WAR hooah ! What is it good for ???

jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Is this board capable of analysis ???

LOL !!!

Can this board honorably answer the following:

Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?

Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?

Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?


Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?

Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?

Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?

Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?

And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?

Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime, that the crime must be committed first and if you don't survive the case is moot?

Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?

Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?

Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?

Is everyone too suspicious that everyone has some sort of secret agenda that they cannot decide to answer any one of these questions honestly and directly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EagleSmack
Toro

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,437
65
48
Florida, Hurricane Central
runningofthebulls.typepad.com
Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?

No. There are just wars.

Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?

No. Prevention of genocide is a reason to intercede.

Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?

Don't know.

Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?

Depends. Is it the right of a country to wage war over the internal affairs of another country? In almost all cases, the answer is no. What if that leader intends to commit genocide against part of his population? What would be the history of the world if the allies did not allow Hitler to rise to power?

Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?

Theoretically yes but its irreleveant.

Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?

Courts aren't known for their speed.

Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?

Yes but in international affairs, whose the judge?

And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?

The issue of war will never be decided by a judge.

Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime...

If you know the crime in advance, then they can. You can also prepare and protect yourself against the possibility of a crime to a certain degree.

that the crime must be committed first

Intent is a reason to protect oneself.

and if you don't survive the case is moot?

The case is moot to the individual but not to everyone else.

Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?

Never.

Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?

No. But that's for a society to decide.

Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?

Truth in science is not subjective. Truth in events is not subjective. Truth in interpretation of events is subjective.

Is everyone too suspicious that everyone has some sort of secret agenda that they cannot decide to answer any one of these questions honestly and directly?

Individuals and groups almost always act in their self-interest. If you can discover what that self-interest is, you've answered the question.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Thanks, Toro.

The questions are just a beginning, just to show all those who are self-satisfied about simplicity.

In any attempt to look at war, these are the questions our leaders must answer, and our citizens should lose the smugness, but keep a level skepticism.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
LOL, jo canadian !!!

But the fault lies not in the stars (read leaders), but in ourselves.

Readers and voters are the culprits, because they admit to no standard of fairness, assume no self-doubt, and cannot keep their own bias at arms length enough to see life contradicts ---- truth a monopoly for no one.
 
Jo Canadian

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: RE: WAR hooah ! What is it good for ???

jimmoyer said:
LOL, jo canadian !!!

But the fault lies not in the stars (read leaders), but in ourselves.

Readers and voters are the culprits, because they admit to no standard of fairness, assume no self-doubt, and cannot keep their own bias at arms length enough to see life contradicts ---- truth a monopoly for no one.
Click to expand...

True.

But in the end the choices we have aren't what would be considered top-of-the-line leadership.

It's a dirty job and someone has to do it, however if readers and voters are at fault then this scenario will be cycladic until the end of time.

So what's the point?
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
You want results ?

Sheeeesh.

It's not satisfactory, but the truth does not lie in the result.

The truth lies in the process, the battle.

The runner who comes in second decides not to run because he did not win? Because he did not win, does he find his effort fruitless ?

Do we not applaud the last runner in the marathon ?

It is the effort, the battle, the process that holds, and never does the result hold.


This is what democracy speaks of. It poses the process as top dog in the heirarchy. It speaks of opportunity, not results. It speaks of chances allowed, not guarrantees, not of guarranteed results.

There's great irony for you....
 
Jo Canadian

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: RE: WAR hooah ! What is it good for ???

jimmoyer said:
You want results ?

Sheeeesh.

It's not satisfactory, but the truth does not lie in the result.

The truth lies in the process, the battle.

The runner who comes in second decides not to run because he did not win? Because he did not win, does he find his effort fruitless ?

Do we not applaud the last runner in the marathon ?

It is the effort, the battle, the process that holds, and never does the result hold.
Click to expand...

Without all the metaphoric prose and such, Results would be nice but...

No.

How can we get global results on a discussion board? Especially when any point of view left,right,middle, up or down is discounted by the rest. We've probably seen the truth in these posts as much as we have seen the Bullshi* but the riddle of finding the truth is only when it falls on your head and you accept it without blaming anyone.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
This is what democracy speaks of.

It poses the process as top dog in the heirarchy. The top dog is the rules of the battle, the rules committe being one of the more powerful committees.

It speaks of opportunity, not results. And so the battle should be about that opportunity, or the process of opportunity.

It speaks of chances allowed, not guarrantees, not of guarranteed results.

There's great irony for you....
 
Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
War is very "good": :cry:


Bush Lied, Soldiers Keep Dying.
1,703 U.S. Military Fatalities in Iraq (thru today)
12,855 U.S. Military Maimed in Iraq (Last DoD Update: 10-Jun-05)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom