Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[jhkim]

(Also, you seem to have dropped your point about communism without answering.)

Because you hid behind your father when I was making the point about certain people being gung-ho to go to war against some people, but strangely reticent for others. Namely, Nazism vs Communism. Despite the fact the latter was FAR more murderous and destructive.

I think I've made my position pretty plain. I've said all along that the North Korean communists were the bad guys and that we were right to have fought them. You responded with what "certain people" think.

On that front, I'm happy to agree that certain people are stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical -- often all three. I find that there are plenty of such people in general.

That doesn't say what is right, though. Do you have a position on war? Do you agree with oggsmash that there should be no foreign involvement? Do you agree with me about certain wars being justified (like WWII and Korea) even though most were not? Or do you have a different position?

[Eirikrautha]

(Also, you seem to have dropped your point about communism without answering.)

Because you hid behind your father when I was making the point about certain people being gung-ho to go to war against some people, but strangely reticent for others. Namely, Nazism vs Communism. Despite the fact the latter was FAR more murderous and destructive.

I think I've made my position pretty plain. I've said all along that the North Korean communists were the bad guys and that we were right to have fought them. You responded with what "certain people" think.

On that front, I'm happy to agree that certain people are stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical -- often all three. I find that there are plenty of such people in general.

That doesn't say what is right, though. Do you have a position on war? Do you agree with oggsmash that there should be no foreign involvement? Do you agree with me about certain wars being justified (like WWII and Korea) even though most were not? Or do you have a different position?

The problem is that your definition of a "just" war is completely based on hindsight.  There was no, as in zero, difference between the justification, reason, and threat the US faced from the Korean War and the war in Vietnam.  Both were waged to stop communist revolutions intended to destabilize East Asia and increase the power and influence of China and Russia (respectively).  In fact, part of the reason that Vietnam failed so spectacularly was because of the fear that it would result in a direct confrontation between superpowers (which the Korean War did, which is also why ended in a military draw) like the Korean War.  Do you support the Vietnam War?  Because, from the standpoint of the contemporaneous circumstances that prompted US intervention, they are identical.

I bet you don't.  Because, in popular understanding today, Vietnam was a failure.  And you're not going to own that your justification criteria lead to failures of wars as well as successes.  There's no moral courage, or utility, in trumpeting the justification for WW2, because the US was attacked on its own soil by a nation-state that was (theoretically, though not practically) capable of prosecuting the war in the US.  It was, from the point of view of those that fought it, a war for our nation's survival (whatever hindsight might suggest now as to the actualities of that threat).

But Korea was not that.  Vietnam was not that.  Desert Storm was not that.  Neither was Afghanistan.  And Afghanistan was more like WW2, in it's causus belli than Desert Storm.  Afghanistan was predicated by an actual attack on US soil, that killed more people than Pearl Harbor, by a terrorist group harbor end and supported by the Afghani government.  The fact that the US fucked up the prosecution of the war has NO relevance on whether or not the war was justified.  So how can you support Korea, but not Vietnam?  Kuwait, but not Afghanistan?

You opinion appears, by all indications, to be based on whether or not the (primarily leftist) opinion of modern historians as to whether or not the war was "just."  Any other actual set of coherent principles is not in evidence.  So, f I had to guess, that would be my guess as to why Ghostmaker doesn't take your objections at face value.

[Pat]

(Also, you seem to have dropped your point about communism without answering.)

Because you hid behind your father when I was making the point about certain people being gung-ho to go to war against some people, but strangely reticent for others. Namely, Nazism vs Communism. Despite the fact the latter was FAR more murderous and destructive.

I think I've made my position pretty plain. I've said all along that the North Korean communists were the bad guys and that we were right to have fought them.

That's basically a 5 year old's view of geopolitics. You can make an argument that the leaders of 95% of all countries are bad guys, or bump that up to 100% if we're being honest and not parochial. If all it takes to go to war is to declare the other side bad, then any war becomes just, and there would never be an end to war.

[Pat]

Thank statism! Spotify has deleted 71 episodes of Joe Rogan's podcast for not being government approved disinformation misinformation! Now we can safely be told what to think, instead of hearing a show that presents opposing views from highly respected and extraordinarily well credentialed scientists! And just to dispel the protests of the alt-right extremists who don't think the Constitution is a good substitute for toilet paper, no, it's not a violation of freedom of speech. The first amendment only applies when the government suppresses speech itself, not when they pressure private companies to suppress speech for them.

And even better, Facebook has deleted the Washington DC Freedom Convoy page. Truckers are even more dangerous terrorists than parents who join the PTA and think they have a say over the indoctrination education of their children. So please report any sightings of trucks to your local party, comrade! Rumor has it they're known to backup to stores you shop at! And you can tell they're engaged in something qnefarious, because they don't pull up in front of the store like all the regular, Marx-fearing impatient people who leave their engines running when they park in front of the door and run in for a "quick" something. No, you can tell those those dastardly truckers are up to something because they sneak around the back!

And best of all, GoFundMe has seized the funds donated to the truckers in Canada, and will safely funnel the money to progressive causes! Totalitarianism Freedom is winning! Edit: Breaking update! Due to pressure from hate groups like people who donate to charities, GoFundMe has caved and will instead return the funds to the donors. It's a sad day for evil freedom, but don't worry we'll still win!

[moonsweeper]

C'mon man. Now that the Covid narrative is collapsing we need a war to change the talking points.

[jhkim]

That doesn't say what is right, though. Do you have a position on war? Do you agree with oggsmash that there should be no foreign involvement? Do you agree with me about certain wars being justified (like WWII and Korea) even though most were not? Or do you have a different position?

The problem is that your definition of a "just" war is completely based on hindsight.  There was no, as in zero, difference between the justification, reason, and threat the US faced from the Korean War and the war in Vietnam.  Both were waged to stop communist revolutions intended to destabilize East Asia and increase the power and influence of China and Russia (respectively).  In fact, part of the reason that Vietnam failed so spectacularly was because of the fear that it would result in a direct confrontation between superpowers (which the Korean War did, which is also why ended in a military draw) like the Korean War.  Do you support the Vietnam War?  Because, from the standpoint of the contemporaneous circumstances that prompted US intervention, they are identical.

I don't agree they are identical. Again, my premise is that one-sided invasion where one side conquers the other is invalid, and demands resistance.

(1) The Korean War was officially sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council and actions. The Vietnam War was not.

(2) The Korean War had a clear and unambiguous start - the 25 June 1950 one-sided military invasion of the south from the north. The Vietnam War was started by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was a lie. Even if it was true, the response of massive airstrikes on the south was not in the slightest a response in kind to a skirmish like that.

(3) Vietnam was formerly a French colony, and had been attacked by the French for years prior to the second war involving the U.S. Korean had only been occupied by Japan. The Vietnamese had good reason to see the West as conquering, since they had done so before.

There's no moral courage, or utility, in trumpeting the justification for WW2, because the US was attacked on its own soil by a nation-state that was (theoretically, though not practically) capable of prosecuting the war in the US.  It was, from the point of view of those that fought it, a war for our nation's survival (whatever hindsight might suggest now as to the actualities of that threat).

But Korea was not that.  Vietnam was not that.  Desert Storm was not that.  Neither was Afghanistan.  And Afghanistan was more like WW2, in it's causus belli than Desert Storm.  Afghanistan was predicated by an actual attack on US soil, that killed more people than Pearl Harbor, by a terrorist group harbor end and supported by the Afghani government.  The fact that the US fucked up the prosecution of the war has NO relevance on whether or not the war was justified.  So how can you support Korea, but not Vietnam?  Kuwait, but not Afghanistan?

The common traits of WWII, Korea, and Kuwait is that they involved outright one-sided military invasion. Not a skirmish or single attack. Our enemies undertook an invasion for conquest of territory, where armies of one side roll into the other to take it by force. The latter two were community actions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council.

These one-sided invasions need to be resisted, because conquest for territory is illegitimate, and allowing it to happen unresisted destabilizes all countries.

By contrast, excuses like "Remember the Maine" or the Gulf of Tonkin claim that it is legitimate to upgrade from a small skirmish to all-out assault / invasion of the other side. I think that sort of escalation is not justified. Escalating to all-out war is destabilizing. If everyone were to always escalate any attack to that degree, the world would be on fire. With Afghanistan, the U.S. war was supposedly motivated by 9/11 -- but none of the 9/11 attackers were Afghani, or acting as agents of the Afghan government. Because the Afghan government gave support to Al Qaeda, I think a military response was justified - but conquest of the entire country was not. Our invasion of Iraq was certainly not justified by this view.

The claim of "casus belli" is often that some isolated attack justifies all-out war and conquest of the other country -- and I think that is extremely suspect.

[Eirikrautha]

That doesn't say what is right, though. Do you have a position on war? Do you agree with oggsmash that there should be no foreign involvement? Do you agree with me about certain wars being justified (like WWII and Korea) even though most were not? Or do you have a different position?

The problem is that your definition of a "just" war is completely based on hindsight.  There was no, as in zero, difference between the justification, reason, and threat the US faced from the Korean War and the war in Vietnam.  Both were waged to stop communist revolutions intended to destabilize East Asia and increase the power and influence of China and Russia (respectively).  In fact, part of the reason that Vietnam failed so spectacularly was because of the fear that it would result in a direct confrontation between superpowers (which the Korean War did, which is also why ended in a military draw) like the Korean War.  Do you support the Vietnam War?  Because, from the standpoint of the contemporaneous circumstances that prompted US intervention, they are identical.

I don't agree they are identical. Again, my premise is that one-sided invasion where one side conquers the other is invalid, and demands resistance.

(1) The Korean War was officially sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council and actions. The Vietnam War was not.

(2) The Korean War had a clear and unambiguous start - the 25 June 1950 one-sided military invasion of the south from the north. The Vietnam War was started by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was a lie. Even if it was true, the response of massive airstrikes on the south was not in the slightest a response in kind to a skirmish like that.

(3) Vietnam was formerly a French colony, and had been attacked by the French for years prior to the second war involving the U.S. Korean had only been occupied by Japan. The Vietnamese had good reason to see the West as conquering, since they had done so before.

There's no moral courage, or utility, in trumpeting the justification for WW2, because the US was attacked on its own soil by a nation-state that was (theoretically, though not practically) capable of prosecuting the war in the US.  It was, from the point of view of those that fought it, a war for our nation's survival (whatever hindsight might suggest now as to the actualities of that threat).

But Korea was not that.  Vietnam was not that.  Desert Storm was not that.  Neither was Afghanistan.  And Afghanistan was more like WW2, in it's causus belli than Desert Storm.  Afghanistan was predicated by an actual attack on US soil, that killed more people than Pearl Harbor, by a terrorist group harbor end and supported by the Afghani government.  The fact that the US fucked up the prosecution of the war has NO relevance on whether or not the war was justified.  So how can you support Korea, but not Vietnam?  Kuwait, but not Afghanistan?

The common traits of WWII, Korea, and Kuwait is that they involved outright one-sided military invasion. Not a skirmish or single attack. Our enemies undertook an invasion for conquest of territory, where armies of one side roll into the other to take it by force. The latter two were community actions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council.

These one-sided invasions need to be resisted, because conquest for territory is illegitimate, and allowing it to happen unresisted destabilizes all countries.

By contrast, excuses like "Remember the Maine" or the Gulf of Tonkin claim that it is legitimate to upgrade from a small skirmish to all-out assault / invasion of the other side. I think that sort of escalation is not justified. Escalating to all-out war is destabilizing. If everyone were to always escalate any attack to that degree, the world would be on fire. With Afghanistan, the U.S. war was supposedly motivated by 9/11 -- but none of the 9/11 attackers were Afghani, or acting as agents of the Afghan government. Because the Afghan government gave support to Al Qaeda, I think a military response was justified - but conquest of the entire country was not. Our invasion of Iraq was certainly not justified by this view.

The claim of "casus belli" is often that some isolated attack justifies all-out war and conquest of the other country -- and I think that is extremely suspect.

Of course every war has a different precipitating event.  But that is irrelevant to the justification for the war.  By your criteria, the US participated in an unjust war in Bosnia, as no one invaded anywhere (it was a totally internal struggle).  Iraq's own justification for invading Kuwait was a violation of its own sovereign territory (and there's some evidence the Kuwaitis may have actually dug some cross-border wells).  So, if Putin gets a puppet government to ask him to enter Ukraine to "help stabilize" the country, that's totally different than if he enters unilaterally to "help stabilize"?  You realize that this is exactly how the Russians entered Afghanistan, right?  So, to you, the Russian war in Afghanistan was just?  The idea that the precipitating event that propels a nation to war is the primary factor in the war being justified is actually far more stupid and dangerous than I even gave you credit for.  And your deference to the UN is even more boneheaded.  So, as long as a majority of nations voting in some council at the UN believe a war is just (the same UN that had Syria, China, and Iran as members of their Human Rights Council), then the actual interests and needs of the US are unimportant?

This is the problem with you modern leftists.  You are so deferential to authority (I believe as an excuse to dodge the hard choices of personal responsibility), that you will reflexively defer to any person or body that claims authority, even when their claim is suspect.  The idea that the UN has any authority in matters of moral authority (let's remember, the US got a UN resolution to invade Iraq predicated on false reports of WMDs... So the second Iraqi War was just in you criteria, because we had a UN resolution backing it) is laughable on its face.  The fact that you would give them ultimate authority to determine the "just-ness" of a war...

The fact remains that your justifications are still post hoc, as every claim for provocation was met at the time by most of the countries involved.  Only in hindsight can we unravel which claims were poorly supported... which is why your criteria are arbitrary and not possible to use as a contemporaneous justification.

[jhkim]

The claim of "casus belli" is often that some isolated attack justifies all-out war and conquest of the other country -- and I think that is extremely suspect.

Iraq's own justification for invading Kuwait was a violation of its own sovereign territory (and there's some evidence the Kuwaitis may have actually dug some cross-border wells).  So, if Putin gets a puppet government to ask him to enter Ukraine to "help stabilize" the country, that's totally different than if he enters unilaterally to "help stabilize"?  You realize that this is exactly how the Russians entered Afghanistan, right?  So, to you, the Russian war in Afghanistan was just?  The idea that the precipitating event that propels a nation to war is the primary factor in the war being justified is actually far more stupid and dangerous than I even gave you credit for.

As I quote above, I said specifically I'm against going to war over a singular precipitating event to justify war. Precipitating events like the sinking of the Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin attack did not justify those wars - particularly given that they were fictional. Likewise, even if Kuwait did have cross-border wells, that doesn't mean that Iraq was justified in conquering and take over Kuwait.

There's a categorical difference between "precipitating events" like these, and invading Poland.

If country A invades country B to conquer it, then they started the war. Allies and other countries sending troops to stop or reverse the invasion isn't starting the war - it is justified response.

This is the problem with you modern leftists.  You are so deferential to authority (I believe as an excuse to dodge the hard choices of personal responsibility), that you will reflexively defer to any person or body that claims authority, even when their claim is suspect.  The idea that the UN has any authority in matters of moral authority (let's remember, the US got a UN resolution to invade Iraq predicated on false reports of WMDs... So the second Iraqi War was just in you criteria, because we had a UN resolution backing it) is laughable on its face.

This is not what I said. Neither the U.N., nor the U.S., nor any other authority is the definition of what is just. If the U.N. were to reverse its policy on wars of aggression, then they would be wrong. Your claim was that Vietnam was identical to Korea, and I listed out a number of ways that they were different - including the U.N. authorization.

Incidentally, UNSCR resolution 1441 does *not* call for the U.S. to invade Iraq. You can read the full text of it here:

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1441

The only thing it calls for is for member states to support WMD inspections ("requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates"). Contrast it with the resolution on the Korean War:

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/83

Where it "recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be
necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." So in this case, these resolutions match my judgement, but it's not definitional -- it's just that the U.S. is far more inclined to war than the U.N. is.

[Kiero]

The UN is one of the most corrupt of international bodies - and given they're all corrupt (FIFA, the World Bank, etc) that's saying something.

[jhkim]

The UN is one of the most corrupt of international bodies - and given they're all corrupt (FIFA, the World Bank, etc) that's saying something.

Then apparently the U.S. just didn't pay enough to authorize its Iraq War. 

[Kiero]

Liars trying to justify their lies: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APFactCheck

"The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology."

What bollocks, they're changing their story after the fact, whilst still trying to claim they didn't falsely change the definition.

[dkabq]

Liars trying to justify their lies: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APFactCheck

"The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology."

What bollocks, they're changing their story after the fact, whilst still trying to claim they didn't false change the definition.

As I see it, the problem is that the powers-that-be used the previous, imprecise definitions to mislead the public.

For example: "Vax or Mask"; if you got vaccinated, you did not need to wear are mask because the vaccine stopped the vaccinated from spreading covid.

Or the "if x-% of the population gets vaccinated we will reach herd immunity".

In both cases, they were either incompetently wrong or telling the "noble" lie. And the public buys it because they are led to believe that the covid vaccine acts like all of the other vaccines they are aware of (e.g., measles, small pox, polio).

[oggsmash]

LMAO... looking to the UN as any sort of authority is like having your 6 year old run your household.  Lots of loud voices in the UN from countries that can not get their shit together.  Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq.  They were warned to stop.  Several times.  They were having a local beef over a debt, and it should have stayed a local beef.

[Kiero]

LMAO... looking to the UN as any sort of authority is like having your 6 year old run your household.  Lots of loud voices in the UN from countries that can not get their shit together.  Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq.  They were warned to stop.  Several times.  They were having a local beef over a debt, and it should have stayed a local beef.

The Palestinian authorities and numerous representatives of governments with a track record of routine torture are allowed to sit on the UNCHR. It's a joke.

[oggsmash]

USA military business is at the borders, and that is it.  Just as the founding fathers wanted, NO INVOLVEMENT IN FOREIGN ADVENTURES.  You can say the world is better off for the USA getting into foreign adventures, but reality is you do not know (WW2 never happens if the USA is not in WW1, and WW1 is the main reason the PEOPLE (not political elite) wanted zero part of WW2) and I can assure you millions of Iraqis disagree 1000 percent with your endorsement of foreign adventures. 

   The issue I have with pussies pushing for use of force, is they have ZERO understanding of the consequences of when force gets pointed back at them.  The "World" let commies run wild after WW2, and millions upon millions of people died because of it, many more than died during WW2.  So your view of better is more or less speculative bullshit.

Sure, it's speculative - but so is your view.

The vast majority of the American public supported involvement in WWII at the time of our entry - it wasn't just the political elite. Even war veterans have tended to think that the war had been worth fighting. The WWII and Korean War veterans that I have met had plenty of gripes about the government, but they didn't regret that the war was fought. Even my German friends agree that America was right to fight against Germany. So among non-pussies who do understand the consequences, they don't generally share your view.

On a personal level, I know I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the Korean War, and I have many Jewish friends who wouldn't be alive if it weren't for our involvement in WWII.

That said, I'm in agreement with you about most U.S. wars. If the U.S. had only used its military to defend its borders since the founding, the world would certainly be a very different place (especially North America) - and it might be better overall, given the number of unjust wars we have engaged in. But I do still think that Nazis were worth fighting.

  You seem to just be obtuse when it suits you.  Did you miss where I said that had the USA never entered WW1 there is no WW2?  No Nazis, no WW2.  I am glad lots and lots of people died so you could be born.  Did your father actually do any fighting?  Or did he do the hiding and fleeing?  I have family, all the way down the line that has been involved in these wars, going back a looong ways. I even got to do a bunch of calculus and physics during desert storm (was in Naval Nuclear Power School at that time) and figured I would be over there as well.  As for public support for WW2, no, it was damn near zero UNTIL WE WERE BOMBED.   Of course WW2 vets are going to feel justified, look at the propaganda in every place in the country that was rolled out non stop.  But again, no WW1 involvement, there is likely never a WW2, at least there are no Nazis.  One action created a  horrible genocide down the road, because of US intervention.   WW2 was heavily propagandized (as was WW1) so lots of these "just" wars were simply the results of effective propaganda.   You conjure Nazi's because your boomer brain has been conditioned they were the worst enemy ever on earth.  They were a creation of a non decisive ending to WW1, because of the US involvement.   I think it would have been better had there never been in Nazis, and there are a shitload more Jews who if they could, would agree with me on that compared to how many appreciate the USA fighting in WW2. 

  Edited to add:  Using vets to say a war was just is a bad metric.  NO ONE who is in a military conflict where they see friends and comrades die(and often a lot of them) is going to want to think on any level what they were involved with was a waste of time not needed.  Combat veterans also tend to agree largely with what the propaganda around the war says as well, isnt it odd how many Vietnam vets were against the war?  Which mirrored the pushed propaganda in the media?  People who were in the desert wars also say they felt it was needed and just.  Watching a friend die is going to affect you a lot on how you view something like that.  Going through it with guys you rely on to stay alive and doing your part to keeping them alive forges a bond that can only be found in combat.   Those things are going to affect your view of the conflict in a way that is frankly, going to be about as far from objective as you can get.   Every WW2 vet I knew though never said they felt they should have gone over there though.  They said they had to do it, accepted it, and did their best to get the job done so they could come home.  None had much of a point of view about whether they should have been there or not IME.