The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No, I don't agree with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and don't agree with the utter destruction of Berlin. I believe that both of these acts were completely unnecessary towards bringing the ultimate surrender of Germany and Japan, and history supports my point of view.

I suppose that's what distinguishes our philosophy of war. You feel that every country led by 'evil' rulers deserves to be destroyed, while I feel that collective punishments are unfair and, in themselves, evil.

No, I feel that during war, there is very little time to separate the good from the bad. This is a major reason why foreign countries and terrorist groups believe America is weak, and they exploit our weaknesses. I think the Nuremberg trials (regardless if we wanted to show the world we could be civil) were preposterous, and I think in a time of war you take the fight to the enemy, an eye for an eye. Anything less you will lose.

Mercy is always a good trait for a great country. If your enemies believe you have no shred of mercy, DS, they'll never surrender. Can you imagine the deathtoll if Nazi Germany or Japan didn't surrender to US forces?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, I feel that during war, there is very little time to separate the good from the bad. This is a major reason why foreign countries and terrorist groups believe America is weak, and they exploit our weaknesses. I think the Nuremberg trials (regardless if we wanted to show the world we could be civil) were preposterous, and I think in a time of war you take the fight to the enemy, an eye for an eye. Anything less you will lose.

I disagree with that completely. I really do believe that we are the civilized people, and that harsh times like war is the time when we must never degenerate to our enemy's level; we have to keep the moral high ground. We have to remain human and distinguish good from evil, rather than making simplistic generalizations.

I'd rather have my country seen as 'weak' than destroy the populace of a country because of sins not committed by them, but rather by their leadership.

Originally posted by Gideon
Mercy is always a good trait for a great country. If your enemies believe you have no shred of mercy, DS, they'll never surrender. Can you imagine the deathtoll if Nazi Germany or Japan didn't surrender to US forces?

How about the idea that these organizations can commit crimes against our country with the rationale that "oh we'll have a trial so we have a good chance of walking out and not facing the consequences".

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I disagree with that completely. I really do believe that we are the civilized people, and that harsh times like war is the time when we must never degenerate to our enemy's level; we have to keep the moral high ground. We have to remain human and distinguish good from evil, rather than making simplistic generalizations.

I'd rather have my country seen as 'weak' than destroy the populace of a country because of sins not committed by them, but rather by their leadership.

And I'd rather destroy the populace of a country whose leaders are weak rather than see them destroy mine.

Also, you operate on the belief that people are inherently good. I completely disagree with this notion because everything that has happened since the dawn of time goes against this theory. It is harder to be a good person than bad person. It is harder to make the tougher decisions than it is to take the easy way out. Nothing suggests people are inherently good and while I won't judge you, I believe that's a ridiculous leftist ideal.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
How about the idea that these organizations can commit crimes against our country with the rationale that "oh we'll have a trial so we have a good chance of walking out and not facing the consequences".

Firm, but fair. You'll have just as many (if not more) problems if the state becomes irrationally and irretrievably ruthless.

Originally posted by Gideon
Firm, but fair. You'll have just as many (if not more) problems if the state becomes irrationally and irretrievably ruthless.

Right, there's obviously an extreme on both sides of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And I'd rather destroy the populace of a country whose leaders are weak rather than see them destroy mine.

Also, you operate on the belief that people are inherently good. I completely disagree with this notion because everything that has happened since the dawn of time goes against this theory. It is harder to be a good person than bad person. It is harder to make the tougher decisions than it is to take the easy way out. Nothing suggests people are inherently good and while I won't judge you, I believe that's a ridiculous leftist ideal.

I don't believe people are inherently good, but does this mean that we should operation according to our basic, primal nature? You know what makes us human? The ability to go beyond our nature, with the power of rational thinking and intelligence. The 'easy' way out would be just to destroy countries regardless of their population. I believe that morality makes us human, and morality should be employed in a crisis like war.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I don't believe people are inherently good, but does this mean that we should operation according to our basic, primal nature? You know what makes us human? The ability to go beyond our nature, with the power of rational thinking and intelligence. The 'easy' way out would be just to destroy countries regardless of their population. I believe that morality makes us human, and morality should be employed in a crisis like war.

That's just my point. War occurs when morality and ideals fail, so it's a dangerous line to think of morality DURING a war, when that same morality couldn't prevent one.

Woah. I am not reading all of that ^

Originally posted by Publius II
I'm not attacking Israel for retaliating, I'm attacking it for the nature of its retaliation. I don't know what it expects to achieve by killing innocent civilians; that's only ever a tactically sound decision when the target government actually cares. As you said, Hamas is simply going to use these deaths as propaganda, and its very clear which side the media - and therefore the public - is on, so Israel really needs to think up another strategy if it doesn't want to be looked at in disgust. If you think its acceptable for children to suffer and die because the patch of dirt they live in is ruled by men who don't give a shit about them, then this discussion should end, now.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Woah. I am not reading all of that ^

What would you have Israel do instead?

