not kick an ass anyway.

Sour Grapes. You have no legs and therefore could not kick an ass anyway.
Yeah. And if I can't kick ass, then no one can!

Only when someone is a threat to my family.

Yeah. And if I can't kiss ass, then no one can!

You're lipless too??? Pirating be dangerous work!

You're lipless too??? Pirating be dangerous work!
Fucking typing with a hangover :headbang:

>SNIP<

By the way Unchained, you said



Are you aware that a war with NK for instance would have required millions of US soldiers? Are you also aware that that war would cost the lives of 10-100 times what we lost in Iraq? Sun Tzu said in "The Art of War" that a good general only fights a battle after it has been won. You cant just pick fights that will lead to long, drawn out campaigns. The battles need to be picked where they are already won. We knew that going in to Iraq would be easy. Thats why we invaded Iraq and not Iran or NK.

If you have any questions you would like asked of someone that has been over there, please feel free to ask. I know quite a few people that have been there and are still over there.

Please read my post again and note my choice of words. I said "watch" North Korea and Iran. Not "go to war with."

Especially during a time where I was heavily invovlved in the martial arts, I would advocate for the return of Dueling. I thought it would be a great way bring respect for eachother back into day to day life. People wouldn't be so mouthy, rude and insulting to eachother of Dueling were once again legal. Especialy in my Fencing Club, there was strong support for the idea. Even people who didn't know the difference between a Foil, Sabre and Epee (eh-pay) would concede I had a good point.

The idea of legalized dueling makes about as much sense to me as giving Britney Spears a second tit job. It appeals to the sickeningly idealist distortion that people will always use this power respoisbly and in proper accordance with other peoples' rights. Legalize dueling and you've got $DRUG_CRUSADER knocking down my door telling me he's dueling me "on behalf of the society I'm killing."

But now, I think that it is precisely this kind of attitude which contributed to the US & UK declaration of War on Iraq. It just reinforces that might (or in the case of Fencing, skill & speed) will make right. The motivation to begin with comes from the right place, a desire to see justice done, and quckly. I don't think its possible for Justice to be both swift AND true. It can be swifty and MOSTLY true, but by that token, it at times becomes swift and wrong, rather than true.

I'm having some trouble parsing this.

I'm a pacifiist. I've had just enough personal experience with War to be absolutely horrified at just the thought of it. Sometimes War is neccassary and there are rare times when it is also truly justified. WWI is an example of a neccessary War, while WWII is an example of justifiable war.

I disagree heartily with WWI on many levels, and I have some problems with our method of entry to WWII, but its good that it all worked out.

If you've ever been friends with an Afghani, you've experienced why they are known for making hospitality an art form unto itself. To see what first the Russians and then the Taliban inflicted on that nation is heartbreaking. In neither instance did people of Afghanistan provoke what was inflicted upon them. It was one of those sad times where War is justifiable.

The war there was justifiable primarily on the grounds of the terrorism which spawned there. The deplorable conditions there--as in many places in the world are grim facts of life that need to be dealt with by the spread of ideas and thought. I thought you said you were a pacifist?

I don't like the idea of compromising myself for someone else's benefit. Telling me that, as a citizen of the US, I have a financial responsibility for every suffering person in the world horrifies me on too many levels to count.

The righteous indignation of the US government was well placed, and my country (Canada) along with many others didn't for a moment question it. But I think the motivation of the US was coloured and tainted with something that should never be accepted as an excuse for war: REVENGE.

Revenge is a perfect reason for war. You're mistaking revenge with "stupidity." It is rampant in nearly all observable forms of the American political spectrum.

Why is it that the plight of the people of Afghanistan became important only after a series of atrocities carried out by a group of people who had illegally seized control of Afghanistan.

Agreed. That's pretty ridiculous. Nevermind that we funded them back in the day.

The world did nothing but sit and watch from afar as a nation battered by 20 years of brutal war was deprived of their freedom so swiftly after that nation had finally won its freedom. NOTHING can justify what the Taliban and Al-Queda did with their terrorism. But the response of the US, while swift and overwhelming, seemed to me at least, to be in part a response rooted in a desire for retaliation. Thats not entirely a bad thing. Justice must be done. But it made it easier for the US Governemnt to declare war motivated by revenge, which is like an older,uglier much meaner brother of Retaliation.

This isn't parsing either. "Revenge" and "retaliation" are synonyms.

IF you're going to war for what you feel is Justice, make sure then that evrything you do from that point on is rooted in a Justice as pure and true as humanly possible. In terms of action and policy, the US government carried out the war in Afghanistan as matter mostly of retribution rather than justice.

Retribution and Justice are pretty much synonyms too, at least in this context. I'm having a hard time approaching this argument since it seems rooted too strongly in subjective principles of an as-yet-unidentified code of 'justice.'

Once the Taliban was "bombed back to the stone-age", the US switched its sights to Iraq, completely dropping the ball in terms of reconstruction in post-Taliban Afgahanistan. That is what makes me think that even in Afghanistan, the US was involved in a justifiable war, but for the wrong reasons. I think that if it had been entirely up thcitizens and soldiers of the US, more effective and long term actions would have been taken in Afghanistan.

We [i]were in that war for the right reasons, our only shortcoming is not finishing the job. We never do. Saying we were involved in a "justifiable war for the wrong reasons" is a gross contradiction in terms.

I think it is entirely possible for a war to be justifiable, but nonetheless carried out for the wrong reasons. Revenge may taste sweet, but it almost always just leads to more grief further down the road.

Only if mismanaged.

WWII was justified, but Russia's motivations for pressing on through eastern Europe and into Germany had nothing to do with justice. Stalin just wanted more land and power. He used the Russian peoples understandible desire for revenge as a way of getting it. While Bush is in no way like Stalin (who was much smarter), he did use his nations desire for justice and retribution to acheive his own desire for revenge.

agree? disagree? apply blindfold and line up against wall?

Yes, Stalin was a dick.

Yes, Stalin was a dick.

And a pretty big one too.

An ass-kicking is totally justified when someone says to you "Looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays."

An ass-kicking is totally justified when someone says to you "Looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays."


Wow-I never heard that one, but it is annoying.

I have to agree-if someone says that to me, I will pull their shirt up over their head, knee them in the face, spin them around and kick them in the ass.
(when they say this, do they do that annoying "quote" thing in the air with their fingers?)

It's from Office Space.

Whenever you know you can get away with it.