20 Genuine philosophical Questions ?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="red"][b]Genuine Questions for anyone.... (however I am particularly interested in answers from Old, Homer,Steggy,Rick,& Bung. I mean this as a genuine discussion, I won't post any pictures or rhetoric.... I am honestly interested in your viewpoints on these questions?[/b][/color]


[b][u]20 Philosophical Questions[/u]


1. Should the population of a Nation always support their government’s military actions?


2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?


3. What should a citizen of Germany in 1941 who disagreed with Germany’s invasion of Neighboring countries have done? What would have been in your mind a "patriotic response"?


4. Is there ever a situation where a citizen is justified in criticizing their own military?


5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?


6. Is it possible that the same person can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?


7. Are all people on Earth entitled to certain freedoms? If so, who should guarantee that they get these?


8. What does "freedom" mean to you?


9. Is it possible in a war for both sides to be wrong and acting with "evil" intentions"? If so, should an observer choose what they deem to be the lesser evil, or should an observer root against both of them?


10. Where does "justifiable" dissent end, and Treason begin?


11. Is it possible that Young kids in 1776 England viewed George Washington with the same hatred and indignation that many in America see Osama bin Laden? How do you imagine these kids would have described Washington? What adjectives would they have used?


12. Do all nations have the right to invade other states they feel in their mind "threaten them"?


13. If your family member was killed by a man attempting to shoot someone else at the workplace, would the motive of the shooter matter to you? Would it matter to you that your dead family member was not the perpetrators intended target when he walked into the workplace and began firing, if he was instead actually aiming for just the boss?


14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?


15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?


16. Should those that support a war, be forced to actively participate in it?


17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?


18. Give me your personal definition of the word "Liberation" not the dictionary one?


19. Is it possible for someone to "liberate" someone without the person who is being liberateds consent?


20. Who do you feel is more motivated to win in Iraq, The "insurgents or the US Army? Is motivation more important than equipment and firepower?[/b]

[Homer_Rice]

I'll work on this as time allows over the next few days and post a reply...

[Guest ONYX]

Wow,........ these are awsome questions.

[Guest oldschooler]

1. Should the population of a Nation always support their government’s military actions?

[b]Not unless you think it is justified.[/b]

2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?

[b]A person that uses violence or death to strike fear into people
so their cause will be heard.[/b]

3. What should a citizen of Germany in 1941 who disagreed with Germany’s invasion of Neighboring countries have done? What would have been in your mind a "patriotic response"?


[b]If they would have disagreed publicly and vocally they would
have been killed. To me patriotic is being proud of and showing love
for your country...if you disagree and your disagreement would
get you killed...well then...what`s to be proud of or love ?[/b]

4. Is there ever a situation where a citizen is justified in criticizing their own military?


[b]Yep.[/b]

5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?

[b]Ummm...partyers [/b]


6. Is it possible that the same person can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?


[b]No...freedom doesn`t involve terror.[/b]


7. Are all people on Earth entitled to certain freedoms? If so, who should guarantee that they get these?

[b]Yes.
In most cases their Government should guarantee it.
But in the case of the Iraqis...the U.S.
Why?
Because Saddam Hussein wasn`t giving them any Freedom
and we had been at war with him. He wasn`t abiding by the terms
of his surrender...he thumbed his nose at our ultimatum.
So he had to be taken out...like he should have been taken
out in 1991.[/b]


8. What does "freedom" mean to you?

[b]It means being allowed to express your views and feelings.
Even if they are hate filled and moronic...but not violence.
To express your views violently is wrong and against the law. [/b]


9. Is it possible in a war for both sides to be wrong and acting with "evil" intentions"? If so, should an observer choose what they deem to be the lesser evil, or should an observer root against both of them?

[b]To me no it is not possible. It is a good cause versus an evil cause.
I`ve never heard of evil vs evil before. But I have heard of good
vs evil...[/b]


10. Where does "justifiable" dissent end, and Treason begin?

[b]Dissent is to disagree. Treason is betrayal of one's country by waging
war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

I think that is pretty self explanatory.[/b]


11. Is it possible that Young kids in 1776 England viewed George Washington with the same hatred and indignation that many in America see Osama bin Laden? How do you imagine these kids would have described Washington? What adjectives would they have used?


[b]I don`t think so. George Washington never attacked London
or any other Brititsh city. They probably didn`t know much
about him since there wasn`t the news sources there are today.
And if they did then they probably would have described him
as a Freedom Fighter... [/b]


12. Do all nations have the right to invade other states they feel in their mind "threaten them"?


*sigh*
[b]If that Nation has been at war with said Nation before.
And said Nation has went more than a decade without
complying to the terms of their surrender from the first war.
Then yes they have every right to "invade" them and
MAKE them comply.[/b]


13. If your family member was killed by a man attempting to shoot someone else at the workplace, would the motive of the shooter matter to you? Would it matter to you that your dead family member was not the perpetrators intended target when he walked into the workplace and began firing, if he was instead actually aiming for just the boss?



[b]No it wouldn`t matter.

But I guess you`re equating a family member "accidently"
get shot at a work place to a civillian "accidently" getting
shot in Iraq.


See if that is the case then more Iraqi`s should
hate the insurgents...they are the ones that are
killing most of their own people and they are
doing it on purpose.[/b]


14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?



[b]LMFAO !

That is so fucking ridiculous I can`t even answer.

I can`t believe you`re even trying to equate
what the Native Americans have went through
in the past 20 years to what the Kurds and Iraqis have went through.[/b]



15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?

[b]These questions are ridiculous.
You do realize that 72% of Iraqis voted last January don`t you ?
Does that sound like the majority is as oppressed as you`re
making them out to be ?[/b]

16. Should those that support a war, be forced to actively participate in it

[b]Only if the people that don`t support it are forced to move
to Canada.[/b]


17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?

[b]Saddam is to blame for your despair, torture and this war.[/b]


18. Give me your personal definition of the word "Liberation" not the dictionary one?

[b]Giving somone the right and power to express theirself in whatever
manner they choose...but not with violence.[/b]

19. Is it possible for someone to "liberate" someone without the person who is being liberateds consent?

[b]The MAJORITY of Iraqis realize that we are there to help.
They WANT our help. They WANT a better home.
They are WILLING to be law abiding citizens and the
ones that aren`t are called Insurgents.
Although Insurgents means people from a country
rising up to fight. It`s a known fact that most of the "insurgents"
are the MINORITY Sunni`s or they are from other countries.[/b]


20. Who do you feel is more motivated to win in Iraq, The "insurgents or the US Army? Is motivation more important than equipment and firepower?


[b]I think the U.S. military is the most motivated, well trained fighting
force on the face of this planet.

It depends if motivation can be more important.
I can be motivated to do something...but if I have better
equipment I can do the job better and quicker.
Luckily ...the U.S. forces have BOTH.[/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[color="red"][b]Genuine Questions for anyone.... (however I am particularly interested in answers from Old, Homer,Steggy,Rick,& Bung. I mean this as a genuine discussion, I won't post any pictures or rhetoric.... I am honestly interested in your viewpoints on these questions?[/b][/color]
[b][u]20 Philosophical Questions[/u][/b]
[i][b]1. Should the population of a Nation always support their government’s military actions?[/b][/i]

"always" is a loaded part of this question... of course, you don't always support the gov't... you should try to support the soldiers though at all costs, b/c their lives are on the line... but not supporting your president is part of what makes this country the great country it is...

[i][b]2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?[/b][/i]

my personal definition is someone that has nothing politically to offer, so they use fear and terror in place of it... i use it too often as a broad term of "enemy" which i should work on... not sure what term what best describe most enemies in iraq... insurgants is what i'd lean towards...

[i][b]3. What should a citizen of Germany in 1941 who disagreed with Germany’s invasion of Neighboring countries have done? What would have been in your mind a "patriotic response"?[/b][/i]

they didn't have the right to do much of anything... hitler was a crazy mutha fucka and would have had them killed... freedom is a wonderful thing... (see my answer from #1) dissent and differing opinions to figure out the best solution, is what makes our gov't the best imo...

[i][b]4. Is there ever a situation where a citizen is justified in criticizing their own military?[/b][/i]

of course... they can do whatever the hell they want... but they better be right in what they criticize b/c the media WILL use them, and the terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) are using our media against us... actually, its the only thing that they have on their side right now... most of us, are pretty hardened to the attacks at this point (though we obviously all grieve) but the media has a very harsh effect on our public... make sure to be right...

[i][b]5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?[/b][/i]

freedom fighters...

[i][b]6. Is it possible that the same person can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?[/b][/i]

in their eyes yes... but your applying this to iraq, and having options are so important... we dont' make them have our laws, but if they want to have an impressing dictator as their leader, they can vote him in... one thing i think is important, is the ability to choose...

but if you fight against us at this point, you are not a freedom fighter, b/c you are not fighting for freedom... our ancestors fought for religious freedoms among many other things... these fucks are fighting for strict religious laws and zero freedoms... that is why they don't compare imo...

[i][b]7. Are all people on Earth entitled to certain freedoms? If so, who should guarantee that they get these?[/b][/i]

they should have them... but they don't... as the lone superpower, we should strive to help all people that are dealing w/out freedoms... though this is impossible so we can only promote it and hope for the best... throwing our weight around all around the world doesn't always help... but throwing some weight around is necessary... that is true in life too... people usually don't fully respect you, until they stand up for their selves...

[i][b]8. What does "freedom" mean to you?[/b][/i]

freedom is choice...

[i][b]9. Is it possible in a war for both sides to be wrong and acting with "evil" intentions"? If so, should an observer choose what they deem to be the lesser evil, or should an observer root against both of them?[/b][/i]

all war is wrong in alot of ways, so i'd argue that both sides are almost always wrong... i think that the means isn't as important of the consiquences/rewards... the slavery debate we had yesterday comes to mind... even if abe lincoln didn't have the right intentions (debateable but for this debate, we'll say he didn't) but the reward of what happened is more important that the means of why we went to war...

[i][b]10. Where does "justifiable" dissent end, and Treason begin?[/b][/i]

treason is helping the enemy directly... if you are telling others to uprise against the gov't, you are promoting violence and are planning to use terror to get your way... if you are using ideas, then that is dissent... if you are planning to use violence, you are a terrorists...

[i][b]11. Is it possible that Young kids in 1776 England viewed George Washington with the same hatred and indignation that many in America see Osama bin Laden? How do you imagine these kids would have described Washington? What adjectives would they have used?[/b][/i]

there wasn't hardly a media then... they believed whatever the newspapers told them... yes, they probably thought of him as a very bad person... THEY would describe him as a terrorist... BUT he was fighting for and with ideas... therefore, fighting for freedom (options) is different then fighting against those options, to denounce freedom...

[i][b]12. Do all nations have the right to invade other states they feel in their mind "threaten them"?[/b][/i]

after 9/11, we were justified... its not like we picked saddam out of a hat and said, "he is the one doing it"... saddam was fucking w/ us for a long time... bj should know this best, after spending time w/ the kurds... if they threaten to nuke us, hell yes we do...

[i][b]13. If your family member was killed by a man attempting to shoot someone else at the workplace, would the motive of the shooter matter to you? Would it matter to you that your dead family member was not the perpetrators intended target when he walked into the workplace and began firing, if he was instead actually aiming for just the boss?[/b][/i]

no it wouldn't matter... but that isn't what is happening in iraq... the iraqis know what they are fighting for, and this is a war... if they didn't want us to help, then they wouldn't be fighting for a democracy right now... this isn't a good example imo...

[i][b]14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?[/b][/i]

china wouldn't be fighting for our freedom... not a good example... the native americans haven't tried to retake america... but what if the vikings (who were here before the indians) wanted to take back the land they originally found?? the facts are, america is owned by americans, and native americans are included in that...

[i][b]15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?[/b][/i]

whatever needs...

[i][b]16. Should those that support a war, be forced to actively participate in it?[/b][/i]

no... its a voluntary army... the reason our army is so great, is b/c everyone WANTS to be there... at least, they all volunteered to be there... the draft is a big reason why vietnam fell on its face...

[i][b]17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?[/b][/i]

"This is your chance and its your choice"

[i][b]18. Give me your personal definition of the word "Liberation" not the dictionary one?[/b][/i]

i would say to give people the choices i am talking about, would be liberating someone...

[i][b]19. Is it possible for someone to "liberate" someone without the person who is being liberateds consent?[/b][/i]

yes... it sounds like they would [b]choose[/b] to be oppressed though... w/out intervention, he wouldn't have the choice... but more importantly, their neighbor who doesn't feel that way, now has a choice to think differently...

[i][b]20. Who do you feel is more motivated to win in Iraq, The "insurgents or the US Army? Is motivation more important than equipment and firepower?[/b][/i]


more motivated.. the terrorists... the only problem is they are now fighting against freedom itself... they are fighting are military, but they can't beat the freedom that they are recieving... that is why they are fighting against diplomats, iraqi citizens, along w/ US and iraqi military/police... they are trying to terrorize the community and take away their choices... how can a small group of people have authority over everyone else? if they want to have saddam or someone similar as their leader, fine w/ them... but why should joe blow down the road, who strives for some freedoms, be oppressed too b/c 5% of the population wants it... that is dumb...



trust me bj... i know where these questions are trying to lead eveyone's thinking... i applaud your valient attempt but i disagree w/ your conclussion... first of all, our founding fathers and those that fought for us were fighting for our choices and freedoms... the insurgants in iraq are fighting to stop those choices.... therefore, they don't relate...

IF the regular people were fighting us as an invader (even if we didn't see ourselves are taking control over the territory) then they would be justified... but they would have to have the freedom in the first place, to make that decision... since they didn't have that freedom, then anything they think is what their gov't thinks... if they don't believe what they do, then they die...

there is a major difference and flaws in the revolutionary war and this war on terror...

[sean]

1. Should the population of a Nation always support their government’s military actions?

[i]Not blindly[/i]


2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?

[i]Someone who deliberately targets innocent people in order to terrorize a nation or group into giving in to their demands[/i]

3. What should a citizen of Germany in 1941 who disagreed with Germany’s invasion of Neighboring countries have done? What would have been in your mind a "patriotic response"?

[i]a.)Protested
b.)Joined the military or showed support[/i]

4. Is there ever a situation where a citizen is justified in criticizing their own military?

[i]Of course[/i]

5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?

[i]rebels[/i]

6. Is it possible that the same person can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?

[i]No. If your targeting innocent lives you are a terrorist. If your targeting military you're a freedom fighter[/i]

7. Are all people on Earth entitled to certain freedoms? If so, who should guarantee that they get these?

[i]U.N.[/i]

8. What does "freedom" mean to you?

[i]the right to choose[/i]

9. Is it possible in a war for both sides to be wrong and acting with "evil" intentions"? If so, should an observer choose what they deem to be the lesser evil, or should an observer root against both of them?

[i]Yes
You should have your brothers back[/i]

10. Where does "justifiable" dissent end, and Treason begin?

[i]Treason begins when you help the other side[/i]

11. Is it possible that Young kids in 1776 England viewed George Washington with the same hatred and indignation that many in America see Osama bin Laden? How do you imagine these kids would have described Washington? What adjectives would they have used?

[i]No George Washington didn't orchestrate an attack of the parlaiment building in England. I'm sure he was villified, but as an enemy not as a cowardly terrorist.[/i]

12. Do all nations have the right to invade other states they feel in their mind "threaten them"?

No

13. If your family member was killed by a man attempting to shoot someone else at the workplace, would the motive of the shooter matter to you? Would it matter to you that your dead family member was not the perpetrators intended target when he walked into the workplace and began firing, if he was instead actually aiming for just the boss?

[i]I see your point but it doesn't relate. That's completely different than a war.[/i]

14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?

[i]What a rediculous hypothetical! Most of Irag was oppressed. Would it have been O.K. to use force to stop Apartheid?[/i]


15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?

[i]Whatever means necessary, but I shouldn't go to the house of a theif and attack him.[/i]

16. Should those that support a war, be forced to actively participate in it?

[i]No[/i]

17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?

[i]Saddam no longer chooses....you do![/i]

18. Give me your personal definition of the word "Liberation" not the dictionary one?

being freed from oppression

19. Is it possible for someone to "liberate" someone without the person who is being liberateds consent?

[i]Yes. i.e Elizabeth Smart[/i]

20. Who do you feel is more motivated to win in Iraq, The "insurgents or the US Army? Is motivation more important than equipment and firepower?

[i]insurgents are more motivated, but firepower is the great equalizer.[/i]

[Homer_Rice]

The first two...

[quote]1. Should the population of a Nation always support their governments military actions?[/quote]

No. I would prefer that we turn away from the practice of police actions and blank checks given to the Executive branch. Return to our Constitution's intent: open, unambiguous declarations of war by elected representatives of Congress. The Executive branch has gotten a free ride for too long, imo--since Truman's admin. The context for this development in our recent history roughly follows this path:

The bi-polar world we know as the Cold War, combined with the advent of nuclear weapons and the strategic military doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction not only serves to scare the shit out of populations, creating a mood of cultural pessimism and in some cases, nihilism, but also forces the practice of warfare to proxy wars in the 3rd world and the engagement in conflicts "under the radar": low intensity conflicts, surrogate wars, economic wars, etc... In other words, the two superpowers fought in ways that were under the threshold of nuclear annihilation. One of the methods used which is of particular interest now, was the creation (or co-option) and support of proxy armies and insurgent groups which could be used as tools against the other side. An old, old tactic used often in history, but especially prominent now. Frankenstein is on the loose.

The question is: how do we shift our strategic focus in ways that are more amenable to peaceful co-existence among sovereign nations on this planet? Some suggestions:

1) Get rid of the giddy notion of "empire" which resulted from our outlasting the Soviets. Their economy collapsed first, mostly under the pressure of the old "guns and butter" dilemma. This was brought about by Reagan and SDI, which put into play two potentials: the surpassing of MAD as a strategic military doctrine, and the creation of a new horizon of technological innovation which would change economic relations in the world (as well as requiring tremendous initial capital investment.) Our economy is next, primarily because we have refused to make the necessary investments to reach this new technological horizion. (For example, look at the quality of science associated with our current ABM initiatives.) This "hollow victory" is known by many in positions in power and is one of the justifications for the looting operations around natural resources going on around the planet right now--it staves off the inevitable, but not for very long,imo--a couple of decades at best.

2) Many of these horrible policies are brought to us courtesy of what Eisenhower described as the military-industrial complex. Our polity is going to have to harness these folks and minimize their influence over policy before it is too late. That means reasserting the proper role of government as an expression of the desires of our citizenry for economic prosperity, for peaceful coexistence with other nations around a community of principle(s) which argue against colonialism and neo-colonialism as a matter of political cooperation, but also in recognition of the fundamental trait shared among all human beings--that we are creatures of reason.

The change in strategic context we experienced after the fall of the Soviet Union presented a new set of circumstances, which, for the most part, have been squandered by those in power. Instead of harkening back to the philosophical roots of the American "experiment", as expressed by our founders, we only slightly modified our practice, but kept the axioms which dominated the bi-polar world. Hence, the use of military force in our period tends to be against the genuine, long-term interests of not only the American people, but against the fundamental interests of the world at large.

I generally think that Teddy Rossevelt was a horse's patoot, but I more or less agree with his nostrum: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." I'd add, "Only use the stick as a last resort when the norms of international law require it."

[quote]2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?[/quote]

My personal definition is: a "lazy" word that appeals to the irrational and emotional parts of our souls, used in ways to prevent folks from thinking more rationally about the world and how it works and ought to work. Some shortcuts lead right to hell. I know, I've been there!

[Jason]

Just one quickie for now.

5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?

There is a HUGE difference between shooting a soldier in a revolution after political means had been attempted and failed (as was done in our revolution), and terrorists killing innocent civilians.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]I appreciate the answers so far....


On a comical side note:

Old you crack me up with [/b]

[quote]Q: 15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?

Olds Answer: These questions are ridiculous. You do realize that 72% of Iraqis voted last January don`t you ? Does that sound like the majority is as oppressed as you`re making them out to be ?[/quote]

[quote]= Nowehere there do I say anything about Iraq....

[b]pictures Old taking a test in 2nd grade where the question is :

1. Does a triangle have 3 sides?
Olds answer: we don't call people squares anymore, that is rediculous.[/quote]


back to seriousness... I appreciate the answers.... and I didn't really mean them as a debate but just to gage what others thought....

Homer I look forward to the rest of the answers... as the first two have been very well written and provoking.[/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?

There is a HUGE difference between shooting a soldier in a revolution after political means had been attempted and failed (as was done in our revolution), and terrorists killing innocent civilians.[/quote]

[b]Jason (as a skyline buddy in arms I mean this in a friendly way ... but) - , where do I say anything about Iraq, or terrorists in that question?[/b]

[Nati Ice]

Homer Rice =

[Guest BlackJesus]

Also it is interesting how several people preface a specific question that has nothing to do with terror or Iraq with.... but in Iraq, or but terrorists....


[quote]14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?

What a rediculous hypothetical! Most of Irag was oppressed. Would it have been O.K. to use force to stop Apartheid?[/quote]


[quote]14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?



LMFAO !

That is so fucking ridiculous I can`t even answer.

I can`t believe you`re even trying to equate
what the Native Americans have went through
in the past 20 years to what the Kurds and Iraqis have went through.[/quote]


[b]as for people that had issue with the Chinese analogy.... Iraqis would have also said it would be rediculous if 15 years ago we would have asked them what if the US (yeah the one with Reagen who loves Saddam) in a few decades invaded Iraq to free the kurds... those same ones that they didn't even issue a condemnation for when Saddam gassed them at Halabja.... Of course it is a rediculous analogy... maybe a better one would be the chinese aim to free discriminated blacks?[/b]


[i][b]There were 11 yes or no Questions of the 20, and some have issues with making a yes or no statement.... in addition to their comments.[/b][/i]

[Jason]

[b]1. Should the population of a Nation always support their government’s military actions?[/b]

Not blindly, no. But I think a lot of citizens are just playing politics. This war meets the “Just War” criteria. The people of Iraq want us there. A treaty was violated by Saddam, and we enforced the consequences. A murderous tyrant was deposed, and will be tried by his own people.

[b]2. What is your personal definition of a "Terrorist" not the dictionary one?[/b]

A terrorist targets civilians, and works exclusive of political means.

[b]3. What should a citizen of Germany in 1941 who disagreed with Germany’s invasion of Neighboring countries have done? What would have been in your mind a "patriotic response"?[/b]

Leave the country. But what Germany did in Europe is significantly different from what we are doing in Iraq, and to HONESTLY believe otherwise is political myopothy (sp?).

[b]4. Is there ever a situation where a citizen is justified in criticizing their own military?[/b]

Of course. In a condition of an unjust war. Again, I don’t think this is such a case.

[b]5. What label would have been a fair one for those colonists at the Boston Tea Party and those that then used "unconventional tactics" and shot at British troops from the woods?[/b]

I already answered this in a previous post.

[b]6. Is it possible that the same person can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?[/b]

No. “Freedom Fighters” strike legitimate military targets after diplomacy has expired. Terrorists strike civilians exclusive of diplomatic efforts.

[b]7. Are all people on Earth entitled to certain freedoms? If so, who should guarantee that they get these?[/b]

Yes, we are endowed with the right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Unfortunately, those freedoms cannot always be guaranteed.

[b]8. What does "freedom" mean to you?[/b]

The right to pursue any option I am qualified for. The right to make choices (that do not harm others unduly), and the responsibility to handle the repercussions of those choices.

[b]9. Is it possible in a war for both sides to be wrong and acting with "evil" intentions"? If so, should an observer choose what they deem to be the lesser evil, or should an observer root against both of them?[/b]

Not sure. Usually in a war there is an aggressor and a defender. I suppose it’s possible, but it would certainly be unusual. And being the aggressor does not necessarily mean that that is the evil side.

