That’s self-defense. Threatening and possibly actually physically harming his friends, especially when they did not do the same to you, that’s criminal.
War is a game of chess you loose enough chess pieces you loose the game. Plus if you are a bad leader like saddam was your army will not put up up much of a fight from a scale from 1 to 10 his army fought at level 1. It was a easy victory with very little ressistance.
Despite writing an entire paragraph, you failed to answer my question. There are only two choices: yes or no.
In response to a post (Tomndebb I think) asking in effect whether terrorizing innocents was an appropriate response to a threat:
The sub-text is that anything other than a heavy handed “eye for an eye” (or more accurately “head for an eye”) response is never in a nation’s own best interests. Until you have proven that, you are in no position to suggest that your particular ideas and methods are any more in your nation’s best interests than the type of measured response advocated by others.
The suggestion that there is only one way to protect oneself, and that those advocating any other method are traitors who don’t care about their own nation always seems to come from the heavy handed hawks.
Only simpletons (and there a few of those round here, for sure) think that there is only one way to achieve any given goal.
Put those two points together and infer something.
BeatenMan, Ben asked you about how best to deal with the complex question of innocents and perpetrators mixed in the same nation. Your response is to crap on about how you dealt with a bully. A bully is a single person who is responsible for their own acts, ie has nothing to do with the question asked.
Can I suggest that you have chosen to “answer” Ben’s question in this way, because the level of complexity inherent in the world (and Ben’s question) is beyond you? You simply cannot cope with the world and for that matter Ben’s question so you rewrite them both in your own mind to be simple enough that you can cope.
There is a pithy epithet which I can’t quite recall verbatim but is along the lines that if one is a fuckwit, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect that you are a fuckwit than to open your mouth and confirm that.
“It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
–Ancient Chinese proverb (at least that’s how I learned it)
You sure the just thought you were crazy?
I guess my answer that yes innocent people will and do die in wars just because of one man is in power and it has been this way all threw history and I have no problem with. Is this answer too simple for you. And would I kill babies with my bare hands if ordered to? That is an illegal order. I would not be asked to do that. If it came down to me snapping the babies neck or getting shot for not following that order, to tell the truth I don’t know what I would do.
I know I am the smart one here. Your ideas are so flawed that all your big words and formal education don’t make up for your lack of common sence. That’s right I don’t need books to prop up my ego.
have been doing martial arts for years. Big talk is just hot air. It won’t stop people that want to hurt you.
I hope this has been simple enough for you to understand. Now how about more of those insults I have been kind of full of myself lately.
Like December said you liberals sure can find problems but seem to offer no soulutions.
December is my hero. I bet this will get me banned for sure.
I don’t claim to know december all that well, and I disagree with him quite often, but I do believe he would not approve of the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
Yes, yes, we all know and agree that innocents do unfortunately die in war. That is a given - no weapon is perfect. But you are not making this almost-universally accepted claim. You’re saying that we should go out of our way to ensure that innocents are killed. You admit in your post that an order to kill babies - innocents - with your bare hands is an illegal order. In that case, why do you repeatedly indicate your belief that we should kill innocents in this thread? Unless you have shifted your views from earlier in this thread, you’re either contradicting yourself or calling for illegal actions by the United States military.
What big words? And how is presenting my viewpoint propping up my ego any more than you?
If you’re banned, it sure as hell won’t be for being conservative. December has thousands of posts to his name, and yet he has not been banned. The administration here will not stop you from posting just because you’re not a liberal.
Yes, although it is probably simple enough for you. All sorts of things have been done throughout history. Are you suggesting that makes all of them acceptable or ideal? Do you regard improvement as a good thing or are you such a kneejerk conservative that you don’t care if things are done badly, as long as they are done the way they have always been done?
I have some difficulty accepting that you have no problem with innocent people dying. I suspect you’d make yourself an exception to that.
Well you are advocating that innocents should be deliberately killed, so you’d better decide what you would do if you had to do it yourself, because it is utterly cowardly (not to mention two faced and intellectually dishonest) to advocate that an activity should be carried out on your behalf that you’d hesitate to do with your own hands.
I know plenty of people who don’t know big words and don’t have much formal education who have common sense. It is an insult to such people to suggest that you are one of them.
Yep, your ego stands pretty tall on its own.
So you are open to the idea of murdering an infant in order to avoid being shot?