• 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!

34 Americans suffer traumatic brain injuries in Iranian attack

annata said:
no. nation states are autonomous. They choose their paths ( for the most part).

I could see Kuwait as it was a vassal of Iraq and was invaded, but only because we went in with a real coalition, and then left after liberation
Click to expand...

*laughs*

We never left, we are still there to this day at their invitation.

And sorry, "vassal of Iraq"? You really do believe that one country invading another is allowed.
 
annata said:
i should clarify, that was Saddam's view of Kuwait
Click to expand...

That does not matter. That is what Germany believed in WWII also.

Oh, and in fact Iraq did not believe that. That was only the cheap justification they tried to use after they brutally conquered their neighbor. After they tried and failed to brutally conquer another of their neighbors.
 
ecofarm said:
So you're going to ignore the facts that Iraq was a genocidal dictatorship with institutionalized rape and now it's a democracy with international development projects and human rights.

Somehow that doesn't matter. Weird.
Click to expand...

Many people in here have the most disgusting moral compass I have ever seen in my life. They have absolutely no empathy for anybody, and only think of themselves and nothing else.

I hold such people in utter contempt to be honest. Especially when they dare to tell me that it is wrong to try and help others.

I give many of them the Pol Pot Humanitarian Award.
 
Fledermaus said:
The Americans, the French, the English, the Saudi's and practically every tribalistic group and religious sect.

If you study history you will find the reign of the Ottomans to be one of the more stable times in the area....

Minus the occasional genocidal war...
Click to expand...

I am waiting for her to demand what Rome has done for her.
 
Oozlefinch said:
*laughs*

We never left, we are still there to this day at their invitation.

And sorry, "vassal of Iraq"? You really do believe that one country invading another is allowed.
Click to expand...
not my position at all. as I mentioned/corrected that was Saddams view.

My position is one of the fact the USA is not the world's policeman/arbitor of such invasions.

There are exceptions like the well organized and limited goals of the Kuwait coalition.
 
Oozlefinch said:
That does not matter. That is what Germany believed in WWII also.

Oh, and in fact Iraq did not believe that. That was only the cheap justification they tried to use after they brutally conquered their neighbor. After they tried and failed to brutally conquer another of their neighbors.
Click to expand...
awesome. thanks for the background
 
Oozlefinch said:
The Korean and Vietnam war were also international coalitions.
Click to expand...
with the French out the USA did almost all of the combat

And guess what, every nation not on a single island is an artificial construct.
Click to expand...
nation states are organic outgrowth of people organization
And I guess because of that you have absolutely no problem if one takes over another then.
Click to expand...
of course I have a problem with it -i disagree with gallivanting around the world spending US blood and treasure as the constant answer

Please try to keep a consistent argument. Of course, from your statements I can only assume you are one of those "One World Nation" kooks, so expecting that is pointless.
Click to expand...
not even close.
I'm a nationalist since nationalism is the currency of economic and military competition. "America First"
 
RetiredUSN said:
What ideologies do Libertarians have .................oh wait! They have thousands of them. :roll:
Click to expand...

Name a single libertarian who supported Obama's drone wars.
 
annata said:
not my position at all. as I mentioned/corrected that was Saddams view.

My position is one of the fact the USA is not the world's policeman/arbitor of such invasions.

There are exceptions like the well organized and limited goals of the Kuwait coalition.
Click to expand...

If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?

Rabbi Hillel the Elder

Of course, my favorite quote about those who are morally bankrupt and have absolutely no consideration for themselves is placed prominently at the bottom of every one of my posts.

All you keep repeating is essentially that you do not give a damn about others, and it is not your business what somebody does to somebody else. And you are willing to sit back and let them be slaughtered, so long as it does not inconvenience you in any way.
 
annata said:
with the French out the USA did almost all of the combat
Click to expand...

Actually, the majority of the combat was conducted by the South Vietnam Army. They suffered over a quarter million deaths between 1960 and 1974. That is almost 5 times the death rate of American forces.

And yes, the French did indeed leave. That was part of the condition of the Geneva Accord of 1954.

And as part of that peace treaty, France would leave the country, and it would be split into 2 nations. North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The USSR would advise and support North Vietnam, and the US would advise and support South Vietnam. And part of the agreement was that a DMZ would be established between the two nations, and both agreed to not conduct any military or political incursions across that border.

Gee, sounds a lot like the Paris Peace Accord, where once again North Vietnam agreed to leave South Vietnam alone, and never again invade them.

Wow, do you just make up these beliefs out of nowhere? It might help if you bothered to at least try to do some research, it might even make this a somewhat interesting conversation.
 
Oozlefinch said:
"Civil Wars". What about Korea, or Vietnam, or Kuwait was a "Civil War"? They were all wars of aggression and occupation by a separate country that wanted to absorb them into their own.
Click to expand...

Vietnam can certainly qualify as a civil war. Huge chunks of the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese born communists. They may have been recognized as legally distinct nations, but they were still the same people.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Vietnam can certainly qualify as a civil war. Huge chunks of the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese born communists. They may have been recognized as legally distinct nations, but they were still the same people.
Click to expand...

By that definition, if East Germany had invaded West Germany, that also would have been a "Civil War".

No, the moment they were separated in the 1954 peace treaty, they became 2 different countries. And when the US attacked Canada, that was not an invasion. It was a Civil War.

