What's the Difference?

[SlowwHand]

You insist on ignoring that Iraq has thumbed their nose at the U.N., not just the USA, for over a decade.
It's not being started by the USA, or the U.N., it's a response to the unwillingness by Iraq to follow conditions dictated in the Gulf War.

If yo insist on ignoring, it's your right.
Just be advised that ignorance is not knowing, stupidity is knowing but ignoring.
Untill you've been told not to stick a paper clip in a light socket, you might do it out of ignorance.
Once you've been told but choose to do so anyway, you've just crossed the line into stupidity.

Same as this subject.

[David Floyd]

You insist on ignoring that Iraq has thumbed their nose at the U.N., not just the USA, for over a decade.

Why should I care about the UN?

It's not being started by the USA, or the U.N., it's a response to the unwillingness by Iraq to follow conditions dictated in the Gulf War.

OK, but I don't support the Gulf War either. A contract signed under duress is not a valid contract.

Same as this subject.

[Arrian]

A contract signed under duress is not a valid contract.

True inside a society, but between nations? What happens if NationA attacks NationB (no reason - naked aggression) and NationB defeats NationA, and the time comes for a peace treaty. In that peace treaty, NationB is able, by virtue of its military victory, get concessions from NationA to make up for the unprovoked attack. Is that treaty invalid, because it was signed "under duress?"

If so, how can you ever have a valid peace treaty, other than one that simply ends hostilities?

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

If so, how can you ever have a valid peace treaty, other than one that simply ends hostilities?

Bingo - that should be the only kind of peace treaty. Peace between equals. Unconditional surrender, and all that, is a load of ****.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Bingo - that should be the only kind of peace treaty. Peace between equals. Unconditional surrender, and all that, is a load of ****.

think of history without unconditional surrenders. man, that would suck.

wouldn't there still be a confederate states of america?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Bingo - that should be the only kind of peace treaty.

Why? Nations and people are two different entities and your absurd contract analogy doesn't apply to the real world.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
David:

Would you want your family to have difficulties paying the bills? of course you don't want your neighbours to have difficulties either but if one family got to have problems, it's better them than your family right?


thanks

All organism would rather see genetically closer organisms to succeed rather than a genetically more different ones. Its biological.

[Arrian]

Floyd, that makes ZERO sense.

It rewards the aggressor - and you seem to be very much against the aggressor. Say I'm a despotic ruler of NationA. I look accross the border to the lush, green valleys of NationB (ruled by say... you), and decide I'd like to have them.

I invade you. Your military beats mine (unlikely, considering your military would most likely be a skeleton crew and mine would be the focus of my brutal society, but that's another matter) and forces my army back into my borders.

Then, I say "oops, that wasn't such a good idea, I guess. Peace?" By your logic, you must say "ok, sure." And that's the end of it.

Are you mad?

-Arrian

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Calc II


All organism would rather see genetically closer organisms to succeed rather than a genetically more different ones. Its biological.

yes, thats the way it is, but is that the way it ought to be?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


OK, but I don't support the Gulf War either. A contract signed under duress is not a valid contract.

Oh dear. By that logic this mean Britain is still at war with Germany, Japan, France and the US.

[Arrian]

DF,

Well, what about the scenario I came up with? What then? (See my last post above).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

David?

[SlowwHand]

David, it's surrender. Not time-out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it is obvious that Floyd doesn't live in reality. I wonder what the color of the sky is in his fantasy world.

[Zero]

Originally posted by UberKruX


yes, thats the way it is, but is that the way it ought to be?

i never said it ought to be.

Our conciousness can prevent us from making decisons that are instinctive and naturally driven. We can choose to starve to death for a cause. We can decide not to procreate.