ManOfTrueTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
ManOfTrueTruth said:Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
ManOfTrueTruth said:Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
ManOfTrueTruth said:Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?
cherokee said:Yes sometimes it is very necessary.
WWII would have never been won with big words.
Some might say “Violence is never a solution to a problem”
No its is a solution, it’s a permanent solution
star2589 said:necessary to accomplish what?
Stinger said:Of course it is.
ManOfTrueTruth said:I don't know, can you think of some scenarios?
ManOfTrueTruth said:Violence in and of itself is not a permenant 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 permenant solution, depending on the circumstances. For example, violence, in and of itself by the US in Iraq doesn't seem to be offerring much of a permenant solution for the US or the world for that matter. But skillful diplomacy that has some honest justice, after some extreme violence might be able to offer a permenant solution.
cherokee said:Well let me get my fireproof suit on first....
Iraq is not a good example. I feel the US fought with the gloves on.
Rule #1 In war. Do everything you cannot to go.
Rule #2 If you must go to war then CRUSH your enemy by all means necessary! PERIOD.
ManOfTrueTruth said:So when would violence be necessary for you?
ManOfTrueTruth said:I don't know, can you think of some scenarios?
Stinger said:To protect against a violent act. Was violence necessary after Japan attacked the US and proceeded to try and take over the rest of the Pacific? Of course it was. Was it necessary to rid the world of the Nazi's, yep.
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.
Stinger said:YOU posed the question, how about YOU thinking of some scenarios. Your question is overly broad to begin with, so why not try and narrow your premise.
ManOfTrueTruth said:So you think violence is ethical or is it a necessary evil in order to assure one's own survival?
alphamale said:When necessary for self-defense, it is not an evil but rather a virtue, and it is imperative.
I agree with you. However, let's say we threw the gloves off and nuked all of Iraq, would this really be a permanent solution? Or could it possibly backfire and create terrorists that seek out retribution against the US in the future?
cherokee said:Why did you bring up Nuking Iraq? Is that how you see taking the gloves off?
Do you feel its ok to destroy an entire population to eliminate a military?
LaMidRighter said:When words fail, violence unfortunately becomes closer to becoming necessary. If someone has decided they will kill you and has a weapon drawn on you, the fact is you have only one recourse that will increase your chance of survival, end the threat with a justifiable violent act. This fact doesn't change within the larger scope of things as has been proven by the Nazis, Iran, Al-quaida, etc.
The problem with that is that the U.S. had good reason for any military action in the region, the fact is that terrorists kill as a political statement, no one ever brought up diplomacy first in that movement to the best of my knowledge, and that is a big part of the difference.ManOfTrueTruth said:Al-queda would say that they had no choice but to use violence, since the US used unprovoked violence first and words fell on deaf ears in America.And they would either be lying or mistaken. First of all, the modern terrorist movement started in the 1940's or 50's depending on what you consider to be terrorist violence, naturally the attacks weren't as big or organized, but nevertheless it was violence in retaliation for the U.N. creating the Israeli state in the "holy land" of Islam. Killing innocent Jews and others in the name of religion is NOT acceptable, unless you want to pardon every abortion clinic bomber as well, I could make the case that they carried out god's sentance against abortion doctors, but I would be wrong.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.First of all, Bin Laden's opinion is that of a murdering coward, so to take anything he says as a debate point is a losing strategy, I don't see much more point in expounding.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.I don't know why you can't see the difference, and I am sorry that you don't, first of all, we don't justify killing innocent civilians, unfortunately collateral damage is a sad fact of war, Osama and his followers TARGETED civilians, even the Japanese army attacked a military base, even though it was a surprise attack.Is Bin Laden anymore wrong than we are? We do the same thing.