Is Violence Ever Necessary?

earthworm · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Violence in and of itself is not a permanent solution. Violence can certainly create long term problems or problems that will have to be dealt with again, with violence, in the future. The combination of violence along with some sort of honest justice is a permanent solution, depending on the circumstances. For example, violence, in and of itself by the US in Iraq doesn't seem to be offering much of a permanent solution for the US or the world for that matter. This I take strong exception to, it is the insurgents committing the violence, NOT the American soldiers ! But skillful diplomacy that has some honest justice, after some extreme violence might be able to offer a permanent solution.

Those who believe in the appeasement policy will never learn, will they...

earthworm · Mar 13, 2006

Quote:
Al-queda would say they are fighting for their freedom (which in their viewpoint, Islam and freedom go hand in hand) against the tyrannical, violent oppression of the United States.

This is such a bold-faced lie that it is not worth discussing !:spin:

ManOfTrueTruth · Mar 13, 2006

earthworm said:
Quote:
Al-queda would say they are fighting for their freedom (which in their viewpoint, Islam and freedom go hand in hand) against the tyrannical, violent oppression of the United States.

This is such a bold-faced lie that it is not worth discussing !:spin:

It's not worth discussing to you, because what you call a "bold face lie" would turn into a "bold face truth" if you did discuss it. You would have to face the harsh and painful reality and truth like that of a growing child who one days realizes that their father was a rapist or somebody who did horrible things. That the US is not the free country it proclaims itself to be and that their is hard evidence to PROVE in any court of law beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the US has overthrown freely elected governments and not only has it committed genocide itself but has helped other genocides along in other nations. The CIA coups in Guatemala or the coup in Indoenesia. The US acting as accomplices to genocide in the Former Yugoslavia, the US involvement in the Middle East for oil. The US has committed violent acts which demand justice or left unchecked, self defense from those people who are victims of such violence. Bin Laden had stated that the reasons why he is attacking America, he has said that it is because the US has attacked his people first and that his attacks were in response to US attacks and policies. We can openly and honestly discuss or we can ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist and continue to pretend that our country is the perfect shining light of the world, rather than actually trying to make a better more fair and just world.

hipsterdufus · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

I love the sound of violence. A stradavarius, in the hands of a master like Itzahk Perelman, is a beautiful thing.

Never mind.

cherokee · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth]It's not worth discussing to you, because what you call a "bold face lie" would turn into a "bold face truth" if you did discuss it. You would have to face the harsh and painful reality and truth like that of a growing child who one days realizes that their father was a rapist or somebody who did horrible things.

What?...I think someone needs to take his head out of the sand..

That the US is not the free country it proclaims itself to be and that their is hard evidence to PROVE in any court of law beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the US has overthrown freely elected governments

Show me the evidence...PROVE IT!

and not only has it committed genocide itself but has helped other genocides along in other nations. The CIA coups in Guatemala or the coup in Indoenesia. The US acting as accomplices to genocide in the Former Yugoslavia,

We stopped the DAMN WAR!
now show me where the USA has comitted genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina...I guess you also believe the tsunami of 2004 was are doing also?

the US involvement in the Middle East for oil.

NO CHIT....So are all the other countries in the frigging WORLD that use oil.

The US has committed violent acts which demand justice or left unchecked, self defense from those people who are victims of such violence. Bin Laden had stated that the reasons why he is attacking America, he has said that it is because the US has attacked his people first and that his attacks were in response to US attacks and policies. We can openly and honestly discuss or we can ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist and continue to pretend that our country is the perfect shining light of the world, rather than actually trying to make a better more fair and just world.

Tell me where the attack was slick. What town was it? Give me the body count. You are so full of chit!
Bin Laden turned against the US because his daddy wouldn’t allow him and his retarded group to push saddam out of Kuwait!
I knew you were a friggin troll, Just had that feeling.....

cherokee · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Well you mentioned taking off the gloves, nuking Iraq would be taking off the gloves. Besides, you or your fellow marines are not fighting a military in Iraq, rather, you are fighting the local population.

