Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Interesting debate folks. Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink: Who threw a fit when the United States aggressively kicked Saddam out of Kuwait a decade and a half ago? That's what I thought. So, we all agree; some a$$es simply need kicking. Good.

0 Replies

wrong

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interesting debate folks. Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink: Who threw a fit when the United States aggressively kicked Saddam out of Kuwait a decade and a half ago? That's what I thought. So, we all agree; some a$$es simply need kicking. Good.

Nice thoughtful foreign policy. "Some asses simply need kicking."

Wow!

0 Replies

Afghanistan is what we call a necessary evil. It was in response to aggression by non-Afghans who were based out of Afganistan. Still evil, just necessary.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

Evil is the intent to do harm to another for selfish purposes or, in the first definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary, "morally reprehensible". I do not consider our invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq to be morally reprehensible. If you do, that is your prerogative. But we obviously do not define evil with the same definition.

Quote:

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

.

Any military action that is a first strike is definitely military aggression. There is no way to define our invasion of North Africa to go after Rommel or the bombing of Berlin or the march on Berlin or the landing at Normandy as anything but aggression. The enemy wasn't taking it to us at that point. We were definitely taking it to them. Even the bombing of Japan would have to be considered aggressive warfare rather than defensive warfare even though the purpose of it was to end a long, expensive, bloody war.

Quote:

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

Reread Walter's post in support of yours and your defensiveness re my opinion(s) on this subject. I was not objecting to your right to your definition nor even your definition itself though I do not share it. I was objecting to your (and Walter) determining what my definition was when your determination was entirely wrong.

As far as 'irrelevent questions' you are certainly within your rights to ignore them. As I consider them to be entirely relevent within this discussion, however, I still think it is interesting that the questions were criticized and nobody on the Left could answer them.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interesting debate folks. Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink: Who threw a fit when the United States aggressively kicked Saddam out of Kuwait a decade and a half ago? That's what I thought. So, we all agree; some a$$es simply need kicking. Good.

How will you feel when it's your ass that gets kicked good!!

Anon

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Evil is the intent to do harm to another for selfish purposes or, in the first definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary, "morally reprehensible". I do not consider our invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq to be morally reprehensible. If you do, that is your prerogative. But we obviously do not define evil with the same definition.

I posted a dictionary definition, maybe we could let that be the standard. Here it is again:

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.

Quote:

Any military action that is a first strike is definitely military aggression. There is no way to define our invasion of North Africa to go after Rommel or the bombing of Berlin or the march on Berlin or the landing at Normandy as anything but aggression. The enemy wasn't taking it to us at that point. We were definitely taking it to them. Even the bombing of Japan would have to be considered aggressive warfare rather than defensive warfare even though the purpose of it was to end a long, expensive, bloody war.

That's certainly your interpretation and you're entitled to it. I don't share it.

Quote:

Reread Walter's post in support of yours and your defensiveness re my opinion(s) on this subject. I was not objecting to your right to your definition nor even your definition itself though I do not share it. I was objecting to your (and Walter) determining what my definition was when your determination was entirely wrong.

Apparently a lot of people have a different idea of what you meant than you yourself have and I think it a bit dishonest to expect folks to ask you for definitions before responding to your comments. Here's your definition.

Foxfyre wrote:

Military aggression is a military attacking, threatening, or forcing demands on something or somebody. It is shooting first, not just shooting back when shot at. It can be something that bad guys do. And it can be something that good guys do.

Foxfyre wrote:

And I'm going with MM's and my definition of military aggression which can be attack or threat of attack.

Quote:

As far as 'irrelevent questions' you are certainly within your rights to ignore them.

Right, and listen to you over and over tell me how my not answering your nonsensical question somehow proves something.

Quote:

As I consider them to be entirely relevent within this discussion, however, I still think it is interesting that the questions were criticized and nobody on the Left could answer them.

Case in point.

Who is on the left and why are they all obliged to answer your assinine questions? Here, I have one for you. Can you tell me who on this earth enjoys living in a war zone?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

Funny that 'you guys' should have those particular comments. After glancing at your posts for several weeks I had almost the exact same thought about you two.... assuming that you are two.

One striking thing are the pictures you use for avatars. I don't know if they are your actual pictures but if they are both present an air of arrogance that stands out like a sore thumb.

The pictures were obviously selected to show your high opinions of yourself! Smile

I can say that I don't share that opinion.

0 Replies

What an absurd statement.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

One striking thing are the pictures you use for avatars. I don't know if they are your actual pictures but if they are both present an air of arrogance that stands out like a sore thumb.

The pictures were obviously selected to show your high opinions of yourself!

Riveting. What are your thoughts about dylexia's avatar? Roxxxxxxane's?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink:

Ehm ... the people who attacked America on 9/11 were sent into attack by a leader who was hiding out with his top men in Afghanistan? So you went to go get him / eliminate him?

Sounds more of a "duh" answer than a loophole to me.

(But yes, even so there were those who opposed the war on Afghanistan ... not me obviously, but there was a big enough debate in my party ...)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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...

Unsurprisingly, I'll have to disagree with you (and Fox) here.

Military aggression, in the dictionary definition FreeDuck brought, means "The act of initiating hostilities or invasion". The US did not initiate hostilities in WW2. Japan initiated hostilities, and the US retaliated. Germany initiated hostilities (declaring war on a country should count as initiating hostilities, I'd say...), so the US retaliated. Faced with what was, at that time, a major world power that had declared war on it, it did what it needed to do in order to be safe from it: it eliminated it.

You say the US would also already have been safe if it had stopped after liberating France; that's a difference in judgement call on what would have been a sufficient defensive operation. The US at the time made another call on what was a sufficient defensive operation. A defensive operation it remained, anyhow.

0 Replies

Shades of Abuzz!

When threads get caught up in charges and counter-charges of multiple identities, the end is near.

0 Replies

And you, "Finn", stop following me I know who you really are!!!!

;-)

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

The pictures were obviously selected to show your high opinions of yourself!

Thank you. :wink:

Ticomaya wrote:

Riveting.

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink:

Ehm ... the people who attacked America on 9/11 were sent into attack by a leader who was hiding out with his top men in Afghanistan? So you went to go get him / eliminate him?

Sounds more of a "duh" answer than a loophole to me

Really? So the by that rationale would we get another "duh" if we learned he was now hiding out in Pakistan? Iran? Syria? Attack?

And what of our attack on Saddam a decade and a half ago? Had he laid a single finger on the United States? Would you argue our formidable, aggressive, "unprovoked" attack was out of line then? I don't think I've seen you do so.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Shades of Abuzz!

When threads get caught up in charges and counter-charges of multiple identities, the end is near.

Yep, who gives a **** if someone has multiples. If they're too afraid to say what they want using their own handle, it probably isn't worth hearing anyway!!

Anon

0 Replies

I'm glad I'm tired and sleepy tonight. It helps me keep my mouth shut so I don't get banned again.

Anon

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Question; did anyone here have a problem with the United States' unprovoked attack on Afghanistan after a group of mostly Saudi Arabians attacked us? What loophole does that extremely aggressive action get to not qualify as evil? :wink:

Ehm ... the people who attacked America on 9/11 were sent into attack by a leader who was hiding out with his top men in Afghanistan? So you went to go get him / eliminate him?

Sounds more of a "duh" answer than a loophole to me

Really? So the by that rationale would we get another "duh" if we learned he was now hiding out in Pakistan? Iran? Syria? Attack?

Hhmmm ... I dunno that attacking a country five years after the attack on yours would still fly much as a "defensive" move ... by any standard.

But if Osama and his top lieutenants had all been in North-Pakistan in 2001/2002, then yes, that rationale would have been a "duh" for Pakistan too.

Mind you, its probably not particularly wise to attack a country with nukes, even in defense ... but yes, it would have counted as defensive. Osama / Al Quada make full-blown attack on the US, they're based in Pakistan; Pakistan refuses to clamp down on them - so you do it yourself. Yes, works. Not a question of initiating hostilities.

But yeah, I'm sure we agree that there is some sort of timelimit on this kind of thing, even if we could argue over what it would be.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

And what of our attack on Saddam a decade and a half ago? Had he laid a single finger on the United States? Would you argue our formidable, aggressive, "unprovoked" attack was out of line then? I don't think I've seen you do so.

Heh, no 1991 was way before A2K existed, or even Abuzz.

But yes, I did actually oppose the US war on Iraq in 1991 at the time.

I have distinctly more mixed feelings about it now.

Mind you, the time I think they should have attacked Iraq was 1988, when Saddam was actually attempting genocide, but when the US government was still cosying up to him. Because although I've joined the terminological debate about what constitutes aggressive war here, I'm not actually among those who believe an aggressive war is by definition wrong.

I believe that there is justification for what, for lack of a less mealymouthed label, is usually called a humanitarian intervention. When a dictatorial regime is in the process of committing genocide, I think it is justified for other countries (through the UN -- or in emergency cases (dubious, dubious) a representative coalition of democracies) to intervene by military means.

Mind you, I also think thats the only reason agressive military action is justified.

0 Replies

I'v concuded now that military aggression is either something different to that what I've learnt on the naval college or what was taught at university or I've read elsewhere ot all that is just our European idea or all of it.

0 Replies

I didn't think you were really part of that club so I was surprised to see you "aggressively" defend it. Honing your skills? Had I had my thinking cap on; I would have thought to ask a hypothetical-intervene-during-genocide question myself... It was the shortest root to here... which frankly was my only point. :shrugs:

Still, I'm not sure how Bin Laden is any less of a threat now than he was 5 years ago. He did just promise another attack... We know he's capable... and he and his top aides must be hiding somewhere... :wink:

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know