misaltas

...but Iraq was not... Hmm, this thread started about the Soviet Union, so for many reasons I'm going to resist having us slide this into yet another tired Iraq thread. That topic is played out and anyone who has an unflinching view has already exhausted their opinions years ago. Your comment that I first replied to was of a generic nature, my reply was generic. Let's keep it that way and assume that the concepts apply to any offense, defense, attack, or war; including Iraq if you wish. The reason i mentioned other Innocent people is as you have stated your self war always comes with collateral damage. I was trying to see how one could justify that. Yes, I understood what you were asking. And I'm sure I answered that at least a couple different ways IMO the only manner under which this could ever be justified. but _(whoever)_ was not threatening us in the slightest. In general, UN resolutions to disarm typically aren't imposed upon regimes who are not threatening in the slightest. But then that assumes that all parties consider the UN to be an impartial body, which not all do. using your logic we have committed mass murder Since you choose to use *my* logic, then use it all the way. Let me help. One could argue that if a war was started by a group whose objective was more tragedy than if war wasn't engaged, and that their objective was away from peace and not towards it, then yes, one could say that was mass murder, war crimes, etc. So what do we do so this does not happen again? Already answered that. IMO one last time. Ensure that if you choose war it's because the tragic cost of not doing so would be worse, and that your motivation is to achieve a more peaceful result in the end. Who assesses this cost? Let's also assume that the person making this assessment is a reasonable person acting in good faith. Imperfect humans will often disagree on what exactly figures to be 'reasonable' and 'good faith'. We're not going to solve that on a skydiving forum. i don't think anyone can take that amount of unnecessary death that lightly I agree. Never can this be taken lightly. IMO i think we have switched from a defensive position to an offensive one. And that there is the conflict of ideas. what can any of those countries do to us? We've already seen what a minutely tiny group of determined people can do to the most powerful nation in the history of humanity. Imagine if they had a covertly deployed wmd. if Iraq would have done anything within minuets of their first strike there whole world would be on fire. that threat alone is enough for no country to fuck with us. Just think if a country in the Middle East actually declares war on us, do you know what would happen? they would be sent back to the stone age. You are using an outdated model. I agree with you that the deterrent value of the US having the strongest military and economy in the world is enough to prevent a frontal, exposed attack from a recognized nation who openly declares war on us (say, pearl harbor). No doubt. Enemies however are smarter and more wily than that. Attacks on the US are sure to be much less transparent, and it could take quite a while to figure out who the true aggressor was. we simply do not need to be so ready to go to war. Any nation who wishes to survive should be ready to go to war against a nation or organization who threatens them and has the motive and capability and intent to attack. My original point to you was that if we wait for the first strike, that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to accept, imo. I think deadly force/war is only justified when someone comes in to your place, home, country, etc with intent to harm. But in a previous post, you said that deadly force can only be used after you are first attacked. Perhaps we're in a semantic stuggle over the word "attacked"? I think we lose all moral ground when we become the aggressor. True. But one person's aggressor is another's active defender/preventor. What I learned in infantry school is that every defense must be an active defense. You still run patrols and establish your influence otherwise you're a sitting duck. If we only act on fear then we have already lost the fight. If we only act on fear, yes, I agree. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

