• Code Pink Calls Marines "War Criminals"
    166 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19395977]You seem not to understand something. War isn't pretty. It has a cost in lives, money, and property. All true. But what are we supposed to do when somebody attacks us? Sit on our asses and say 'HURR DURR PLEZE BE NISE'? Hell no. There's a reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and it sure as hell isn't oil. You cannot survive by inaction. It has a greater cost than any other choice.[/QUOTE] Afghanistan was justified, although we also provoked 9/11. Iraq, however, has no reasonable justification. It was just Imperialism, a country didn't do as we said so we invaded them. We need to defend ourselves in an attack, I agree. I am no pacifist. However, war is only an option when being attacked. Although I hate what we did during WW2, our involvement after Pearl Harbor was justified. Our behavior before, however, was not. [editline]07:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=redonkulous;19396014]Like I said, we weren't immaculate, but our actions caused a lot less deaths to happen.[/QUOTE] I can agree with that, I just don't think an innocent person has a quantifiable value. Our actions that caused innocent deaths was wrong, period, it doesn't matter what the enemy was doing at all. [editline]07:20AM[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;19396037]I see what you're going at and I somewhat agree. But I also think if nothing was done, we would have been the ones getting killed [I]eventually[/I]. thus our inaction would be suicidal. Even if we were [I]never[/I] attacked I'm sure everyone else getting attacked would effect the world in such a way that it would effect our lives. [/QUOTE] Although Hitler obviously had a track record of breaking promises as far as expansion goes, if The Allies didn't get involved I hardly think Hitler would have gone past Eastern Europe as far as expansion went(don't think I'm saying it's alright though, what he did was still wrong and he is responsible for over 10 million innocent lives).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19396049] Iraq, however, has no reasonable justification. [/QUOTE] You see thats where I would disagree. If you could fathom the absolute horror it must have been for people to live under saddam hussein, where people were raped by police if they are SUSPECTED of disagreeing with their supreme leader. These people could not escape that life because of his deranged dictatorship. The question comes down to whether or not we should intervene with these peoples 'cultures'. I say you should if victory is a likely outcome. It is the RIGHT thing to do to try at free these innocent people of their plight. That decision may involve innocent people dying, but you don't know that. Obviously if you could foresee that your actions would cause more harm than good, then you would not do it. However you don't know that, if we didn't intervene in Iraq maybe even more people would be dying under Husseins rule, maybe they wouldn't. I would hedge my bets that they would however, its the right thing to do to try and stop these people. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19394470]No you just can't realize that you're calling Nazi's evil like they were any different from British, French, Italians, Soviets, and Americans yes Americans. Their leaders were no different from ours. Their ideology was just as split and opinionated as anyone else's. No one is any less "evil" and if you really believe that you've watched too many war movies.[/QUOTE] Now I know you are being deliberately controversial. Are you serious in what your saying? Do you actually need someone to show you what you are saying is wrong? I understand your definition of evil and how it may be subjective, just like to Hitler the Americans would have been evil. I am not using evil in that way though, I'm using it literally. Hitler was evil. He murdered MILLIONS of people off a racist superstition. That is WRONG, do you understand that? I'm not going to call the Allied leaders angels, but they were a damned sight better than that abomination.
There is no literal 'evil'. Evil does not exist, people exist. The word is a Human construct and a conceptual one at that. It is subjective. Jewry was evil to the Nazis, which is why they had them exterminated. They were wrong, Jews made no transgressions against Germany or it's people, so Hitler was [i]incorrect.[/i] That's the important part.
[QUOTE=Lithe;19396882]There is no literal 'evil'. Evil does not exist, people exist. The word is a Human construct and a conceptual one at that. It is subjective. Jewry was evil to the Nazis, which is why they had them exterminated. They were wrong, Jews made no transgressions against Germany or it's people, so Hitler was [i]incorrect.[/i] That's the important part.[/QUOTE] Okay well I will accept that because thats how I percieve the word evil. Its a small point but thanks for clearing it up.
