BF2S Forums In your opinion, when is war justified?

Only if human rights abuses are in the extremes, is what most of you mean to say.  Is having someone live in a 12 by 9 cell for 20 years human rights abuse?  I think so.  That's the standard for Floridas death row.

Practically every country abuse human rights in extremely minor ways.  But it's the big abusers like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, USSR, etc. that it is justifiable for, I think.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-05-30 04:26:29)

when god tells you it is. lol jking but that is how some ppl feel.

i kinda agree with [R3n]izzy, however aristotle said himself "in time of peace we prepare for war" the sad thing is that this is still true today when it shouldnt be.

Y0URDAD wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Only if human rights abuses are in the extremes, is what most of you mean to say.  Is having someone live in a 12 by 9 cell for 20 years human rights abuse?  I think so.  That's the standard for Floridas death row.

Yeah, what have all the convicted felons on death row done to deserve their rights taken away?

[R3n wrote:

izzy]war is justified when
A: some one's got a big gun to you're head ( not literally of course )
B: some one's got a gun to an allied country
C: when an other country is performing genocide
and in my opinion that's it, all else is just greed and religion

I submit that Saddam Hussein's actions fall under your justifications "B" and "C".

I assume that the allied country of which you speak is Israel. Most Europeans do not regard Israel as an ally but as a human rights abuser themselves who continually contravene international law (much like Saddam Hussein did).

Vilham wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I assume that the allied country of which you speak is Israel. Most Europeans do not regard Israel as an ally but as a human rights abuser themselves who continually contravene international law (much like Saddam Hussein did).

im a euro and i dont feel that. What pisses me off about that is the stupidity of it, the palestinians just keep fucking themselves by attacking israel when peace talks are going on.

Fair enough. I would have to disagree however. Israel takes their farms, bulldozes their houses in collective punishment exercises, interns people, builds walls around Palestinians separating them from services and relatives, makes long distance travel impossible for Palestinians, builds settlements on stolen land, discriminates against their own ethnic minority of arabs, won't allow them to have ports, airports or borders which are in the control of palestinians, won't concede that East Jerusalem is part of Palestine, won't allow the 2m or so Palestinians they drove out of their homes in 1948 to return to their homes. If that were done to me I'd be bloody sure not to sit there and take it like a bitch. The Israelis have never been seriously committed to lasting peace anyway, nor one could argue have the Palestinians I must concede.

When you are running short of oil, duh!

Y0URDAD wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Only if human rights abuses are in the extremes, is what most of you mean to say.  Is having someone live in a 12 by 9 cell for 20 years human rights abuse?  I think so.  That's the standard for Floridas death row.

Yeah, what have all the convicted felons on death row done to deserve their rights taken away?

[R3n wrote:

izzy]war is justified when
A: some one's got a big gun to you're head ( not literally of course )
B: some one's got a gun to an allied country
C: when an other country is performing genocide
and in my opinion that's it, all else is just greed and religion

I submit that Saddam Hussein's actions fall under your justifications "B" and "C".

Under your logic, they deserve nothing.  I mean, because they've taken other people lives, maybe raped a few before they did, that means we can do anything we want to them, too.  Why not torture them? 

Part of respecting human rights is respecting criminals rights, too.  By being inhumane to criminals you are being inhumane.  The fact that that one criminal did something horrible doesn't give you the right to do something horrible to them.

You are no better than the murderer if you don't treat them humanely while they're in prison.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-05-30 07:01:23)

ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:

WWII in my opinion is the only just war that has ever happened ever. There was no need for the Falklands, no need for Vietnam, no need for Korean.

Though this is my opinion. Compromise should sort everything out. Though people argue.

Tell somebody from South Korea that there was no need for the Korean War and if they agree then I will listen to you.

Spearhead Said
"Under your logic, they deserve nothing.  I mean, because they've taken other people lives, maybe raped a few before they did, that means we can do anything we want to them, too.  Why not torture them?"


Yes Torture before Death and shown on live T.V.   Let somebody from or all of the victim(s) family do the torture and the death and only the victim(s) family can stop it.  An Eye for an Eye would solve alot of crime in the world.

And also How big of a cell does a murderer deserve?  I say a box about the same size that the victim is in.

Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-05-30 07:37:36)

War is Peace

Read the War is Peace section.

I think war is justified, when it's a war for freedom. And by a war for freedom I understand a war against a foreign agressor.

specops10-4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

It is acceptable to declare war on a sovereign nation when that nation has declared war on your nation or is occupying your nation. It is also acceptable if your nation has been agressed against by a conventional army.

It is not acceptable to declare war on a nation to root out guerrilla soldiers that have no connection to the government of a particular country but might reside in or have come from that country.

LOL, you are just trying to say Bush had NO reason at all to attack, what if the guerrilla soldiers are suppressing the nation and they have a large force that is comparable to a conventional army?

Please I do not want another one of these battle, but you cannot attack a certain person, no matter how vaguely.

To attack who? I suppose I should rephrase. If the country is already a failed state with a completely ineffective government, such as Colombia, then you could provide military aid to that government to get things under control. Bypassing the goovernment by intervening militarily yourself would not be respecting the sovereignty of that nation.

War is always "justified".  By that, I do not mean it is always right.  But somehow, some way it will always be justified by the ones who initiated it ,or the way History is written afterward.  I believe military action should be taken for all the reasons of defense listed before my post.  I do not believe a sustained military action to iniliate an opposing view, force, or religion is ever justified.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-05-30 12:36:14)

splixx wrote:

BN wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

When the Commander-in-Chief says its time to go.  no questions asked

Hitler said it was time to go.

Bingo

whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit. 

so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN.  Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck.  But regardless,  as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose. 

im not white asshole

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-30 14:52:20)

never