RE: More Ron Bashing
February 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Dropping bombs during war is murder. There is no other way to slice that. A human died, someone murdered them. An Iraqi civilian is no less human then a US citizen, so why is it ok to kill them? How is that not murder? Cause its a war zone?
What if Russia started dropping bombs on your town? Oh its just a conflict it's ok my family is dead, no one murdered them.
When the war is illegal is built on lies. Yes that is fucking murder. Name me an honest good war? There is no such thing, all war is murder.
You assume Ron Paul will drop bombs? Does this country need to be in a perpetual state of war? No it does not.
I assumed Obama would not, and he did.
Ron Paul has not been in the position to make that choice so we don't know what he would do.
All conflicts are wrong and lies, there is nothing moral about any war. I don't agree with any conflicts. Its one nation strong arming another, no good comes out of wars.
Again, very permissive definition of murder. You're a murderer every time you go to the grocery store (and no, not the plants or the animals, but the people who die..and not by accident... in the production chain under your command decision to purchase the goods in direct opposition to laws that are supposed to prevent this). It's not OK to kill people Paint, but wars and conflicts aren't about what is okay, and legal determinations about things like murder are not about what is morally right or acceptable, only what is legal (yes I know we try to match the two as much as we can). Sometimes killing civilians during wartime is murder, check the UCMJ, sometimes it is not. Yes, war zones confer different laws Paint...
It's obviously okay to the pilot dropping the bombs isn't it, so it's a movable feast. The guy doing the dropping feels justified, the guy being dropped on feels wronged. This is a case of determining what is or is not murder based upon whether or not you agree with the conflict, which is not how we determine whether or not someone is a murderer (even if you feel it should be, and I understand why you would feel that way).
War has a definition (and laws, hilariously), murder has a legal definition, they are not the same thing. No, I don't feel that we need to be in a perpetual state of war. Yes, I assume that Ron Paul would, as president, retaliate against what we see as an aggressor. We would then be in the situation you described above about Russia bombing my town. Or are people who claim self-defense not murderers? If it's possible that Ron Paul would not retaliate "in defense" of our nation (since we aren't in a position to know what he would do) how, exactly, would that qualify him to be the commander in chief? Self defense would, at some point, include bombing their production facilities and some collateral would be expected. Fortresses went out of style hundreds of years ago because they don't work. To effectively defend yourself you have to attack the enemies assets, not just attempt to screen yourself from their attacks. The idea of America as a fortress, a non-participator in conflicts that would only act in it's defense is a line of garbage designed to lull folks who desperately want a more peaceful sort of leadership. You're being fed a line that was written specifically for you.... It's just a way of making "murder" (as you classify it) seem more palatable. It's flowery language and rhetoric over the same steaming pile of shit amigo. Speaking of which, Paul is actually on the record extolling the virtues of letters of marque and reprisal, which is essentially offering money to private citizens to kill or capture those who have been determined to be enemies of the people or state...how does that mesh with your idea of what his anti-war stance means? So he's against "wars of aggression", but for hiring mercs to enforce the law or police the waters? No thanks.
Well, conflicts aren't about what's wrong or right in most cases, and I agree, we use lies to justify things which are pretty shaky when it comes to war. It would be nice if we didn't do either of those two things. Do you see that happening? Are you sure that you are divergent enough from the rest of us that you couldn't or wouldn't do such things? I'm obviously not, as I have and would again (and sometimes miss it). All of this even though I am as much against conflict and deceit as yourself. I wouldn't go so far as to say "no good", I would say that the cost of conflict vastly outweighs the benefit in the long run, even if short term gains can be demonstrated. That's just my opinion though, there's nothing I can reference for that to call it a fact.
Again, Ron Paul is a fucking nutball. If you're clinging to Paul as a candidate because you agree with a few of his positions then you'd better be sure you're actually on the same page, and you'd better be sure that his positions in other areas don't completely outweigh whatever you agree with him on.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
