Environment against Navy …

So, i don’t see that they are hypocritic and you are not.

1. Im not GWB. the majority of your post was comparing enviromentalists to him, not me.
   2)Pro-war in most circumstances is not hypocritical. It means Im usually pro-war, unless the war is say, over a piece of litter X country put in Y country, and they decided to fight over it, that would be ridiculously stupid.
   3)I almost always find war justified, and why would you think i want it to be small falk? to save lives. use your brain. smaller war= fewer soldiers involved= less lives with a potential to be lost = less lives lost.

Now explain to me how i am hypocritical, as i fail to see your logic.

F_alk’s wrong as usual. Let’s just let it go. :lol:

ill go for that D:S :wink:

Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

Not fighting World War 2? You’re right, no lives lost……except for those of the Jews.

@cystic:

this is one of those small things with a hoped for long-term benefit. True environmentalists are doing nearly nothing in terms of ceasing oil-drilling ops, and they might even be painting themselves as nuisences by the “normals”. Still It is hoped that at the very least this raises the collective consciousness of humans for environmental concerns.

How do you define “true environmentalists”?

@Deviant:Scripter:

Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

Not fighting World War 2? You’re right, no lives lost……except for those of the Jews.

wow
way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.
Ironically enough, if the US entered the war earlier, then there may have been more deaths prevented. This, WW I, and possibly Korea are the only exceptions of this century to the suggestion that F_alk pointed out.

way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.

America’s greatest shame? Please explain (also, keep in mind the explict language of American Consitution with matters of “going to war”)

@TG:

way to counter an intelligent point with one example of America’s greatest shame of the 20th century.

America’s greatest shame? Please explain (also, keep in mind the explict language of American Consitution with matters of “going to war”)

waiting until 3 years into a very bloody war being fought alone by the UK, Canada, Aus, and various resistance groups in Europe (and eventually Russia) for a declaration of war by Hitler before formally entering the war. Why not wait until America had actually been invaded? The US had been kept out of the war by America-Firsters and German sympathizers including the illustrious Kennedy Clan. This while Germany was actively occupying most of europe. Certainly sweden, Switzerland and Portugal remained neutral as well but none of these have been nearly so demonstratively war-hungry as America has been this century.
As far as the America Constitution - guilty of not knowing much about it with regards to going to war. At the same time, a constitution that allows for the invasion of Iraq (with very dubious reasons, no active aggression, and a very active propaganda machine drummed up to support going to war) but did not allow for coming to the rescue of Poland, France, Holland, etc. is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO.

is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO

Well, to each his own. But I think the facts speak for themselves. :roll:

@Deviant:Scripter:

is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO

Well, to each his own. But I think the facts speak for themselves. :roll:

which facts?
the facts that the US delayed going to war in WW II until they had war declared on her?
or that the US war machine has changed its reasons for attacking Iraq subsequent to actually attacking Iraq?

One half line of comparing with GWB is hardly the majority.

Fine, delete that part then.

So, you are pro-war but against-losing-lives. Did it come to mind that no-war always has the risk of losing-no-lives-at-all?

Fighting a war leads inevitably to losing lives. Not fighting a war has the chance of not losing lives. Are you an USie who does not want to take chances?

Are you an idiot who cannot understand simple logic? Being pro-war does not mean i want to see lives lost. OBVIOUSLY war means lives will be lost Falk. However simply agreeing with going to war, or having objection to it does not mean i am some bloodthirsty, meat-grinder style Grant commander who does not mind wasting lives to win. I object to unneccessary loss of life.
No-war does not guarantee no lives lost (the wording sounds wrong to me, but i think you get the point). Lives are lost by other countries, or other peoples, we may lose lives by attacks on us without being at war (Sep. 11th as an example).

Ironically enough, if the US entered the war earlier, then there may have been more deaths prevented.

I do not remotely disagree with you. however, you need to understand of course, that this is the problem with the democratic system. when the people dont want to go to war, its hard to get a vote through. and that is the problem with america in particular. the people in this country generally only care when something affects them directly.
and at any rate, US involvement eventually won the war.

is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO.

I agree with you on this, for different reasons. a constitution that guarantees freedom of petition and the press, and freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, among other things, is, imo, not worth the paper its printed on.

waiting until 3 years

Perhaps im mixing up facts, but i thought the invasion of poland (in 1939) started the war, and the US entered in 1941.

(and eventually Russia)

speaking of double standards. Russia was in fact “allied” with Germany until Hitler invaded them, at which point they “joined” the allies. unless my history escapes me entirely. i fail to see how this is any different, or even the same, as the US

or that the US war machine has changed its reasons for attacking Iraq subsequent to actually attacking Iraq?

Hate to compare it to WWII, but i must. (Not saying it would escalate to the same scale necessarily) the reasons provided for the war in Iraq (for instance, WMDs) which are now being called lies may or may not have been true (different debate) but, in a very Machiavellian manner, the End justifies the means. especially when the “means” was simply a lie. again, different debate, but imo, the war in iraq was justified, no matter what the official reason.

