-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Do you believe any war is justifiable?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bobracecarbob
Junior Member
Pure propaganda!
Not everyone is going to have nuclear weapons.
And no, I?m not right ?because America will invade them first?
If it?s been bungled by a bad ideology thus far why should we all just ?shudup and sitdown? while watching el presidente continue this?
IvanAndreevich
Lifer
No here's a better one and more realistic. What if you had proof that the nuclear material came from Russia? What would "you" do?
Dissipate
Diamond Member
This has nothing to do with whether or not tax dollars can be distinguished from other tax dollars. It has to do with using extortion to finance something. You either A. use extortion to finance it or B. you do not. There is no grey area here.
Anyways, thank you for clearing that up. I'm glad you have come forward to admit that you have no bones about supporting tyranny, and you have no bones about using extortion to finance your insane war.
You know what they say, if the shoe fits man, wear it!
Because, as many posters have indicated, war should always be the final resort after expending all alternatives, we are sometimes forced into necessary wars. But a "just war" is an issue of moral relativity in my opinion, so there are always going to be justifiable wars since moral relativity is infinitely subjective.
War is the direct product of failure to negotiation or meet terms of an agreement. Since man himself is irrational we are bound to eventually come to a situation where speaking no longer solves the conflict.
In my opinion, war is unjustifiable because the concept of taking life is wrong. Take is a synonym for stealing and thefore taking a life is stealing a life. Therefore the concept of eye for an eye is just a failure to admit wrong is wrong and callling retaliation just.
In my opinion, war is unjustifiable because the concept of taking life is wrong. Take is a synonym for stealing and thefore taking a life is stealing a life. Therefore the concept of eye for an eye is just a failure to admit wrong is wrong and callling retaliation just.
One of the properties of insanity is an unconscious desire to harm others. That is ok if handled therapeutically without acting out. But the moment that hate expresses itself as violence to another it is the responsibility of the sane to stop it by war if necessary.
But what we have in this world is the insane responding to the insane.
But what we have in this world is the insane responding to the insane.
Zebo
Elite Member
Every war we've been in but revolutionary war was a racket.
It's simple IMO you get attacked then you can Defend.
Everything else is agression a hostile posture which invites more agression more war and conflict. Even supplying arms or aid to another foriegn power engaged in war.
You guys should know all this I don't know why I'm answering.. You know daddy told you not to hit first... at least I hope he did.
Here's a daddy of america's Idea on the subject
Adams:
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse
It's simple IMO you get attacked then you can Defend.
Everything else is agression a hostile posture which invites more agression more war and conflict. Even supplying arms or aid to another foriegn power engaged in war.
You guys should know all this I don't know why I'm answering.. You know daddy told you not to hit first... at least I hope he did.
Here's a daddy of america's Idea on the subject
Adams:
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse
Violence in general -and by logical extension war- is a fact of man's nature and a fact of reality. Ignorance, or misunderstanding, or evil, or insanity cannot be erased by magic (and yes that magic includes supernatural pyschosis Moonbeam). Based on Reason and the best possible evidence, we must accept this if we are to understand and overcome.
On some level, most rational people understand violence -and war- is contextual, and can be used for evil or honorable ends. We give government (most specifically the police) a near monopoly on the use of violent cohersion because we understand that it's necessary for an orderly society. The same applies internationally... although that situation is often a bit foggier. Regardless, we must always keep a wary eye and active debate on the contexts that we encounter, domestically and globally.
On some level, most rational people understand violence -and war- is contextual, and can be used for evil or honorable ends. We give government (most specifically the police) a near monopoly on the use of violent cohersion because we understand that it's necessary for an orderly society. The same applies internationally... although that situation is often a bit foggier. Regardless, we must always keep a wary eye and active debate on the contexts that we encounter, domestically and globally.
I think, if we take what cw is saying seriously, we should just war and war all the time because war is man's nature and thus the nature of reality. I say this because we will war and war whatever we do because it is our nature so why mess around with a magical concept like reason and the best possible evidence which has already brought us to the conclusion that we are war. So we should start every war we can win because it is our nature and somebody is sure to war with us. And let's give the police nuclear weapons.
Translation:
We got alot of war therefore war is real. You think was isn't real, well it is. Being at war is how you deal with war. Some wars are bad like when you just up and attack somebody. Some are good like when you defend against such attacks. We arm police so they can stop bad people same like with war. When this goes international it gets harder to tell the bad guy form the good guy so here we gotta think extra hard. And anything I don't understand is magic and is bad.
Hehe, as if your original post wasn't a prime example of this complaint. a pile of nonsense posing as a meaningful critique. The only difference is that I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
OK, let me in on this humor. I like a good laugh as much as the next guy, but something tells me we have different ideas of what's funny...
First you can explain what's wrong with my post. Is war a fact of of reality? Can ignorance, misunderstanding, evil or insanity not be erased from our nature? Is it not good to understand our nature and the nature of reality to help overcome our weaknesses?
If you answer yes, then we agree. If not, elaborate.
Is war not contextual? Can't violence be used to serve evil or honorable ends? Isn't the issue of violence (esp. in the form of war) a little less clear cut internationally than domestically? Shouldn't we keep open, honest debate alive when determining the use of force in any given situation?
If you answer yes, then we agree. If not, elaborate.
Now you can go ahead and show me how Moonbeam's typical rambling nonsense applies to what I've said, because I don't see it, and evidently that's where it gets funny
And no, I don't think the psychological state Moonbeam is in, is funny. More like sad.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
