• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We are now bombing in Syria.

Montecresto said:
Well, if you get attacked for it, apparently somebody believed so.
Click to expand...

That's Michael Dunn logic right there. "I don't like how he acted towards me, so I have the right to attack him!" :lamo

By the way, you never did give a straight answer as to whether the OPEC embargo would justify an invasion of the Middle East.
 
MadLib said:
Sanctions are an act of war? I was unaware that the US is obligated to trade with any country.
Click to expand...

Crippling a countries economy and in the process harming it's people by inhibiting trade is economic warfare. Furthermore, to stop trade with a country the US has to stop private individuals from selling their product in that country and is therefore a violation of human rights as it violates the right to commerce.
 
MadLib said:
That's Michael Dunn logic right there. "I don't like how he acted towards me, so I have the right to attack him!" :lamo

By the way, you never did give a straight answer as to whether the OPEC embargo would justify an invasion of the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Would you sit on the sidelines and do nothing if another country was crippling your economy with economic sanctions?
 
Henrin said:
Would you sit on the sidelines and do nothing if another country was crippling your economy with economic sanctions?
Click to expand...

I would realize that the root cause of the sanctions was my country's aggressive behavior towards its neighbors, and would work to end that before anything else. Just bombing the other country's naval harbor would not solve the problem.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
I would realize that the root cause of the sanctions was my country's aggressive behavior towards my neighbors, and would work to end that before anything else. Just bombing the other country's naval harbor would not solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Well, I would consider it an act of war and bomb the harbor. I would not give in to the will of another country because they decided to become aggressive towards me, but instead I would become aggressive back by attacking them where it hurts the most.
 
Henrin said:
Crippling a countries economy and in the process harming it's people by inhibiting trade is economic warfare.
Click to expand...

This is a justification for what amounts to armed robbery. "You will engage in trade with me or I will attack you and kill your people." It's nonsensical :lol:
Furthermore, to stop trade with a country the US has to stop private individuals from selling their product in that country and is therefore a violation of human rights as it violates the right to commerce.
Click to expand...

And that's not relevant in the slightest. Whether the sanctions were a violation of the rights of Americans, or were even justified in the first place, does not pertain to a discussion of whether or not Japan had the right to attack the United States in response.
 
Henrin said:
Well, I would consider it an act of war and bomb the harbor. I would not give in to the will of another country because they decided to become aggressive towards me, but instead I would become aggressive back by attacking them where it hurts the most.
Click to expand...

Well, you've just established your government as megalomaniacal and psychopathic, believing it can do whatever it wants to anyone but that others have no right to interfere or even do anything in response. Thanks for helping to demonstrate why Japan had to be fought.
 
MadLib said:
This is a justification for what amounts to armed robbery. "You will engage in trade with me or I will attack you and kill your people." It's nonsensical :lol:

And that's not relevant in the slightest. Whether the sanctions were a violation of the rights of Americans, or were even justified in the first place, does not pertain to a discussion of whether or not Japan had the right to attack the United States in response.
Click to expand...

Again, sanctions affect all trade, not just trade the US government does. Stopping my citizens from trading or benefiting from trade with people from your country is a violation of human rights and is a reason to declare war. My people have the right to free trade and any barring of the practice of that right by another government not only harms my economy, but my peoples ability to improve their lives. I see no reason to tolerate such aggression towards my people.

Why should I just give in to the demands of another country to change my behavior? If I find it in my interest to wage war against China, that is what I will do and if you act aggressively towards me over the issue I will attack you too.
 
apdst said:
The last count I heard was 258 sorties. We aint blastin' a damn thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're being fair to President Pinprick. I heard that at least 100 of those sorties have been by armed aircraft, a few of them carrying as much as two 500-lb. bombs. I also heard they have either destroyed or damaged two mortars, one artillery piece, one T-72 tank, two machine guns, more than one thousand rounds of rifle ammunition, at least ten individuals, one large radio antenna, and at least three donkeys.
 
MadLib said:
Well, you've just established your government as megalomaniacal and psychopathic, believing it can do whatever it wants to anyone but that others have no right to interfere or even do anything in response. Thanks for helping to demonstrate why Japan had to be fought.
Click to expand...

If you are going to go around coercing people to do your will you have to expect they won't take kindly to it. They might attack you instead of doing what you want or they might do what you want, but attack you later for what you did to them.
 
Henrin said:
Again, sanctions affect all trade, not just trade the US government does. Stopping my citizens from trading or benefiting from trade with people from your country is a violation of human rights and is a reason to declare war. My people have the right to free trade and any barring of the practice of that right by another government not only harms my economy, but my peoples ability to improve their lives. I see no reason to tolerate such aggression towards my people.
Click to expand...
No country has the right to demand trade from another unless both have made free-trade agreements that one has unilaterally violated. The US trade economy does not exist for Japan's benefit. The analogy to armed robbery is becoming more and more valid by the minute.
Why should I just give in to the demands of another country to change my behavior? If I find it in my interest to wage war against China, that is what I will do and if you act aggressively towards me over the issue I will attack you too.
Click to expand...

You (keep in mind we're not talking individuals here, but entire countries) don't have to do anything, but don't expect countries that find genocidal expansionism horrifying to act as if nothing is happening.

Your position is not that countries have no right to dictate how one nation behaves, which is somewhat arguable. Your position is that country A has the right to do anything to country B, and that country C must still behave according to the whims of country A.
 