I am trying to be objective ONLY as a sign of respect to Faunus, but make no mistake about it. As both a Jew and a staunch supporter of Israel, I reserve the right to be subjective about this matter. You have nothing riding on this so it's easier for you to sit back and critisize, calling your thinking "objective". However, I'd like for you to give me one logical argument for the side of HAMAS. I highly doubt you can, but if you do, then I'll agree on the side of objectivity. The problem is, there's no real argument for Hamas and Palestinian actions. And I truly hope you don't the multicultural argument in support of Hamas.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
That's just my point. War occurs when morality and ideals fail, so it's a dangerous line to think of morality DURING a war, when that same morality couldn't prevent one.

Dropping all morality in war is inhumane and dangerous, in my opinion, and gives pathway to potential ignorance of the other side's plight and potential human rights. That's just what I personally believe, though.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Dropping all morality in war is inhumane and dangerous, in my opinion, and gives pathway to potential ignorance of the other side's plight and potential human rights. That's just what I personally believe, though.

Yeah. Well, that's really my opinion of how war should be managed. I understand that civilians get hit sometimes, but I think that there shouldn't be intentional attacks on civilians, diplomacy should always come first, and that, again, civilian casualties should be absolutely minimized.

This Gaza situation is complex, to me, because I understand the necessity of it, but it still hurts me to see civilians die. So that's why I offered the solution of pulling out now and using the damage and international interference in order to stop the killing as soon as possible (while still making the attack a success), and going for a peaceful solution.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Yeah. Well, that's really my opinion of how war should be managed. I understand that civilians get hit sometimes, but I think that there shouldn't be intentional attacks on civilians, diplomacy should always come first, and that, again, civilian casualties should be absolutely minimized.

This Gaza situation is complex, to me, because I understand the necessity of it, but it still hurts me to see civilians die. So that's why I offered the solution of pulling out now and using the damage and international interference in order to stop the killing as soon as possible (while still making the attack a success), and going for a peaceful solution.

In Canada, one of our Members of Parliament once called for an opening of negotiations with the Taliban. But how do you negotiate with diplomacy when the enemy refuses to do likewise? Same with Hamas. They were, for all intents and purposes, given reign over Gaza, something Palestinians wanted for a while and to which Israel complied with 3 years go. Instead of using that compliance and building Gaza into successful region, they continued to lob rockets over the border. Why? They got what they wanted: control of Gaza, there's no need for continuing attacks, unless of course they have beef with Israel's very existence.

Israel did the only rational thing: attack the incessant attackers. Attackers who sadly shield themselves with civilians. A clever move of Hamas, they know of the international backlash of the unavoidable civilian casualties. Israel drops leaflets, voices a warning of attack, and has even sent warning cell phone texts to Gaza civilians despite the loss of the element of surprise that results.

Civilian casualties are an element of every war only exacerbated by the willingness of Hamas to sacrifice them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I get where you're coming from, and frankly I agree. But I see a problem with it.

In Canada, one of our Members of Parliament once called for an opening of negotiations with the Taliban. But how do you negotiate with diplomacy when the enemy refuses to do likewise? Same with Hamas. They were, for all intents and purposes, given reign over Gaza, something Palestinians wanted for a while and to which Israel complied with 3 years go. Instead of using that compliance and building Gaza into successful region, they continued to lob rockets over the border. Why? They got what they wanted: control of Gaza, there's no need for continuing attacks, unless of course they have beef with Israel's very existence.

Israel did the only rational thing: attack the incessant attackers. Attackers who sadly shield themselves with civilians. A clever move of Hamas, they know of the international backlash of the unavoidable civilian casualties. Israel drops leaflets, voices a warning of attack, and has even sent warning cell phone texts to Gaza civilians despite the loss of the element of surprise that results.

Civilian casualties are an element of every war only exacerbated by the willingness of Hamas to sacrifice them.

The Just War Theory is a pipe dream, any state that engages in a protracted conflict is going to start doing nasty things to the other side and vice-versa. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for the latter half of a century and both sides pretty much hate each other (at least the people who matter). I don't think the region will ever see peace until one side eradicates the other, not unless by some miracle both sides somehow come to lasting agreement.

You suck in CoD4 by the way. 131

You guys are still playing 4? There's a 5th one you know... which I'm awesome at.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You guys are still playing 4? There's a 5th one you know... which I'm awesome at.

I refuse to play a WWII game unless the story mode is from the viewpoint of a Nazi or a Japanese soldier.