The nature of war

[Jack_Dubious]

Is the killing of innocents ever justifiable?



JDub

[Thordic]

This one is gonna get closed soon, I can smell it :)

There's no point on this because no one is going to change anyone elses mind. The people who think war sucks will still think war sucks and the people who want to kill everyone will still want to kill everyone, etc.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by Thordic
This one is gonna get closed soon, I can smell it :)

There's no point on this because no one is going to change anyone elses mind. The people who think war sucks will still think war sucks and the people who want to kill everyone will still want to kill everyone, etc.

I agree...but isnt that true with any thread on the internet? :)

JDub

[Restola]

One example that I think justifies killing of "innocents" was the daytime bombing of war factories in Germany during WW2.

If you mean absolutely innocent in every way, people that have spent the entire war in their own basement never to step outside, buy war bonds, or give a samwich to a soldier or factory worker, then the killing of those people would be wrong.

But at least I'm in before the lock!

[RamboPreacher]

is anyone completely innocent?
is anyone completely guilty?

what is the definition of innocent, for the purposes of this thread?

[Archangel Damien]

there is no such thing as innocent not even the pope is innocent

[Jack_Dubious]

for the sake of argument lets say..
"innocents" = civilians (i.e. non-combatant men, women, children)

IMO I wouldnt consider them civilians if they were killed while working in a factory or directly contributing to a countries "war machine".

JDub

[shartley]

I don’t want to get into this very deep….. so I will just say… Sometimes there is collateral damage which can include the death of civilians and or non-combatants. And this can, and often is, justifiable. I do not however, think that the intentional targeting of civilians and non-combatants is justifiable.

[oldsoldier]

If the killing of thousands releases the repressed millions...or, prevent further attacks on innocent civilians, then, yes, it is justified. Indiscriminate bombing campaigns, and the wanton murder of civilians is NOT war. That is TERRORISM. Civilian causalties, unfortunately, do happen in war, but we make every attempt to minimize it. Hell, we have been dropping leaflets for onths in Iraq, telling the civilians that, in the event we attack, they will be safe outside major cities, and that they will be warned. The US, nor any major nation, makes war on civilians. It is just a simple truth that some of them will die in the crossfire. Unfortunate, but unavoidable.

[Orange Crush]

This is a good topic and one my wife and I have touched on several times. She is very humanist, and I am very American. I believe the lives of the innocents should be spared when possible. However, if I had to choose between the lives of Amercian service men and women and opposing civilians, the choice is still simple for me, my wife on the other hand doesn't share this view. To her soldiers have accepted their possible fate.

The main thing to keep in mind is this: Battles can be waged by the military, but war is waged by an entire country.

A full scale military action cannot succeed without the full support of the nations economy. Civilians make bombs, guns, tanks, fuel, textiles, etc...that fuel the war machine. If you work in those factories, then you too should realize and accept that you are a military target.

[Quiet]

The killing of true innocents is distasteful but it happens. I doubt many would have their conscience allow them to do it intentionally but mistakes do happen on the field. How many times have you been the victim of friendly fire on the paintball field?

[Mango]

"Kill em all, let god sort them out."

[Jack_Dubious]

I posted this topic cause I thought it was also a good topic and AO is one of the few places i visit on the net that I feel would be able to carry a mature conversation. I really enjoy and respect reading everyone elses thoughts and opinions on the subject.

IMO there are times when targeting and killing of innocent civilians can be justified.(Hiroshima) But then there are other times when I think it is an atrocity (Dresden).

Either way tho, justifiable or not....I still realize that these are people, just like you and me, who are slaughtered.

JDub

[shartley]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
IMO there are times when targeting and killing of innocent civilians can be justified.(Hiroshima) But then there are other times when I think it is an atrocity (Dresden).

Either way tho, justifiable or not....I still realize that these are people, just like you and me, who are slaughtered.

JDub
Yes, I have to expand on my previous statement to include situations like that.