Damn you are really full of it...
Just what make beileve world do you live in?
I guess the local populations that ARE HELPING THE US are really undercover aliens..huh?

You people really want a holly war dont you?

teacher · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

The shooting of those who target women and children with bombs and making them stone cold dead is not only necessary, it's down right enjoyable. Giddyup.

cherokee · Mar 13, 2006

teacher said:
The shooting of those who target women and children with bombs and making them stone cold dead is not only necessary, it's down right enjoyable. Giddyup.

About time you got up here.
What took you so long?......:shoot

MSgt · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

It's necessary when our warehouses get overstocked with ammo. We need a war every ten years. It's the American way.

What a dumb thread.

MSgt · Mar 13, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Another interesting point I would like to make was that one poster stated that violence becomes an imperative that it is a virtue. Bin Laden believes his acts on September 11 were an imperative and a virtue.

What's interesting about it? Most men of war believe that they are fighting for the "right" side. Be thankful that the American "right" is far stronger than the likes of Bin Laden's "right."

Real Korimyr #9 · Mar 13, 2006

The fastest way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

I can't argue that it's strictly necessary, but sometimes it's the quickest and most effective way to resolve a conflict or to prevent something worse from happening.

teacher · Mar 13, 2006

cherokee said:
About time you got up here.
What took you so long?......:shoot

Too close to that "let's talk about the penis" chat thread. That is creepy. And some say us people in the basement are weird. Though it was fun to see Scarecrow lose his friggin mind over that. Now, back to the violence.

Manofthetruth, what the heck is your point? What slick bullshit are you trying to pull here? Just come out and say it. Violence does all kinds of good. The threat of violence does even more good. I'm waiting for you to spring your circular logic genius ACME coyote trap on us. Come on, the suspense is killing me.

earthworm · Mar 14, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Well you mentioned taking off the gloves, nuking Iraq would be taking off the gloves. Besides, you or your fellow marines are not fighting a military in Iraq, rather, you are fighting the local population.

I hate it when someone says something displaying some intellect, provoking some thought - forcing me to think:mrgreen: rather than emote..
IMO, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan - we may have misjudged the Iraqis..
Remember a century plus ago, their was no Iraq - the Arabs living here were but a province of the Ottoman Empire.
We did not know that much about them.....
But, we are there, right or wrong (and the world is far more complex than simple rights and wrongs), and make the best of things, the murderers, looters and insurgents are not helping matters at all..
They do not know the resolve of America.
They should study us and learn something, as we should them....

Stinger · Mar 14, 2006

alphamale said:
Ethics requires violence to repelled by the least means. If the least means of self defense is violence, then it is ethically imperative to act violently.

I don't quite know where you get that but violence perpitrated on us requires overwhelming and decisive violence back in order to stop it as quickly as possibe and prevent further violence.

Stinger · Mar 14, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Al-queda would say that they had no choice but to use violence,

Not they wouldn't, they would say they are willing to use violence no matter what to achieve thier goal of an Islamic world against whomever stands in their way and if that means innocent people in order to terrorize the world into submission so be it.

since the US used unprovoked violence first

Which we did not, where did we fly planes of innocent people into civilian buildings of innocent people to bring fear to those people and force them into submission?

and words fell on deaf ears in America.

What words?

Al-queda would say they are fighting for their freedom

AlQaeda has no interest in freedom.

Bin Laden stated that civilians dying are part of the process of waging war in much the same way we justified bombing civilians in World War II and currently today in Iraq and other places.

And he would be wrong.

Is Bin Laden anymore wrong than we are? We do the same thing.

Yes he would and no we don't. Tell me which of those countries we defeated in WW2 do we now rule?

Goobieman · Mar 14, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
That the US is not the free country it proclaims itself to be and that their is hard evidence to PROVE in any court of law beyond any shadow of a doubt,

The US is the last, best hope the world has. If the US decides to give up fighting the good fight, then the world will descend into a New Dark Age. A New Dark Age with nuclear weapons.

that the US has overthrown freely elected governments

Weimar Germany was a freely elected government. The US "overthrew" it in May of 1945.
Lesson: That a government was "freely elected" in no way means that government is immune from being "overthrown".

and not only has it committed genocide itself but has helped other genocides along in other nations.

Your hyperbole only serves to lessen the severity of the word "genocide".

The US has committed violent acts which demand justice or left unchecked, self defense from those people who are victims of such violence.

Sometimes, violent acts must be committed.

Bin Laden had stated that the reasons why he is attacking America, he has said that it is because the US has attacked his people first and that his attacks were in response to US attacks and policies.

And?
He doesnt like us. That doesnt mean we don't have standing to hunt him and those like him down and kill them.

You're trying to play the blame game, and point the finger at the US. Is the US oerfect? Nope. But we're the closest thing to it. No matter what we do, somewhere someone will get their toes stepped on. This is not an argument for doing nothing.

...rather than actually trying to make a better more fair and just world.

News:
There are people out there, those that blow up schools and pizza parlors and tall buildings in NYC that dont give a DAMN about a "fair" and "just" world.

Goobieman · Mar 14, 2006

ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

That depends on what you mean by "necessary".

Was violence "necessary" to defeat Nazi Germany? Yes.
Was defeating Nazi Germany "necessary"?

That is, in order to answer the question, you have to lay out a set of givens. If people do not agree on the givens, then there's no way to answer the question.

Having said that:
There are situations where the only way acceptable outcome is through the proper application of violence.

Billo_Really · Mar 14, 2006

Originally posted by Goobieman
That depends on what you mean by "necessary".

Was violence "necessary" to defeat Nazi Germany? Yes.
Was defeating Nazi Germany "necessary"?

That is, in order to answer the question, you have to lay out a set of givens. If people do not agree on the givens, then there's no way to answer the question.

Having said that:
There are situations where the only way acceptable outcome is through the proper application of violence.

"...proper application of violence" is a pretty sick and twisted statement. Violence is ONLY necessary when you yourself is attacked. Under no other circumstances is it necessary. Maybe "authorized" by the UNSC, but not "necessary" unless personnally attacked.

LaMidRighter · Mar 15, 2006

Billo, you seem like a likeable enough guy, but.....

Billo_Really said:
Billo_Really said:

"...proper application of violence" is a pretty sick and twisted statement. Violence is ONLY necessary when you yourself is attacked. Under no other circumstances is it necessary.

Click to expand...

Here's where we disagree. What about violence in defense of the defenseless, and innocent(not necessarily on a war requirement, but whatever).

Maybe "authorized" by the UNSC, but not "necessary" unless personnally attacked.

Click to expand...

I hate the U.N. with a passion, they are impotent, corrupt, and incompetant. Most of the mess with Iraq today can be blamed on U.N. inaction from the post "Desert Storm" period. Not only that, but we are the biggest U.N. contributor and they have the nerve to attempt imposing international law and their collective will on U.S. policies. The entire entity should be dissolved.

Goobieman · Mar 15, 2006

Billo_Really said:
"...proper application of violence" is a pretty sick and twisted statement. Violence is ONLY necessary when you yourself is attacked. Under no other circumstances is it necessary. Maybe "authorized" by the UNSC, but not "necessary" unless personnally attacked.

This is a short-sighted and narrow minded comment, born of partisan bigotry, a prima facie example of an inability to see past one's own nose, and a strong demsontration of total ignorance of the meaning of 'context'.

Violence is ONLY necessary when you yourself is attacked

1) Violence is not "necessary" if I am attacked. It MAY be "necessary".
2) An attack on my own self is not the ONLY time when violence is "necessary".
3) The UNSC is utterly irrelevant in the HUGE majority of instances where violence may be "necessary".

MSgt · Mar 15, 2006

Billo_Really said:
"...proper application of violence" is a pretty sick and twisted statement. Violence is ONLY necessary when you yourself is attacked. Under no other circumstances is it necessary. Maybe "authorized" by the UNSC, but not "necessary" unless personnally attacked.

What is your experience with the UN? None? Thought so. Feel free to hoist that rabble on your shoulder though.:roll: Same goes for NATO.

This is why crime and attrocities exist all over the world. This is what is called appeasement. "Don't help that woman being raped and don't defend that weak nation and don't free those people from their dictator, because unless it personally affects me, it's not my business." The world is lucky to have such men as Billo. It allows men that do believe in throwing a fist to protect and defend anything worth being protected and defended, to stand apart.

cherokee · Mar 15, 2006

We and I mean We as in the entire world must always be prepared and willing to use violence against monsters that think genocide is acceptably way of life.

Time after time the UN thought it could succeed by negotiations and time and time again millions where killed as they discussed the meaning of the word genocide. Sometimes you just can’t talk your way thru it.

When I read the anti-violence posts on the site I’m reminded of an old saying.
Why should a lady carry a gun? No one ever raped a .38

PS. Also sometimes you wont have to use violence, sometimes a show of force and them knowing you will react in a violent manner will be enough.

jamesrage · Mar 15, 2006

cherokee said:
Yes sometimes it is very necessary.
WWII would have never been won with big words.
I still believe Rwanda could have been stopped by less then 1000 Marines.

sometimes it’s the only Language people will listen to.

Some might say “Violence is never a solution to a problem”

No, its is a solution, it’s a permanent solution

Excellent point.Often times alot of people live in some fantasy world of nonviolence.It would proably be ****en great if the world was not violent and if every one could reason things out.In the real world however,there are people who do not give a rats *** what anyone says,so talking to them and trying to use words with them won't work.After all why should that brutal dictator or mass murderer listen to you if all you are going to do is talk?

Billo_Really · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by GySgt:
What is your experience with the UN? None? Thought so. Feel free to hoist that rabble on your shoulder though. Same goes for NATO.

This is why crime and attrocities exist all over the world. This is what is called appeasement. "Don't help that woman being raped and don't defend that weak nation and don't free those people from their dictator, because unless it personally affects me, it's not my business." The world is lucky to have such men as Billo. It allows men that do believe in throwing a fist to protect and defend anything worth being protected and defended, to stand apart.

A lot of good we did, Mr. Wizard. Their about to have a civil war!

Billo_Really · Mar 15, 2006

Originally posted by Goobieman
This is a short-sighted and narrow minded comment, born of partisan bigotry, a prima facie example of an inability to see past one's own nose, and a strong demsontration of total ignorance of the meaning of 'context'.

I didn't take anything out of context. Your a warmonger. Deal with it. Your trying to create excuses for violence and I called you on it.

Originally posted by Goobieman
1) Violence is not "necessary" if I am attacked. It MAY be "necessary".
2) An attack on my own self is not the ONLY time when violence is "necessary".
3) The UNSC is utterly irrelevant in the HUGE majority of instances where violence may be "necessary".

UNSC is irrelevant only to those that cannot obey the law.

Is Violence Ever Necessary?

Is violence ever necessary?

Yes, it is necessary on some rare occassions.

Violence is never necessary, no matter what.

earthworm

earthworm

ManOfTrueTruth

hipsterdufus

cherokee

Devil Dog

cherokee

Devil Dog

teacher

cherokee

Devil Dog

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

teacher

earthworm

Stinger

Stinger

Goobieman

Goobieman

Billo_Really

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto

Goobieman

MSgt

Read Some Books

cherokee

Devil Dog

jamesrage

Billo_Really

Billo_Really