When is war acceptable?

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
2

When is war acceptable?
Tweet Topic Started: Mar 10 2014, 02:14 PM (1,154 Views)
+ Steve	Mar 11 2014, 03:32 AM Post #16
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Sousen Ichimonji Mar 11 2014, 01:00 AM I would be delighted to know the basis behind this statement. Kim Jong Il? KIm Jong Un? Or are they great and respectable leaders who make fabulous choices for their leaders and their people? People like that should never have any kind of power. Instances where military intervention has lead to worse things are probably only when they waited too long to do something, Iraq was only invaded when they were thought to have WMD's weren't they? Obviously s* was hitting the fan before then, countries don't act quick enough I'd say and that's when it bites them in the a, if you let the genocidical a**** get a grip of their people it's much harder to resolve the situation. I don't think leaving them to it is the right way to go, there will be rebellion sure but they're not always going to have the resources or leadership to win power back. Like North Korea they have like 5 million soldiers or something don't they? The civilians if they wanted to could just never oppose that without outside help. In those circumstances it's like leaving an injured rabbit to defend itself against a fox under the assumption that everything will be ok in the end.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


+ Pelador	Mar 11 2014, 03:42 AM Post #17
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	You can't invade a country just because you don't agree with how they do things. Otherwise they have every right to do the same to you. You can only judge a leader's performance in hindsight. Nobody could have known at the time that Kim Il Sung would turn out to be such a tyrannical leader with a legacy of equally terrible sons. Nobody was to know the horrors that Idi Amin would create in Uganda during the 1970s. So it's all very well saying well they shouldn't have been given any power but people aren't psychic. That is why interfering is generally a bad idea.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


Master Gohan	Mar 11 2014, 12:21 PM Post #18
Posts: 2,178 Group: New York Yankee Member #9,780 Joined: July 21, 2013 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime KIll la Kill, No Game No Life, Code Geass, Gosick, Log Horizon, Steins;Gate	Pelador Mar 11 2014, 01:30 AM It is immoral because whilst in the short term it appears as though you are helping people, in the long term you are creating a whole bunch of problems to make life even worse for them. Lets use Iraq as an example. No one will deny that Saddam was a genocidal maniac who committed many crimes against humanity. A bunch of countries intervene and removed him from power. What happened over the next few years? Another example we can look at is Vietnam. Many leaders at the time believed that they were helping the country by intervening. We all know how that turned out. You think Africa would be as messed up as it is if we had left it alone instead of trying to control the politics of various African nations? History is littered with countries who believed what they were doing was for the greater good, only to have it bite them in the a*** a few years later. I believe that if you leave them alone, they will eventually overthrow the tyrants themselves and make a heck of a lot better decisions about how the new leadership should be brought in than we ever could. You can talk about Vietnam and Iraq, but there will always be times when war is 100% needed. Such as WWII. Sometimes countries have to go to war.



+ Pelador	Mar 11 2014, 12:56 PM Post #19
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	America didn't think so in the beginning. It was only when their sovereignty was threatened that they took action. Which is fair enough of course.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


Master Gohan	Mar 11 2014, 01:44 PM Post #20
Posts: 2,178 Group: New York Yankee Member #9,780 Joined: July 21, 2013 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime KIll la Kill, No Game No Life, Code Geass, Gosick, Log Horizon, Steins;Gate	Pelador Mar 11 2014, 12:56 PM America didn't think so in the beginning. It was only when their sovereignty was threatened that they took action. Which is fair enough of course. That's what I mean. When they were attacked, war was acceptable.



Cal	Mar 11 2014, 07:37 PM Post #21
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade! Posts: 5,259 Group: Member Member #6,087 Joined: April 25, 2011 Gender Female Favourite Anime hentai What Browser do you use? hentaibrowser Favourite Manga hentai	Pelador Mar 11 2014, 03:42 AM You can't invade a country just because you don't agree with how they do things. Otherwise they have every right to do the same to you. That's fair, obviously. -- This brings up another point from me though. When Syria is killing it's civilians and it's being gum-coated as a 'civil war' when in reality it's the independent government slaughtering their own citizens, I think the line of country invading becomes blurry with the humanitarianism of helping your fellow human.



+ Pelador	Mar 11 2014, 09:50 PM Post #22
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	Syria is a very complex and delicate situation. Not all the factions opposing the Assad regime have noble aims. We could end up supporting a group who ends up being far worse than the current government. I'm not against humanitarian assistance but selling arms or sending in soldiers to fight is too far.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


