Bush supporters' aftermath thread

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well I'll consider the opinions of the peaceniks here if somebody will show me any circumstance where a war has been won or brought to a conclusion by the winning side taking a purely defensive position.

No who's spinning and deflecting?

You are the one who said all military aggression is evil, not me. Others have shown how, in their opinion, military aggression was not only not evil but produced very good things. I said clearly that the good guys sometimes use military aggression. I was simply offering you a chance to support your statement that military aggression is evil. How is that spinning and deflecting?

Can you show me anything comparable to Europe's liberation from a Hitler et al or an Afghanistan liberated from a Taliban or an Iraq liberated from a Saddam Hussein et al in which a defensive posture was taken rather than the use of military aggression? And I'm going with MM's and my definition of military aggression which can be attack or threat of attack.

0 Replies

What you are asking for is: "if somebody will show me any circumstance where a war has been won or brought to a conclusion by the winning side taking a purely defensive position." How would such an example support my statement that military aggression is evil? Nope, you're spinning and twisting, and I'm not coming with you.

0 Replies

Hmm, Foxfyre, so you think my quoted report from the Air Force Law Review is wrong?

0 Replies

I disagree that military aggression is evil. It's a means to an end. some people have used military aggression to an evil end. Pol Pot comes to mind. some people have used military aggression to a good end. Bush in Afghanistan comes to mind.

The means are not evil if the ends justify it.

Oh, boy! I get to see all the "but the ends NEVER justify the means" crapola now... joy.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
[<snip>

I see you are showing your true self in your avatar today, Roxanne. Not still denying you're Chrissee/Harper/Nikki, are you?

Or are you?

How can you tell it isn't Chrissee/Harper/Nikki/Magginkat/Anon-Voter? Is there a material difference I missed?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I disagree that military aggression is evil. It's a means to an end. some people have used military aggression to an evil end. Pol Pot comes to mind. some people have used military aggression to a good end. Bush in Afghanistan comes to mind.

The means are not evil if the ends justify it.

Oh, boy! I get to see all the "but the ends NEVER justify the means" crapola now... joy.

Hmm, that gives a complety different view of some dictators.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
[<snip>

I see you are showing your true self in your avatar today, Roxanne. Not still denying you're Chrissee/Harper/Nikki, are you?

Or are you?
How can you tell it isn't Chrissee/Harper/Nikki/Magginkat/Anon-Voter?

Good point.

Quote:

Is there a material difference I missed?

No, not especially.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I disagree that military aggression is evil. It's a means to an end. some people have used military aggression to an evil end. Pol Pot comes to mind. some people have used military aggression to a good end. Bush in Afghanistan comes to mind.

The means are not evil if the ends justify it.

Oh, boy! I get to see all the "but the ends NEVER justify the means" crapola now... joy.

Hmm, that gives a complety different view of some dictators.

How so?

0 Replies

For instance, Hitler's military aggression is seen - as far I know - as evil per se ... besides by Nazis.

0 Replies

Yes it was. And America's military aggression against Hitler was not evil.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yes it was. And America's military aggression against Hitler was not evil.

That was no military aggression though, was it? I mean, America only joined the war after they were attacked, so they were acting out of defense, not out of aggression (pre-emptive or otherwise)

0 Replies

I think we need to agree on some definitions before we leap off into outer space.

I assume we all know what military means.

aggression: 1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

...

n 1: a disposition to behave aggressively 2: a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack [syn: aggressiveness] 3: violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked [syn: hostility] 4: the act of initiating hostilities 5: deliberately unfriendly behavior

evil: 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

0 Replies

Fine. I don't need to discuss this here further (the last resonses were only, because you wrote you disagreed that military aggression is evil).

I agree with the quotation of the Air Force Law Review that LAWFUL military aggression is only done in self-defense.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Yes it was. And America's military aggression against Hitler was not evil.

That was no military aggression though, was it? I mean, America only joined the war after they were attacked, so they were acting out of defense, not out of aggression (pre-emptive or otherwise)

No. Acting defensively would have meant protecting our borders from further attacks. We acted VERY aggressively and decisivly. We invaded Europe and decimated the German army (we being the allies). The US had many opportunities to back out. Say once England was protected, or France was liberated...

I again say military aggression is not in and of it's self evil. It is the purpose for which that aggression is being used for that can be determined as evil or good.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
[<snip>

I see you are showing your true self in your avatar today, Roxanne. Not still denying you're Chrissee/Harper/Nikki, are you?

Or are you?
How can you tell it isn't Chrissee/Harper/Nikki/Magginkat/Anon-Voter? Is there a material difference I missed?

Material difference?? Funny hearing that from you!

Anon

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Fine. I don't need to discuss this here further (the last resonses were only, because you wrote you disagreed that military aggression is evil).

I agree with the quotation of the Air Force Law Review that LAWFUL military aggression is only done in self-defense.

It depends on what definition you use and what version of dictionary you choose. From Merriam Webster: (Bolded mine)

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion Pronunciation: &-'gre-sh&nFunction: nounEtymology: Latin aggression-, aggressio attack, from aggredi to attack, from ad- + gradi to step, go -- more at GRADE 1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

As in pre-emptive strike or intent to defeat, disarm, or disable an enemy. I have asked anyone to show where any military has won a conflict in which a purely defensive posture was used. So far there have only been complaints that the question was asked but none of those on the Left have chosen to answer the question. If you are the good guy and the other guy is the bad guy, then aggression to defeat the bad guy is a good thing whether you are a parent protecting your child or a police officer apprehending a criminal or a military division taking a beachhead.

2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

When applied to this issue, this is pretty much the same as #1.

3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

This is the one most of those on the Left seem to apply to the military plus they add 'greed' to 'frustration.'

And if the Military Law Review says that LAWFUL military aggression is done only in self defense, then I would agree provided that does not rule out preemptive strikes against those who intend to destroy you. I won't allow others to define what my statement means when I make one on this subject.

If there had been no 9/11 or comparable attack, we probably would not be having this discussion. We instead would be having the one in which Hillary Clinton seems to think we should have already taken out Iran and Congress would no doubt still be muttering and expounding about the extreme threat we endure from Iraq's WMDs.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Yes it was. And America's military aggression against Hitler was not evil.

That was no military aggression though, was it? I mean, America only joined the war after they were attacked, so they were acting out of defense, not out of aggression (pre-emptive or otherwise)

America declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. No official shots had been fired between the USA and Germany at that time. We became quite aggresive after that.

Our purpose was to force unconditional surrender from both Hitler and Hirohito. Were we in purely defensive mode, once they quit we would have packed up and gone home. I can't imagine the leaders of our country at that time accepting just quitting as an acceptable outcome, however. That kind of thinking came later.

0 Replies

Fox, I think of definition number 2 when I hear the words military aggression -- as in unprovoked -- your made up version of an imaginary foe's argument notwithstanding. Your question, what war was one with a purely defensive posture, is a do you still beat your wife question and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not military aggression is evil. You seem to be confusing military aggression with military action, or possibly I see more of a distinction between the two. But clearly there is not even an agreement on what the words mean so there can't possibly be agreement on whether they represent something that is evil.

0 Replies

I'm just going with the dictionary definition Duck. It fits quite well with my definition. Your interpretation is not law any more than mine is. I was only objecting to being accused of supporting the definition you made up to support your point of view. I don't share it.

0 Replies

I posted the same dictionary definition you did and even pointed to the one that you posted which is consistent with my interpretation of those words. In addition, I posted the definition of evil which you don't acknowledge so you must agree with it.

You seem to think that any military action is military aggression. Since the word military itself implies force, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But you are welcome to your alternative reality.

You weren't accused of anything except making up irrelevant questions. Winning a war doesn't negate the evil of it. The fact that an action might be necessary also does not negate said evil -- we even have a name for such things.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know