Justifications for War

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by notepad

I'm glad you're having so much fun disputing hard evidence John. However, a Cessna prop is quite different from a Boeing 757 jet.

...perhaps you would disagree also with trained pilots having 20+ years of experience each who have stated unequivocally that the alleged 911 pilots could never have flown them into their targets ...having such limited air time experience.

...course, I could be wrong ...you might dispute these qualified pilots.



# # #

Still waiting for that link.

[notepad]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Link?

My father is a licensed and rated commercial pilot, with over 40 years experience. He had no problem his first time in a 747.

I'm sure you're father was an excellent pilot ...though I seriously doubt he was allowed to pilot a 747 over civilian airspace without first being qualified with the requisite aviation skills.

"The software of the BOEING 747 and 757 over rides pilot error and will not let a pilot make banking turns like the PENTAGON plane which was pulling 5 Gs at its final approach or the second WTC plane that was pulling 3 Gs. This is the most fruitful area to explore for those wishing positive proof that the terror attacks were faked."

Here's a link to pilots discussing pilot skills for 911:
http://www.newsgateway.ca/9_11_aircr...e_control_.htm

How to fake a terrorist attack:
http://www.physics911.net/otherattacks.htm





# # #

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

LOL.
Is the a law against passing judgment on wars which are over? Are you so far out of touch that you have never discussed the merits of the Vietna\n war since its finish?

Before you wrote "who speaks in favor of the Vietnam war?" That lead me to believe that it means an act in the present or in regards to the future. That could be just a language misunderstanding. I can't honestly recall a prominent conservative speaking against the war in Vietnam. I only know that some prominent conservatives of today chose to fly a plane for the National Guard, or decided they have other things on the agenda. Both defend those decisions today.

Kerry and Bush chose to volunteer for military service that had little likelihood of seeing combat in Vietnam, although Kerry went to Vietnam. Cheney and Edwards chose not to volunteer, and were not subject to the draft under the standard rules.

So again, I see no difference between cons and libs here

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Because a group of subscribers to a certain theory change, it becomes impossible? You're talking non-sense.

I agree that conservatism is a theory. A true conservative should strive to elect the first American King, build a castle and make those poor schmucks work on cotton fields.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Catholicism used to be a bunch of bloodthirsty murders, and now they are a bunch of guilty, overweight white people. Nothing is "impossible" about that.

All Christians were bloodthirsty murderers. Some still are. The other genralization is useless. 1.3 billion of catholics are not obese. Some are but not even close to 65% of obese Americans.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

It's like saying "New Yorker". Are the New Yorkers of today anything like the New Yorkers of 600 years ago? No. The New Yorkers 600 years ago wore leaves and hadn't even heard the word "New York".

Silly and puzzling example

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Justifiable homicide, huh?

Opps, correction:
Not a justifiable example. Simply an example of evolving conservatism

[John Scott]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html


Be back later.

[notepad]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html


Be back later.

...with regard to popularmechanics' 911 misinformation, see:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://reopen911.org/jimmyrebut.htm



# # #

[South]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Southnow,

The Civil War was largely about slavery.



http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

I'm not going to clog up your thread with this, but If you ever decide to start a thread for this topic I'd love to hammer at it with you. I've studied this for years now (to a level my wife calls obsessive) and might have some things that would alter your point of view, or perhaps you alter mine, but I always enjoy discussion on it and always enjoy fresh points of view.

[notepad]

When you hear Bush and his neocons puking vacant repetitions of democracy and freedom for all nations of the world, say to yourself, BULLSH*T!!! ...look for the real signs ...the true indicators of why the U.S. invades, attacks and occupies another country.

The reasons are multifaceted, though simply put, the aggressive foreign policies we are seeing, the covert activities and the military strong arming used against other nations by the United States are by all accounts, actions used to coerce, intimidate and force others into submission ...in order to plunder a targeted nation's natural resources and to create a conduit for profitable illegal activities.

By scrutinizing hot spots of current, or past conflict in the world, you will always notice that any particular country that the U.S. challenges and/or invades is one where a unique situation exists ...a financial opportunity whereby an elite group of influential banking interests have identified a region as being ripe for enormous profit.

Though not an all-inclusive list, some of the most obvious which heartless profiteers use to identify and target a region, and to justify an invasion include the following:

> a country which controls, harvests, or has the potential to supply valuable natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, gold, etc.

> a country with a weakened economy, unstable political infrastructure, and/or a less superior defense system

> a nation of people and leaders who speak out against U.S. global dominance and who are opposed to American interference in their country's affairs

> a country with generally remote, inaccessible areas which can accommodate the cultivation and distribution of illegal narcotics

> a region that offers a strategic geographic advantage to further secure and police the area via U.S. military bases, etc.

> a nation which refuses to bend to the U.S. and its partners' demands, intimidation, or bribes

> a country where an opportunity exists to denigrate a people's culture, destroy their history, and/or impose religious beliefs upon them

> an area where projected profits will exceed the costs of invasion, occupation and exit ...an exit which would only occur when little remains left to be extracted

From plundering another country's natural resources and killing its people (the resistance), to loan manipulation, cooking the books, selling human body parts, the dope trade, and proliferation of weaponry and increasing profits from arms sales...

...preemptive strikes, invasions and war waged against other sovereign countries have NOTHING to do with spreading democracy and freedom to other people ...and EVERYTHING to do with greed, lawlessness, murder and theft.




# # #

[notepad]

50¢ of Every Tax Dollar Goes to Pay for Wars; Large Numbers of Americans Are Refusing to Pony Up





Increasing numbers of Americans say the U.S. government is involved in immoral and illegal wars around the world and are refusing to support this with their tax money. The invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the indiscriminate killing of civilians, for example, are outlawed by
international law.

“Of every tax dollar paid, more than 50 cents goes to pay for past, present and future military expenses. The military budget for the Department of Defense alone for 2005 will be close to $500 billion. Our payment of federal taxes enables the government to carry on a continuing program of illegal military activities,” wrote Glen Milner, a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Wash., in a recent opinion piece in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“International laws and agreements support and encourage citizens to resist their government when it is engaged in illegal acts,” Milner added.

Under international laws, those who facilitate illegal wars and war crimes could actually be morally—if not legally—accountable, say proponents of resisting war taxes. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

For example, a 1996 ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding the threat or use of nuclear weapons could be interpreted to mean that the United States’ deployment of depleted uranium weapons is illegal. The humanitarian measure prohibits the use of weapons or methods of warfare that are directed against civilians or cannot discriminate between military targets and civilians; cause unnecessary suffering to combatants; violate the territory of neutral states; cause long-term and widespread damage to the environment or use poisonous substances.

In any event, tax resister groups estimate that tens of thousands of Americans don’t pay their income taxes in order to protest U.S.-backed war efforts around the world. And, they say, that number is growing every year.





# # #

[Ferre]

There are very little justifications for war. Very little.







People should be smart enough to learn from the past.

[awall19]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

We first must accept that REASON and FACT must dictate the course of the debate, not wild, baseless speculation.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Liberals, by definition, do not do war.

bull****.

republicans, by definition, do not have loose fiscal policy which nearly bankrupts the country

again, bull****.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Liberal -

Pro-abortion
Anti-war
Prefers wealth re-distribution in the form of higher taxes and more social entitlement programs (welfare, free healthcare, free day care, etc)

republican

pro-war
anti humanity
etc

I thought you did not like these threads John. I go away for a bit and here you are starting flame threads in your own forums?

[pinkfluffybunny]

War? You call that a war.

Dude, I'm proud of you, you came out of the fallout shelter walked into the the new world and you were able to keep your values. Long live the sixties...lol

"Magnificent! Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. Gold help me, I do love it so!"
- General George Patton Jr

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by pinkfluffybunny

War? You call that a war.

Dude, I'm proud of you, you came out of the fallout shelter walked into the the new world and you were able to keep your values. Long live the sixties...lol

"Magnificent! Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. Gold help me, I do love it so!"
- General George Patton Jr

Welcome to the forum. Are you trying for "SmartAss of the Month"?

