/general/ | /photos/ | /projects/

- [Home] [Catalog] [Search] [Thread List] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Subject [
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: 1293730259283.jpg -(57.9 KB, 576x357) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
59328 No.39841  
(As continuation of posts >>39806, >>39811, >>39814, >>39816, >>39823, >>39826, >>39832 and >>39833 from the 'short thoughts' thread.)

>Waging war against another country is a violation of national sovereignty
No, INVASION (and other 'acts of war') against a country you are not at war with is a violation of national sovereignty. Declaring war on a country is never a crime, and from that moment on acts of war are fair game. International relations may be damaged, and you may face retaliation from alliances and/or organizations as well as sanctions from alliances/organizations you are affiliated with if you have no proper casus belli, but it is not a crime. You will not be prosecuted as war criminal for declaring war even without casus belli, at least not without some string-pulling behind the scenes (being declared a terrorist, extrajudicial execution, etc).

Some modern leaders could be tried for war crimes for torturing and unnecessarily killing PoWs, and perhaps for fabricated casus belli (not sure if that's considered a war crime), but not for waging war itself.
>> No.39842  
File: vibe.jpg -(810.1 KB, 744x887) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> No.39845  
Do you or do you not believe killing is wrong, OP?

>> No.39846  
File: 93475348795.jpg -(156.9 KB, 600x1030) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

killing people is pretty rude imo
>> No.39848  
File: 9cd2.jpeg -(363.0 KB, 900x857) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> No.39849  
File: 1370408829858.jpg -(407.6 KB, 1400x990) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Generally speaking, yes, I think killing is wrong. However, there are some circumstances under which killing is justified. I feel that self-defense (both on personal and national level) is always a justification for killing, and that any killing that would save lives (as in, prevent deaths, not 'free them from a situation we dislike') is at least up for discussion. Furthermore, violence is sometimes a necessary form of revolt against oppression, and deaths are often inevitable in that situation.

If you're asking me for my opinion on invading other countries for territory, resources or other benefits, I'm strongly against that. In the case of invading a country to topple its government for being oppressive, that won't result in a stable situation and they should mind their own business. The people will have to do it by themselves. To a lesser extent I feel the same about liberating occupied countries; two wrongs don't make a right, so to the victor the spoils, and if the resulting government is oppressive it's the people's responsibility to revolt against it.
>> No.39853  
File: 1.jpg -(296.5 KB, 1000x1415) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I wish I could get into lego again, but they are so expensive
>> No.39854  
That's just because you want specialty parts and kits and junk. I had legos, lots of them, when I was a kid and my family was dirt poor. They were just mostly ordinary blocks. I only had one of the Technic sets with all the axles and wheels and gears, and it was generic. Could have made the tank in the photo, no problem, it just wouldn't have been one color.

Why should there be self-defense on a national level? What's so special about "nations" that we have to fight over which one owns which patch of clay? The people living there are the same either way, just paying allegiance to a different ruler. I think we should abolish countries altogether.
>> No.39855  
Actually I take that back, I couldn't have made the tracks. I don't recognize the bricks used there.
>> No.39876  
Different nations will have different cultures and forms of government. It makes sense that they would have to compete for limited resources just as individuals do.
>> No.39878  
>Why should there be self-defense on a national level?
Because of there wasn't, the governments who send their people to war will take control of everything, and everybody will suffer from war (and likely oppression). This goes doubly so for people living without a government, who suddenly get a bunch of guns shoved down their disorganized throats. They'll be powerless to resist and oppressed as a result.

True pacifism is a nice ideal, but it just doesn't work in practice.

>I think we should abolish countries altogether.
We always need organized groups of some kind, because some people WILL form organized groups, and groups are more powerful than individuals. Individuals are oppressed unless they also form groups, and thus nations are formed. (This is also generally how new nations are formed; groups of oppressed people band together and revolt against their government for independence.)
>> No.39880  
So in the end the only way to truly unite the world is through alien invasions and intergalactic warfare, huh...
>> No.39884  
Such stories are indeed based on an actual phenomenon: People will only truly band together against a common threat. An alien invasion, if it were to happen, might indeed cause most of mankind to work together.
>> No.39888  
According to Muv-Luv Alternative, international conflicts will continue on regardless of an alien invasion.
>> No.39898  
According to Muv-Luv Alternative, Sumika is canon. Hah.
>> No.39912  
I wish someone would declare war on people who discuss politics on the internet.
>> No.39918  
That was just dai nihon teikoku nationalism, though. Realistically that would be suppressed harshly by the authorities so that humanity could beat the aliens.
>> No.39925  
File: 3.jpg -(118.1 KB, 717x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>> No.39928  
I didn't read this thread, but nice picture.
>> No.39941  
Where would you rather politics be discussed? Telephone conferences? Where should they be organized? Would you rather that political discussion be entirely analog? What kind of political world are you hoping would result from only being able to discuss it with people you could meet physically?
>> No.39943  
File: scgto.jpg -(819.9 KB, 850x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> No.39950  
More please!

Delete Post []