I appreciate your responses, but I'm afraid I have run out of time to go through your points today, since I have a lot of work to do. But I do appreciate the discussion and I always wonder what goes through the mind of people who defend and advocate America's involvement in various wars. now I will have some more to think about.
Can you name the brutal dictator of Vietnam? No? Then it really doesn't apply here does it?
Why does it matter what his name is? I could easily look it up. We could have learned some valuable lessons from Korea but apparently didn't bother to apply them. We could and should have stayed out of both of them.
Besides, I never said all wars were justified. I did say that sometimes war is the best and/or ONLY answer.
Most wars aren't justified. The reason is that the human, economic, and environmental cost almost always outweigh any supposed benefits. I don't see how you have really shown otherwise.
Yep! Because freedom isn't free. Sometimes, you have to fight for it.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with self defense. The problem is that most governments aren't fighting for freedom or self defense. It's mostly for conquest, and that includes the American government. It's wrong that you are forcing me to spend my money on the death and destruction of people that are no threat to me, including women and children, who are thousands of miles away. What makes you think you have a right to use my resources to fight these bogeymen?
Do you honestly feel that genocide is better than war?
Straw man. They are both obviously terrible. But war is often worse than genocide. More innocent people are often forced to participate in war, who would rather not, including myself.
I said that nothing short of war could have possibly saved the 800,000 people who were slaughtered.
Perhaps, but that's not the point. The point is that engaging in war probably would have caused more than that. War always costs more than people initially think it will. Iraq is yet another perfect example of that.
you still believe that war is never the answer, under any circumstances at any time, even if millions of men, women and children are being slaughtered by a brutal tyrant.
If a brutal tyrant really is powerful enough to slaughter millions of men, women, and children, chances are pretty damn good that attempting fight him will do nothing more than cause millions of additional death and property destruction that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
Go find any one of the thousands of refugees that fled to America from Vietnam because those commies were killing them and their families. I guess you are right, we should have stayed out and let them slaughter those that wanted to keep their property.
Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that the horiffic death of over 60,000 american lives and the vast amount of property damage to the countryside and environment was worth saving a few thousand refugees? And do you deny that the country of Vietnam is MUCH better off than North Korea is today?
No, the communists would have taken all of Korea, not just the northern half and all of Korea would be like N. Korea is today. Also note that Korea was a UN action, not a US one.
No, the whole country would have played out more like Vietnam. In other words, more prosperous, much less death and much less destruction of property and environment. And certainly no kim jung to boot.
you would tell those that are in shackles to simply wait it out? "Don't worry there, Kunte Kente, your great, great, great grandkids may be free, give of take a few generations." How long should an enslaved people wait before their captors tired of the wealth gained from the labor of others?
Yes, that is precisely what I would tell them. Who are you to say that over 600,000 people much be viciously murdered in order to free people who would have been free a few years later? They could have immediately begun a mass exodus from the south to the north if the north simply would have ignored the fugitive slave laws. Not a few generations as you ridiculously claim. No massively destructive war necessary.
Also, I noticed that you didn't respond to Rwanda. Are those people better off than they would have been if we had taken action? You know, better than being tortured, raped and killed? Rwanda is a fine example of what happens when good people do nothing. Kosovo is an example of what happens when good people tire of seeing thugs rape, torture and kill innocents.
As far as I know, nobody elected USA to be policeman of the world. If you think people should be forced to give up their life instead of sacrificing other lives from halfway around the world maybe you should pay for it yourself. Because most normal people certainly can't afford it.
By the way, WW1 still stands as one of the most striking examples of folly.
USA lost Vietnam war to the commies. Vietnam is clearly much better off today, and much more open, than North Korea. If Americans completely stayed out of Vietnam it would have been even more advanced, not having to spend as much effort recovering from the war.
Korea could have been the same. If USA stayed out of there completely, and let it remain as one country, they could wholly avoided the animosity it is now causing.
The rise of Hitler was a direct result of US entry into WW1. Without that it would have likely been a stalemate at some point. No treaty of versailles, no reparations, no beef that Hitler could use to gain power.
The Civil War could have been avoided too. Slavery would have likely died out eventually. Why is it that every other civilized country in the would managed to get rid of it without such a massive slaughter? Still they fought it and the aftermath managed to enact laws that held blacks down well into the 20th century. Laws that were ultimately backed by government and military. Let the south leave. Let them try and maintain slavery with a free country right next door that wouldn't return slaves who ran away. Many abolitionists advocated secession of the North so it could become a free refuge for runaways from the south.
The vast majority of wars almost always cost more in human life and freedom than what you're trying to save people from. I could go on and on too.
The first replay to your post was right. Most of those leaders came to power as a result of war, even Hitler.
Also, you seriously don't think any of those leaders could be assassinated without resorting to war?
Not only that but you are VASTLY underestimating the cost of war. In most cases it is far greater than the cost to the people of a few years rule by a petty dictator. It takes a lot longer than the lifespan of one petty dictator to recover from war when your entire country is blown up and large swaths of your productive capacity is shut down. People like you are the ones who are guilty of causing far more death and suffering as a result of war than would otherwise happen if someone remained in power for a few years.
From what I've seen over the past few years, ascribing evil intentions to the military and US government should be our default position by now. We still haven't learned much from history yet.
We should also think about prosecuting the troops involved. Presumably they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They volunteered to do the criminal government's bidding and voluntarily pulled the trigger on what were clearly innocent people.
If it's truly in self defense, then sure, by all means shoot back. As far as I can tell though, most governments and most wars are not faught in self defense. It's up to the people of every country to figure out how we can hold government accountable for their wars. If people can figure out how to create democracy, I think they can eventually figure this out as well.
Maybe I read a too much into your comment. But that's what I typically see from people trying to justify these killings as "this is just what happens during war".
This is more than a "tragic mistake". A mistake is something you didn't mean to happen. These troops are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They deliberately shot unarmed and non-threatening people. That is more than homicide.
Perhaps if you would be so kind as to point out how it fits under any of these categories and maybe I would change my mind.
The Republican party never has been for free markets and never will be. Every single time they win, government still expands by leaps and bounds. It is mostly false rhetoric by leftists trying to prove that free markets don't work. Case in point is the quote from this fine senatorial idiot.
It's a good size for me because I spend very little time talking on the phone. I don't mind feeling awkward for a couple minutes when I actually would have to call someone. most of the time I browse and text/IM, and this will allow me to do so while still able to fit in my pocket. unlike that sony netbook...
yeah, I would definitely wait before it actually has 2.2 installed before actually pulling the trigger. promises alone aren't enough for me to spend $500 on any device.
I'm waiting for an android tablet, and this is just about the size I want. but you're right, it needs to be at least 2.1, preferably froyo. no way will I buy it with less.
how many people actually read facebook's privacy data around the disclosure of those bits of data? and then provided that information strictly on that assumption alone? my guess is not very many. I know I sure didn't. I don't post there under the delusion that they will never share my data with anyone ever. you can't expect them to never ever change their privacy agreement. and nobody ever read it anyway, because most people generally don't care all that much.
I'm amused by the constant uproars people make every time facebook changes something. what the hell do they think the whole point of facebook is? that they are just providing this service for free? this is a classic case of people wanting their cake and eating it too.
meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication. you don't hear nearly so much about that anymore. I'm a lot more worried about law enforcement abuse than marketing products I might actually want at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate your responses, but I'm afraid I have run out of time to go through your points today, since I have a lot of work to do. But I do appreciate the discussion and I always wonder what goes through the mind of people who defend and advocate America's involvement in various wars. now I will have some more to think about.
Why does it matter what his name is? I could easily look it up. We could have learned some valuable lessons from Korea but apparently didn't bother to apply them. We could and should have stayed out of both of them.
Most wars aren't justified. The reason is that the human, economic, and environmental cost almost always outweigh any supposed benefits. I don't see how you have really shown otherwise.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with self defense. The problem is that most governments aren't fighting for freedom or self defense. It's mostly for conquest, and that includes the American government. It's wrong that you are forcing me to spend my money on the death and destruction of people that are no threat to me, including women and children, who are thousands of miles away. What makes you think you have a right to use my resources to fight these bogeymen?
Straw man. They are both obviously terrible. But war is often worse than genocide. More innocent people are often forced to participate in war, who would rather not, including myself.
Perhaps, but that's not the point. The point is that engaging in war probably would have caused more than that. War always costs more than people initially think it will. Iraq is yet another perfect example of that.
If a brutal tyrant really is powerful enough to slaughter millions of men, women, and children, chances are pretty damn good that attempting fight him will do nothing more than cause millions of additional death and property destruction that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that the horiffic death of over 60,000 american lives and the vast amount of property damage to the countryside and environment was worth saving a few thousand refugees? And do you deny that the country of Vietnam is MUCH better off than North Korea is today?
No, the whole country would have played out more like Vietnam. In other words, more prosperous, much less death and much less destruction of property and environment. And certainly no kim jung to boot.
Yes, that is precisely what I would tell them. Who are you to say that over 600,000 people much be viciously murdered in order to free people who would have been free a few years later? They could have immediately begun a mass exodus from the south to the north if the north simply would have ignored the fugitive slave laws. Not a few generations as you ridiculously claim. No massively destructive war necessary.
As far as I know, nobody elected USA to be policeman of the world. If you think people should be forced to give up their life instead of sacrificing other lives from halfway around the world maybe you should pay for it yourself. Because most normal people certainly can't afford it. By the way, WW1 still stands as one of the most striking examples of folly.
USA lost Vietnam war to the commies. Vietnam is clearly much better off today, and much more open, than North Korea. If Americans completely stayed out of Vietnam it would have been even more advanced, not having to spend as much effort recovering from the war.
Korea could have been the same. If USA stayed out of there completely, and let it remain as one country, they could wholly avoided the animosity it is now causing.
The rise of Hitler was a direct result of US entry into WW1. Without that it would have likely been a stalemate at some point. No treaty of versailles, no reparations, no beef that Hitler could use to gain power.
The Civil War could have been avoided too. Slavery would have likely died out eventually. Why is it that every other civilized country in the would managed to get rid of it without such a massive slaughter? Still they fought it and the aftermath managed to enact laws that held blacks down well into the 20th century. Laws that were ultimately backed by government and military. Let the south leave. Let them try and maintain slavery with a free country right next door that wouldn't return slaves who ran away. Many abolitionists advocated secession of the North so it could become a free refuge for runaways from the south.
The vast majority of wars almost always cost more in human life and freedom than what you're trying to save people from. I could go on and on too.
The first replay to your post was right. Most of those leaders came to power as a result of war, even Hitler.
Also, you seriously don't think any of those leaders could be assassinated without resorting to war?
Not only that but you are VASTLY underestimating the cost of war. In most cases it is far greater than the cost to the people of a few years rule by a petty dictator. It takes a lot longer than the lifespan of one petty dictator to recover from war when your entire country is blown up and large swaths of your productive capacity is shut down. People like you are the ones who are guilty of causing far more death and suffering as a result of war than would otherwise happen if someone remained in power for a few years.
From what I've seen over the past few years, ascribing evil intentions to the military and US government should be our default position by now. We still haven't learned much from history yet.
We should also think about prosecuting the troops involved. Presumably they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They volunteered to do the criminal government's bidding and voluntarily pulled the trigger on what were clearly innocent people.
I would argue that is still less than the cost of full, all-out war, which could take at least a decade to complete and decades more to recover.
If it's truly in self defense, then sure, by all means shoot back. As far as I can tell though, most governments and most wars are not faught in self defense. It's up to the people of every country to figure out how we can hold government accountable for their wars. If people can figure out how to create democracy, I think they can eventually figure this out as well.
Any of the "good things" that might possibly come out of war can also be done without war.
That is the sanest way to go. That way I know for a fact that the products and services which I prefer are the ones being supported.
We should be more concerned about monitoring the DHS for internal threats against our own lives and property.
Business adding more value for customers.
Maybe I read a too much into your comment. But that's what I typically see from people trying to justify these killings as "this is just what happens during war".
This is more than a "tragic mistake". A mistake is something you didn't mean to happen. These troops are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They deliberately shot unarmed and non-threatening people. That is more than homicide.
Perhaps if you would be so kind as to point out how it fits under any of these categories and maybe I would change my mind.
You can try and justify this all you want, but I'm still not sure how it is anything less than cold blooded murder.
You don't have to be a combat veteran to comment on what should be common sense.
speeding is not a crime. is a manufactured crime designed to generate revenue. nothing more.
The Republican party never has been for free markets and never will be. Every single time they win, government still expands by leaps and bounds. It is mostly false rhetoric by leftists trying to prove that free markets don't work. Case in point is the quote from this fine senatorial idiot.
It's a good size for me because I spend very little time talking on the phone. I don't mind feeling awkward for a couple minutes when I actually would have to call someone. most of the time I browse and text/IM, and this will allow me to do so while still able to fit in my pocket. unlike that sony netbook...
yeah, I would definitely wait before it actually has 2.2 installed before actually pulling the trigger. promises alone aren't enough for me to spend $500 on any device.
I'm waiting for an android tablet, and this is just about the size I want. but you're right, it needs to be at least 2.1, preferably froyo. no way will I buy it with less.
did these senators vote for the patriot act? they are nothing but hypocrites.
how many people actually read facebook's privacy data around the disclosure of those bits of data? and then provided that information strictly on that assumption alone? my guess is not very many. I know I sure didn't. I don't post there under the delusion that they will never share my data with anyone ever. you can't expect them to never ever change their privacy agreement. and nobody ever read it anyway, because most people generally don't care all that much.
I'm amused by the constant uproars people make every time facebook changes something. what the hell do they think the whole point of facebook is? that they are just providing this service for free? this is a classic case of people wanting their cake and eating it too.
meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication. you don't hear nearly so much about that anymore. I'm a lot more worried about law enforcement abuse than marketing products I might actually want at some point.
sorry, I don't accept the assumption that the government must provide all those things. so it makes perfect sense to me.