Pacifists never stopped Hitler. Pacifists never stopped Saddam. Pacifists in fact encouraged US of A to turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Third Reich, while we did for several years. It was cowardly and immoral.

Next time you see somebody being raped or murdered, you go ahead with your pacifism, and see how far it gets you.

[Ferre]

Justifications of war? was the question?

The Bush administration is the first government in history to initiate a war based entirely on fantasy--fantasy about nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," fantasy about nonexistent "terrorist links," fantasy about "liberating" a people from their culture, fantasy about a "cakewalk" invasion, fantasy about America's omnipotence.

Article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03212005.html

[John Scott]

The Iraqi liberation was justified by the very fact that the Iraqi people were not free to determine their own future. It was further justified by the murderous nature of Saddam's regime, which you anti-war folks seem happy to live with.

INDC Journal: "And I’m trying to answer. No, what I am saying is, that because oil for food money …wasn’t put into the right hands … that 36,000 were dying a year … (it’s also been) said that over a million were killed because of war, genocide and the murder of political prisoners in Iraq. My question to you is, from someone on the other side of this …"

Michael Berg: "Let me ask you this, I get your question now …"

INDC Journal: "How would you have ..."

Michael Berg: "Let me ask you this …"

INDC Journal: "… changed that …"

Michael Berg: "If it’s the American presence that is preventing these other deaths, because of the security that we’re supplying, and it’s the American presence that’s causing the 11,000 deaths because of the insult that it is to the Iraqi people, and those that are associating themselves, why not put in the international force that can keep the same security without all those insults? Without those 11,000 deaths?"

INDC Journal: "I might agree … but the problem is, how can we do that?"

Michael Berg: "Why can’t we do it? We can do it if we want to do it."

INDC Journal: "Well, you think that we need to pull troops out now, correct?"

Michael Berg: "Yes."

INDC Journal: "Without providing some sort of alternate security?"

Michael Berg: "No, I think we need to … I think we need to trade our troops for a truly international …"

INDC Journal: "And how should they go about doing that?"

Michael Berg: (Becoming animated) "I don’t know how to do it! I’m not a politician! I’m not a militarist! I’m not a strategist! I don’t know how to do it, but I think that it can be done if … I think that if the American people let their will be known, that that’s what they want to be done, get out of there now, stop the killing now, that’s what will happen!"

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Pacifists never stopped Hitler. Pacifists never stopped Saddam. Pacifists in fact encouraged US of A to turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Third Reich, while we did for several years. It was cowardly and immoral.

Next time you see somebody being raped or murdered, you go ahead with your pacifism, and see how far it gets you.

American refusal to join the war sooner than it did had nothing to do with pacifis. Not one bit. Sorry to see you fall a victim of propaganda and the official American myth.

If anything, it was quite to the contratry - it was good old plain isolationism which Americans preferred over figiting for foreign people. This may be somewhat understandable, but this was neither pacifism nor cowardice. There was simply too little support Among people for Roosevelt to join the war (who btw. was a Democrat). American people simply did not care. The truth is that neither did Roosevelt.
Eventually only Pearl Harbor could move American hearts (and some brains)

I think you should stop fabricating history.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The Iraqi liberation was justified by the very fact that the Iraqi people were not free to determine their own future. It was further justified by the murderous nature of Saddam's regime, which you anti-war folks seem happy to live with.

Yes, the liberation of Iraq qas justified. So was the liberation of so many other countries that you probably never even heard about, becuase the have no oil fields.

The war for "free Iraq" is a smokescreen, and a poorly designed one at that. And it came just 10 years after the US government encouraged Kurds to rebel against Saddam, and promised help.
The rebellion occured. America did nothing. tens of thousands of Kurds died.

But hey, at least Turkey was not aggravated. You know Turkey, the country that refused to allow American planes on their territory in 2001. For the brave move the US government rewarded them with $2B, and $3B more spread over the next few years.