Why North Americans aren't fit to support wars

[Wilber]

Trade Deficit

Pardon?

[BC_chick]

Fly into Seoul on a clear night. Below the 38th parallel is a brightly lit vibrant country. North of it is a black hole filled with starving people ruled by a despot who has a hard on for nukes. Something the South has no interest in obtaining but easily could if it chose to. It seems it wouldn't bother you if it was all like the North.

I have already given the board my opinion of what constitutes a justified war - one in which there is an existential threat to a people and/or there is a threat to one's own nation. I have also defined an unjust war as one which is based on profiteering. Whether or not Korea was a threat to the west is laughable. Whether or not it was an existential threat to a people, though debatable, is also a stretch of the imagination at best.

The fact that all the so-called magnanimous wars of the past were fought when there was some sort of gain, while other countries of no value are left to wither, however, shows that they were not altruistic as you'd have us believe.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pardon?

Forgive them, for they know not of chaebol. They have seen the footwear at WalMart, but not the heavy industries and shipyards.

[noahbody]

Firstly, would you not consider 911 to be an act of war?

By whom? Iraq? Certainly not.

No, not by Iraq. By a terrorist organisation and those who supported them.

Are you of the belief there most be a state to qualify as war? Groups are commonly engaged in war. 911 was no different.

Do you not believe retalitation was warranted?

[Guthrie]

warranted?

No, not by Iraq. ... Do you not believe retalitation was warranted?

Well, by your own admission, retaliation against Iraq was unwarranted

[noahbody]

Firstly, would you not consider 911 to be an act of war?

By whom? Iraq? Certainly not.

No, not by Iraq. By a terrorist organisation and those who supported them.

Are you of the belief there most be a state to qualify as war? Groups are commonly engaged in war. 911 was no different.

Do you not believe retalitation was warranted?

No, not by Iraq. ... Do you not believe retalitation was warranted?

Well, by your own admission, retaliation against Iraq was unwarranted

To be clear, I was referring to retaliation against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban of Afganistan. It's amazing to me, some people still confuse the two wars.

[Wilber]

I have already given the board my opinion of what constitutes a justified war - one in which there is an existential threat to a people and/or there is a threat to one's own nation. I have also defined an unjust war as one which is based on profiteering. Whether or not Korea was a threat to the west is laughable. Whether or not it was an existential threat to a people, though debatable, is also a stretch of the imagination at best.

The fact that all the so-called magnanimous wars of the past were fought when there was some sort of gain, while other countries of no value are left to wither, however, shows that they were not altruistic as you'd have us believe.

That astounding leap of logic would justify Hitler's invasion of Poland. Again, you just demonstrate your ignorance of Korea.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody should make an effort to stop re-quoting entire posts. There is an excessive amount of whitespace permeating this thread.

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of extra quoting and this thread is becoming a scroller-coaster ride.

[BC_chick]

Again, you just demonstrate your ignorance of Korea.

An argument goes beyond an assertion and provides supporting evidence for its claim.

That's strike two.

[sharkman]

Strike two eh? That would be funny if it wasn't so arrogant.

[Wilber]

Again, you just demonstrate your ignorance of Korea.

An argument goes beyond an assertion and provides supporting evidence for its claim.

That's strike two.

No, it is a fact. I have provided numerous examples. All you do is spout airy fairy, nice nice theories. You are the armchair quarterback blathering your dogma in the face of reality.

[weaponeer]

Wow, starting threads based on uninformed opinions is really a waste of bandwidth. Gee lets ban war altogether, ban hatred, ban racism and have the letter m stricken from the english language.

Lets ban AIDS, cancer and crime while we're at it................

[weaponeer]

Peace-keeping and war are two different things.

Actually they are NOT two different things, they are very much the same.... There has NEVER been a sucsessful PKing mission in history...

[Argus]

Before I get accused of America-bashing here, I will concede that the people in this video could be found in the streets of Canada any day as well. I will therefore post the video with the underlying notion that as far as this video is concerned, the use of "American" should really be "North American." However, I chose to post it under US politics because during recent history, it was Bush's America who was forever ready for war.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19aqw_am...t-stupid-with-s

North Americans don't even know what war is because for over a 100 years "war" was always something that happened "over there" not here. Maybe if war-supporters had seen, first-hand, what it's like to have a country destroyed, to have innocent women and children killed, they would feel differently about war. Just look at Europeans' attitudes for example vs. North Americans.

Few Europeans have ever known war. The old ones, but they tend to be more conservative. In Europe, as in North America, the most anti-war crowd are the young - and ignorant - who are too "jaded" and "sophisticated" to ever vote or pay much attention to politics or read the news or care what is going on elsewhere. So your theory lacks substance. And you can easily find people ready to attack other groups, tribes, nations, throughout the third world, despite the fact they have, in fact, seen plenty of violence in their lives. Africa is a cesspool, but are the people crying out for pacifism? Are the people of Israel or Palestinians, who have seen nothing but violence for half a century, full of pacifism and ready to cooperate and do whatever is necessary to bring peace? Vietnam went through a long ordeal of war - first revolution, then with France, then with the US. That didn't stop them from going to war against the Chinese and against the Cambodians. Russians went through a horrific war in WW2, but did Russia turn into a pacifist nation? Hardly. Armed to the teeth and mighty proud of their Red Army in the years of cold war that followed.

No, experiencing war does not make one a pacifist. No intelligent people want war, but most intelligent people acknowledge that given the violent nature of the world, and what other nations and groups are capable of, sometimes you simply can't avoid it. And trying to avoid it can only make it bigger when it finally comes upon you.

[Argus]

Fly into Seoul on a clear night. Below the 38th parallel is a brightly lit vibrant country. North of it is a black hole filled with starving people ruled by a despot who has a hard on for nukes. Something the South has no interest in obtaining but easily could if it chose to. It seems it wouldn't bother you if it was all like the North.

I have already given the board my opinion of what constitutes a justified war - one in which there is an existential threat to a people and/or there is a threat to one's own nation. I have also defined an unjust war as one which is based on profiteering. Whether or not Korea was a threat to the west is laughable. Whether or not it was an existential threat to a people, though debatable, is also a stretch of the imagination at best.

Hmmm. Life in North Korea - harsh, cruel, people starving, concentration camps, no hope, no freedom.

Life in South Korea - free, democratic, bountiful, sports, amusement parks, lots of jobs and food and housing that doesn't crumble.

All those people Now living the good life in South Korea would be starving in hovels or being beaten in concentration camps if we hadn't fought off the North. You might not consider that an "existential threat" to them, whatever the hell that means, but I bet they're damned happy they're not north of the border.

[Argus]

So you ARE saying it is a good thing when Americans support "last resort" wars for things they are equally ignorant about? Huh?

Point well-made. In the case of a justified war (defined as one where there is an existential threat to a people and/or in the safety of your own nation) then I agree, it doesn't make a difference if the people are ignorant or not of the situation.

Would you care to define what you call an "existential threat" for us?