Obama's Insensitivity Following Shooting

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 November 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1257536629' post='1997274']


Did you read about his visit to Dover AFB, to meet the coffins of the returning soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan?

Of course he's sensitive.

Jim
[/quote]
You mean his photo-op?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1257620594' post='1997797']
Was it just the conscription in your mind that makes it unjust, or is there any more to it?
[/quote]

Conscription is one of the factors that, in itself, was able to make the war unjust. I think much of the injustice of the war stems from why it was [i]really [/i]fought. Which was to satisfy nationalistic egoes. If I told you that Germans had invaded Belgium and were raping women left and right, and you signed up to kill them to stop them from doing so, but I only told you that because I knew you wouldn't fight if I told you, "I'd like to make a profit selling weapons of war," would your cause really be just? It would be like me telling you to pour water on a grease fire to put it out. Your intention would be noble, your trust would be misplaced, and your action would be foolish and counterproductive. A good intention does not a just action make.

When States are involved in waging war, it results in an organized mob: a discriminating riot, at best. It's not prudent to involve oneself in any manner of riot.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

So how should WWI have been responded to?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1257636703' post='1997890']
So how should WWI have been responded to?
[/quote]

Responded to by whom? The United State and Canada should have stayed out. Would it be wise for you to jump into a bar brawl among infantile, gun-wielding bikers, to try to end the injustices therein?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 7, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1257637496' post='1997897']
Responded to by whom? The United State and Canada should have stayed out. Would it be wise for you to jump into a bar brawl among infantile, gun-wielding bikers, to try to end the injustices therein?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Canada, being a British colony, had no choice. When Britain went to war, Canada was at war.

How should European countries have handled it?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1257638882' post='1997910']
Canada, being a British colony, had no choice. When Britain went to war, Canada was at war.[/quote]

The British State had their hands a bit tied at that particular moment. They had some more pressing issues to attend to than forcing a State and its subjects, 3,000 miles away, to comply with their wills.

[quote]How should European countries have handled it?
[/quote]

The States do what they always do. What should the people have done? They should have either stayed away from the barfight, by leaving the area completely, if necessary and possible, or they should have stayed in place to lay low and/or defend their homes as best they could, given their circumstances. You don't get in a tangle with a 300-pound biker if you can avoid it.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1257639549' post='1997920']
The British State had their hands a bit tied at that particular moment. They had some more pressing issues to attend to than forcing a State and its subjects, 3,000 miles away, to comply with their wills.



The States do what they always do. What should the people have done? They should have either stayed away from the barfight, by leaving the area completely if necessary and if possible, or they should have stayed in place to defend their homes. You don't get in a tangle with a 300-pound biker if you can avoid it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Well like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, we were not our own country, and legally it wasn't our decision to make.

So in Europe, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, everyone else should have just stayed out no matter what happened? Even considering that Germany had proven themselves more than willing to support Austria-Hungary?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1257639965' post='1997927']
Well like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, we were not our own country, and legally it wasn't our decision to make.[/quote]

It's what Canadians should have done.

[quote]So in Europe, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, everyone else should have just stayed out no matter what happened? Even considering that Germany had proven themselves more than willing to support Austria-Hungary?
[/quote]

You don't join a barroom brawl. That is all it was. A macrocosmic barroom brawl.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1257642909' post='1997955']


You don't join a barroom brawl. That is all it was. A macrocosmic barroom brawl.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Ok, so let's be clear. We have Austria-Hungary and Germany declaring war on Serbia. Or at least Germany supporting Austria Hungary...? I'm not a historian. My mom would know. Serbia obviously has to fight. Everyone else stays out, and leaves Serbia to take care of it themselves? France, for instance, and Russia, just ignore it, unless it threatens their borders?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1257643791' post='1997961']
Ok, so let's be clear. We have Austria-Hungary and Germany declaring war on Serbia. Or at least Germany supporting Austria Hungary...? I'm not a historian. My mom would know. Serbia obviously has to fight. Everyone else stays out, and leaves Serbia to take care of it themselves? France, for instance, and Russia, just ignore it, unless it threatens their borders?
[/quote]

Ask yourself two questions: 1. How many people died in WWI? 2. Why did they die?

Do Serbians "obviously" have to fight? I don't think it is that obvious at all. There must be a "reasonable expectation of success." One does not always have to defend oneself with force.

Again, collectives do not act. Individuals act. If I lived in Serbia, I would not join the uniformed ranks to fight off an aggressor. I would do precisely what the Maquis did in WWII France. What the partisans did in WWII Italy. What the Czechs did during WWII. What the Taliban did/is doing in Afghanistan. Multiple times. The most effective means of defense is to bleed an enemy dry. A particularly effective trick used against NATO forces in Bosnia was to put a microwave in an open field and have the NATO jets let the HARMs fly. A $60 microwave versus a $300,000 missile is quite a force multiplier, even if you can only use that trick a few times.

The Japanese trick of letting the Marines invade an island, then unleashing hell worked somewhat well in the Pacific islands, considering the low garrison numbers and lack of logistical capability on the part of the Japanese.

(And remember, MacArthur wouldn't have had to [i]return[/i] to the Philippines if the United State hadn't stolen that land in the first place, during the Spanish-American War. In addition, the troops deliberately targeted civilians and also used waterboarding in one of the first times in recorded United State history. The war was fomented by and based on propaganda and lies, for the sake of greed. I have in my collection a propaganda piece from the war. A milk glass plate with the image and inscription of the "U.S. Battleship Maine." Remember the Maine!)

Fight smart, and [i]only [/i]when it is absolutely necessary. In other words, don't fight like a State.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1257646877' post='1997983']
Ask yourself two questions: 1. How many people died in WWI? 2. Why did they die?

Do Serbians "obviously" have to fight? I don't think it is that obvious at all. There must be a "reasonable expectation of success." One does not always have to defend oneself with force.

Again, collectives do not act. Individuals act. If I lived in Serbia, I would not join the uniformed ranks to fight off an aggressor. I would do precisely what the Maquis did in WWII France. What the partisans did in WWII Italy. What the Czechs did during WWII. What the Taliban did/is doing in Afghanistan. Multiple times. The most effective means of defense is to bleed an enemy dry. A particularly effective trick used against NATO forces in Bosnia was to put a microwave in an open field and have the NATO jets let the HARMs fly. A $60 microwave versus a $300,000 missile is a force multiplier, even if you can only use that trick a few times.

The Japanese trick of letting the Marines invade an island, then unleashing hell worked somewhat well in the Pacific islands, given their low garrison numbers and lack of logistical capability.

Fight smart: not like a State.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
That sounds great... if it works. What if it doesn't? Then we have no more Serbia, and Austria-Hungary and Germany were just allowed to take over another country. Should there be an international response? If not, why not?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1257647085' post='1997987']
That sounds great... if it works. What if it doesn't? Then we have no more Serbia, and Austria-Hungary and Germany were just allowed to take over another country. Should there be an international response? If not, why not?
[/quote]

No collective response. There should be an [i]individual response. [/i]Period. Anyone who wants can go over there and try to help out, if it is prudent. You should be the judge of whether it is prudent. Not politicians with close ties to arms manufacturers. If you can only get people to go in there by threatening to imprison or kill them, (that applies to soldiers already in a State military, as well as conscripts) you can not go in, period.

If one land gets invaded, what do you think the neighboring lands will do, if the individuals living there have an ounce of sense? What happened during the War of 1812, when people found out what happened to Washington? The people took to the streets, and began voluntarily building fortifications in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Basically, every major city along the eastern seaboard. The British would have been cut apart by such grassroots efforts. You cannot take over a country without ultimately having boots on the ground. And as long as the people actually have the will to protect themselves, they will make life a living hell for any potential occupiers. Have you read about the Hungarian Uprising? The Soviet army was kept at bay for days by teenagers and children, armed with "borrowed" PPSh-41's, as well as molotov cocktails. They drew the attention of tanks and troops by putting broomsticks in windows to simulate rifle barrels, then attacked the aggressors from another direction. They put Hungarian flags on Russian tanks, leading the other tank drivers to assume the tank had been taken over, and open fire on their comrades. If their supplies had held up, they could have driven the Soviets out. Of course, the United State promised to help them if they rose up. As usual, it lied. Something about cutting some slack for the Soviets to reward their cutting the United State some slack in the Suez. Austria and your country welcomed what was left of the ones who rose up.

But the people fought bravely, wisely, and effectively. If they had anything in the way of resources, they could've driven the Soviets out, or at least given them a Pyrrhic victory. It does not take a State to defend individual people. In fact, the State itself is always the worst threat to individual people.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

Still though, what if, for whatever reason, the grassroots resistance utterly fails and the resistance is brutally put down? Just tough luck?

[Winchester]

I'm pretty sure we didn't send troops until Germany's ally attacked us. (cue conspiracy theory response).

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 November 2009 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1257649567' post='1998001']
Still though, what if, for whatever reason, the grassroots resistance utterly fails and the resistance is brutally put down? Just tough luck?
[/quote]

A people that cannot defend themselves through voluntary means is a people that cannot morally defend themselves.

It is no more saying "tough luck" to them than it is to say, "If your husband beats you, you may get a civil divorce and separate, but you are still married in the eyes of God. Tough luck." Some actions are moral. Some are not. You do not have the right to secure physical freedom by all extant means.


~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sternhauser