Well, from how i understood it, Janus meant “own lives”, not lives at all…

Why should you be concerned about some foreigners lives more than about other foreigners lives?

then you understand it incorrectly

waiting until 3 years into a very bloody war being fought alone by the UK, Canada, Aus, and various resistance groups in Europe (and eventually Russia) for a declaration of war by Hitler before formally entering the war. Why not wait until America had actually been invaded? The US had been kept out of the war by America-Firsters and German sympathizers including the illustrious Kennedy Clan.

Going to war is a process - one governed by laws and unless Germany posed a imminant threat (which would be possible in the fall of 1941) or having attacked the United States in any way, this wouldn’t be possible. As for the Americans, you seem to forget the wartime disillusionment many Americans had of WWI and of the fact that America was in the midst of a Depression.

Also, the war between Iraq and Germany are two totally different matters at hand. The big difference of war not formally being declared by the senate, and the limitation of powers by the president under the War Powers Act.

I agree with you on this, for different reasons. a constitution that guarantees freedom of petition and the press, and freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, among other things, is, imo, not worth the paper its printed on.

Wow. I think that’s one of the most fascistic things I’ve seen anyone post in any of these forums.

speaking of double standards. Russia was in fact “allied” with Germany until Hitler invaded them, at which point they “joined” the allies. unless my history escapes me entirely. i fail to see how this is any different, or even the same, as the US

Time to get technical. Russia had a “Non-aggression pact” which stated that the two powers would not attack each other. I believe Stalin intended to violate this anyway, unfortunately Hitler violated it first. The only reason Russia was ever considered an “ally” was because of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” train of thought.

“If we see that Germany is defeating Russia, we ought to help Russia, and if we see Russia defeating Germany, we ought to help Germany, so as to help destroy both of them.” -Harry S Truman.

(I know I botched that quote, sorry.)

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

is not worth the paper that it’s printed on - IMO

Well, to each his own. But I think the facts speak for themselves. :roll:

which facts?
the facts that the US delayed going to war in WW II until they had war declared on her?
or that the US war machine has changed its reasons for attacking Iraq subsequent to actually attacking Iraq?

No, the fact that our constitution is an extremely important foundation to our beloved country, and it’s worth every inch of paper it’s printed on…and more. Obviously, you’re viewpoint is in the minority with regards to what the constitution stands for in terms of freedom, democracy, etc. It’s what’s made this country what it is today. I don’t see hundreds of thousands of people banging on the doors to get into your country, do I CC?

Wow. I think that’s one of the most fascistic things I’ve seen anyone post in any of these forums.

You can blame that partly on Mike, he rubs off on you if you hang around with him enough, though that is my opinion.

Time to get technical. Russia had a “Non-aggression pact” which stated that the two powers would not attack each other. I believe Stalin intended to violate this anyway, unfortunately Hitler violated it first. The only reason Russia was ever considered an “ally” was because of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” train of thought.

“If we see that Germany is defeating Russia, we ought to help Russia, and if we see Russia defeating Germany, we ought to help Germany, so as to help destroy both of them.” -Harry S Truman.

Thank you for correcting me

That’s one of the common misperceptions of Machiavelli’s “Il principe”. This interpretation of “the end justifies the means” has been mis-used so often that the name now is a synonym for something he didn’t say that way.
Or better: what he considered the “end” was very tightly defined, and does not at all fit into the usage of that quote now.

Perhaps i was incorrect in my usage, I studied machiavelli only briefly. if so, i apologize. please enlighten us as to the true meaning? however, while his meaning may not fit, the quote still does. the end justifies the means, even if he had a different meaning when writing that.

Which life is lost unneccessary? Is a kid that shoots himself or friends by accident with his father’s gun an unneccesary loss?
Is people getting killed by doctors who do research on human beings directly (for some medical or military-medical purpose) an unneccessary loss?
Is a sacrifice of human lives justified when you can save at least the same amount of people? Who is to decide who will be saved and who will be sacrified?

hmm, maybe thats a bad choice of words on my part. unneccessary meaning, for example, in Desert storm. The number of american lives lost was miniscule in comparison to the Iraqi’s (actually, all coalition lives lost were miniscule, not just americans). now, had we attacked earlier without recieving the troops from Germany that were eventually used in the operation, we likely still would have won, however, many more lives would have been lost. that, falk, is an example of what i meant.

So, you object to cancer (and all those who produce carcinogenic substances, like e.g. BBQs), cars in general etc.etc.et. as well? All of thatleading to peace-time unneccessary deaths.

(And for not being to war, please, would you call Vietnam a police action, just to do me that little favor? Remember, Germany never declared war onto Polan or the Soviet Union…. so that was not part of WWII then, right?)

maybe its just cause it is late, but, what?

Perhaps i was incorrect in my usage, I studied machiavelli only briefly. if so, i apologize. please enlighten us as to the true meaning? however, while his meaning may not fit, the quote still does. the end justifies the means, even if he had a different meaning when writing that.

Yes… I also read the Prince myself, and I’m interested in hearing F_alk’s “true meaning.” :)