No. Bullshit. It's not a small point. It makes all the difference in the world. The moment you realize that every hero or tyrant, every terrorist or freedom fighter in human history is essentially interchangeable is the moment you understand why 'evil' exists at all. The only thing that has ever truly differed between those individuals was whether things turned out well in the end. And even then it's subject to opinion. Hitler could have been a great man. He was a talented orator, a strong leader and he believed fiercely in his cause. It was a shame that he was on the far side of having a sound, intellectually cogent philosophy. Yes, Hitler did in fact have good intentions. And we've all heard that proverb about good intentions haven't we?
[QUOTE=combine487;19396771]You see thats where I would disagree. If you could fathom the absolute horror it must have been for people to live under saddam hussein, where people were raped by police if they are SUSPECTED of disagreeing with their supreme leader. These people could not escape that life because of his deranged dictatorship. The question comes down to whether or not we should intervene with these peoples 'cultures'. I say you should if victory is a likely outcome. It is the RIGHT thing to do to try at free these innocent people of their plight. That decision may involve innocent people dying, but you don't know that. Obviously if you could foresee that your actions would cause more harm than good, then you would not do it. However you don't know that, if we didn't intervene in Iraq maybe even more people would be dying under Husseins rule, maybe they wouldn't. I would hedge my bets that they would however, its the right thing to do to try and stop these people. [/QUOTE] I say you shouldn't intervene in another person's culture unless they want you to. Iraq didn't ask for our help, they didn't want western influence in their country, and they didn't want help from infidels. We shouldn't have "helped" them at all.
We must also consider wider implications of things, because in doing something which we might perceive as right, we might inadvertently cause something bad to happen regardless of our intention. And jsut imagine how that would be perceived by others.
2:57 AM - Kapitán Nikolai Sergeyev: lolol 2:57 AM - Kapitán Nikolai Sergeyev: post that in the thread i had a boner before this thread lost it while reading :v:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19395255]If it results in another person's death then it is moral [i]not[/i] to stop the mugger.[/QUOTE] But what if in place of the mugger, was a murderer, and had the clear intention of murdering the victim? Would you stop him then, and have one casualty, or not intervene, and have [B]at least[/B] one innocent casualty?
[QUOTE=venom;19397658]But what if in place of the mugger, was a murderer, and had the clear intention of murdering the victim? Would you stop him then, and have one casualty, or not intervene, and have [B]at least[/B] one innocent casualty?[/QUOTE] If an innocent person's blood is on my hands by preventing a murderer then it is wrong of me to intervene.
[QUOTE=combine487;19372844]It was kind of funny that the video said "There is nothing wrong with Communism." There isn't, communism is a fantastic system... [B]on paper[/B].[/QUOTE] no it isnt
[QUOTE=abcpea;19398109]no it isnt[/QUOTE] It's beautiful in an idealistic world. That's why Code Pink likes it, they are idealists.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19397765]If an innocent person's blood is on my hands by preventing a murderer then it is wrong of me to intervene.[/QUOTE] On the contrary, the innocent person's blood would be on your hands if you DIDN'T intervene.
That makes no sense. No action of yours contributed to any aspect of the death.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19397229]I say you shouldn't intervene in another person's culture unless they want you to. Iraq didn't ask for our help, they didn't want western influence in their country, and they didn't want help from infidels. We shouldn't have "helped" them at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, funny that Iraq didn't ask to be invaded. You know, because as soon as someone called for help they would have been gang raped by police officers and killed, with a photo sent to their family of it happening. People have this stupid idea that Iraq was some beautiful place before the invasion. It was anything but beautiful, it was a place of genocide and murder fueled by religous fanaticism. The Aztecs used to rip peoples chests open in order to make sure the sun rose every day. This was a central part of their culture. If they existed today, would you allow it to continue had you the power to stop it? I certainly would. Just because some people have long held traditions, doesn't mean they are to be respected. [QUOTE=Lithe;19397054] Hitler could have been a great man. He was a talented orator, a strong leader and he believed fiercely in his cause. It was a shame that he was on the far side of having a sound, intellectually cogent philosophy. Yes, Hitler did in fact have good intentions. And we've all heard that proverb about good intentions haven't we?[/QUOTE] Okay I understand more what you are saying now. I agree that Hitler could have been a great man, but he wasn't. His methods to achieve his goals were wrong (here I would use the word evil, but perhaps it is not correct). Over illogical superstition (most likely founded in his religion) he had a hatred of jews, which lead him to massacre 6 million of them. That is wrong, immoral, unjust and horrid. Men like him should not be allowed control over anything (especially given his amazing propaganda skills), and if fighting them is what it takes, then thats what it takes.
Invading a country and other such national moves can have secondary consequences you know. Like another country seeing it as a land grab. Just one example but things of such global importance are subject to much complication and speculation.
Fuck them, Marines as a whole deserve the utmost of respect. What the hell are they doing saying that kind of shit about people who're protecting them >:I they should all rot.
[quote]Al-qaeda is not a threat to the United States[/quote] Right, well, that should speak for itself I think unless you've served in the Military or lost someone who was serving in the military (They have the right to say whatever the cluster fuck they want about the military and wars as far as I'm concerned) these feminist Play-NiceNice idiots should piss the fuck off. You think if you disarm the USA and completely take away it's military the United States is going to be a far better place? No. It Will get occupied and have our allies send their forces and then the same war shit they're bitching about is going to be on their front doorstep. A Country needs a Military, end of fucking discussion. If they want to get mad at someone, they should get mad at Bush and his lackies that kissed his ass... OH WAIT, that's right, You voted for Bush! TWICE! Name one Non Violent developed nation that does not have a Military? Canada excluded, and by Non Violent I mean you don't have Guerillas massacring entire towns After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor killing many Military AND Civilians, who was it that said Fuck that shit, we don't play that game and took the fight to Japan? The Marines. What would Code Pink do if they were in charge? Ignore it? What would the people think? How would the world be today if America hadn't got pulled into World War 2 because of Japan and the subsequent actions taken by real leaders that don't pussy foot around in the kitchen? Fuck off Code Pink
[QUOTE=Lithe;19399046]That makes no sense. No action of yours contributed to any aspect of the death.[/QUOTE] [B]If[/B] you could prevent the death of an innocent, at the cost of the life of one of the guilty, wouldn't you? I think I understand your point, but if someone's life depended on you taking action, and you didn't, you're partly at fault. Of course, that may just be my point of view.
[b]"Peace sucks a hairy asshole, Freddy. War is the mother-fucking answer."[/b] A soldier is an ambulatory weapon, a United States Marine doubly so. That is their purpose. That is what they are made to be, from basic training on up. They are attack dogs, who kill without remorse or hesitation. One of the first things they do to these impressionable poor bastards is try to teach them that the enemy their fighting is sub-human. It's easier for a person to kill an animal. This brings up a whole slew of problems on it's own, and the military culture only reinforces that. There's a reason why you will not find an intellectual Marine. Soldiers are the tools of their governments. They are to be used, and if necessary used up. Their lives expended in the name of their patron nation. And they do this willingly. I bid you ask yourselves, what is the purpose of a military? The answer would seem obvious. To defend your country, correct? Or in those oh-so-rare instances to invade another country. Well, the way this breaks down goes such: We have an army to defend against another nation's army. We have one because they have one. Deterrence didn't start with nuclear weapons, that was simply the next evolution of the concept of keeping others at bay with threats. That is the purpose of the army. Else, it's simply a tool of greedy politicians. There should be no other purpose for an army, and if everyone's defending, nobody's attacking against whom you'd need to defend making armies purposeless. There is no resource or objective in existence that could possibly justify war as a reasonable reaction, because mediation and diplomacy will always be the preferred method of conflict resolution due to the cost of war, both in money and Human lives. It is because of this that smart, reasonable people will always find out a way to work things out with each-other. Though that does leave one thing. The purpose of an army falls to one more reason. Defense against those that can not be reasoned with. The irrational. I think you know who I am talking about. We might very well have to kill these people. But we can have an argument about how to best go about doing that. And with stakes such as this, discretion is most definitely the better part of valor. I do not want to be associated with anyone who picks fights, and this goes tenfold for governmental institutions. And while I do concede that the military might in certain situations be a necessary thing that does not stop me despising it and everything it stands for, including it's very purpose. Because it is an aberration upon Humankind that such a thing might need to exist at all. It's very much a case of the lesser evil here, and were I given the choice I'd make it so that they were no longer necessary. But under any circumstance, the military and war in general are not things to be glorified, nor are it's service-members. They are not heroes. They are fucked in the head. You need to be to go through all the shit that war so often necessitates and come out of it in any picture of mental health. You seem to think we're playing a game here. Don't kid yourselves, it's a dirty business. People are sent out there to do horrible things, and the nature of combat in civilian populated areas all but guarantees innocent casualties. And that doesn't even begin to get in to the psychological aspects of it. What debilitating effects combat can have on a soldiers' psyche. We should not treat these things as acceptable at all even if they are accidents because war itself is unacceptable. You people seem to be stuck with the idea that war is permissible, even the right choice in certain cases, which grants it a sort of neutral ground in terms of it's morality. You are wrong. It in no way can be viewed as a positive thing. Besides, war is about as liable to fix things as the entrails of a chicken are wont to tell the four cardinal directions. In fact, it’s liable to cause far more problems than it solves. War is a bunch of dumb alpha-male fuckheaded pricks beating up on another bunch of dumb alpha-male fuckheaded pricks and those forced to have any involvement are some unfortunate bastards. As for those troglodytic enough to sign up I'd say they still don't deserve it. And as for one's right of speech, if you're telling the Code Pink people to shut the fuck up you are entirely missing the point, and proving theirs. First amendment. You keep bitching about these soldiers sacrificing their lives ofr what our country stands for and yet you yourself betray these very ideals in support of the military, whoa re defending them. How ironic. Besides, it is specifically because I am not in the military that I am free to view things more objectively. I don't have the enforced bias that comes along with service.
[QUOTE=combine487;19396771] Now I know you are being deliberately controversial. Are you serious in what your saying? Do you actually need someone to show you what you are saying is wrong? I understand your definition of evil and how it may be subjective, just like to Hitler the Americans would have been evil. I am not using evil in that way though, I'm using it literally. Hitler was evil. He murdered MILLIONS of people off a racist superstition. That is WRONG, do you understand that? I'm not going to call the Allied leaders angels, but they were a damned sight better than that abomination.[/QUOTE] And not a single nation GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THEM. [editline]07:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19395977]But what are we supposed to do when somebody attacks us? Sit on our Hell no. There's a reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and it sure as hell isn't oil.[/QUOTE] Really. Lol ok now I know who I'm arguing with. [editline]07:51AM[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;19395547] I don't recall Roosevelt or Churchill wanting to eradicate all Jews, cripples, gypsies, homosexuals, and other categories of people, or believing that their people belonged to a superior race that was destined to rule the world. Please inform me if I am wrong.[/QUOTE]I don't recall them ever knowing or caring to know until the very end.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19400698]And not a single nation GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THEM. [editline]07:48AM[/editline] Really. Lol ok now I know who I'm arguing with. [editline]07:51AM[/editline] I don't recall them ever knowing or caring to know until the very end.[/QUOTE] you are dumb don't try to come up with a reply because that will hurt your brain too much
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19400698]And not a single nation GAVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THEM. [editline]07:48AM[/editline] Really. Lol ok now I know who I'm arguing with. [editline]07:51AM[/editline] I don't recall them ever knowing or caring to know until the very end.[/QUOTE] They went to war with Germany in the first place because Hitler was majorly defying the Treaty of Versailles and made speeches pretty much saying that he had no intentions of stopping or respecting the several "Okay I'll stop now" agreements with England and France. After he militarily invaded a country instead of peacefully annex it, England and Frace said that it was time. Even without the Jews being a factor, Hitler needed to be stopped. He openly said he wanted to take over the world. There was no war for the sake of war. Nobody wanted another WW1, especially not the vast majority of the population that lived through it. Even if the politicians did want war so that they could gain power or something like that, the population would have been against it which I don't seem to recall there being much of. [editline]01:11PM[/editline] Oh and the whole deal with Sadam was that he was beating his people, which is not a good thing, and doing the same crap as Hitler as far as disrespecting treaties and building up power and the like. The U.S. was just the nation that decided that they didn't feel like doing WW2 again and did something about it. As far as our continued involvement... That is up to questioning, but we had a reason to be there five years ago.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19395654]I would choose inaction. Being a bystander to evil is much less horrible than being a murderer.[/QUOTE] [i]Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction.[/i]
Communism is fine if you do it right. AKA, not Stalin's way.
[QUOTE=Lithe;19400619] Defense against those that can not be reasoned with. The irrational. I think you know who I am talking about. We might very well have to kill these people. But we can have an argument about how to best go about doing that. And with stakes such as this, discretion is most [/QUOTE] I find it sickening learning about the regimes of people like saddam hussein, or the backwards, religous and fanatic laws that Al Qaeda would wish to uphold. Their morality breaches a human's right for free thinking. I understand what your saying and its made me think about it. The question is how do you deal with people like this? How can you argue with someone who thinks they are doing the work of god, so deluded in their foolish goals. Then they teach their children, and another generation arises. It is hard for the human race to expand, achieve greater hights of humanity and understanding when all these people do is serve to disrupt and halt that process. Is a gun the answer? When these people start murdering innocent people, sabotaging childrens thoughts and destroying order for no other reason than their own benefit or some superstitous belief. Maybe it is. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19400698] I don't recall them ever knowing or caring to know until the very end.[/QUOTE] That's not even a response. He told you that Roosevelt and Churchill didn't eradicate people based on some idiotic racial superstition. Your response was "I don't recall them knowing about the holocaust." Are you thick? The eradication of jews wasn't the reason to go into war. Hitler was demolishing Europe and invading territories in direct breach of treaties. Even if the Allied leaders DIDN'T give "two shits" about the jews (which I highly doubt), at least they kept it to themselves and didn't start butchering their populations.
"What the hell are we doing in Hawaii anyways!?!?!" Hurr durr.
"WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING IN HAWAII ANYWAY!?" "WHATS WRONG WITH COMMUNISM!?" Thats 'bout it folks, tune in next time fer the dipshit show! :banjo:
Whats wrong with communism? I have 2 firends in China and they like it. Dumbfucks who never lived under communist government or even know what the fuck communism is hate it. OMFG ITS COMMNIEZM I MAST HAET IT LUL
[QUOTE=Welcometohel;19412959]Whats wrong with communism? I have 2 firends in China and they like it. Dumbfucks who never lived under communist government or even know what the fuck communism is hate it. OMFG ITS COMMNIEZM I MAST HAET IT LUL[/QUOTE] I don't really have a problem with Communism. I prefer capitalism, but as long as the commies aren't trying to kill me or influence tons of countries into Communism, I have no problem with it. [editline]06:12PM[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19400698] I don't recall them ever knowing or caring to know until the very end.[/QUOTE] Good job not answering the question at all. :golfclap: The holocaust had nothing to do with the war. It was just a horrible "side dish" by the time we discovered the camps we were already deep in the shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.