• 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
Billo_Really said:
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!

And this is why you can't understand the Middle East. You are still trying to compare it to your cusioned American life. There's no need for proof. It is common knowledge. What the hell kind of "proof" are you expecting? Interviews from all of the Radical that said, "Yes, I love my terrorist?":roll:



Billo_Really said:
And how is it you know they hate us for our advancements? What were the premises you drew this conclusion from?
It's in our damn faces! It's in the Iranian population who want their western music that was recently denied to them from their petrified fanatic leadership. It is in the Saudi Arabian population who frequent Bahrain (the very westernized vacation spot).

It's also in the many studies conducted by experts. The research is there. Look into it.

Billo_Really said:
They don't give a damn about freeing Iraqis? That's something in common with us.

Yeah...we're just hanging around for the training value.:roll: You just can't keep an intelligent flow can you?


Billo_Really said:
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?

Because they cannot avoid it. The 21st century is in their face. What do you think this civilization will do when the oil runs dry (scientist estimate 200 years) and the West pulls out? They will be left to their own devices and they will rip each other apart. We will enter into a new age of terrorism the like of which history has never seen.

Because we no longer have the luxury of waiting for this civilization to do for themselves. Their Radical element targets our people for self-inflicted problems. Their Radical element is determined to destroy an ally. Their Radical element is determined to develop nuclear power. Their radical element is bred from the oppression and abuse that their radical or simply greedy government forces upon them. Waiting for self-determination as their decayed symptoms seek the weapons that will cause real permanent damage is not acceptable. It is called survival. It is the same thing that solidified and safe guarded nations all through history.
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
So, where were your complaints when we went into Kosovo in 1999 and during all our actions in Iraq, 1993-2000?
I wasn't a very good American [being well informed politically] in 1999 and I believe Iraq 1993-2000was sanctioned by the UNSC.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
Haven't you learned? Billlo only stands on a pedestal when it agrees with what he is emotioned about.
I don't need a pedestal, I can pontificate laying down if I so choose.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
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.

And how do you think some extranational body with the ability to create and enforce mandates against others will stop this?

"International law" as some people see it today -- that is, resolutions handed down by the UN, is a relatively new and, until recently, untested concept. International law, prior to 1945, was derived from Customs and Treaties, and little else, and, as i stated, boiled down to 'might makes right'. It worked for 5000 years.

IMHO, any "international law" must have en effective means of enforcement, something UN resolutions lack, and will -always- lack because nothing happens unless it gets through the UNSC (and then only if someone is willing to volunteer their military for the enforcement).

IMHO, I'm MUCH more comfortable wih the President as the final arbiter of which of rights we can enforce and how we can enforce them than China, Russia and France.
 
Billo_Really said:
I wasn't a very good American [being well informed politically] in 1999 and I believe Iraq 1993-2000was sanctioned by the UNSC.

You "believe"?
Wow. Thats convenient.

What UNSC resolution OK'd the use of Force against Iraq in december of 1998?
Whaat UNSC resolution OK'd the creation of the two No Fly zones over Iraq and the destruction of Iraqi military assets that tried to shoot down our aircraft in the act of enforcing same?
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
We are facing organized and armed religious fanatics who are determined to wage war,
Kind of like the neocon's.
 
Goobieman said:
And how do you think some extranational body with the ability to create and enforce mandates against others will stop this?

"International law" as some people see it today -- that is, resolutions handed down by the UN, is a relatively new and, until recently, untested concept. International law, prior to 1945, was derived from Customs and Treaties, and little else, and, as i stated, boiled down to 'might makes right'. It worked for 5000 years.

IMHO, any "international law" must have en effective means of enforcement, something UN resolutions lack, and will -always- lack because nothing happens unless it gets through the UNSC (and then only if someone is willing to volunteer their military for the enforcement).

IMHO, I'm MUCH more comfortable wih the President as the final arbiter of which of rights we can enforce and how we can enforce them than China, Russia and France.

I have to agree with some of your views, but I wonder if you knew, that the UN came from the League of Nations and it was the League of Nations, which was an American idea after World War I to bring some justice to the international arena? You are correct, that the UN does lack some effective menas of enforcement and nations at times will politically hijack, in an unfair and unjust manner, the UN. However, it is something that we need to continue to develop and work toward, because mankind's future depends on it. Essientially, the UN was born from American policies and ideas.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Goobieman
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.
It doesn't say that the Supreme Law of the Land applies to everyone except Congress. It applies to everyone. If the federal government wants to arrest people for drinking alcohol, what do they have to do to make it legal? What do they have to do to change any law in the Constitution? Did they do that with Iraq? Afganistan?
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
I have to agree with some of your views, but I wonder if you knew, that the UN came from the League of Nations and it was the League of Nations, which was an American idea after World War I to bring some justice to the international arena?
Of course I knew that. I also know why the LoN failed -- the inability to enforce anything it created.

However, it is something that we need to continue to develop and work toward, because mankind's future depends on it.
The UN cannot and will not ever amount to anything but a debating society that thinks it has power over sovereign states. Its resolutions are nothing more than an order to 'stop' with the consequence of non-compliance being nothing more than being told (16 additional times) to 'stop again'.

The US is FAR better off alinging itself with like-minded nations and leading them in the defense of their common interests than looking to the UN for same.
 
Billo_Really said:
Kind of like the neocon's.


Yes, "NeoCons" are waging war for "God" or some sort of agendized conspiracy. :roll: This, of course, would be more of your ability to fail from intelligent thought.
 
Billo_Really said:
It doesn't say that the Supreme Law of the Land applies to everyone except Congress. It applies to everyone.

The fact that you continue to argue out your a$$ rather than cite specific instances where the Supremacy Clause was held to limit the actions of the FEDERAL government indicates that you have no support for your argument, and that you know it.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
And this is why you can't understand the Middle East. You are still trying to compare it to your cusioned American life. There's no need for proof. It is common knowledge. What the hell kind of "proof" are you expecting? Interviews from all of the Radical that said, "Yes, I love my terrorist?"
I understand human nature. And yes, there is a need for proof when you are going to run around a blame an entire race of people without spending one nano-second cleaning your own god-damn house. It's easier (and convenient) to blame others without doing your own gut check. Your generalizing is facilitating genocide. At the very least, it is creating the environment for it to happen.

Originally posted by GySgt:
It's in our damn faces! It's in the Iranian population who want their western music that was recently denied to them from their petrified fanatic leadership. It is in the Saudi Arabian population who frequent Bahrain (the very westernized vacation spot).

It's also in the many studies conducted by experts. The research is there. Look into it.
That might all well be true. But it is certainly not the whole picture. Corporatism is playing a role in all this and not too many people are talking about that. And it is a major role.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Yeah...we're just hanging around for the training value. You just can't keep an intelligent flow can you?
Just because you chose not to understand my point (or disagreed with it) doesn't mean I'm un-intelligent. However, I will agree that I'm no Einstein.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Because they cannot avoid it. The 21st century is in their face. What do you think this civilization will do when the oil runs dry (scientist estimate 200 years) and the West pulls out? They will be left to their own devices and they will rip each other apart. We will enter into a new age of terrorism the like of which history has never seen.
As long as it is not done on our shores, why should I care?

Originally posted by GySgt:
Because we no longer have the luxury of waiting for this civilization to do for themselves. Their Radical element targets our people for self-inflicted problems. Their Radical element is determined to destroy an ally. Their Radical element is determined to develop nuclear power. Their radical element is bred from the oppression and abuse that their radical or simply greedy government forces upon them. Waiting for self-determination as their decayed symptoms seek the weapons that will cause real permanent damage is not acceptable. It is called survival. It is the same thing that solidified and safe guarded nations all through history.
I don't have an answer for this one. It is a very complex problem. I do know the solution is not a simple one. I also know that no matter what happens, we have to live and act by the principles that created this nation. Because if we don't, we are no better than they are. And I do like to think that we are better at living by our principles. Well, some of us are.
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
You "believe"?
Wow. Thats convenient.

What UNSC resolution OK'd the use of Force against Iraq in december of 1998?
Whaat UNSC resolution OK'd the creation of the two No Fly zones over Iraq and the destruction of Iraqi military assets that tried to shoot down our aircraft in the act of enforcing same?
They have every right in the world to defend themselves when we are running over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. You got to be a pretty sick bastard to think that we could do that with impunity. It's also pretty sick to think that is no-fly zone enforcement.

Off the top of my head, I don't know the resolutions you asked for and I don't feel like googling them at this time. If it is important to you, I will later.
 
Originally posted by GySgt:
Yes, "NeoCons" are waging war for "God" or some sort of agendized conspiracy. This, of course, would be more of your ability to fail from intelligent thought.
Excuse me, I have to be intelligent first, in order to "...fail from intelligence..." Who's the one being inconsistant now?
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
The fact that you continue to argue out your a$$ rather than cite specific instances where the Supremacy Clause was held to limit the actions of the FEDERAL government indicates that you have no support for your argument, and that you know it.
The fact that you cherry-pick certain things out of the point I'm making without addressing the entire point as it is presented, says a lot about your own agenda. But if that is what you want to do, be my guest. What you consider "your truth" doesn't bother me at all. And it is no less than mine. No more either.
 
Billo_Really said:
I understand human nature. And yes, there is a need for proof when you are going to run around a blame an entire race of people without spending one nano-second cleaning your own god-damn house. It's easier (and convenient) to blame others without doing your own gut check. Your generalizing is facilitating genocide. At the very least, it is creating the environment for it to happen.

Who's blaming an entire race? This would be more of your exxagerations and why you continue to trip all over yourself. Exactly, what I have typed for a year. In the Middle East the narcotic of choice is blame. For "believers" it is always easier to blame outward. It doesn't matter who or what, so long as that blame casts responsibility on someone else's, shoulders it will do.

Billo_Really said:
That might all well be true. But it is certainly not the whole picture. Corporatism is playing a role in all this and not too many people are talking about that. And it is a major role.


Who said it was the whole picture? I believe I've crossed all roads in the last year on this site.

Billo_Really said:
I'm no Einstein.

I would agree to this.

Billo_Really said:
As long as it is not done on our shores, why should I care?

Because it will be done on our shores. At the core of every single zealot throughout history in every religion, is the desperate need to blame someone else. America as the leader of everything that is an insult or a threat to their core beliefs will always be an enemy to those people that would use a conservative version of religion to control, organize, and oppress their populations.

The proof is in the cartoon.
 
Billo_Really said:
Have you ever heard of the word "jurisdiction". Afganistan was out of our jurisdiction, but we made it ours anyway. Of coarse, we broke international law in doing so.

I find it interesting that we told the Taliban 5 weeks before 9/11 that if they didn't accept our offer of a carpet of gold [dividends from the proposed pipeline], that we would bury them with a carpet of bombs.

Dude you’re so full of chit! How in the f**k can you saw invading afghan was un justified? Answer this slick…..
Was Bin laden and his f**king group in Afghan?
Yes or No? No bullchit speeches.

WTF! Have you become a taliban/bin laden supporter?

Pipelines?

I'll tell you some you wont understand
I don’t give a flying f**k about any pipeline deal before 9/11.
Bin laden was living and training in Afghan.
Afghan was his safe house.
He was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Close to 3,000 families were destroyed that day
but what the f**k do you care if their killers are ever caught.
You f**king make me sick you sonofabitch!

jurisdiction?
Are you really that bloody dumb?
or is it just a scumbag troll act?
No matter
here see if you can follow this
GO TO HELL!
 
cherokee said:
Dude you’re so full of chit! How in the f**k can you saw invading afghan was un justified? Answer this slick…..
Was Bin laden and his f**king group in Afghan?
Yes or No? No bullchit speeches.

WTF! Have you become a taliban/bin laden supporter?

Pipelines?

I'll tell you some you wont understand
I don’t give a flying f**k about any pipeline deal before 9/11.
Bin laden was living and training in Afghan.
Afghan was his safe house.
He was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Close to 3,000 families were destroyed that day
but what the f**k do you care if their killers are ever caught.
You f**king make me sick you sonofabitch!

jurisdiction?
Are you really that bloody dumb?
or is it just a scumbag troll act?
No matter
here see if you can follow this
GO TO HELL!

All Bill O' is saying Cherokee, is that the US should follow the law, the international law. When you don't follow the law, you become no better than the criminals. The US did act on it's own rather than let the law follow it's course. Their is no excuse in taking the law in your own hands.
 
ManOfTrueTruth said:
All Bill O' is saying Cherokee, is that the US should follow the law, the international law. When you don't follow the law, you become no better than the criminals. The US did act on it's own rather than let the law follow it's course.

Another post full of chit!

Did they follow the law?..huh?
They tried to get the taliban to give up bin laden did it work? NO!

You and billo can bitch and moan all you frigging want to about iraq but you dont have any damn ground to stand on when it comes to Afghan.
If you believe Afghan was wrong you can ALSO go to hell!.
 
I want Apologize to the DP members for the off color remarks I made in post #167
As most know I am a hot head. And this was not the place.

Billo, I have started a thread in the basement if you care to join me.
 
Last edited:
ManOfTrueTruth said:
Here is an interesting, simple poll I thought of. Is violence ever necessary? When would it be necessary?

Of course sometimes violence is neccessary.

Violence and war are, unfortunately, a natural aspect of life. Sometimes it's vital to defend yourself in a violent manner. It may not sound pleasant but it's the truth. So of course violence is neccessary.
 
cherokee said:
Another post full of chit!

Did they follow the law?..huh?
They tried to get the taliban to give up bin laden did it work? NO!

You and billo can bitch and moan all you frigging want to about iraq but you dont have any damn ground to stand on when it comes to Afghan.
If you believe Afghan was wrong you can ALSO go to hell!.

The US, being the most powerful country in the world and also being the nation that came up with idea of the League of Nations and the United Nations, must set a good example of following international law. No nation should be above international law. When the US does not follow international law, then others will not either. You being in the Marine Corps understand that a good leader always must set a good example. Leadership by example. It is imperative, that given the US is the most powerful country in the world, that it must hold itself to a higher standard and being the leader in the world, must set a good example for others to follow.
 
See, World War I was devestating for Europe. It had a profound impact and it highlighted terrible injustices that stronger nations inflicted upon weaker nations and the injustices that the stronger nations inflicted upon each other. It was a war that was very traumatic. The US had stepped in and created the League of Nations with the idea of International Law in mind to prevent another World War that could possibly bring armeggedon on our footsteps. Even when the US is a victim of a crime, it still must restrain itself and set a good example and allow international law to run it's course. We are better than the terrorists.
 
Here is an interesting quote from wikipedia on international law and the link to the much broader article:

After World War I, the nations of the world decided to form an international body. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of a "League of Nations". However, due to political wrangling in the U.S. Congress, the United States did not join the League of Nations, which was one of the causes of its demise. When World War II broke out, the League of Nations was finished. Yet at the same time, the United Nations was being formed. On January 1, 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the "Declaration by United Nations" on behalf of 26 nations who had pledged to fight against the Axis powers. Even before the end of the war, representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco to draw up the charter for an international body to replace the League of Nations. On October 24, 1945, the United Nations officially came into existence, setting a basis for much international law to follow.

Modern international law is often affirmed as the product of modern European civilization.

The seafaring principalities of India established legal rules for ocean navigation and regional commerce.

The Greek system of independent city-states bore a close resemblance to contemporary nation-state system. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues of the 3rd century BC represented early organisational efforts at international cooperation and facilitated the development of arbitration as a dispute settlement technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law
 
Originally posted by Cherokee:
I want Apologize to the DP members for the off color remarks I made in post #167
As most know I am a hot head. And this was not the place.

Billo, I have started a thread in the basement if you care to join me.
You have my permission to call me every name in the book. And if any DP mod is trolling by, I took no offense to any of Cherokee's statements.
 
Back
Top Bottom