Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

- - - - -

How to Answer Continual Aggression?

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#16    Yamato


    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,846 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:52 AM

View Postand then, on 04 October 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

The only one there ever was...a strong military and a will to use it.
How free is the Golden Horde lately?  How free are the Nazis?   How free is Saddam Hussein?   Don't peddle your false guarantees on me, I'm not interested.   Power is a precarious thing, because too many wicked people want it.  Wrapping it up in a false freedom colored wrapper didn't help.

You speak about the military like it's this robotic slave class of scapegoats for you to judge the performance of and not care about the moral and physical wreck that using it always causes.   Have you ever been a part of the only freedom there ever was?   Have you ever gotten used?

Freedom is taken for granted when you rely on the freedom of others to protect your own.   Every soldier, even the one who volunteers, signs his a$$ away to the government to tow the line and letter of the code.   If freedom was what we really cared about we'd want a strong military and a reluctance to use it.  Like the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces once said, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who proposed the idea of preventative war to me.  That's the invention of Hitler and it belongs in the dust bin of history with Hitler along with every other modern-day moron who's dumb enough to emulate him.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#17    Coffey


    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

Good topic actually.

I have a strong personal opinion on this, which is actually really simple and gets down to the point of freedom/human rights: Let the people of the country decide by vote.

Not being funny but why not?

We say that Britain has the right to the Falklands because the people there are British and want to be British. Look how much problems that solves!

Just ask the people. Governments have too much control as it is. The point of a government is to work FOR the people, not the other way around. So let the people have the choice how their country works/is owned by.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#18    Hasina


    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,050 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female


Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

As long as a few men can decide when an entire nation enters into a war and when it exits, there will never be a satisfactory solution to what's legitimate during war, not an actual reason for it. No nation should be thought of as better then the rest or less then the rest, because a nation is composed of the people living in it, not the government or military. A military should only ever be used for protection, never a statement of 'look at this, I can and will crush you if you attack me', because that just breeds defensive anger and fear which will lead to war.

Edited by Hasina, 04 October 2012 - 01:50 PM.

Posted Image


#19    RavenHawk


    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,926 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:15 PM

View Postand then, on 04 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

But in this case the concept of civilization is being used to further the aims of the most uncivilized of antagonists,imo.  One side playing within the rules and the other making their own up as they go, as it were....  The double standard is sickening to me and I suspect if the shoe were on another foot the opinions would differ greatly about the correct action to resolve the problem.  Maybe the problem is so resistant to solutions because it is a direct throwback to a completely uncivilized time.  It will eventually offer sociologists an opportunity to see just how far a "civilized" people will go to attempt to survive unending hatred.  Hopefully some bright soul will be around to write it up for posterity.
It’s not the most uncivilized of antagonists.  Islam is still just another culture and it is a conflict between cultures.  As many have pointed out, is it not the right of any opposition to fight?  And the answer is yes.  But that has never been the point.  All life fights to survive.  But not all organisms do survive.  That is the nature of nature.  Individual cultures in our civilization are the same way.  Some will survive and others will not.  And for the health of civilization, you don’t want every single one surviving.

Yes, Islam is making up its own rules and the double standard is sickening.  We saw this in the recent protests from that movie ridiculing Mohammed (reminiscent of the jyllands-Posten cartoons and many others).  I guess it is ok to ridicule any other religion but not Islam.  I think you see that same mentality raise its head in this forum.

There really was no “uncivilized” time.  From the time that there were 2 people, we had civilization.  And some civilized people will go all the way to survive.  The weak will die.  Survival of the fittest.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#20    Gromdor


    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:19 AM

Iraq invading Kuwait back in the Gulf War was for the purpose of annexation.  You can see how the world reacted to that.

#21    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 16,804 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 08 October 2012 - 03:42 AM

View PostGromdor, on 08 October 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Iraq invading Kuwait back in the Gulf War was for the purpose of annexation.  You can see how the world reacted to that.
True, but hardly a good comparison.  That was done for the theft of assets.  I'm speaking of taking pieces of land for a self defense buffer - not whole countries.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#22    Stellar


    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:11 AM

View Postand then, on 08 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

True, but hardly a good comparison.  That was done for the theft of assets.  I'm speaking of taking pieces of land for a self defense buffer - not whole countries.

Indeed. Completely different situation.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with annexation in these situations. Annexation, just like war, can either be done for proper, necessary reasons.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users