However, “slaughtered” would not be my choice of wording. Slaughtered would more accurately describe what happened to soldiers by other soldiers at places like Normandy, Pacific Island Campaigns, etc. (or what happened to Jews in concentration camps, Chinese in work/scientific camps, etc.)

And yes, they are people just like you and me, but so are soldiers. Just being a soldier does not take away your being like others. Sure, your job and training are now to protect your country and its interests, to the death if need be, but you are still a person. I served my country as a soldier, and I am the same person now that I was then, I just have a different job.

As was posted by Orange Crush, war is not waged by soldiers alone. And sometimes the ultimate price is not always paid by soldiers. War is not a “wonderful” thing, and should be avoided if can be. But there are times when nothing short of it will solve a problem. And unfortunately “talking” solves NOTHING with those that don’t care what the world thinks or wants.

“Halt…. Or I will say Halt AGAIN!”

[beefstew]

if you think children are innocent jsut look at the kids on this forum:)
or a more serious note, i think that while it is not acceptable and opposing my moral values to target cvillians that have NOTHING to do with the war effort, in war there are accepted losses of local civillian people especially in the type of war most technelogically advanced nations use now adays. The use of nuclear bombs, in my mind, is totally an unforgivable offence, just because of the fact that innocent people WILL die and the damaged areas (both physical and radiation) would have to include civillians and so called "innocents" and that the killing of that number of people could never be justified.
---BEEF---
*sig taken out because of seriousness of topic

[Jack_Dubious]

I used the word "slaughter" cause for me it conjours up the image of animals about the be slaughtered. The cow doesnt know its about to get hit over the head with a sledgehammer and turned into hamburger......just like some guy in his bed might not know a bomb is about to fall on his house.

Yes I know soldiers are people too, and that wasnt a point I was trying to make. What I think im trying to get at is exactly what you say when you say "war is not a wonderful thing", cause its not. Yet you are right when you say that sometimes its the only solution. I totally agree.
My point is that war should always be thought of as horrific and terrible, not glamorous and noble (like what hollywood would like you to think). And the enemy (soldier and civilian) is a person whos probably just fighting for what he believes in....much like ourselves.

But like I said...i agree, sometimes countries/political factions/etc. give you only one option.....



JDub

"The horror......the horror......"


Originally posted by shartley

Yes, I have to expand on my previous statement to include situations like that.

However, “slaughtered” would not be my choice of wording. Slaughtered would more accurately describe what happened to soldiers by other soldiers at places like Normandy, Pacific Island Campaigns, etc. (or what happened to Jews in concentration camps, Chinese in work/scientific camps, etc.)

And yes, they are people just like you and me, but so are soldiers. Just being a soldier does not take away your being like others. Sure, your job and training are now to protect your country and its interests, to the death if need be, but you are still a person. I served my country as a soldier, and I am the same person now that I was then, I just have a different job.

[oldsoldier]

wanna experience the rush of war? Stay up for hours on end, stay outside for a week, through all the weather, eat bad food, then put on a blindfold and run once across a highway. that about sums it up...personal misery, with that brief moment of near death, or maybe even getting killed.
I am not trying to makr light of it, its just that soldiers suffer mentally, and experience a kind of personal discomfort that cant really be portrayed. you just kind of live with it. You poke fun at stupid things, and laugh about stuff that most others wont fint funny. Thats how you deal with boredom, the weather, and the occasional fright of "well, this could be it".
But, I am way off topic. Restola brought up a good point...one I didnt really give any consideration to. But, When I first read this post, I interpreted it to mean the "unjustified killing of noncombatants". Bombing factories stops production of war materiel. So does the sinking of merchant ships. and the bombing of telecommunication centers. This is justifiable in the sense that it stops that factory, or ships goods, from supporting the war effort. In effect, shortening the war, thus reducing casualties, both military and civilian.
Good god, I shouldnt post at 3 am...

[FatMan]

I agree with Sam on this one.

Depending on what you mean by "justify" almost any killing at all is to be avoided. Still, we make the hard decision to engage in war, and accept the responsibility for the results. We try to limit the carnage to those we consider "combatants" or to their direct support systems (weapons factories, C&C, etc.).

Once upon a time, when war happened, the armies met out in a field, lined up and went at it, and whoever was left standing at the end "won." All that has changed - war is now fought in an among the populace. When you fight that kind of war "innocents" will be killed. We have to accept the reponsibility for that.

Things like nuclear weapons and other WoMD are much harder to deal with, because they are so indescriminate. That's why we really, really try NOT to use them. You know MacArthur wanted to nuke China - thank the Lord we restrained ourselves. Was the use in Japan "justified?" I think so, but again, being justified doesn't mean we aren't responsible for the fact that we did it.

I think what worries me the most about modern war is the insane notion that we can wage war and NOT be responsible for our actions by somehow "justifying" each and every kill and saying "well that was justified, so it's not our problem." It just doesn't work that way. Our country leads the world in develping weapons systems that allow us to minimize collateral damage. Our military actively studies the issues of collateral damage and fratercide and how they relate to the rules of engagement. We have the best ratio of "justified" to "not justified" kills going. And Still, we are hounded on the issue. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep working to do better. I AM saying, we should stand up and accept the responsibility and say "yes, that happened, it was regretable, and we are STILL going to do what we think we have to do."

Everywhere you look people are trying to shed responsibility - and I think THAT is the real issue. The current topic being an excellent example of this.

FatMan

[slateman]

I hate to sound cruel but...
I war there are two types of people: Your people and everybody else. "Everybody else" can consist of the enemy and noncombatants. Now you try not to hurt the noncombatants because they relly want nothing to do with this madness, but when it comes down to it, the only people that matter are your people.

[oldsoldier]

Fatman hit on another point. We try NOT to kill innocent civilians. But, we are always held the most RESPONSIBLE when we do. How many times have you heard about the helicopter pilot who shot at our own guys in the Gulf? And, now, the pilot that killed the canadians accidentally a few weeks ago. Canadians who, mind you, were conducting live fire exercises in FRONT of the FEBA (FEBA is Forward Edge of Battle Area, basically the front lines). This is not standard procedure, and, the pilot, assuming he was being fired upon, fired back. Now, they want to prosecute the pilot. It was a mistake, and it happens. People dont seem to see that point; it is easy to make mistakes under stress like that. It is not anyone's fault, hell the canadian military should be held responsible for doing what they did.

[Quiet]

Being Canadian, I have a little difficulty swallowing what you just wrote. I don't see how the Canadian military can be blamed for that incident. The Canadian forces were under US command, the US command knew what they were doing, where they were doing it. It was an error, plain and simple. I don't hold the United States responsible, these things happen. It wasn't the intention of those pilots to bomb their allies.

[Sooky]

Canadians who, mind you, were conducting live fire exercises in FRONT of the FEBA (FEBA is Forward Edge of Battle Area, basically the front lines). This is not standard procedure, and, the pilot, assuming he was being fired upon, fired back. Now, they want to prosecute the pilot. It was a mistake, and it happens. People dont seem to see that point; it is easy to make mistakes under stress like that. It is not anyone's fault, hell the canadian military should be held responsible for doing what they did.

Actually, an audio tape was recently released of what went on in the cockpit, and the pilot stated that he thought he was being fired upon. He was then told NOT to engage because there was friendly's in the area, yet he IGNORED that, and bombed them anyways! On top of that, the pilots where on speed, on probably not quite able to think straight anyways (which, I believe, is what the pilot's defence attorneys are claiming anyways...).

So it seems like the ones to be held "responsible" should be the pilots for ignoring orders, or the US Army for requiring pilots to take drugs which inhibit their thinking.:p ;)

[aaron_mag]

Simple answer....no. It is never justified. Just like making a mistake and accidently killing your allies is not justified. At the same time spilling your hot coffee on your lap while driving and hitting the car next to you and accidently killing passengers from the other car is not justified.

My point is that the world is not perfect. It would be nice to apply perfect rules for a perfect world but that is not the way it works out. It may not be justified but accidents and innocents accidently getting in the way of things that need to be done is not avoidable. The statement that "life is not fair" probably does little to console the Canadian soldiers families but it remains a reality. We have all had times when we asked the heavens "WHY?". I've had my share of asking that question (some of it pretty recent) and I have never gotten a good answer....but that is the way it is.

EDIT

Post above (typed while I was typing) talks about drugs and pilots being warned not to fire. If that was the case then I say burn them!!!!:mad:

[Orange Crush]

Originally posted by Sooky
So it seems like the ones to be held "responsible" should be the pilots for ignoring orders, or the US Army for requiring pilots to take drugs which inhibit their thinking.:p ;)

US Air Force!! ;)

[Jack_Dubious]

"U.S. Air Force. We Fly HIGH!":D


JDub

[Jonno06]

The killing of anyone is wrong. Be that of a soldier,or a civilian casualty. It is murder either way.

[Army]

Jonno, you're a moron.


There is killing, and there is murder. Two seperate moral conclusions. To kill without reason, is murder, and should be punished according to Gods word. To kill during protection of life, liberty, or ones country, is justified by all moral standards and any accepted religeous practices. Yes, murder can occur during war, but it is rare.

The citizen of a country that is at war, will be well aware that he/she could become a casualty. Those same "non-combatants" are building the vehicles, loading the bombs, making the rifles, and manufacturing the instruments of war. This hardly keeps them innocent. We don't have the luxury of deciding who is or isn't innocent, from 50,000ft or down the street. If you are found in a contested area, you will be fired upon until we can determine who is who or what.

Hiroshima was a major shipping and heavy industry city, it was also a POW camp. Nagasaki was a major heavy industry city. The Allies chose these cities not for their population levels, but for their military target. We could have easily dropped on Tokyo, but it wasn't much of an industrial center. Truth be known though, the Allies killed more people by firebombing Tokyo and Kobe, than were killed in either nuked city. Both actions were needed to break the war morale of Japan, so we didn't have to physically invade the island, which was estimated to result in at least a million lost lives, Allied and Japanese.

To kill a fellow human is always distasteful and horrific, but neccessary during war. War is the ultimate political failure, but far too often inevitable, and unavoidable.

[Trigger_Happy]

People are saying that it's not justified, but WHAT IS "justified"? You have to be justified by someone or something.

We are probably going to use landmines in Iraq! Bad idea? I thought so at first. Land mines kill the innocent even after the conflict! But what American pacifists never understand is this: Killing is not a side affect of war! Killing IS the war! The entire goal of training troops, making guns, bombs, etc is to DESTROY things. If we need to fight a war, we have accept the consequesnces of that.

Not using land mines would SERIOUSLY endanger MANY troops lives! Am I sorry about the poor people that may be killed as a result? VERY SOORY! On the other hand, I accept that war=carnage.

Let me get back to where I was, now. If to be "justified" a person or action must justify it, than killing "innocents" during war is justified. War involves action taken against us, and the people running the war operations also give their word that the deaths are justified.

When it's kill or be killed, we can't lay down and die because we don't want to take a life. Evil has no problem killing! If we let evil win by allowing it, than we deserve the death we will receive.

[Vendetta]

She is very humanist, and I am very American.

"Real" Americans can't be humanist?


IMO there are times when targeting and killing of innocent civilians can be justified.(Hiroshima) But then there are other times when I think it is an atrocity (Dresden).

Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.

[Jack_Dubious]

According to Army's previous post, it did have a significant military value. I personally felt it was justified due to the fact that it (and nagasaki) quickly ended the pacific war...without having to invade Japan. What military value was Dresden?

and no I dont care that they werent blonde or blue eyed. Asians and caucasians seem equally foriegn to me.(im half asian, half caucasian)

but truth be told...the fact that japanese soldiers executed my grandfather (in front of my mother) probably clouds my perception of things....

JDub


Originally posted by Vendetta

Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.
That is a racist comment and I for one don’t appreciate it. Before some of you folks want to go THAT route, do some research….. find out how many Europeans died in firebombing of civilian populations. I think you will be shocked at what you find.

Oh… but I bet some of them were blond and had blue eyes….. sounds pretty German to me. Forget “Europe” look for fire bombing facts concerning WWII and Germany alone.

The ONLY thing that gets folks upset about the two bombs on Japan is that fact alone…. All that was done with just TWO bombs. If the war had continued and standard bombing had occurred, you can bet FAR more civilians would have died… as well as soldiers.

Justified… you bet. And it had nothing to do with their looks. Next time try to use logical and rational debating tactics, and leave racism out of it. Thank you.

[Vendetta]

But I do think racism had a lot to do with the nuclear bomings. Remember that American citizens of this race were put into concentration camps in this country. I fear that it may happen again if when we have more acts of terroism on our shores.

[aaron_mag]

The problem with this question is that it puts us in the role of armchair generals. We might as well go back and argue whether Sherman's march to the sea was justified.

Even if the losses would have been minimal to invade Japan (which probably wasn't the case) who here would volunteer to be part of the "minimal" casulties when there was a way to end it with even less casulties? Probably won't be many volunteers....

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Vendetta
But I do think racism had a lot to do with the nuclear bomings. Remember that American citizens of this race were put into concentration camps in this country. I fear that it may happen again if when we have more acts of terroism on our shores.

Yes that is true. The Japanese-American battalion, however, went on to become the most decorated battalion of WWII. They even were sent to rescue another battalion (I believe they were Texas Rangers) and lost more troops than they saved! I remember seeing a show once where one of the members of the battalion got thrown out of a barber shop because he was Japanese. Nevermind that he was missing an arm from the war...

[Sooky]

US Air Force!!

Oops!:o Sorry, got ahead of myself there! Hehe...;)

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
But I do think racism had a lot to do with the nuclear bomings. Remember that American citizens of this race were put into concentration camps in this country. I fear that it may happen again if when we have more acts of terroism on our shores.
I don’t think racism was a determining factor in the use of nuclear weapons on Japan. There were a lot of things that lead our government to make that decision, and it was NOT made lightly or because of race. It may have made it easier to agree with at that time for many Americans (as an afterthought), but I don’t think it was a REASON for doing it. There is a difference.

Also the United States was a much different place back in that time period. And it is because of the internment camps for Japanese Americans that it will NEVER happen again in the US. We have proven this with post 9/11 actions by the US Government and the majority of our citizens.

I think your fears are misplaced and unwarranted taken into complete context with what REALLY happened, and what is happening today.

[hitech]

Originally posted by shartley
And it is because of the internment camps for Japanese Americans that it will NEVER happen again in the US...

I hope your are right. After 9/11 I heard WAY to many otherwise rational people calling for them again. :mad:

[shartley]

Originally posted by hitech


I hope your are right. After 9/11 I heard WAY to many otherwise rational people calling for them again. :mad:
Were these otherwise rational people part of the government? Because the last time I knew, private citizens can say anything they want, but it will not magically make internment camps happen. ;)

[slateman]

Originally posted by Vendetta
Why was Hiroshima justified? Because they were not blond and blue eyed? But acts were not justified. Hirshima had very little military value.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki(sp?) were justified. The Japanese were extremly stubborn. They refused to surrender at any time. They fought to the death, usually inflicting heavy casualties on U.S. Servicemen. And the next step in the Pacific Campaign was to invade Japan. How hard do you think they would have fought if we invaded their homes? THey were expecting 90% casualties in the first wave. Exactly how would President Truman tell the American people that 90% of the first wave was wounded or killed when he could have ended the war with zero American casualties?
Your line "blond and blue eyed" suggests that we didn't use it on Germany because of race issues. Not true. By the time we had the A-Bomb Germany was pretty much done.

President Truman made the correct call with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Vendetta]

Also the United States was a much different place back in that time period. And it is because of the internment camps for Japanese Americans that it will NEVER happen again in the US. We have proven this with post 9/11 actions by the US Government and the majority of our citizens.

We are not there yet, but NEVER is a long time.