So the threat alone is enough to kill people over? No. The threat is enough to take action proportionate to the threat. If the attack is confirmed and imminent, then I'd rather not wait for MY innocents to die before doing something. So at a bar if some guy says "i am going to kill you" i can take my gun out and empty all 16 rounds? No. But if he has a weapon, he threatens, and I assess that he's going to use it, he's going down first. Want to prevent that, don't threaten. I'm not waiting for him to shoot, stab, bash me before I feel I have the moral high ground to do something to protect myself, friends, family. and if i hit a few people who just happen to be at the same place that's ok? No. You're normally good for logical debate. You went a little over the edge with that one. But ok. Are those people in the same place there before he shoots me or after I'm down bleeding? even if he is smaller and is sure to lose the fight? Ugh. You're slipping dude. C'mon Darius, we were almost having an honest debate here. But ok, mark me down for "proportionate response +1". Small != less deadly. Another problem with that logic; Who tells us of a threat? I used the word "confirmed" in my OP. Perfect? Nope, sorry we're humans. That's the risk you take when you threaten another imperfect human. Me? I'd rather live in peace with everyone. we know what has happened in the past when the people we trust say a country is an eminent threat. how do you justify the hundreds of thousands of Innocent men, woman,and children killed? War is always tragic of course, and it is only justified if you're convinced that not engaging in it will cause more tragedy. My concern is to minimize tragedy and innocent suffering, not maximize it. That would be ridiculous. Is that what you're advocating? I doubt it. Also if the US uses the threat of violence or nuclear devastation do the words alone justify an attack on us? Or is that different somehow? Yes, it's different somehow. It's different if the threat is defensive or offensive. Since the 40s, you could say the US has always had a standing threat of using nuclear weapons in very certain proportional defensive situations. As I said in another thread, war can only be morally justified when it is engaged as a struggle to return to peace and when you're convinced not doing so will be worse. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Well, if you pull that one sentence out of the context of my larger post, then sure. Go ahead and change 'wrong' to 'incomplete'. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

What do you mean 'how?' Didn't you and I just essentially say the same thing? Except I added the bit about US&UK-led coalition probably failing without USSR's involvement? Either you didn't read my post before replying, or I simply don't understand your point. I'll admit the latter is quite possible. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Whoa, hold on there now fella. Proactively attacking after diplomacy fails in order to prevent greater tragedy later would surely have not gone over too well here in dz.com speaker's corner... Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

And while we're at it... Can we who are Americans finally acknowledge that as students of history, it's fairly assured that while the UK couldn't've defeated Germany without the US's help, the US likewise couldn't have accomplished it without the UK's efforts? And that neither nor both of us could've accomplished it without the USSR? The whole "limeys would be speaking German now were it not for us" is tiring and simply wrong. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

I for one am not ok with allowing that kind of sacrifice. Confirmed hostile intent is good enough. A choice for war should be about minimizing tragedy, not maximizing it. It's about striving to return to a peaceful situation, not the other way around. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

War is always a choice. You should choose it when you figure that the cost of inaction will in the short or long run be worse than the cost of action. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

This set of legislators have no problem telling people on their own websites about their own legislative accomplishments: Susan Collins Michael Brennan Jackie Speier Karin Brownlee Adam Kline ...dozens more thru The Google. just sayin' Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Ugh. Those charges don't sound nearly as serious as the actual crime. Sounds like I grabbed my brother in a headlock and gave him noogies. Is this a bad prosecutor or is Canadian law that weak? Hope this isn't a plea down thing, walk after a few months. This guy needs 10-15 minimum. Frustrating. He doesn't deserve to be that lucky. He would have had the rest of his life to remember why he's blind. Too bad. Glad to hear she came out of it alive and kickin'. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

I don't see anyone here, or in the previous thread saying that. So let's break it down, and we can be civil about it: 1) Matthews asked "what are some of BO's legislative accomplishments", not list some bills BO passed individually. 2) Plenty of the websites of state and federal legislators list their own "Legislative Accomplishments". They use that exact phrase and list work they did and bills they wrote, sponsored, advocated, etc. Are they wrong? Again, we're back to Matthews simply caught a BO supporter not knowing anything about what he did in the Senate. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Oh, those are good rules. I'm going to adopt some and try 'em out. Thanks. One way to win that sometimes works is to go up against two others and let them wear and attrit each other down to size. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

LOL as far as Risk is concerned there are only two ways to win. And always remember... the Ukraine is WEAK!! Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Yeah BUddy. I mean, I dig Vegas, but it's a town built on losers not winners. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

I think that's pretty cool you took the time and effort to step in, in a situation that so many in our modern US culture nowadays would simply not have the time for. I think you're doing the right thing. Good on you. I would've and have done the same finding the opportunity to help. Glad to know someone else would too. There certainly seems to be something fishy going on, and this guy's situation should be pretty easy to fix provided his loan doesn't include some type of fees or penalty for paying off early (with that refinanced loan). >Well, my last name is Rodriguez and although I am >actually Cuban of Spanish descent the typical >Anglo-America is too stupid to tell the difference. Ouch. If I knew you, that might have stung. I'll admit, put to the test, this white guy would have trouble discerning someone from Cuba from someone from Mexico, from someone from Argentina, from a latino who lives in North Carolina. Interesting to know that folks like you think that makes me stupid. (ed. sp. term.) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Ridiculous euphemism? I think quite a bit of this thread is ridiculous. At this time, it seems most blacks in the US prefer to refer to themselves, and for others to refer to them as African-American. So, it doesn't matter to me whether the words that make up that term are etymologically correct nor what the land mass of Canada is in hectares. When I'm in a position to need a term to use, I'll prefer the term those it applies to prefer. That way, when that term is later ditched for something else, and that one is ditched for something else, I'll always be ready with the one that shows the most respect and is the most understood. Oh, and I am a US citizen who (right or wrong to you) prefers the term "American". Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

NEVER I hope, my GOD how boring would that be Sure, but admit it, cricket is thiiiiiiis* much more exciting than baseball. And way more international for anyone over the age of 12. (*Finger and thumb about 0.5cm apart, but then I'm sure everyone guessed that.) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Different handball. As bat-ball-field sports go, Cricket is a lot more international than baseball or softball. Glad baseball is going away, and wondering when cricket will show up. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[replyHow many pro choicers would have a problem with a woman that...aborted every month Doesn't have to be one or the other. I think abortion is morally and tragically wrong, and I am pro-choice. I wouldn't have a "problem" as you say with that woman, because I have no business telling her what she can't do with her pregnancy and her body, nor any business at all in even giving her my opinion unless asked for. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Yes! But the techs over at ILM better work pretty hard to match the production quality of the original... Sleestaks!!! But Will Ferrell as the lead? I don't get it. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Ah, cool. It's just from your words I didn't and don't see an order being given. (Sorry to go on like this, but I'm a former army commissioned infantry officer, and thus a stalwart defender of NCOs and their duties and responsibilities.) >the major's hair was not outside of regulations And again, one of the many circumstances surrounding this of which I was sure I was unaware. apologies. But while I have momentum, I'll keep shooting off my mouth... Another mistake by the TSgt was offering a three-day grace period. Reg corrections need to take place as soon as practical and it doesn't take three days to fix a hair problem. She should've handled the correction professionally or written it up right then. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

And men have no say in the decision as to if their child is "terminated" or not? Sounds fair. So much for "equal rights". A man's first and best decision in the matter is to choose carefully the person with whom he chooses to reproduce. I believe abortion when both lives aren't fatally threatened is wrong. I also believe that my beliefs are mine to apply to me. All I'm saying is that whether I think it's murder or not, as long as woman is gestating, the decision for how to complete the process is hers and no one else's to make. (ed.spelling) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Let's see. The major hid behind her rank to excuse her own regulation violation. Now that's unprofessional. In the US Army (or at least when I was in), such a correction, while awkward, would be covered by General Military Authority, especially given that the one making the correction is an NCO. That said, the NCO has the duty to make the correction, and also the duty to preserve order and discipline. The way to do both would be to point out the problem, one-on-one, no write up threat needed (but still not technically wrong.) So, not knowing the other circumstances, just I'd say on the face of it the TSgt was doing her duty. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

My fetus, I would alert the media. If I were a woman, I believe I would never abort a pregnancy unless two doctors could convince me that continuing the gestation would kill us both. My s.o's fetus or any other woman?: her body, her decision, regardless of whatever the reason might be, Down diagnosis or whatever. Blows my mind that the abortion debate really doesn't start and end that simply. My body, my decision, your body, your decision. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Whoa... Seconded! The Reinheitsgebot rules! Or at least those brewers who still adhere to it. Like Spaten... Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts