• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Violence Ever Necessary?

Is violence ever necessary?

  • Yes, it is necessary on some rare occassions.

    Votes: 55 94.8%
  • Violence is never necessary, no matter what.

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Total voters
    58
Originally posted by ManOfTrueTruth
Same concept with the America in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Or, the US in Iraq. You always get a punch in the gut to remind you that you are not as good or big and bad as you think you are.
I certainly hope that Russia-China defense treaty was not preparation for that punch in the gut. If we opened up another war on another front, our a.s.s would be grass.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Same concept with the America in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Or, the US in Iraq. You always get a punch in the gut to remind you that you are not as good or big and bad as you think you are.

We only have to be bad enough to destroy the enemy. Saddam's regime fell easy enough. That's easy. Today's ideals of warring do not allow for the tactics of the past that would make a civilization comply to our wishes. If they wish to destroy each other over who's god is greater, then nothing will prevent it.

Facing Islamic Radicalism and their many organizations is like the police force fighting crime. There is no banner and their is no uniform. There will never be a table of surrender. This is a war of attrition in which one side will outlast the other. We will win. We cannot lose. The more liberalized the Middle East gets, the more Radicals will lose their grip. No one can stop progress and progress alone will defeat them.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
I certainly hope that Russia-China defense treaty was not preparation for that punch in the gut. If we opened up another war on another front, our a.s.s would be grass.

My feeling is that we will end up fighting China over Taiwan. I am not so sure if Russia would do anything to aid China if we aid Taiwan. I think we should honor our defense treaty with Taiwan, because it is essientially a dictatorship seeking to make Taiwan, against it's will, part of that dictatorship, through the use of force.
 
Billo_Really said:
We did not persue all avenues of peaceful resolutions. We rushed into this war. Do you not remember there was UN inspectors in Iraq just before we attacked? At the time, UN inspectors said Iraq was completely cooperating with all UN resolutions and mandates. But we attacked any way.

If that isn't enough, Article 51 of the UN Charter states only two ways a country may legally attack another country. 1) if they themselves are attacked with a substancial force or 2) if they receive UNSC authorization. We had neither.

Dude, I know I don't get out of the basement much, but does that weak rhetoric work up here? We RUSHED into this war? How many warnings did you get from your dad as a little Billo before you got your azz kicked? And wasn't there some resolution authorizing force? And do you really give a fuc*k what the UN thinks? Don't get me started on that bunch of useless jerks. Matter of fact, they are worse than useless. Their only function today is to shake down the US for cash. Billo, for shame. You shall be punished.
 

Attachments

  • My guys 132.JPG
    My guys 132.JPG
    81.8 KB · Views: 5
Billo_Really said:
Here you go.

Thats the supremacy clause.

It refers to siupremacy of the US Constitution, federal laws, federal court decisions and treaties enjoined buy the Federal government over state constitutions, state laws and state court decisions.

It doesnt in ANY way limit the FEDERAL government.

M14 was wrong - your interpretation of this clause isn't strange, its without any intellectual support.

I defy you to show any time or any place where the Supremacy Clause has been held to be a limit on actions of the FEDERAL government.
 
Originally posted by ManOfTrueTruth
So, in your view, the US had no right and should not have attacked Afghanistan without prior approval of the UN? Why should the US seek prior approval of the UN in your opinion?
You have to respect the borders of sovereign nations. It's against international law to go into a country where you do not have jurisdiction. Just look how freaked out we get when people come in from Mexico. Just imagine how freaked out we would be if it was an army dropping bombs on Texas. Well, that might not be such a.......just a joke!

It is one of our laws that anyone from Cuba that sets foot on our soil, is immune from Cuban prosecution. What if Fidel sent soldiers into Miami shooting things up just to get at some ex-patriots.
 
Billo_Really said:
You have to respect the borders of sovereign nations. It's against international law to go into a country where you do not have jurisdiction. Just look how freaked out we get when people come in from Mexico. Just imagine how freaked out we would be if it was an army dropping bombs on Texas. Well, that might not be such a.......just a joke!

It is one of our laws that anyone from Cuba that sets foot on our soil, is immune from Cuban prosecution. What if Fidel sent soldiers into Miami shooting things up just to get at some ex-patriots.

Well, Bill O' it's OK for us to invade other countries and shoot up and bomb places to get the people we want, but it's not OK if it is done to us. It's rather simple when you think about it. We can't be having fairness and laws governing such things. The US is mightest so it is a natural law that the US can do as it pleases without penalty while other nations or people are not allowed to do what the US does. You know what they say, might makes right.
 
Billo_Really said:
You have to respect the borders of sovereign nations. It's against international law to go into a country where you do not have jurisdiction.
So, where were your complaints when we went into Kosovo in 1999 and during all our actions in Iraq, 1993-2000?
 
Billo_Really said:
You have to respect the borders of sovereign nations. It's against international law to go into a country where you do not have jurisdiction. Just look how freaked out we get when people come in from Mexico. Just imagine how freaked out we would be if it was an army dropping bombs on Texas. Well, that might not be such a.......just a joke!

"Old Europe" = The sentiment that all activity, no matter how distasteful and abusive, is tolerated as long as it occurs within "soveriegn" borders.

If only Hitler abided by the rules. I have no doubt that your idea of "soveriegnty" would be different were you not raised in comfort and instead raised in oppression and abuse.

Billo_Really said:
It is one of our laws that anyone from Cuba that sets foot on our soil, is immune from Cuban prosecution. What if Fidel sent soldiers into Miami shooting things up just to get at some ex-patriots.

Then we would finally have the excuse to do what Kennedy failed to do.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
You know what they say, might makes right.

In the international arena, this is exactly correct.
Your "rights" exist exactly as much as you can defend them (or find someone else to do it for you).
 
Goobieman said:
So, where were your complaints when we went into Kosovo in 1999 and during all our actions in Iraq, 1993-2000?


Haven't you learned? Billlo only stands on a pedestal when it agrees with what he is emotioned about.
 
GySgt said:
Haven't you learned? Billlo only stands on a pedestal when it agrees with what he is emotioned about.

I figure he'll say he opposed those actions.

Its amazing how hard it is to find a liberal/democrat that says they supported Clinton's actions in Iraq and Kosovo and oppose Bush's actions in Afghanistam and Iraq.
 
Goobieman said:
In the international arena, this is exactly correct.
Your "rights" exist exactly as much as you can defend them (or find someone else to do it for you).

I agree with Bill O' but was being a bit sarcastic when I replied to his post. Without law and order in the international arena, you create an environment where more Bin Laden's are created and start attacking and striking out at the powerful wrong doers who happen to be the mightiest. Given today's technology, a terrorist organization could get hold of a nuclear weapon or some other WMD and create a scenario where mankind destroys itself. International law thus becomes important in order to prevent and stop such scenario from happenning. So, in my view, international law serves the best interests of the strongest nations as well.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
That's right...."To make a point." Your made up "one-tenth" was supported and sheltered by thousands of Radicals. (You like to refuse this fact.) They did it to themselves. They took advantage of first Fallujah and counted on us not coming back. They used Fallujah to build IED warehouses and weapons storage facilities. They operated all over Iraq from Fallujah. They built this nest and they assume responsibility for what happened.
I'm not refusing that fact, I'm asking you to provide some. How do you know the 298,800 of the population was in cahoots with 1200 of them? 298,800 people is a lot of people. I have neighbors that I have no clue as to who they are or what they do. And they live right next door on the other side of the wall!

Originally posted by GySgt:
Oh well.
Good song by the Bob Welch version of Fleetwood Mac.

Originally posted by GySgt:
One of the reasons they hate us is very much because of our advancements. We are the infidels, yet our civilization flourishes under progression and tolerance. Their civilization are the "true believers" and they are failing and they know it. They cannot compare their civilization to the infidels in the West and it makes no sense to them. Has "God" forsaken them? Are they not believing hard enough? There certainly is a lot of jealousy and uncertanty involved. There is very much a bit of phsycological internal influence going on. You would be the one looking for the "convenient" excuses.
And how is it you know they hate us for our advancements? What were the premises you drew this conclusion from?

Originally posted by GySgt:
They are seperate countries only in name. They are connected through religion and sect which trumps any national allegiance. Do you think this insurgency gives a damn about freeing Iraqis? They only see Muslims. They do not see Iraqis.
They don't give a damn about freeing Iraqis? That's something in common with us.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Jesus Christ, by the standards of the ******* 21st century. Freedom and progress is the future and there is nothing they can do about it. The more liberal the Muslim populations get, the more violent our world is going to get, because the Islamic governments, eilte, and fanatics will not loosen their grip easily. They are absolutely terrified of the western ideal of freedom. They are terrified of their women being on equal ground, because it is the sole defining masculinity of Muslim men everywhere. (The Internet is probably the most dangerous thing to Arab and Persian men.) They are clinging to the past. Information is at once our core commodity and the most destabilizing factor of our time. Until now, history has been a quest to acquire information; today, the challenge lies in managing information. The Middle East is devistated by information that they cannot manage or effectively interpret and control. The general pace of change is overwhelming. Any civilization who cannot understand the new world, or who cannot profit from its uncertainties, or who cannot reconcile themselves to its dynamics, will become the violent enemies of their inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and ultimately of the United States. It is especially bad for the Middle Eastern region, because of how their Radical element is withdrwing within their religion. The deeper they withdraw, the worse it will get.

These noncompetitive cultures, such as that of the Arabo-Persian Islam or the rejectionist segment of our own population, are enraged. Their cultures are under assault; their cherished passed down values have proven dysfunctional, and the successful move on without them.

I assure you that there is nothing "convenient" about what the problems are with what we are facing.
Why do they have to do something about the 21st century? Or better yet, why do we have to force them to do something about it? Doesn't every nation have the right to self-determination?
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
I Without law and order in the international arena, you create an environment where more Bin Laden's are created and start attacking and striking out at the powerful wrong doers who happen to be the mightiest.
What you mean by "law and order" can only happen if sovereign states give up said sovereignty to an extra-national body -- one that has the absolute power to create and enforce mandates against sovereign states.

This is something that (hopefully) will never happen, and if it does, the US will (hopefully) never participate.

The world is a playground with 200+ kids and one rule: you get to keep your lunch money if you are big enough to protect it yourself or friendly enough with one of the big kids to get them to protect it for you.
 
Originally posted by ManOfTrueTruth
My feeling is that we will end up fighting China over Taiwan. I am not so sure if Russia would do anything to aid China if we aid Taiwan. I think we should honor our defense treaty with Taiwan, because it is essientially a dictatorship seeking to make Taiwan, against it's will, part of that dictatorship, through the use of force.
I don't have an answer for this one. I just know it's a little risky p.i.s.s.i.n.g off China that happens to own about half our country. The pacific rim is holding so much US cash, that if they started investing in the euro, we would be in a lot of trouble.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
What you mean by "law and order" can only happen if sovereign states give up said sovereignty to an extra-national body -- one that has the absolute power to create and enforce mandates against sovereign states.

This is something that (hopefully) will never happen, and if it does, the US will (hopefully) never participate.

The world is a playground with 200+ kids and one rule: you get to keep your lunch money if you are big enough to protect it yourself or friendly enough with one of the big kids to get them to protect it for you.

That's not the kind of world I like to live in, but given today's technology, this playground world that you describe, if it continues, this playground world and all it's children will be destroyed, eliminated, dead, kaput. Kinda like a Columbine massacre. We want to prevent a Columbine massacres on the playground and in the international arena.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Dude, I know I don't get out of the basement much, but does that weak rhetoric work up here? We RUSHED into this war? How many warnings did you get from your dad as a little Billo before you got your azz kicked? And wasn't there some resolution authorizing force? And do you really give a fuc*k what the UN thinks? Don't get me started on that bunch of useless jerks. Matter of fact, they are worse than useless. Their only function today is to shake down the US for cash. Billo, for shame. You shall be punished.
At least you used the old Forum Blue Laker colors.
 
Billo_Really said:
I don't have an answer for this one. I just know it's a little risky ******* off China that happens to own about half our country. The pacific rim is holding so much US cash, that if they started investing in the euro, we would be in a lot of trouble.

I don't think the US should abandon it's principles in the face of bully like threats towards a democratic, peaceful Taiwan.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
I agree with Bill O' but was being a bit sarcastic when I replied to his post. Without law and order in the international arena, you create an environment where more Bin Laden's are created and start attacking and striking out at the powerful wrong doers who happen to be the mightiest. Given today's technology, a terrorist organization could get hold of a nuclear weapon or some other WMD and create a scenario where mankind destroys itself. International law thus becomes important in order to prevent and stop such scenario from happenning. So, in my view, international law serves the best interests of the strongest nations as well.

True sentiments, however, we are in a new age where our laws and our "rules" are not adequate to today's aggressions. We are trying to play fair against monsters who are not. We are attempting to be rational against an irrational force. We are facing organized and armed religious fanatics who are determined to wage war, no matter what we do, and hiding behind their religion as they do it. We live in an age of change so profound that entire cultures cannot cope with the stress. The bloody-handed terrorists and their mentors and Radical supporters are determined to pay any price to frustrate those Muslims who believe that God is capable of smiling, or that it is possible to change the earth without challenging Heaven.

This is, indeed, a new age where the free flow of information is going to usher in an age of violence. The longer we sleep through this and try to play nice, the worse it will be when we finally do have no choice. We no longer have the luxury of allowing the rules of "old Europe" and the cowerdice of other countries, through the UN, to strengthen our enemies as we debate about what to do.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
That's not the kind of world I like to live in, but given today's technology, this playground world that you describe, if it continues, this playground world and all it's children will be destroyed, eliminated, dead, kaput.
That depends on a lot of things -- like the 'big kids' doing what they can to keep the others from getting nukes.

This is why acting --before-- a nation becomes an imminent threat is far better than waiting until said threat is imminent,
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Thats the supremacy clause.

It refers to siupremacy of the US Constitution, federal laws, federal court decisions and treaties enjoined buy the Federal government over state constitutions, state laws and state court decisions.

It doesnt in ANY way limit the FEDERAL government.

M14 was wrong - your interpretation of this clause isn't strange, its without any intellectual support.

I defy you to show any time or any place where the Supremacy Clause has been held to be a limit on actions of the FEDERAL government.
It says in black and white and in plain english that ANY treaty ratified by Congress shall be the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution must be obeyed in all cases at all times. Whether that is with a state to state issue, or obeying Article's 31 and 51 of the UN Charter.
 
Goobieman said:
That depends on a lot of things -- like the 'big kids' doing what they can to keep the others from getting nukes.

This is why acting --before-- a nation becomes an imminent threat is far better than waiting until said threat is imminent,

It is my view that in the long term, it will prove impossible to completely stop somebody from obtaining and using a WMD whether it be a kid who brings guns to school to shoot his/her classmates after being the victim of constant bullying or a terrorist organization who buys nukes from a nuclear scientist in Pakistan running a 7-11 store for his nuclear know how so that they may use it on stronger nations. Of course, these stronger nations might in turn use their own nuclear weapons, which could trigger a chain reaction and the complete and total destruction of everybody and everything on the playground we call the International Arena.
 
Originally Posted by ManOfTrueTruth
Well, Bill O' it's OK for us to invade other countries and shoot up and bomb places to get the people we want, but it's not OK if it is done to us. It's rather simple when you think about it. We can't be having fairness and laws governing such things. The US is mightest so it is a natural law that the US can do as it pleases without penalty while other nations or people are not allowed to do what the US does. You know what they say, might makes right.
Being an American, does have its advantages. Unless you don't like to get booed at every international sporting event.
 
Billo_Really said:
It says in black and white and in plain english that ANY treaty ratified by Congress shall be the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution must be obeyed in all cases at all times. Whether that is with a state to state issue, or obeying Article's 31 and 51 of the UN Charter.

As I said:

I DEFY you to show where it has EVER been held that the Supremacy clause limits the actions of the FEDERAL government.

Unless you can show me this, you and your argument don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Back
Top Bottom