[b]10. Where does "justifiable" dissent end, and Treason begin?[/b]

To disagree with the President, and to hold protests is fine. But if you actively work to aid and abet the enemy against your own government, then it is treason.

[b]11. Is it possible that Young kids in 1776 England viewed George Washington with the same hatred and indignation that many in America see Osama bin Laden? How do you imagine these kids would have described Washington? What adjectives would they have used?[/b]

I doubt it. George Washington did not perpetrate the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. Osama did.

[b]12. Do all nations have the right to invade other states they feel in their mind "threaten them"?[/b]

No. But there is more to what we are doing in Iraq than that. Iraq disobeyed the terms of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War. After a decade of defying the treaty, and several UN resolutions, the US decided to act. Particularly in a post 9-11 era, a nation that supports terrorism needs to be dealt with. And that is not saying Iraq was intimately involved with 9-11.

[b]13. If your family member was killed by a man attempting to shoot someone else at the workplace, would the motive of the shooter matter to you? Would it matter to you that your dead family member was not the perpetrators intended target when he walked into the workplace and began firing, if he was instead actually aiming for just the boss?[/b]

No. Where is this happening? Accidental civilian deaths are tragic, and, fortunately, rare, unless you count the civilians the “insurgents” are killing.

[b]14. How open would you be to a Chinese Army on the streets of where you live? If the Leader of China decided that Bush was discriminating against Native Americans and thus invaded the United States to liberate these Native Americans, would you support the validity of the Chinese Army driving up and down your street, and occasionally firing into homes (only trying to kill who they called "The American insurgents" who were terrorizing this Chinese liberation force?[/b]

I would not be open to it. But Indians are free to live where they want, or stay on the reservations and practice their lifestyle. Did they get the shaft? Yeah.

[b]15. If a man breaks in your house, are there certain weapons that you should and shouldn't use to fend him off, or do you feel that you would be justified using whatever means you needed to fend him off?[/b]

That depends. Is this man an officer with a warrant, or a thug off the streets? If a thug off the streets, I would feel completely justified in using whatever means I had to defend my family. Again, where is this happening?

[b]16. Should those that support a war, be forced to actively participate in it?[/b]

That depends. There are times when a draft is called for. I would say that WWII was one of those times. But honestly, I have a hard time imagining a situation where a military act of that magnitude would take place again. Right now we have a 100% volunteer army that is the best and most well trained army in the world. I doubt we will ever again be in a situation where a draft is required.

[b]17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?[/b]

Freedom to establish the government of your choice.

[b]18. Give me your personal definition of the word "Liberation" not the dictionary one?[/b]

To be freed from an oppressor.

[b]19. Is it possible for someone to "liberate" someone without the person who is being liberateds consent?[/b]

Yes (I’m sure you have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome). Who is being liberated without their consent? The mainstream media isn’t showing it, but a LARGE majority the Iraqi people are glad we are there. They want us to help keep things stable until the new Iraqi military is capable of handling the situation themselves. They are not at that point yet.

[b]20. Who do you feel is more motivated to win in Iraq, The "insurgents or the US Army? Is motivation more important than equipment and firepower?[/b]

Does it really matter? Keep in mind, most of the insurgents are not even Iraqis. Most of them are Iranian or Syrian, or al Qaeda members from other nations. There probably are a few remnants from Saddam’s Bathist regime, but surely very few of the insurgents are Iraqi “civilians”.

[Jason]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 23 2005, 08:07 PM'][b]Jason (as a skyline buddy in arms I mean this in a friendly way ... but) - , where do I say anything about Iraq, or terrorists in that question?[/b]
[right][post="136481"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

As a Skyline buddy, I mean this reply in a friendly way. You didn't. But can you [b]HONESTLY[/b] tell me there isn't some of that underlying motivation?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]17. If you were asked to write a 1 sentence slogan for our presence in Iraq, that would become the new slogan to gain support from Iraqis, what would that slogan be?[/quote]

"When would you like us to leave?"

[Guest steggyD]

Shit, my response is now gone, due to the unfortunate events. I'm not retyping it.