Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans

Is there such a thing as a "just" war?

eddie wrote:Is there such a thing as a "just" war?

Kosovo
Bosnia
Sierra Leone
Falklands
Northern Ireland
Korea

To name but a few that the British help fight against aggression, genocide etc.

I wont comment on this as I would be banned if I said what I thought.

eddie wrote:Is there such a thing as a "just" war?

a war defending yourself, that's it. once you start going off invading of others countries you might use propaganda to Justify a war but you are the 'aggressor'
which is why that list thorin posted is always debatable, out side of the Uk many do not think they are 'just invasions' at all

Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

Eilzel wrote:Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

debatable,
no western nations would accept that tiny islands within it's costal waters are independent and that the tiny islands get the superseding economic rights to the costal waters.

UK travelled to a different continent to attack Argentina for doing what any western nation would do for it's own security and economic interests

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

debatable,
no western nations would accept that tiny islands within it's costal waters are independent and that the tiny islands get the superseding economic rights to the costal waters.

UK travelled to a different continent to attack Argentina for doing what any western nation would do for it's own security and economic interests

Babble

The island was invaded, the British retook the island.
In both Kosovo and Bosnia, the Uk as well as others stepped in to stop genocide

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Is there such a thing as a "just" war?

a war defending yourself, that's it. once you start going off invading of others countries you might use propaganda to Justify a war but you are the 'aggressor'
which is why that list thorin posted is always debatable, out side of the Uk many do not think they are 'just invasions' at all

So to you, ww2 was not a just war fought by the western allies?

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:Is there such a thing as a "just" war?

a war defending yourself, that's it. once you start going off invading of others countries you might use propaganda to Justify a war but you are the 'aggressor'
which is why that list thorin posted is always debatable, out side of the Uk many do not think they are 'just invasions' at all

So to you, ww2 was not a just war fought by the western allies?

Did you travel to a different continent to pick on someone weaker than you?

Do you think the Germans thought it was just?
are you so think as to think everyone believes the nonsense British propaganda?

Do you think Ireland or Argentina think your invasions of their territory were just?

Most see British action for what is rightfully is, unjust invasions to prop up Dwindling British Colonialism or Supporting western influence in continents where there is no western nations

Argentina invaded us, did they not? Learn some History and put away your British hate.

Eilzel wrote:
Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

How did Britain end up with an external territory located within another country's border , to start with ???

Shades of Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and Hong Kong..

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So to you, ww2 was not a just war fought by the western allies?

Did you travel to a different continent to pick on someone weaker than you?

Do you think the Germans thought it was just?
are you so think as to think everyone believes the nonsense British propaganda?

Do you think Ireland or Argentina think your invasions of their territory were just?

Most see British action for what is rightfully is, unjust invasions to prop up Dwindling British Colonialism or Supporting western influence in continents where there is no western nations

Again based on your reasoning, you think the allies fight against Nazism and the Japanese was not a just war.

Britain and France went to war in defense of the self-determination of the Polish people

This has nothing to do with any propaganda, but your belief a just war is only just a war when defending yourself. Even though you have failed to even reason why. You simple proclaim this, hence its nothing more than a poor opinion.

What invasions of Ireland and Argentina in regards to the conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Falklands conflict?

Argentina is a colonial nation itself

So even based on your reasoning, you have just made both the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Falklands conflict just for the British. As in each case they defended themselves from aggressors.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

How did Britain end up with an external territory located within another country's border ,  to start with  ???

Shades of Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and Hong Kong..

So the views and self determination of the Falkland Islanders means nothing then?

How did Australia have a majority white populace?

Colonialism by any chance?

Should the white, Asian and African Australian populace leave based on your thinking?

I do agree with veya's premise...if you are not fighting for your own territory, you are invading another's territory.

I wouldn't agree (with veya) that geography is determinative. Only history is determinative.  Hawai'i and Alaska, for example, are clearly US territory...and geographically far from the mainland.  But so is LA far from NYC...should we suggest it's too far, even though contiguous?  Why not, according to the geographical argument?  What's so important about contiguity?  Try that logic on Australia: is Perth too far from Sydney?  How about Greenland and Denmark?  So I think the Falkland war was legitimate--at least as against Argentina's claim.

But Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Iraq?  No way.  We (US) were invaders along with the rest who came along (UK).  We spout all this crap about fighting for freedom and democracy (which we are not), and in the end we are just invading their land, breaking into their homes, raping and torturing their daughters, and killing their babies.

I would be embarrassed to be in that military.

Original Quill wrote:I do agree with veya's premise...if you are not fighting for your own territory, you are invading another's territory.  Only history is determinative.


But Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Iraq?  No way.  We (US) were invaders along with the rest who came along (UK).  We spout all this crap about fighting for freedom and democracy (which we are not), and in the end we are just invading their land, breaking into their homes, raping and torturing their daughters, and killing their babies.

I would be embarrassed to be in that military.

So you back the view to allow for weaker nations to be invaded without any assistance or armed helped.
Which means you rule out WW2 for the allies being a just war.

Some real revisionist history going on.

1) So North Vietnam never invaded, the US did, after being invited to come and support the South in the Vietnam war? The Vietnam war ins mainly condemned for the actions of the US in that war. Are you saying its wrong to defend the self determination of a people? North Vietnam invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Vietnamese.

2) That it was not North Korea that invaded the south apparently, but again the US invaded by being invited to defend the self determination of a people. North Korea invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Koreans.

3) Apparently the Kosovan genocide of Muslims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not the cause of the war, but western intervention to stop the genocide, according to Quill?  Come again

4) Apparently the Taliban never seized power through military means and ruled this country with barbarism. American freeing these people was clearly not just to Quill. I mean for the first time in years, Afghan girls can go to school and learn. Is that not just to fight for?

5) Apparently the cause to go to war in Iraq was unjust. I agree, it was based on a lie, but was the freeing of the Iraq people from Saddam unjust?

Thorin wrote:So you back the view to allow for weaker nations to be invaded without any assistance or armed helped.

There's been no evidence of a 'David/Goliath' conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan, although I do grant that alliances bring about extenuating circumstance.  I simply did not mention that, choosing to wait until it came up.

We were not fighting in 'David/Goliath' battles in Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua or Somolia.  We were just choosing sides in a policy dispute (capitalism or communism).  We had no business there; we were just there to push weaker people around.

In WWII Britain and France were drawn in because of alliances.  I believe alliances are a necessary extenuating circumstances.  They say that while they are not protecting their own territory, they are remotely defending their own interests.  Probably correct, but one must be careful to not mission creep the country's purpose.  The US joined 'Europe's War' because Britain would be the last foothold on land, and if it went down all of Europe would be lost to the Americas.

But, remember Churchill saw it as a larger conflict against Communism and the Soviets.  That was mission creep.

In that sense, Churchill started the Cold War, and all of those illegitimate wars--Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, etc.--were the consequence.  So you see...alliances can be the problem if you aren't vigilant.

Eilzel wrote:Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

We are nowhere near the Falklands. I never understood that stupid war.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So you back the view to allow for weaker nations to be invaded without any assistance or armed helped.

There's been no evidence of a 'David/Goliath' conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan, although I do grant that alliances bring about extenuating circumstance.  I simply did not mention that, choosing to wait until it came up.

We were not fighting in 'David/Goliath' battles in Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua or Somolia.  We were just choosing sides in a policy dispute (capitalism or communism).  We had no business there; we were just there to push weaker people around.

In WWII Britain and France were drawn in because of alliances.  I believe alliances are a necessary extenuating circumstances.  They say that while they are not protecting their own territory, they are remotely defending their own interests.  Probably correct, but one must be careful to not mission creep the country's purpose.  The US joined 'Europe's War' because Britain would be the last foothold on land, and if it went down all of Europe would be lost to the Americas.

But, remember Churchill saw it as a larger conflict against Communism and the Soviets.  That was mission creep.

In that sense, Churchill started the Cold War, and all of those illegitimate wars--Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, etc.--were the consequence.  So you see...alliances can be the problem if you aren't vigilant.

1) You evaded the point. Was it just to oust Saddam to free the Iraq people. Yes or No?

2) How was France and Britain protecting themselves by defending the rights of Self determination of a people? Their interested lay within their own empires.

So you failed to answer my points on what is just.

Here they are again

1) So North Vietnam never invaded, the US did, after being invited to come and support the South in the Vietnam war? The Vietnam war ins mainly condemned for the actions of the US in that war. Are you saying its wrong to defend the self determination of a people? North Vietnam invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Vietnamese.

2) That it was not North Korea that invaded the south apparently, but again the US invaded by being invited to defend the self determination of a people. North Korea invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Koreans.

3) Apparently the Kosovan genocide of Muslims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not the cause of the war, but western intervention to stop the genocide, according to Quill? Come again

4) Apparently the Taliban never seized power through military means and ruled this country with barbarism. American freeing these people was clearly not just to Quill. I mean for the first time in years, Afghan girls can go to school and learn. Is that not just to fight for?