+ Steve	Mar 12 2014, 12:48 AM Post #23
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Pelador Mar 11 2014, 03:42 AM You can't invade a country just because you don't agree with how they do things. Otherwise they have every right to do the same to you. You can only judge a leader's performance in hindsight. Nobody could have known at the time that Kim Il Sung would turn out to be such a tyrannical leader with a legacy of equally terrible sons. Nobody was to know the horrors that Idi Amin would create in Uganda during the 1970s. So it's all very well saying well they shouldn't have been given any power but people aren't psychic. That is why interfering is generally a bad idea. But it's righteous to do so when basic human rights are being violated needlessly. By that logic was the Nazi's killing all the Jews in their country acceptable? A nation shouldn't have the right to kill its people without consequence and reason, that kind of power is simply barbaric. Sure you can't tell that a leader is going to be awful but you can stop them if they're clearly awful people and/or idiots, once they start giving genocide the ok for bulls*** reasons they should be dealt with, the world should stand up to them and say no this isn't how the human race operates. Unless they have backing from other powerful countries there's no moral reason not to stop the atrocities that go on in some places. Off topic but it would be great if we got to the point where people in charge of a nation weren't just because they were part of a certain bloodline, blood is no indication of leadership ability or intelligence people seeking positions of power should always have to prove themselves to be worthy of it and favoured by the public. If innocent civilians are being killed by armies and nobody is stopping it somebody has to, there is no logical reason to kill civilians unless there's some kind of biohazard that could threaten the whole country or even more than that, genocide in that case is nothing to act on(though should be investigated in case it's merely a cover up) but if people are being killed just because they don't like their leader who is untouchable in their countries laws or something trivial like that other countries have the human responsibility to intervene.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


+ Pelador	Mar 12 2014, 01:18 AM Post #24
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	I'll try to make this more clear for you. If you go into a country because you believe they are committing unspeakable acts against their people and you over throw the leadership then a number of possible scenarios are going to happen. The country now has no leadership. This means anarchy. Thousands of people die in the chaos that ensues. The strongest factions take advantage of this and use it as a platform to build a power base from which they can seize control of the country leading to the exact same problem as before. Or maybe in another scenario, the "liberators" are more involved after the tyrants are removed from power. They stay around and try to keep the peace whilst there is a transition of power. This sounds fine in theory but in practice you get a number of problems. A lot of the time the liberators want some say in who gets to be in charge. The people view this person as a puppet to a foreign power and force him out with a coup. Then they go back to having a tyrant and it starts all over again. It's hard to predict what you're going to get. It's definitely never as simple as saying "Oh look, this guy's a bastard and so we should remove him" because what then? I get that it's horrible to see human suffering at the hands of tyrants but the truth is that military action is one of the least effective solutions. Most of the time it's simply a reset button to what's already happened in the past 20 years. You have to let them fix their country by themselves because only they know how. That's the only thing that seems to break the cycle. If you want evidence of how intervention is problematic then read about the history of the African colonies, the Middle East or even southeast Asia. You'll see where I'm coming from. It rarely does any good long term. Which is unfortunate because I can't stand tyranny or incompetence.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


* Sousen Ichimonji	Mar 12 2014, 12:22 PM Post #25
You are calm and reposed, let your beauty unfold Posts: 4,176 Group: Retired Staff Member #3,986 Joined: February 15, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Avatar What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Ai Kora	Steve Mar 11 2014, 03:32 AM Sousen Ichimonji Mar 11 2014, 01:00 AM I would be delighted to know the basis behind this statement. Kim Jong Il? KIm Jong Un? Or are they great and respectable leaders who make fabulous choices for their leaders and their people? People like that should never have any kind of power. The statement you made though was that these people were untalented or unintelligent. Despisable or otherwise, tyrants and dictators as well as democratically elected leaders require a lot of intelligence, even if it is just a base cunning.
	Call me a safe bet, I'm betting I'm not I'm glad that you can forgive, only hoping as time goes, you can forget


+ Pelador	Mar 12 2014, 01:16 PM Post #26
Crazy Awesome Legend Posts: 25,663 Group: Legend Member #4,634 Joined: December 12, 2009 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime HunterxHunter What Browser do you use? Firefox Favourite Manga Dragonball	I don't know about that. Idi Amin seemed pretty retarded. At least from how he was portrayed in Last King of Scotland. King Jong Un is meant to be a bit of a simpleton too.
	http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits


*Copy_Ninja*	Mar 12 2014, 01:29 PM Post #27
*Novacane for the pain* Posts: 8,033 Group: Guardian Member #6,499 Joined: July 18, 2011 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Hunter x Hunter (2011) What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga Monster, One Piece, Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist, Hunter X Hunter, Death Note, SnK	Amin became pretty crazy towards the end (though not quite as bad as that movie portrayed him but it wasn't far off) yet he wasn't an idiot. He was still an Army Commander and was clever enough to gain support and organise a coup, which isn't that easy to pull off. Eccentric and paranoid for a certainty but not without some intelligence. Kim Jong Un is a bit of a different case due to the way he came in to power. Whether he was clever or not he was going to inherit. Still, that's just one world leader, not really a solid basis for that kind of statement.
	We'll never be those kids again


~~CheckMateIzGod~~	Mar 13 2014, 11:32 AM Post #28
Posts: 378 Group: Suspended Member #10,783 Joined: January 26, 2014 Gender Male Favourite Anime Dbz and many other show's What Browser do you use? i commute between many browser's Favourite Manga none	"Where one country has the right to attack the other....." IMO every country has the right to attack any other country. "When is war acceptable?"is a very biased question.Since,For the side which was least affected by the outcome of war(or won the war),they will always conclude that they are right and that the reason forstarting the war is to "Correct or Punish" the opposition. IMO the answer to your question is just a matter of interpretation of the outcome of war based on the side you choose.This why your question is very biased.
	Quote: Elite:I like my Glasses.They make me look badass.


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2