Henrin said:
Again, sanctions affect all trade, not just trade the US government does. Stopping my citizens from trading or benefiting from trade with people from your country is a violation of human rights and is a reason to declare war. My people have the right to free trade and any barring of the practice of that right by another government not only harms my economy, but my peoples ability to improve their lives. I see no reason to tolerate such aggression towards my people.

Why should I just give in to the demands of another country to change my behavior? If I find it in my interest to wage war against China, that is what I will do and if you act aggressively towards me over the issue I will attack you too.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing sanctions with a blockade.
 
Henrin said:
If you are going to go around coercing people to do your will you have to expect they won't take kindly to it. They might attack you instead of doing what you want or they might do what you want, but attack you later for what you did to them.
Click to expand...

My violence in kind would be self-defense. Besides, sociopaths who think they can do anything with no negative consequences might have to be beaten down before they stop their murdering aggression.

Since you seem inclined to drag this to an individual level, answer this hypothetical: say that I am the main customer of a local shopkeeper who has a wife and kids. At some point I find out that he beats, rapes, and kills random people. I then decide to stop buying from his shop - I don't attempt to restrain him in any other way. Would that justify him stabbing me?
 
cpwill said:
I think you are confusing sanctions with a blockade.
Click to expand...

He's not. Henrin is asserting that the US government's refusal to trade is an act of war because the people of Japan had some sort of right to trade with every country in the world. A blockade can be considered an act of war, since it is designed to prevent a different country from engaging in any trade, but that's not what he's describing.
 
MadLib said:
No country has the right to demand trade from another unless both have made free-trade agreements that one has unilaterally violated. The US trade economy does not exist for Japan's benefit. The analogy to armed robbery is becoming more and more valid by the minute.
Click to expand...

Your right, no country has a right to demand trade from another country, but again, we are not dealing with trade from the US government, but trade from US citizens that want to trade with people in Japan. Free trade agreements are an absurd notion anyway since trade between consenting parties of different countries is not something any government should be involved in.

You (keep in mind we're not talking individuals here, but entire countries) don't have to do anything, but don't expect countries that find genocidal expansionism horrifying to act as if nothing is happening.

Your position is not that countries have no right to dictate how one nation behaves, which is somewhat arguable. Your position is that country A has the right to do anything to country B, and that country C must still behave according to the whims of country A.
Click to expand...

If country C decides to attack country A to defend country B then country A has a right to defend themselves against country C.
 
MadLib said:
My violence in kind would be self-defense. Besides, sociopaths who think they can do anything with no negative consequences might have to be beaten down before they stop their murdering aggression.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. They are attacking China, so at best it would be third party self defense.

Since you seem inclined to drag this to an individual level, answer this hypothetical: say that I am the main customer of a local shopkeeper who has a wife and kids. At some point I find out that he beats, rapes, and kills random people. I then decide to stop buying from his shop - I don't attempt to restrain him in any other way. Would that justify him stabbing me?
Click to expand...

That is not a good comparison since your action only affects your ability to trade with the individual. What happens with sanctions is that the government affects millions of peoples ability to trade with those individuals that also desire to trade with them by barring them from trading with each other.
 
Henrin said:
Your right, no country has a right to demand trade from another country, but again, we are not dealing with trade from the US government, but trade from US citizens that want to trade with people in Japan.
Click to expand...

They can move elsewhere. International trade is an element of international relations, therefore governments have the right to regulate it.

If country C decides to attack country A to defend country B then country A has a right to defend themselves against country C.
Click to expand...

The US did not attack Japan. Only Japan introduced military force.
 
MadLib said:
They can move elsewhere. International trade is an element of international relations, therefore governments have the right to regulate it.
Click to expand...

Oh great, so basically the people have to move so they can trade with each other again. That is like the robber telling his victims they can just buy more stuff. Yeah, I stole all your stuff, but it's not a problem because you can just buy more stuff.

The US did not attack Japan. Only Japan introduced military force.
Click to expand...

They did attack japan by engaging in economic warfare. Japan was in the wrong to attack China, but they were in the right to defend themselves against the US. Sure, you can argue that Japan needed to be stopped, but that doesn't make it somehow not permissible for Japan to defend itself from the US. Was it a good way to stop it? Well, no, but what exactly is a good way to stop it? Just to give the US what it wants? So basically give in to coercion instead of fighting it. Hmm.
 
henrin said:
..................................................

they did attack japan by engaging in economic warfare. japan was in the wrong to attack china, but they were in the right to defend themselves against the us. Sure, you can argue that japan needed to be stopped, but that doesn't make it somehow not permissible for japan to defend itself from the us. was it a good way to stop it? Well, no, but what exactly is a good way to stop it? Just to give the us what it wants? So basically give in to coercion instead of fighting it. Hmm.
Click to expand...

what ?
 
Henrin said:
What appears to be the problem?
Click to expand...

I'm late to this party and may have missed something... but... it appears you are defending Japan's attack upon the U.S. ( Pearl Harbor ) while suggesting it was a defensive retaliation from that country; only after war was initiated by the U.S.

Is that what you are expressing?

Thom Paine
 
MadLib said:
He's not. Henrin is asserting that the US government's refusal to trade is an act of war because the people of Japan had some sort of right to trade with every country in the world. A blockade can be considered an act of war, since it is designed to prevent a different country from engaging in any trade, but that's not what he's describing.
Click to expand...

..... That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom