Sanctiotions to protect the world, right...

Philosophy and Politics, from Aristotle to Trudeau, discussions that cover the gamut from civilizations, societies, how they're run and why we're here.

Moderator: Staff

zappa
Has barely posted
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09 am
Location: oregon

Post by zappa » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:19 am

During WW2, It took an atomic bomb to stop the death cult of the Kamakazi. What do you think of that symmetry Ringo?

redfireant3
Prolific
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:16 pm
Location: Tampa, FL USA
Contact:

Post by redfireant3 » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:50 am

a little off topic question: whats the income tax ratio in canada? like here where i livemost adverage jobs pay $9-$10hr minimum pay is a little above minimum wage at $6.00+ or -
taxes are: state tax on everything 7% and houseing taxes increase by 3% every year but in the state of FL house insurance also jumped and will rise sharply
Last edited by redfireant3 on Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

RingoCalamity
Prolific
Posts: 3872
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:55 pm
Location: Nova Scotia

Post by RingoCalamity » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:16 am

zappa wrote:During WW2, It took an atomic bomb to stop the death cult of the Kamakazi. What do you think of that symmetry Ringo?
So because it took an A-bomb to stop suicide bombers then, the same solution might be acceptable now?

You're not really suggesting pre-emptive nuclear war is a good way to fight terrorism? I just say pre-emptive because we haven't been nuked, yet.

But what if Al Quaeda did set off a nuclear weapon in downtown New York City - what would be the appropriate retaliation? Bomb Tehran and Damascus? We'd be justified - they bombed us.

Wouldn't we? Wait, who's "they"?

Nukes may be a terrorist wet dream, but in thwarting terrorism, they're good for diddly squat. I mean, we could use them, but mostly we'd just be:

a)killing civilians (who, whether they like us or think we're the Great Satan, are still just civilians. In fact, morally speaking it would almost be worse for us to kill their civilians, than for them to kill ours, because from their perspective, there are no civilians - by living in a democracy and participating in it, we're responsible for our government's actions. In their case, we know they don't have much - if any - say)

and

b)making new terrorists.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and I doubt (although it's just my opinion) that we can nuke all of them.

So, I guess I really don't get the symmetry thing here. The symptoms may be similar, but this sickness is different altogether.

zappa
Has barely posted
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09 am
Location: oregon

Post by zappa » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 am

RingoCalamity wrote:
zappa wrote:During WW2, It took an atomic bomb to stop the death cult of the Kamakazi. What do you think of that symmetry Ringo?
So because it took an A-bomb to stop suicide bombers then, the same solution might be acceptable now?

You're not really suggesting pre-emptive nuclear war is a good way to fight terrorism? I just say pre-emptive because we haven't been nuked, yet.

But what if Al Quaeda did set off a nuclear weapon in downtown New York City - what would be the appropriate retaliation? Bomb Tehran and Damascus? We'd be justified - they bombed us.

Wouldn't we? Wait, who's "they"?

Nukes may be a terrorist wet dream, but in thwarting terrorism, they're good for diddly squat. I mean, we could use them, but mostly we'd just be:

a)killing civilians (who, whether they like us or think we're the Great Satan, are still just civilians. In fact, morally speaking it would almost be worse for us to kill their civilians, than for them to kill ours, because from their perspective, there are no civilians - by living in a democracy and participating in it, we're responsible for our government's actions. In their case, we know they don't have much - if any - say)

and

b)making new terrorists.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and I doubt (although it's just my opinion) that we can nuke all of them.

So, I guess I really don't get the symmetry thing here. The symptom s may be similar, but this sickness is different altogether.
Yes and Yes. History has shown that civilians are a valid target too ie. WW2. State sponsered terrorism should be neutalized. This isnt law enforcement this a war. Now thats symmetry.

BarSteward
Prolific
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 8:33 pm
Contact:

Post by BarSteward » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:09 am

Deliberatly targeting civilians is by definition a war crime. It was not allowed in WWII and and not allowed today. Civilians get in the way of attacks on legit military targets. Therefore nukes are a no, no to those who follow the rules. Of which the US still is (should be) one of them.

BTW this is kinda interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
Image

PhoeniX
Prolific
Posts: 5660
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by PhoeniX » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:10 am

I'm very glad people like Ringo still exist on the North-American continent :P

Humor
Prolific
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Humor » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:49 pm

PhoeniX wrote:I'm very glad people like Ringo still exist on the North-American continent :P
I agree feenix.

To any outsider the whole attitude of the USA towards other countries having nukes tech feels strange at times.
They are the only ones ever to use it in a war so far.

And my opinion? I feel a bit (much) unease about all of this.
I understand when a lot of people are killed and you know some others have weapons and are willing to get you it seems justified to strike in advance.
I would do the same if peeps were trying to kill my family.

The problems come when not the right arguments are found. Look at the whole WMD story and the war in Iraq.
I have BIG issues with that.
Dive into the very thin "evidence" building for the reasons to start a war there.

It is this way of going into things that worries me and the free world as well.

We as Holland are into Nato and supportive and taking part in all.

However the above as well as the lying about the CIA "prisons" and some more things would make me to get out of NATO and draw our support backwards....

Edit: We are close allies and since we have people fighting and dying as well f.e. in Afghanistan now it is a disgrace when you keep lying on a high level when our minister of foreign affairs asks da Lady Rice for some true answers.
cc// -------------> Never a dull moment!
My Cod_4 Videos
"The juice is worth the squeeze" =>Forrest Griffin, coach TUF07
Image

skullhead
Prolific
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 10:13 pm
Location: chicago

Post by skullhead » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:22 pm

Your enemies are counting on you to think that way. Death to these facists is only the begining of a new and wonderful life.

I think thats what the suicide bombers scream before they pull the pin.

I do believe that the US should help secure the world for democracy and all, but I think we should bomb our enemies with i-pods full of rock and roll. Drop crates full of coca-cola and x-box on these civilians. I'm sure we would get a better response out of them then cutting off there medical supplies.
They would be waving little american flags and throwing rocks at there fascist governments tanks in no time.

weezer
Prolific
Posts: 4352
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:34 am
Location: Fox Creek, Alberta
Contact:

Post by weezer » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:40 pm

just drop them computers with a copy of Red Orchestra and POE2. that would make anyone happy:)

zappa
Has barely posted
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09 am
Location: oregon

Post by zappa » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:10 am

Bar-Steward wrote:Deliberatly targeting civilians is by definition a war crime. It was not allowed in WWII and and not allowed today. Civilians get in the way of attacks on legit military targets. Therefore nukes are a no, no to those who follow the rules. Of which the US still is (should be) one of them.

BTW this is kinda interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
Yes it was allowed. Bar. Read your history, ie. Dresden, Germany saw" precision saturation bombing". Civilians and the military both are part of an effort to win a war. The death cult we face today ie. Islamic facism, is no different than the facism of WW2. Pay attention to where weapons factories and military trainning camps are located-in the houses of civilians. Opinions like yours are either naive or nothing more than collaborationn with the enemy.

BarSteward
Prolific
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 8:33 pm
Contact:

Post by BarSteward » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:40 am

Not entirely true. Deliberatly targeting civilians depends upon the accuracy of weapons used. Hezbollah has been accused of war crimes because the weapons fired were inacurate and there was no real military target. If you carpet bomb part of a city that contains arms factories because you have no other way of targeting the factories acurately then is a war crime? It's a tradegy of huge proportions... but is it a actual definable crime. This was more my point.
Image

PhoeniX
Prolific
Posts: 5660
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by PhoeniX » Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:06 am

Bar-Steward wrote:Deliberatly targeting civilians is by definition a war crime.
zappa wrote:Opinions like yours are either naive or nothing more than collaborationn with the enemy.
Don't get too personal mate.

What he's saying is that delibaretely attacking civilians was neither allowed in WW2 nor now. The carpet bombings on German cities during WW2 to 'break the morale' of the German civilian populations is, as far as I know, according to the Geneva Conventions, a war crime.

Though in World War 2, human values weren't the same as in our times; it was more or less accepted to bomb the crap out of Dresden, Berlin, etc. As far as I know, no one was ever prosecuted for giving the order of dropping A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki or those who ordered the carpet bombings on Tokyo and German cities. That doesn't mean it was allowed according to the Geneva Conventions.

BarSteward
Prolific
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 8:33 pm
Contact:

Post by BarSteward » Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 am

lol. Thanks for pointing this out to me Phoenix. :P

I wonder who you actually think the enemy is. Is it just those "folks" who are "bad" or is it those who actually cause the problems in the first place.

Whether it is a War crime or not really depends upon who won or lost the war. All war is full of theft, murder, treason and persecution from *all* sides. Those who think their side are righteous and clean are fooling themselves.

In reality all war and motion to make war is a crime against humanity because there is nothing humane about it. Those who actually seek to make war are rarely those who have to endure it or fight it.

Those who make war are fundementally the enemy of peaceful people.
Image

dox
Prolific
Posts: 18732
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by dox » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:26 am

..but some wars you just can't win by definition; e.g.: 'war on terror' - the most you can hope for is to dismantle visible infrastructure since the very definition of a terrorist includes the use of civilian/non-combatant disguises. Therefore if you want to attain total victory by violence you would have to wipe out all civilians and non-combatants which easily slips in to the definition of genocide. All it takes is a dictionary and you can see why 'war on terror' = 'genocide'; zappa mentions 'The death cult we face today' but I think it's obvious that both sides in the engagement are blatant purveyors of said 'death cult' and therefore there is no face, just two sides of a death cult coin.

zappa
Has barely posted
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09 am
Location: oregon

Post by zappa » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:37 pm

dox wrote:..but some wars you just can't win by definition; e.g.: 'war on terror' - the most you can hope for is to dismantle visible infrastructure since the very definition of a terrorist includes the use of civilian/non-combatant disguises. Therefore if you want to attain total victory by violence you would have to wipe out all civilians and non-combatants which easily slips in to the definition of genocide. All it takes is a dictionary and you can see why 'war on terror' = 'genocide'; zappa mentions 'The death cult we face today' but I think it's obvious that both sides in the engagement are blatant purveyors of said 'death cult' and therefore there is no face, just two sides of a death cult coin.
Dox, are you including the West as purveyors of a death cult?

Post Reply