what constitutes a just war?, what do you think? Options

[sammi rules you]

And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.

...i reeeeally think you're getting vietnam mixed up with iraq. how in the world are you involving oil with vietnam? most of the oil we want is in the middle east..which is not where vietnam is. we went to vietnam to help the democratic south fight against the communist north.

wow, you really need to go to history class. sure we don't know everything about history, but you've proven we certainly know more than you do.

[sadolakced acid]

what do you mean no winners? what about a war where one gains territory? surely the side that one is the winner.

are you saying the US didn't win the Spanish-American war? Did they lose the same as the Spanish?

ehh. countries can 'win'. the people in the war cannot.

[*CrackedRearView*]

I find it hilarious that this 'just war' crap is brought up only when a Republican dives into a war.

Because if you're Republican, you most certainly have ulterior motives! [/sarcasm]

[technicolour]

touch my monkey Posted Jun 15 2005, 1:38 PM
  QUOTE(not_for_anything @ Jun 14 2005, 4:05 PM)
And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.






...i reeeeally think you're getting vietnam mixed up with iraq. how in the world are you involving oil with vietnam? most of the oil we want is in the middle east..which is not where vietnam is. we went to vietnam to help the democratic south fight against the communist north.

wow, you really need to go to history class. sure we don't know everything about history, but you've proven we certainly know more than you do.

You're getting mixed up. ^^The last person i quoted is right.

[gotblog4me?]

I find it hilarious that this 'just war' crap is brought up only when a Republican dives into a war.

Because if you're Republican, you most certainly have ulterior motives! [/sarcasm]

for the record, I'm all for this war, and I support Bush!

[_suzie_]

''I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing''

i agree. vietnam does have oil although this isnt the reason it was invaded. the real reason was to stop communism taking full control in asia, as someone's mentioned before, as the domino effect.

ive noticed alot of you have been talkin about democracy and upholding it....probably without realisng that Bush's administration is extremely facist in nature. facism is just as bad as communism. neither gives a shit about the people who bear the brunt of their regimes. heres a nice quote, someone on here has it as their signature aswsell:

"America is a melting pot: the people at the bottom get burnt while all the scum floats to the top"

id change the word 'america' to 'western society' though, cuz its pretty much all the same.

[*CrackedRearView*]

''I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing''

i agree. vietnam does have oil although this isnt the reason it was invaded. the real reason was to stop communism taking full control in asia, as someone's mentioned before, as the domino effect.

ive noticed alot of you have been talkin about democracy and upholding it....probably without realisng that Bush's administration is extremely facist in nature. facism is just as bad as communism. neither gives a shit about the people who bear the brunt of their regimes. heres a nice quote, someone on here has it as their signature aswsell:

"America is a melting pot: the people at the bottom get burnt while all the scum floats to the top"

id change the word 'america' to 'western society' though, cuz its pretty much all the same.

Left the Vietnamese alone with their oil?

What is it with the people in this forum and thinking that the Vietnam War had something to do with oil?

[shoots himself]

[sikdragon]

"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[*mipadi*]

"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"

Ah yes, but that quote is a descendent of Flavius Vegetius Renatus's quote, "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem," which means, "Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle;" which goes to say that the quote is not encouraging offensive combating, but using a powerful military as a deterrent.

[sikdragon]

My implication was self defense.

[sadolakced acid]

Ah yes, but that quote is a descendent of Flavius Vegetius Renatus's quote, "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem," which means, "Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle;" which goes to say that the quote is not encouraging offensive combating, but using a powerful military as a deterrent.

powerful militaries sitting at home with nothing to do are awfully prone to overthrow thier ruler, expecially when the cash runs dry.

it's more economical to send them into a war. also gives you a reason to raise taxes.

[sikdragon]

In modern society those things you speak of are not necassary.

[*mipadi*]

In modern society those things you speak of are not necassary.

What is not necessary?

[sikdragon]

sorry,

powerful militaries sitting at home with nothing to do are awfully prone to overthrow thier ruler, expecially when the cash runs dry.

it's more economical to send them into a war. also gives you a reason to raise taxes.

[sadolakced acid]

^

oh but they are nessicary. why else do powerful countries like to send 'peacekeeping' missions? their military has to do something, or else there is dissent, and armed dissent is something every country doesn't want.

[sikdragon]

i'm talking about lack of cash and overthrowing. That sounds more like merc's to me. The united states military is always working a lot of times behind the scenes.

[sadolakced acid]

i'm talking about lack of cash and overthrowing. That sounds more like merc's to me. The united states military is always working a lot of times behind the scenes.

that behind the scenes work is something an army shouldn't do. case in point- iraqi war has summoned the soldiers as is thier job.

however, these behind the scenes jobs aren't being done.

the army has helped with firefighting and disaster control.

the california national guard and florida national guard should be at home, in anticipation of the hurricanes and earthquakes. but some of them are probably in iraq.

the money running out won't happen. but US soldiers are mercs. the army is using bribery to get new recruits.

[sikdragon]

volunteers aren't mercs. Volunteers are compensated for their service. Merc's go where the money goes. When i say behind the scenes i mean things that aren't on the news.

[sadolakced acid]

like stationed in the DMZ (pulling out) or in germany (pulling out)?

[sikdragon]

Wherever the president sends them.

[sadolakced acid]

Wherever the president sends them.

like somolia?
or that place where the event that "black hawk down" is based on happened?

our military would not be able to stay at home for longer than 10 years, i'd say. pentagon top brass would get restless, etc.

they can only play wargames so much.

even if it is a logistics operation, like distributing tsunami aid, the military has to be doing something.

the problem is when there isn't anything good left, and all the wargames have been played.

then either your military atrophies or you send them off to a 'conflict' or 'peacekeeping operation' somewhere.

[sikdragon]

You make it sound like we have one camp where the military is constantly training. When the military isn't serving they go back to their homes. They live amongst those they served for.

[sadolakced acid]

i'm more of talking about the brass when i'm saying there'll be discontent.

higher ranking officers, etc.

[sikdragon]

that's what we have MP's for.

[*mipadi*]

You make it sound like we have one camp where the military is constantly training. When the military isn't serving they go back to their homes. They live amongst those they served for.

Activity duty personnel don't. When you're active duty, the military is your job. You train every day, every week, all year. You do physical training and basic martial exercises everyday, and contribute to base maintenance, when you aren't actually on a military exercise.

It's the reservists and National Guard who go back to their families and other jobs most of the time. It's the National Guard who is supposed to help defend the US's borders, and help in times of flood, fire, etc., but Bush seems to have turned them into the International Guard, and sent them abroad, for some reason. Our military is stretched thin, and we have very little personnel at home to actually protect the US in the event of attack.