ZFBoxcar

That is indeed what I meant. If you think that after such an invasion occurs, the invading free country is under no obligation to the invaded people, then we just have to agree to disagree.

Praxus

The fact that the enemy government hasn't initiated force against us does not change the nature of what that government is. If a government massacres their own people instead of securing their rights, the Government has initiated force against their own populace and therefor no longer has a right to exsist. The only thing more required to make the war moral is for the war to be in our interest.

ZFBoxcar

Where do I argue with that? I am not saying a free country does not have the right to eliminate a dictatorship, I'm saying that a free country does not have the right to eliminate one and just leave or treat them like ****, if the free country is the initiator of force (if there is no threat of force from the non-free country). I was not talking about the "rights" of a dictatorship as they have none, but the obligations of a victorious army of a free nation towards an occupied former dictatorship. After all, people living under a dictatorship are not a different species, they have the potential to be free.

EDIT: Response your edit: It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. A government loses its legitamcy by using force against its own people, yes, but if you don't care to replace it with something better, then how is that a legitamate case against that government (in terms of going to war)?

Praxus

But the enemy Government has already initiated force, it now has no rights. So it is impossible to initiate force against a dictatorship.

How so? Just because we don't put in a free government doesn't change the nature of their former Government.

ZFBoxcar

I'm not sticking up for the dictatorship, I'm sticking up for the people inhabiting it when the country in question has not committed agression against us (so their factories are not turning out weapons to kill us, their people are not being conscripted into an army trying to kill us, etc).

But its like you're killing a rapist for his crimes, and then going ahead and raping his victim again yourself. If you treat a country as badly or more badly than the way they were treated before...well, then the war can still be justifiable (there could have been good reasons) but the country being an oppressive dictatorship can no longer be one of those justifications.

turnagainarm

Do we follow any moderation on this board? Why is a hate statement like above allowed?

Genocide and slavery of Native Americans was justified?

redstar2000

Praxus is a real "piece of work" as the saying goes.

He even makes other conservatives nervous.

And they should be nervous...seeing where his views lead.

__________________
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

Ray

Redstar,

Praxus is the extreme end of the rainbow.

One may not agree with this type of extremism, but isn't it worth knowing what's at the end of the rainbow? It may not be the proverbian pot of gold, but still it is worth knowing.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Praxus

Wow, how about you respond to my post, that you conveniantly just ignored, once you realized another person was attacking my argument.

According to you, where my view leads is irrelivent because afterall morality is subjective or so goes your opinion

Oh get off your high horse...

How is that a hate statement? Some of our actions against Indians were in fact evil, most of our actions were in fact retaliation against the Indians.

Unless your naive enough to believe that the indians were all perfect peace loving people then I don't know how you can disagree with my statement.

Thoose people are the moral responsibility of their Government. All deaths incurred are the result of the nature of their Government.

As for firebombing "innocents" and such. If there be "innocents" they should of course flee if they can. But if we can not identify them without sacrifing American lives and treasury then we are fully justified in killing them. Their death lies on the hands of the initiator of force which is of course the dictatorship (which is an initiator of force almost by it's nature even if they didn't directly attack us).

According to the modern line, we shouldn't have firebombed the German and Japanese cities because that would kill innocent civilians. If we fought WW2 like we fought this war, we would have had millions dead, not just 450,000. According to modern day thinking it would be a moral crime to attack a factory because of "colatoral damage".

But some people might say "well it's a nessecary evil". Well that's non-sense, no evil is nessecary, that's exactly why something is evil, that is to say you shouldn't do it.

Look once the threat is gone we should leave. We shouldn't set anything up. If we want to secure oil then we can keep a force there for that purpose, but that does not make it a Government. A Government has a monopoly on the use of force in a given region, obviously if their ownly protecting a pipeline they can not be considered the Government of the fourign peoples.

ZFBoxcar

I am not talking about the proper way to wage a war or whether a defensive war is justifiable (obviously it is, and WWII was the most obviously defensive war ever IMO). Once you are at war, assuming it is defensive (or defensive against threats of force) then you do whatever it takes to win because the enemy government is responsible. I am talking about once that government no longer exists and you are in military control of the country. You can't blame a non-existant government for your treatment of an occupied people, or for abandoning them to fate.

If you leave troops to protect a resource while letting the rest of the country do its own thing you are leaving the protecting troops in a huge amount of danger. Do you want to have to keep fighting the same war over and over again? Most people in that country are not going to say "oh well, that Western oil company found the oil first, its theirs fair and square and we should get no revenue from them and just be greatful they respect their own private property while leaving us in a **** hole". Thus you WILL inevitably have a new government, or numerous factions, that will try to drive out the Westerners or use the threat of force. You can go in and beat them again and again, but then you are disregarding the welfare of the soldiers. The occupied have to have some reason not to fight. Fear probably won't be one of them, as people have been having revolutions and wars for most of recorded history. When things are obviously getting better, people are probably gonna put that revolution on hold. When things get worse post-war, you get communist scum (no offense red star), islamofascists (assuming its a Muslim country, if not, then just fascists/terrorists), out and out anarchists, warlords, etc. And guess what they all will have in common? They want the Western property owners and their protecting soldiers out. Rome gave benifits to a conquered nation. Britain gave structure and certain benifits to conquered nations. The US has done that, and gone one step further in giving them back complete sovreignty. What you seem to want is to go back to the Viking style of dealing with other countries.

Praxus

But we shouldn't be occupying a country in the first place unless it is realisticly possible to turn it into a republic and that's the point I am trying to make.

Then we destroy them, again like I said before we leave for the most part under the pretext that if they attack us again they will be met with force again.

I'm not argueing against creating constitutional republics that protect the rights of their citizens better then their former Government. All I am saying is that we shouldn't do this unless it's realisticly possible. But when you got a bunch of Islamofascist running around just asking to die I don't see how setting up a free Government could be possible in such a country.

Their is a fundamental difference, the Vikings were the bad guys, and we are the good guys.

redstar2000

No argument from me.

When German capitalists brought Hitler to power in January 1933, they knew what they were doing.

Praxus knows where he wants to "take us".

Want to go there?

Praxus

Ok you can stop insulting me and actually respond to my post. The one you choose to ignore AGAIN.

The one posted Yesterday 05:59 PM PST.

redstar2000

Have you forgotten? You said you were not going to discuss anything with me.

I took you at your word.

Besides, I understand you now: you really believe that the American Empire should now behave towards the rest of the world in the same fashion and for the same reasons as 19th century America behaved towards native American tribes.

You think that's "justified" and even "moral".

In fact, "forward to the 19th century" should be in your signature. I'm sure your ambitions include (at least!) no progressive income tax, no minimum wage, no limitations on the length of the working day, no prohibition of child labor, no rights for workers to organize unions, no free public education, no food & drug regulations, no public health services, certainly no unemployment or welfare benefits...and, for all I know, the restoration of slavery for the "lazy, criminal, and unfit".

Curiously, the age for which you yearn may indeed be returning. But before you break out the champagne, you may want to consider another characteristic of your favorite era.

It was also known as "the age of revolutions".

Praxus

Holy ****, what is so complicated about responding to the post?

Your willing to post a page of marxist bull **** but not counter the points I posted.

Look, you claimed Capitalism meant something it doesn't and your basing your entire argument on it. I can see why you refuse to respond.