It never ceases to amaze me the extent that people actually go to in order to somehow justify the slaughter of others, and the destruction of nations. And to be honest, since most of these are basically "Little Yellow Men", or "Little Brown Men", I often wonder if there is at least a little degree of racism involved in these justifications. Kind of a reverse "White Man's Burden".

Funny, I see none trying to defend Germany attacking Poland, claiming it was a "Civil War". I guess those claims are not made if it involves white people.
 
annata said:
i'd rather have bone spurs then be dead in Vietnam
Click to expand...

Yeah let some other poor bastard come home in a body bag. He was too special and connected to put his life on the line for his country. But oh is he patriotic now!

I don't have as a much problem with draft dodgers as I do with chickenhawks.
 
Oozlefinch said:
By that definition, if East Germany had invaded West Germany, that also would have been a "Civil War".
Click to expand...

You can certainly argue that. After all, nations and people are more than just borders, right?

No, the moment they were separated in the 1954 peace treaty, they became 2 different countries.
Click to expand...

Again, legally speaking, yes. But the Vietnamese people are not just a political entity, they are also an ethnicity, a culture, and a personal identity. To argue that an agreement in 1954 invalidated thousands of years of shared cultural history and shared bonds is a bit of a stretch.

It never ceases to amaze me the extent that people actually go to in order to somehow justify the slaughter of others, and the destruction of nations. And to be honest, since most of these are basically "Little Yellow Men", or "Little Brown Men", I often wonder if there is at least a little degree of racism involved in these justifications. Kind of a reverse "White Man's Burden".

Funny, I see none trying to defend Germany attacking Poland, claiming it was a "Civil War". I guess those claims are not made if it involves white people.
Click to expand...

Oozlefinch, I realize you and I have disagreed on many things in the past, but please explain where I justified the slaughter of others just by pointing out that you could argue that the Vietnam War could be seen as a civil war.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yeah let some other poor bastard come home in a body bag. He was too special and connected to put his life on the line for his country. But oh is he patriotic now!

I don't have as a much problem with draft dodgers as I do with chickenhawks.
Click to expand...
...and Draft-Dodging Chickenhawks are the absolute scum of humanity.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Vietnam can certainly qualify as a civil war. Huge chunks of the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese born communists. They may have been recognized as legally distinct nations, but they were still the same people.
Click to expand...

Agreed to a point....Vietnam was like the Spanish Civil War with the Germans stepping in to turn the tide for the fascist Nationalists except it was the Soviet Union and PRC that was pushing to turn the tide for the communist north just like China did for North Korea.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Vietnam can certainly qualify as a civil war. Huge chunks of the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese born communists. They may have been recognized as legally distinct nations, but they were still the same people.
Click to expand...



The French had colonized Vietnam for over a 100 years. Like all colonizers, they picked a minority group, in this case the Catholics. They gave the Catholics all the government jobs and positions in the military and police. Meanwhile the Buddhists, who made up 80% of the country were left out in the cold.

Why pick a minority group? The colonial powers found that a minority group would grow to depend on the colonizers to protect them so they wouldn't rebel.

When Ho Chi Mihn asked America for help, we should've sent him guns so that he could've killed the French.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Really? When did Spain sign a peace treaty and agree to divide into separate nations?
Click to expand...

The Republicans got their asses handed to them thanks to the support of the Germans just like South Vietnam lost to the Soviet-supported North.
 
Rising Sun said:
The Republicans got their asses handed to them thanks to the support of the Germans just like South Vietnam lost to the Soviet-supported North.
Click to expand...

Avoid and deflect.

BTW, do you even know who got us involved in Vietnam, and was in charge during the worst of the combat?

Here is a clue, he was not a Republican.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Avoid and deflect.

BTW, do you even know who got us involved in Vietnam, and was in charge during the worst of the combat?

Here is a clue, he was not a Republican.
Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, not the Republican Party of the United States.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Rising Sun said:
Oozlefinch said:
Really? When did Spain sign a peace treaty and agree to divide into separate nations?
Click to expand...
The Republicans got their asses handed to them thanks to the support of the Germans just like South Vietnam lost to the Soviet-supported North.
Click to expand...
Avoid and deflect.

BTW, do you even know who got us involved in Vietnam, and was in charge during the worst of the combat?

Here is a clue, he was not a Republican.
Click to expand...

Wow. It appears you didn't know it was the Republicans fighting the fascist-backed Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. You know, the war both Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell wrote about and the one that was the subject of Picasso's "Guernica".

PicassoGuernica.jpg


Bombing of Guernica - Wikipedia
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I believe he was referring to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, not the Republican Party of the United States.
Click to expand...

And who won that war?

Big clue, it was not the Communists. And the many from all around the world (including the US) who went there to fight with them. The coalition that actually won that war were the Republicans and Military, who were fighting the Popular Front, as coalition of Communists and Anarchists who contested the election, and fomented unrest until they got the results they wanted. And the widespread violence and voter fraud in the 1936 elections were the tipping point that started the war. Primarily because even though they did not have the mandated 51% to control the government (they won 47%), they tried to suppress all opposition and refused to create or work with a coalition government.

Interesting true story. Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) went to fight in the Spanish Civil War as a Marxist (he volunteered to fight with the Workers Party of Marxist Unification). And by the time he left he was an anti-Marxist. His disdain and contempt for that movement colored most of his works for the rest of his life. His most famous works (1984 and Animal Farm) are scathing rebukes of Communism and Marxism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom