Donald Trump and US politics

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Elynole wrote:

An act of war, keyword act. Not war, an act of it. A task, one movement.

If the U.S. hypothetically never entered WWII after the Pearl Harbor events, would you still define the U.S. as being at war with Japan? No, you wouldn't. Because the whole world didn't even consider the U.S. in WWII until after massive movements and operations after Pearl Harbor, even though Japan had attacked U.S. territories before Pearl Harbor.

ok ok I give you that you're right. But, this is a semantic debate and you're playing on words, people still die and the result is pretty much the same. Suffering, death, destruction, waste of ressources.

Ok maybe just bombing a bunch of poor people who can't retaliate us is not considered a war, but it is still an horrible thing to do.

And I never argued it wasn't a horrible thing. Going to war doesn't make you defend war, like it, or want more of it. In my own experience it taught me that war is the least civilized thing a person can be apart of. It brings out the absolute worst in everyone.

I do not advocate for any type of violence. The drone attacks that happen on a near-daily basis are absolutely awful.

My initial post says what my initial intent was in this thread. I didn't agree with the use of the word war for what most people define as military conflicts, as historically war has been defined as large scale extended conflicts/mobilizations/etc. and I didn't agree with the stating that Obama had started these conflicts when they've been going on since before he took his 1st term in most situations.

"

Elynole wrote:

This rabbit hole can go as far as you want...if Russia gives intelligence on a country that the U.S. ends up bombing based on that intelligence, are both Russia and the U.S. at war or just the U.S. since they dropped the bomb. If Australia does tech/radar support for Canada in a war and that's it, is Australia considered warring with the country as well?

Just passing by. Not even interested in this conversation or smth, but it's all defined by the international law.

"

"A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war."

In your example, the attacked have reasons to declare war to one or both of the involved sides, according to his will and interests. It wouldn't get sanctioned by UN.


Not that UN matters nowadays. But still.

@Elynole

Just for the record, whenever somebody come´s up with washed out old story´s about the axis-forces, i go full banzai. I´m fully aware that critizising a whole particular group, in this case amerikan soldier´s, is not particulary a good thing. If i were to pick a especialy important promis from DT, id go with reducing suicide rates, but it´s not my buisness as somebody else already stated.
Look ""brownie"" even sidet with communist NVietnam once, because they are only victim´s of a greater scam, but hey they have IQ150+ not me.

About War, I gona create a categorie´s based one what´s considert ""legitimate"" action´s ,based on current world affair´s. Just the way it is.
""legitimate""
Arming, Selling/Buying Weapon´s: Evrybody on this earth has the right to desire protection,
although it eventually turn´s into a Pingpong armsrace. We live in a global ""free market"" which evryone trade´s with evryone, if you don´t sell weapon´s, then somebody else will do it. It´s completly wayne if one Gouverment sell´s arm to another, what will both sides say anyway´s?
Spying: Partly the same as above. Evrybody has the right to be suspicious or curious. Group intrest´s, in this case nation´s, will alway´s inevitible clash. We can argue how ""insecure"" spying on the economy is, but if it come´s to security, it´s justified.
Founding,Supporting: ""Free use of Capital"" is in my opinion wrong yes,
but unbeatable, unless you completly controll the Banking System, to actually get a clue were all this ""Money"" originaly come´s from. But again, it´s a mather of ""Basic human right´s"", right or wrong. But i agree, the rat´s tale is probaply very Long.

"

Elynole wrote:

And I never argued it wasn't a horrible thing. Going to war doesn't make you defend war, like it, or want more of it. In my own experience it taught me that war is the least civilized thing a person can be apart of. It brings out the absolute worst in everyone.

I do not advocate for any type of violence. The drone attacks that happen on a near-daily basis are absolutely awful.

My initial post says what my initial intent was in this thread. I didn't agree with the use of the word war for what most people define as military conflicts, as historically war has been defined as large scale extended conflicts/mobilizations/etc. and I didn't agree with the stating that Obama had started these conflicts when they've been going on since before he took his 1st term in most situations.

I'm glad we can agree on this, I was reading a very interesting article about 2 or 3 months ago, if I had the link I would post it. It was about how the definition of war have changed since Obama and the begining of his 2 terms in office. Just bombing a country but not putting any ground unit is not considered as war now.

Even if the result are the same and the deaths and everything is as bad ahhh ahhh not considered a war now.

I really hope for the best of everyone that Trump may find a way to end this, whether it's just considered a bombing mission or a war. It would be for the good of everyone.

Back to a completely different topic... oh say, part of the tread's title ;-) ...

Fake news like CNN and New York Times loves to take every futile jab at Trump. Just as they did with claiming Germans booed Ivanka. This time Germany set these liberal rags straight...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/german-paper-us-media-got-it-wrong-ivanka-wasnt-booed/

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Back to a completely different topic... oh say, part of the tread's title ;-) ...

Fake news like CNN and New York Times loves to take every futile jab at Trump. Just as they did with claiming Germans booed Ivanka. This time Germany set these liberal rags straight...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/german-paper-us-media-got-it-wrong-ivanka-wasnt-booed/

I really love how both yourself and the Daily Caller twist the original German story to only include those news organizations that are liberal leaning and not include the conservative leaning news organizations that reported the same thing.

Just to note - I support neither side of the aisle.

on a funnier note

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Elynole wrote:

And I never argued it wasn't a horrible thing. Going to war doesn't make you defend war, like it, or want more of it. In my own experience it taught me that war is the least civilized thing a person can be apart of. It brings out the absolute worst in everyone.

I do not advocate for any type of violence. The drone attacks that happen on a near-daily basis are absolutely awful.

My initial post says what my initial intent was in this thread. I didn't agree with the use of the word war for what most people define as military conflicts, as historically war has been defined as large scale extended conflicts/mobilizations/etc. and I didn't agree with the stating that Obama had started these conflicts when they've been going on since before he took his 1st term in most situations.

I'm glad we can agree on this, I was reading a very interesting article about 2 or 3 months ago, if I had the link I would post it. It was about how the definition of war have changed since Obama and the begining of his 2 terms in office. Just bombing a country but not putting any ground unit is not considered as war now.

Even if the result are the same and the deaths and everything is as bad ahhh ahhh not considered a war now.

I really hope for the best of everyone that Trump may find a way to end this, whether it's just considered a bombing mission or a war. It would be for the good of everyone.

As if bombing the shit out of strategic locations in a foreign country is somehow not a large scale mobilization that is part of an extended conflict. But but but muh ground troops. Excuses, excuses. Pathetic!

Also, blatantly unconstitutional. But no one cares because the military industrial complex owns the deep state owns the media owns the culture.

There is but one valid justification for going to war: another entity goes to war with you first. What's so concerning about US military interventionism is how readily the officials of our country are willing to put foreign interests under the umbrella of "us," and who those allies are.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As if bombing the shit out of strategic locations in a foreign country is somehow not a large scale mobilization that is part of an extended conflict. But but but muh ground troops. Excuses, excuses. Pathetic!

There is but one valid justification for going to war: another entity goes to war with you first. What's so concerning about US military interventionism is how readily the officials of our country are willing to put foreign interests under the umbrella of "us," and who those allies are.

I totally agree with you, in my book even if they don't want to call it a war because there is no retaliation or ground troop, I see this as one. And I really hope the current president will stop this circle of war interventionism in the middle east because it is doing so much shit right now.

I really hope he can put an end to the current wars, and our fight against Isis and Al-Quaeda. Without starting or sparking any other conflict. That's what I hope for because it will be for the best interest of everyone.

what's stupid is... Obama bombed over 7 countries, they gave him the nobel price of peace.

They gave him the nobel prize of peace due to how he brought together a nation even through race divide (aka, right after he got in office). That said, I also said "wut" when he got it.