Today is the last day for immigrants from 13 Arab countries to "register" with the INS. Many of these immigrants are being arrested on the spot and deported even though they are in the process of getting their green cards.


To get back on topic. The willful killing of innocents is not justifiable. The military knows this. That is why the military has developed and uses smart bombs whenever the possibility of civilian casualties arises. Of course accidents happen. This accidents are horrible, but accidents non the less. So the loss of these innocents is justifiable if the war is just. That is a whole other topic.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
Today is the last day for immigrants from 13 Arab countries to "register" with the INS. Many of these immigrants are being arrested on the spot and deported even though they are in the process of getting their green cards.
Yes, “in the process” covers a wide range of things. I have yet to see a single case where an immigrant who followed all of the rules, and on time, was arrested and deported. Besides, since when did we HAVE to allow ANYONE into our country? Since when did we HAVE to allow anyone to become a US Citizen?

The United States has had a long history of not only NOT enforcing our own immigration policies, and when we DO enforce them, folks want to cry about it. The US has also had a long history of allowing people from other countries to come here and be educated, take advantage of our system and services, and then go BACK to their respective countries and FIGHT us, talk crap about us, etc. Heck now days they don’t even have to leave our country to do that. They come here, take advantage of our way of life, our resources, etc. and then have the nerve to stand up and talk crap about our country.

I don’t think anyone really wants to get into all this….. do you? ;) I am holding back on a lot of “issues” that this type of conversation brings up, either directly or indirectly. :)

[Vendetta]

Ok, all of us that are not 100% Native American let go back to are repective countries.:rolleyes:

Your anti-immagrant statement have made me very angry, so I think we should drop the subject.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
Ok, all of us that are not 100% Native American let go back to are repective countries.:rolleyes:

Your anti-immagrant statement have made me very angry, so I think we should drop the subject.
My anti-immigrant statement? What statement was that? Point it out for me please….

Do NOT read more than I write. Do NOT put words in my mouth. And if you want to play that “everyone not 100% Native American” crap… have at it. Not even “Native Americans” are “Native” to this continent. ;) How far back would you like to go? Besides, that was FAR from what I was saying.

I am far from being anti-immigrant. I am however, all for following the rules and enforcing the ones we currently have. There are too many people who come to this country LEGALLY, and become citizens by following the RULES, to try to pretend that it is so hard to do, or that those that can’t or won’t, deserve some sort of special treatment. But then again, whenever someone stands up and states that the RULES should be followed, they are labeled as anti-immigrant. This is sad, and not true.

Get upset all you want…. Because you are getting upset at something I NEVER said, NEVER insinuated, and NEVER personally believed.

[aaron_mag]

Don't say that immigration officials aren't overzealous at times. We had a case here in the northwest involving a high school girl that happened to be born in Canada. She was in Canada for all of two weeks. Immigration told her if she traveled with her rugby team out of the US they wouldn't let her back in! We are talking someone who was raised here! Eventually everything got worked out but reading the story in the paper was enough to make you severely distrust immigration. The scary thing was the Canucks were ready and willing to make her a citizen. Fools wanted to steal one of our star scholar/athletes:D

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Don't say that immigration officials aren't overzealous at times. We had a case here in the northwest involving a high school girl that happened to be born in Canada. She was in Canada for all of two weeks. Immigration told her if she traveled with her rugby team out of the US they wouldn't let her back in! We are talking someone who was raised here! Eventually everything got worked out but reading the story in the paper was enough to make you severely distrust immigration. The scary thing was the Canucks were ready and willing to make her a citizen. Fools wanted to steal one of our star scholar/athletes:D
I am not, and would not, claim that ANYONE concerning ANY issue is not overzealous at times. But when it comes to LAWS, there is a huge difference between enforcing the laws to the letter (this is what some might consider “overzealous”) and stepping across the line into areas that would be considered illegal. Sometimes rules can put people in sticky situations, and all of the rules and regulations are not the “best”, but there has to be some rules. And like I said, FAR too many people can follow the rules for them to be “bad” all together.

Also, for every time I hear about someone complaining about something they think is “unjust”, “overzealous”, or whatever, I hear several other stories where the INS has HELPED folks (but those stories don’t generally make the front page of the papers.. ;))….. but that help does not make as good reading in the papers as “attack articles”. And almost every article I have read, or seen on TV tends to get lots of press at the beginning and end up leaving out MUCH of the actual story. ;)

The INS has a hard job, and it is often dictated by the political winds, and not what the rules actually say they should do. This is unfortunate. But yes, I will grant you that at times their actions may SEEM overzealous….. however, as I stated, you can say that for almost any profession, activity, and person.

[aaron_mag]

Actually my story was totally an uncalled for tangent. I admit that it is an unusual circumstance but was so interesting I couldn't help but mention it. I also didn't mention that the INS had a tough problem in that the case would set precedent. By allowing this one case to go by which was unusual they were worried that others could say, "Yes I illegally immigrated here but I've lived here my whole life". It was a tough case. Once again I'm totally digressing....

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Actually my story was totally an uncalled for tangent. I admit that it is an unusual circumstance but was so interesting I couldn't help but mention it. I also didn't mention that the INS had a tough problem in that the case would set precedent. By allowing this one case to go by which was unusual they were worried that others could say, "Yes I illegally immigrated here but I've lived here my whole life". It was a tough case. Once again I'm totally digressing....
I kind of figured that was the case, but didn’t want to get into it. ;) Thank you for your additional post on the matter.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
Evil has no problem killing! If we let evil win by allowing it, than we deserve the death we will receive.

Ah...and this is perhaps closer to the Nature of War, the subjectiveness of war. Evil. What is evil. You call the enemy evil.....yet does not the enemy call you evil? Who is right?


JDub


PS-according to TV, the guys with the goatees are always the evil ones :D

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by shartley

Were these otherwise rational people part of the government? Because the last time I knew, private citizens can say anything they want, but it will not magically make internment camps happen. ;)

I agree that internment camps wont happen anytime soon. But anything is possible...and history has a bad habit of repeating... That being said...Ill try and make some future predictions......

1. Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda will start making quality cars that everyone will buy.

2. America will be sneak attacked and people will run around crying that they had no idea something like that could happen.

3. California will secede from the Union (and we take Nevada with us) heh ok thats just my wishful thinking j/k :D


JDub

[Trigger_Happy]

In that case, I was referring to the aggressor as evil. If North Korea or Iraq want to make uncalled for weapons, they are an aggressor, if we let them continue, they will threaten and attack us. At that point we will wish we had spanked 'em when they had started. Will they threaten and attack us if we let them progress? I think so, and you can't change that , so don't try to tell me otherwise;)

Do I like the fact that the US has become cop instead of gentle giant? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I hate it, but the fact is, that we are the only ones on earth that have the resources to keep looneys like Iraq and North Korea in check. China, Britain, Russia, France.... and ourselves;) agree that we need to stop North Korea's programs! Everybody knows it needs to be done! I just wish i were sitting in Switzerland letting SOMEBODY ELSE step in! :rolleyes:

What irks me most is when our allies say "tisk, tisk" while knowing full well that they want us to do what we are doing so that THEY don't have to! All the politics involved in these things make me sick:rolleyes:

Last complaint: We owe trillions of bucks to the same places that we give financial aid to every year, yet they don't forgive us the debts! If we ACTUALLY stopped policing, like everybody *supposedly*(AKA politically) wishes we we would, we might find ourselves in a world war! Personally, I think that this world is poised for a "Holy War". The muslims are pissed at us, and they will call it a "holy war" to gain allies. Things could get ugly:( :rolleyes:

[Jack_Dubious]

All I gotta say is i know arabs and koreans....and we should *really* be worried with the koreans...

JDub



Originally posted by Trigger_Happy

Do I like the fact that the US has become cop instead of gentle giant? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I hate it, but the fact is, that we are the only ones on earth that have the resources to keep looneys like Iraq and North Korea in check. China, Britain, Russia, France.... and ourselves;) agree that we need to stop North Korea's programs!