5) Apparently the cause to go to war in Iraq was unjust. I agree, it was based on a lie, but was the freeing of the Iraq people from Saddam unjust?

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

We are nowhere near the Falklands. I never understood that stupid war.

As I say, geography is not determinative. History is. As against a claim by Argentina, I think Britain was right.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Falklands was just, veya. We did not open hostilities there.

We are nowhere near the Falklands. I never understood that stupid war.

So you think those that gave their life for Britain, wasted their time freeing people from have their rights and slef determination denied?

Thorin wrote:You evaded the point. Was it just to oust Saddam to free the Iraq people. Yes or No?

No! Iraq is an excellent case in point. What went on inside Iraq was none of our business.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:You evaded the point. Was it just to oust Saddam to free the Iraq people. Yes or No?

No!  Iraq is an excellent case in point.  What went on inside Iraq was none of our business.

So even though the Iraqi Kurds saw this as just and a blessing, you claim its not our business to help those oppressed. Or the vast majority of Iraqi people being oppressed?

You take a racist view to only help those you class your own.

Americans.

Wo

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

We are nowhere near the Falklands. I never understood that stupid war.

So you think those that gave their life for Britain, wasted their time freeing people from have their rights and slef determination denied?

You are speaking nonsense...all to evade the point. Britian has an all-volunteer military, so those who "gave their lives for Britain" did so with willing consent. Also, "rights and self-determination"--like freedom and democracy--is more of the language soup that gets us involved in these meaningless conflicts in the first place.

Make some sense instead of pouring on more pablum.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No!  Iraq is an excellent case in point.  What went on inside Iraq was none of our business.

So even though the Iraqi Kurds saw this as just and a blessing, you claim its not our business to help those oppressed. Or the vast majority of Iraqi people being oppressed?

You take a racist view to only help those you class your own.

Americans.

Wo

"Just and blessing"? "Oppressed"? "Racist"? More of the language soup that gets us involved in these meaningless conflicts in the first place.

I assume Kurds are nice people. I assume Sunnis are nice people. I even assume Shi'ites are nice people. Let them work out their own problems.

We have no interest in their differences. Why would we want to be entering their conflicts---only because Brits and Americans love to test weapons and kill babies.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you think those that gave their life for Britain, wasted their time freeing people from have their rights and slef determination denied?

You are speaking nonsense...all to evade the point.  Britian has an all-volunteer military, so those who "gave their lives for Britain" did so with willing consent.  Also, "rights and self-determination"--like freedom and democracy--is more of the language soup that gets us involved in these meaningless conflicts in the first place.

Make some sense instead of pouring on more pablum.

How am I speaking nonsense when you keep evading the questions i ask you in regards to things that are just.

So, was the freeing of the Iraq people from Saddam unjust?

Yes or No?

So if self determination does not matter or the oppression of those people, you again back it not being your problem. That means you only care about the rights of people, if they born geographically within the United States. You class all other oppression as irrelevant.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So even though the Iraqi Kurds saw this as just and a blessing, you claim its not our business to help those oppressed. Or the vast majority of Iraqi people being oppressed?

You take a racist view to only help those you class your own.

Americans.

Wo

"Just and blessing"?  "Oppressed"?  "Racist"?  More of the language soup that gets us involved in these meaningless conflicts in the first place.

I assume Kurds are nice people.  I assume Sunnis are nice people.  I even assume Shi'ites are nice people.  Let them work out their own problems.  

We have no interest in their differences.  Why would we want to be entering their conflicts---only because Brits and Americans love to test weapons and kill babies.

Still avoiding the questions with misdirection with the first sentsence.

So you assume one ethnic group and two religious groups need to continue to suffer oppression, violence, murder and genocide, because you shy away from taking on bullies. If those bullies live a certain distance from you and cannot call themselves American citizens. Your whole thought process only includes helping some oppressed humans. Those born within the geographical US. Not those outside this.

As seen your argument contradicts and is very much prejudice

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"Just and blessing"?  "Oppressed"?  "Racist"?  More of the language soup that gets us involved in these meaningless conflicts in the first place.

I assume Kurds are nice people.  I assume Sunnis are nice people.  I even assume Shi'ites are nice people.  Let them work out their own problems.  

We have no interest in their differences.  Why would we want to be entering their conflicts---only because Brits and Americans love to test weapons and kill babies.

Still avoiding the questions with misdirection with the first sentsence.

So you assume one ethnic group and two religious groups need to continue to suffer oppression, violence, murder and genocide, because you shy away from taking on bullies. If those bullies live a certain distance from you and cannot call themselves American citizens. Your whole thought process only includes helping some oppressed humans. Those born within the geographical US. Not those outside this.

As seen your argument contradicts and is very much prejudice

You still don't address the real question: why is it our business?  

"Oppression"?  "Violence"?  "Murder"?  "Genocide"?  "Bullies"?  More word soup.  They are all doing it to one another.  It's called conflict.  Not our business.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Still avoiding the questions with misdirection with the first sentsence.

So you assume one ethnic group and two religious groups need to continue to suffer oppression, violence, murder and genocide, because you shy away from taking on bullies. If those bullies live a certain distance from you and cannot call themselves American citizens. Your whole thought process only includes helping some oppressed humans. Those born within the geographical US. Not those outside this.

As seen your argument contradicts and is very much prejudice

You still don't address the real question: why is it our business.   "Oppression"?  "Violence"?  "Murder"?  "Genocide"?  "Bullies"?  More word soup.  They are all doing it to one another.  It's called conflict.  Not our business.

Why is it our buisness?

That is simple to answer, because some humans care what happens to more than those within the land they live in.

They wish for a day of peace, with people free from oppression.

You world view is limited and quite like a brexiter actually. You look to help those with no real difference in connection to you than people born world over. You chose instead to elevate some humans you want to help based on them living closer to you within the invented proximity of the borders of a country.

If you are against conflict and claim its not your business, then you cease to feel as a human does and only feel as some Americans and Breixters do. You are sounding more and more like a Republican everyday

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You still don't address the real question: why is it our business.   "Oppression"?  "Violence"?  "Murder"?  "Genocide"?  "Bullies"?  More word soup.  They are all doing it to one another.  It's called conflict.  Not our business.

Why is it our buisness?

That is simple to answer, because some humans care what happens to more than those within the land they live in.

They wish for a day of peace, with people free from oppression.

You world view is limited and quite like a brexiter actually. You look to help those with no real difference in connection to you than people born world over. You chose instead to elevate some humans you want to help based on them living closer to you within the invented proximity of the borders of a country.

If you are against conflict and claim its not your business, then you cease to feel as a human does and as an American does. You are sounding more and more like a Republican everyday

We don't even know which side we should take.  Kurds?  Sunnis?  Shi'ites?  They are all doing it to each other.  It's on-going.

Let's say we step in and impose a peace according to your reasons: end oppression, end vilence, end genocide, end murder...how?  By killing their babies?  

And what about their freedom to determine their own issues, on their own?  What?  Don't you believe in freedom and self-determination?? Maybe you should respect their rights a little bit more.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Why is it our buisness?

That is simple to answer, because some humans care what happens to more than those within the land they live in.

They wish for a day of peace, with people free from oppression.

You world view is limited and quite like a brexiter actually. You look to help those with no real difference in connection to you than people born world over. You chose instead to elevate some humans you want to help based on them living closer to you within the invented proximity of the borders of a country.

If you are against conflict and claim its not your business, then you cease to feel as a human does and as an American does. You are sounding more and more like a Republican everyday

We don't even know which side we should take.  Kurds?  Sunnis?  Shi'ites?  They are all doing it to each other.  It's on-going.

Let's say we step in and impose a peace according to your reasons: end oppression, end vilence, end genocide, end murder...how?  By killing their babies?  And what about their freedom to determine their own issues, on their own?  What?  Don't you believe in freedom and self-determination??

How about the one that frees all the people from a Tyranny like Saddams Iraq?
Are you not actually being fair to all with Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds, Yazidi's, Druze etc?

Some babies die as collateral damage in conflict, in Iraq the number of conventional civilian deaths was very small, less than 100. Sadly that is a small price to pay for freedom, but pails into comparison the deaths of millions under Saddam. I mean your argument is so poor you only care if babies die over conventional bombing, where some mistakes led to babies dying. As if that means the 500,000 murdered under Saddam as insignificant.

Please explain that to me?

So you still keep avoiding my questions

Here they are again



1) So North Vietnam never invaded, the US did, after being invited to come and support the South in the Vietnam war? The Vietnam war ins mainly condemned for the actions of the US in that war. Are you saying its wrong to defend the self determination of a people? North Vietnam invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Vietnamese.

2) That it was not North Korea that invaded the south apparently, but again the US invaded by being invited to defend the self determination of a people. North Korea invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Koreans.

3) Apparently the Kosovan genocide of Muslims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not the cause of the war, but western intervention to stop the genocide, according to Quill?  Come again

4) Apparently the Taliban never seized power through military means and ruled this country with barbarism. American freeing these people was clearly not just to Quill. I mean for the first time in years, Afghan girls can go to school and learn. Is that not just to fight for?

5) Apparently the cause to go to war in Iraq was unjust. I agree, it was based on a lie, but was the freeing of the Iraq people from Saddam unjust?

Also after this, show me how you think the rights and self determination of the Iraq people were being met under Saddam?

I mean this really epitomizes how people are in fact inherently racist or selfish and hypocritical. When they back the view to be selective off over who they try to help when oppressed.

Its like a white American only helping another White American when mugged. Or visa versa with black. Humans invent things like race, borders geographically etc, in order so they can sleep sounded at night being utter hypocrites over who they chose to help when oppressed.

I mean why else say you back the view to help those oppressed, if only then you place a barrier to deny you helping them, based on geography and nationalism? You by doing so make yourself automatically the worst hypocrite going.

If you back the view its just to help those oppressed, then you clearly have to back the view to help any humans oppressed.

Thorin wrote:How about the one that frees all the people from a Tyranny like Saddams Iraq?
Are you not actually being fair to all with Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds, Yazidi's, Druze etc?

It's all subjective.  How about the UK stepping in and ridding us of Trump.  Would that not be "fair to all"?

Well...but some people like Trump.  Some people like Hillary.  There is no neutral point.

You assume there is some right way...some normalcy to the world.  There is no such thing.  There are simply people who must work out their differences.

You live in an unquestioning world, didge.  Maybe if you questioned more things you might learn that there is no neutral point.

If we stepped in and imposed our neutrality, would that not just be another competing viewpoint?  And wouldn't it mean more guns, bombs and killing in order to impose our vision of neutrality?  These so-called peacekeepers don't go in with warm puppies and candy for kids. They always seem to have guns.

Why, when there is enough killing and horror in the world, do you want to contribute more?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:How about the one that frees all the people from a Tyranny like Saddams Iraq?
Are you not actually being fair to all with Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds, Yazidi's, Druze etc?

It's all subjective.  How about the UK stepping in and ridding us of Trump.  Would that not be "fair to all"?

Well...but some people like Trump.  Some people like Hillary.  There is no neutral point.

You assume there is some right way...some normalcy to the world.  There is no such thing.  There are simple people who must work out their differences.

You live in an unquestioning world, didge.  Maybe if you questioned more things you might learn that there is no neutral point.

If we stepped in and imposed our neutrality, would that just be another competing viewpoint?  And wouldn't it mean more guns, bombs and killing in order to impose our vision of neutrality?  These so-called peacekeepers don't go in with warm puppies and candy for kids.

Why, when there is enough killing and horror in the world, do you want to contribute more?

1) I am not going off subjective views per say but on views you back and thus clearly contradict on. Have not many of us backed the view to rid Trump but lawful and peaceful means here in the UK? If it got to the point where he installed himself as life dictator and then actually started abusing countless Americans, you would certainly have my support.

2) Clearly you back the right way as you back civil rights. If civil rights is right as I know you believe, then why should this not be universal? Why do you only extended this to the US? So as you already believe in ways to you that are right and stands in the face of oppression. Ho can you then be against freeing people from such oppression?

Do you see how you constantly contradict?

3) Ho are we stepping in neutrally? I doubt we thought we were being neutral from freeing the Afghan people from the Taliban. We were on the side of the oppressed, taking on the oppressors.

4) Well doing nothing causes far more loss of life than an actual war to free those said people from that tyrant.
What people then end up doing with that freedom is then based on their own judgement. Which we may have to need to help again on, when others oppress. Half a million murdered by Saddam, and a million more dead in the Iraq and Iran war. How do you compute that number to the sadly small number of civilian deaths as casualty bombings?

Oh and I am still waiting for an answer to my questions Quill

I answer yours and you constantly evade mine

This boils down to one thing.

Those who are hypocrites who call just wars unjust, are utter cowards

Those who do not distinguish between who is oppressed and that they are oppressed and stand up up for all those oppressed are indeed brave.

To distinguish, the left are cowards and actually more so racist. They care only as religious people do, for those they view as their own.

Sometimes oppression happens on both sides. What you must do is still defend the oppressed on both sides.

You defend each of their civil rights.

Quill is a consciences objector, who has no intention of putting himself in danger whatever the circumstances. We had a few in Nam, they carried no weapons except for medical supplies. They were very brave. Would you do that Quill?

Thorin wrote:Oh and I am still waiting for an answer to my questions Quill

I answer yours and you constantly evade mine

What question?  You've not asked any relevant question.  I distill your posts down to relevance before I address them.  That way we can have a meaningful, continuous dialogue.

Thorin wrote:This boils down to one thing.

Those who are hypocrites who call just wars unjust, are utter cowards

Those who do not distinguish between who is oppressed and that they are oppressed and stand up up for all those oppressed are indeed brave.

To distinguish, the left are cowards and actually more so racist. They care only as religious people do, for those they view as their own.

And those who simply refuse to communicate are not contributing.  You are an authoritarian, as we proved on the other thread.  Those who see the world in authoritarian terms, see only black and white.  You don't engage beyond their side and our side.  You need to broaden your thinking.

Words like "cowards" or "oppressed" or "racists" have no meaning without a context.  Without a context, they are just a word soup of good and bad.  It's like you are in a kindergarten class...mommy and daddy are good, all others bad.  It's that childish.

In order to have context, you have to take sides.  The Sunnis call the Shi'ites the "oppressors", and vice versa.  The Kurds call the Sunnis and Shi'ites the "oppressors" and "racists'.  AND...you have to take sides in order to embrace either of their perspectives.

If you have no dog in the fight, why take sides?

Thorin wrote:Sometimes oppression happens on both sides. What you must do is still defend the oppressed on both sides.

You defend each of their civil rights.

There are no oppressed.  The oppressed are the bad guys, one to the other, and vice-versa, only in context.  There is no neutrality.  There's only conflict.  If you reach down into the conflict, you can find the "oppressed" on either side, but then you are within their conflict.  The conflict defines 'good' and 'bad'.  But once you take sides, once again you are killing babies with no dog in the fight.

More importantly, you're imposing your wishes, and not concerned about their wishes.  So much for freedom and self-determination.  I know you envision playing mommy with squabbling kids, but all mommy is doing is calling for peace and quiet...that's her agenda.  With this approach, you just become another oppressor.  That's why we get into these 10-year wars, with no purpose.

By imposing 'peace and quiet' you are serving your purposes, but you are doing nothing to settle matters.  By imposing 'peace and quiet', you are simply ignoring the real issue...leaving it for another day, when it will erupt again.

nicko wrote:Quill is a consciences objector, who has no intention of putting himself in danger whatever the circumstances. We had a few in Nam,  they carried no weapons except for medical supplies.  They were very brave. Would you do that Quill?

You miss the point entirely.  I would never be there in the first place.

Ask yourself: who won?  Do you even care?  Right...because you never had a dog in the fight, anyway.  You were just there to kill babies and prove you were the baddest guy.

Listen to what didge is saying...did you ever save an oppressed person in Viet Nam?  How could you tell who was the oppressor and who was the oppressed?  You were there just to shoot the shit out of anyone who moved.

Classic case, Viet Nam.  Proves my point.

War doesn't ever solve anything and it seems to kill more people than it claims to save.  I've always been in the same way of thinking as Quill on this topic; I dont understand why certain countries have to get involved in other countries' disputes.  I know the arguments about saving bullied people etc but when has getting involved ever solved anything?

I'm not an historian with facts and figures bursting from within, so I'll get blasted off the thread by a cannonball of facts but it still doesn't change the fundemental fact that the catchy song is right:

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

(Except making rich people richer.)

eddie wrote:War doesn't ever solve anything and it seems to kill more people than it claims to save.  I've always been in the same way of thinking as Quill on this topic; I dont understand why certain countries have to get involved in other countries' disputes.  I know the arguments about saving bullied people etc but when has getting involved ever solved anything?

I'm not an historian with facts and figures bursting from within, so I'll get blasted off the thread by a cannonball of facts but it still doesn't change the fundemental fact that the catchy song is right:

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

(Except making rich people richer.)

+1. Well stated. I don't know a cannonball of facts that can outdo you in what you've just said. The logic is simple, and it was clearly stated by Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz: if you haven't got a reason to go to war, stay out of it.

Clausewitz was a Prussian general and military theorist who stressed the "moral" and political aspects of war. He wrote: "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means." Therefore, look to your political reasons (what do you intend to achieve?) in order make sense of the conflict.

I keep repeating: Do you have a dog in the fight? If not, you have got no reason for going to war...nor joining in someone else's war. It's well and good to say you want to make the world a better place, but better for who? There's no "better place" if you haven't already got a "better place".

"I WAS JUST THERE TO KILL BABIES" You don't have a fucking clue do you? I never killed any babies, In fact I recued 3 from burning houses.

Now Quill ,i'm going to tell you some truths about the VC who you think were "oppressed" and were treated badly by us. We were sent to a village whose inhabitants had complained they were being harassed by the VC who were demanding they fed them and were kidnapping young men and girls to fight with them. When we got to the Village it was burning and we found the Head Man who had complained about the VC, he was lying on the ground out side his burning house,his wife and teenage Daughter had been raped and shot.HE WAS LYING THERE WITH A BAMBOO SPEAR PINNING HIS LITTLE DAUGHTER TO HIM THROUGH THEIR STOMACHS !! We tracked them for two days, there were 6 of them, we killed them all.
You know fuck all about war and the men who had to fight it, rant over.

It's not about what you did and what you saw nicko, it's about whether or not one believes in war.
And I don't.

Original Quill wrote:
What question? You've not asked any relevant question. I distill your posts down to relevance before I address them. That way we can have a meaningful, continuous dialogue.


And those who simply refuse to communicate are not contributing.  You are an authoritarian, as we proved on the other thread.  Those who see the world in authoritarian terms, see only black and white.  You don't engage beyond their side and our side.  You need to broaden your thinking.

Words like "cowards" or "oppressed" or "racists" have no meaning without a context.  Without a context, they are just a word soup of good and bad.  It's like you are in a kindergarten class...mommy and daddy are good, all others bad.  It's that childish.

In order to have context, you have to take sides.  The Sunnis call the Shi'ites the "oppressors", and vice versa.  The Kurds call the Sunnis and Shi'ites the "oppressors" and "racists'.  AND...you have to take sides in order to embrace either of their perspectives.

If you have no dog in the fight, why take sides?


By imposing 'peace and quiet' you are serving your purposes, but you are doing nothing to settle matters.  By imposing 'peace and quiet', you are simply ignoring the real issue...leaving it for another day, when it will erupt again.

Never seen such a long reply that still evaded every single point and question raised and now claiming you decide whether to answer something as if you have the ability to decide

I see nothing to offer any view that you do

1) So we are back to making this about me claiming I am authoritarian and not even taking on the points of what is just. This is not about me but what is just in trying to help those oppressed, of which you continually avoid.

2) Okay you claim words like oppressed have no meaning without context? Really, how is 500,000 murdered through genocide not context enough for you by Saddam? Then we have you again desperately come out with more childish remarks about me and not the actual points raised to you.

3) Yes I have shown you sides. Saddam and his Baathist party against the vast majority of Iraqis. Those on the receiving end of that being the Kurds and Shias. Who during the First Iraq War rose up against Saddam, whilst the west sat back and watch as yet again another 200,000 lost their lives. I mean I can spend all day long educating you on oppression, but at no point and here is the telling part. Is you condemn Saddam for his regime. Which if you did would mean you would have to concede to my point of oppression.

I got bored reading the rest that never addressed any of my qeustions

h and I am still waiting for an answer to my questions Quill

I answer yours and you constantly evade mine

This boils down to one thing.

Those who are hypocrites who call just wars unjust, are utter cowards

Those who do not distinguish between who is oppressed and that they are oppressed and stand up up for all those oppressed are indeed brave.

To distinguish, the left are cowards and actually more so racist. They care only as religious people do, for those they view as their own.

Sometimes oppression happens on both sides. What you must do is still defend the oppressed on both sides.

You defend each of their civil rights.

1) So North Vietnam never invaded, the US did, after being invited to come and support the South in the Vietnam war? The Vietnam war ins mainly condemned for the actions of the US in that war. Are you saying its wrong to defend the self determination of a people? North Vietnam invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Vietnamese.

2) That it was not North Korea that invaded the south apparently, but again the US invaded by being invited to defend the self determination of a people. North Korea invaded because they wished to impose their communism on the South Koreans.

3) Apparently the Kosovan genocide of Muslims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not the cause of the war, but western intervention to stop the genocide, according to Quill? Come again

4) Apparently the Taliban never seized power through military means and ruled this country with barbarism. American freeing these people was clearly not just to Quill. I mean for the first time in years, Afghan girls can go to school and learn. Is that not just to fight for?

5) Apparently the cause to go to war in Iraq was unjust. I agree, it was based on a lie, but was the freeing of the Iraq people from Saddam unjust?

Also after this, show me how you think the rights and self determination of the Iraq people were being met under Saddam?

eddie wrote:War doesn't ever solve anything and it seems to kill more people than it claims to save.  I've always been in the same way of thinking as Quill on this topic; I dont understand why certain countries have to get involved in other countries' disputes.  I know the arguments about saving bullied people etc but when has getting involved ever solved anything?

I'm not an historian with facts and figures bursting from within, so I'll get blasted off the thread by a cannonball of facts but it still doesn't change the fundemental fact that the catchy song is right:

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

(Except making rich people richer.)

Plenty has been solved.
Lets just take Kosovo and Bosnia for example.
How many were saved from getting involved to help our fellow human beings.
What you are being very selfish and very poor indeed. That geography separates us from helping those who indeed need help.

So in both these conflicts, have we seen a return to genocide or is there now peace?

Lets take Live aid, why help people starving based on your concept?

I mean what does it say when people argue and claim to care for people, when they then place a barrier geographically not to help people?

If the view is to help people, then there is no reason not to. Only then humans are making exceptions to what other humans they help. You have just argued the same contradiction argument as quill.

If you only want to help people within the confines of a man made boundary of a country, then you clearly do not really believe in humans, just those with an inventive label. That of being British or in Quill's case American.

eddie wrote:It's not about what you did and what you saw nicko, it's about whether or not one believes in war.
And I don't.

This is not even about war per say but whether you believe in helping those who are oppressed and suffer the worst forms of abuse to human rights. Whether everyone should stand against them. Sometimes armed action is need to stop those who commit the worst abuses.

So that is what you need to ask yourself and weigh up the balance of cost by such naivety that you hold here.

This is my last word on the subject, because it hurts me to remember.
When the North took over the South the VC took away thousands of people to "re-educate" them. The re-education consisted of murdering thousands of the South Vietnese Soldiers and civilians and putting thousands more into Labour camps, [nice people eh].I saw what they did to captured soldiers and it wasn't nice. It was not MY fault this war happened ,and Quill, you were not there.! You have no right to disrespect those who were !!

I gave you a green for what you saw and for doing your duty. They're are always two sides of the story, yours was first hand.

War, no matter who or why are not wanted but sometimes they are necessary, as in WW2. WW1 was the biggest excuse for never wanting a war, which saw millions sent to their deaths, for what? Because some Archduke was murdered in a country where I bet no one had heard of in those days.

War is horrible, no one wants another one, let's hope we never do.

nicko wrote:This is my last word on the subject,  because it hurts me to remember.
When the North took over the South the VC took away thousands of people to "re-educate" them.   The re-education consisted of murdering thousands of the South Vietnese Soldiers and civilians and putting thousands more into Labour camps, [nice people eh].I saw what they did to captured soldiers and it wasn't nice.   It was not MY fault this war happened ,and Quill, you were not there.!  You have no right to disrespect those who were !!

I'm suprised, as you were there, later in life you didn't think to find out what you actually took part in.   No, the Vietcong weren't nice, I know, I helped to write the history of the New Zealand Air Force in Vietnam.   However, the South were completely corrupt and Vietnam had been colonised, given it's freedom and then forcibly colonised again (by the French).  They were aided in that re-colonisation by the USA after the war, the war in which the Vietnamese fought very bravely against the Japanese.   Our forces were used to overpower them because the West decided they didn't want to give up power there.

If you really want to know how you were being used as dupe and were helping the USA with is napalm and agent orange here's a bit of reading for you :  https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-origins-2361335   That's just the first page, you have to go to the next chapter at the bottom.   It might open your eyes Nicko.

sassy wrote:

nicko wrote:This is my last word on the subject,  because it hurts me to remember.
When the North took over the South the VC took away thousands of people to "re-educate" them.   The re-education consisted of murdering thousands of the South Vietnese Soldiers and civilians and putting thousands more into Labour camps, [nice people eh].I saw what they did to captured soldiers and it wasn't nice.   It was not MY fault this war happened ,and Quill, you were not there.!  You have no right to disrespect those who were !!

I'm suprised, as you were there, later in life you didn't think to find out what you actually took part in.   No, the Vietcong weren't nice, I know, I helped to write the history of the New Zealand Air Force in Vietnam.   However, the South were completely corrupt and Vietnam had been colonised, given it's freedom and then forcibly colonised again (by the French).  They were aided in that re-colonisation by the USA after the war, the war in which the Vietnamese fought very bravely against the Japanese.   Our forces were used to overpower them because the West decided they didn't want to give up power there.

If you really want to know how you were being used as dupe and were helping the USA with is napalm and agent orange here's a bit of reading for you :  https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-origins-2361335   That's just the first page, you have to go to the next chapter at the bottom.   It might open your eyes Nicko.

Duped?
So defending the self determination of the South from the invasion from the North enforcing their views on the South is being duped?

WTF?


Nicko was not responsible for acts committed by the US, not only is that daft, but shows how little you understand of the exemplary record the Aussies had in Vietnam.

My mates and I had no interest in the politics of the situation, we never gave them a thought. The only interest we had was staying alive, and if that ment killing the enemy, so be it !!