20 replies to this topic

[mechazeep]

I have a moralistic question for you all, that has been driving me crazy lately. Say an earthqauke hit one of the countries we are at war with. Like, Iraq. Now, thousands of people have lost their lives, but would we give them the same attention we gave Hati or Chile, or New Orlens? Will be refuse to give supplies to... the country, for we are at war, or shall we put away our petty indeffrences and help the innocent?

[Basilisco]

well in haiti the us kinda invaded(?) the country, as for irak or something i think they whould(?) take advantage of it and conquer it or something like that

[Powered by Chicken]

its not a psychological issue so much as a political/moralistic one. and do you mean donations from individuals (which were a HUGE part of the aid going into Haiti) or from the US Government? There could be two very different answers there.

[Da Milk Man]

I would think we could set our differences aside. However, this would be a great opportunity to flush out those we are opposed to. It's really a question of how strong our morals are. Will we kick our enemies while they are down, or will we be the strong ones, and help their people?

[mechazeep]

its not a psychological issue so much as a political/moralistic one. and do you mean donations from individuals (which were a HUGE part of the aid going into Haiti) or from the US Government? There could be two very different answers there.

Changing title
Also, I am talking about the dotnations the US goverment has made towards Hati and others.

[Basilisco]

i think the goverment would kick their enemies while they are down, and as hard as they can

[Dexide]

well in haiti the us kinda invaded(?) the country, as for irak or something i think they whould(?) take advantage of it and conquer it or something like that

I disagree. The United States never invaded Haiti. The United States limited and then stopped German control over Haiti, and helped control Haiti until they were able to govern themselves. Haiti actually appointed laws that gave the US more control over Haiti. The Marines didn't just yell "Hoorah!" and run into Haiti guns blazing. The United States also doesn't want to conqour Iraq. They're working with the Iraq army, hunting down terrorists who want to hurt innocent people. They aren't doing a good job at it, but that's their goal.

[El_Mustachio93]

Well, you could think of it from two distinctly different positions. Either you consider it a victory as it is an act of destabilisation in a country fraught with tyranny, or you consider it a disaster. The inherent issue that that the tyrant will capitalise on the needs of the many, and manipulate them in morally objectionable ways so that they can live a little longer. Not well, not better.

[Abyssmal Cookie]

I have a moralistic question for you all, that has been driving me crazy lately. Say an earthqauke hit one of the countries we are at war with. Like, Iraq. Now, thousands of people have lost their lives, but would we give them the same attention we gave Hati or Chile, or New Orlens? Will be refuse to give supplies to... the country, for we are at war, or shall we put away our petty indeffrences and help the innocent?

Well, if it was my choice, we wouldn't even be at war in the first place.

If that was unavoidable, then I'd at least help them, and try to work something out.

If you're asking what everybody as a whole will do, basically the nation, I'd say they would most likely "kick them while they're down", to get an "easy win".

Not too many people have a good sense of morals these days.

[Jonas]

If you're asking what everybody as a whole will do, basically the nation, I'd say they would most likely "kick them while they're down", to get an "easy win".

Not too many people have a good sense of morals these days.

so in ww2, if germany would have been hit by a earthquake, you would help raise money to help hilter's country? that would be ''good sense of morals'' in your opinion?

personally, i'd be happy to kick them while they're down to get an easy win. their your enemy for a reason!

the difference with ''war'' now, that it's not against a certain govnerment and country, but against terrorism, hiding within a country. wich is really hard to counter, as you need to have the people living there trust you.

[Basilisco]

well in haiti the us kinda invaded(?) the country, as for irak or something i think they whould(?) take advantage of it and conquer it or something like that

I disagree. The United States never invaded Haiti. The United States limited and then stopped German control over Haiti, and helped control Haiti until they were able to govern themselves. Haiti actually appointed laws that gave the US more control over Haiti. The Marines didn't just yell "Hoorah!" and run into Haiti guns blazing. The United States also doesn't want to conqour Iraq. They're working with the Iraq army, hunting down terrorists who want to hurt innocent people. They aren't doing a good job at it, but that's their goal.

thats what they want you to think (j/k), but seriously, i dont know how they broadcast(?) the news in the us, from what i have heard its very different. yes they didnt run into haiti guns blazing, nut they didnt need to. just my opinion, but i would like to tell you, that sometimes you need another perspective(?), from the outside, to see the bigger picture.

[Abyssmal Cookie]

If you're asking what everybody as a whole will do, basically the nation, I'd say they would most likely "kick them while they're down", to get an "easy win".

Not too many people have a good sense of morals these days.

so in ww2, if germany would have been hit by a earthquake, you would help raise money to help hilter's country? that would be ''good sense of morals'' in your opinion?

personally, i'd be happy to kick them while they're down to get an easy win. their your enemy for a reason!

the difference with ''war'' now, that it's not against a certain govnerment and country, but against terrorism, hiding within a country. wich is really hard to counter, as you need to have the people living there trust you.

I was referring to the present, not the past.
The whole situation was jacked up back then anyway. If America had actually been in the UN, or a lot of things happened differently, there probably wouldn't have been a WWII.

As for your question; they were ruthless, and killing millions. That doesn't deserve help.

[Dexide]

I was referring to the present, not the past.
The whole situation was jacked up back then anyway. If America had actually been in the UN, or a lot of things happened differently, there probably wouldn't have been a WWII.

As for your question; they were ruthless, and killing millions. That doesn't deserve help.

Cookie, everything you're saying is good. I agree with you for the most part here, but there never being a WWII? I don't see that happening. For there not to be a World War II, there would have to be no Hitler, no Stalin, no Mussolini, and no Tojo. If Hitler hadn't been around, the bad guy would have been Stalin. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of about 11 million people during The Holocaust. It is estimated that Stalin, believed to be one of the good guys at the time, killed about 20 million of his own people in Russia. The reason no one knows for sure is that if someone even tried to speak up about Stalin's regime, they were killed. The regime also did a good job of keeping no record, so the numbers are just rough estimates. I believe that if there were no Hitler, eventually someone would have been able to speak up about Stalin, so the U.S. and the other allied forces would have taken action against the man who pretty much ended World War II. Or, let's say, that there was a Stalin, and there was a Hitler, there could have possibly never been a World War 2 if Hitler's two other axis members, Mussolini and Tojo, didn't exist, and in their place there was another totally different leader, and no other powers allied themselves with Hitler. Without the powers of Japan and Italy, Germany could not have conquered everything that it did. Mussolini and Tojo did not actually sign the treaty that created the Axis, which has a name that escapes me at the moment, but it was their military backup that caused most of the conquering of World War II. I agree though, that if the U.S. had taken quicker action, and not tried to stay neutral early on, World War II would have been a lot quicker.

These are my thoughts. Anyone who disagrees, or has other thoughts, is more than welcome to state them. World War II to me is a fascinating topic.

[Abyssmal Cookie]

Cookie, everything you're saying is good. I agree with you for the most part here, but there never being a WWII? I don't see that happening. For there not to be a World War II, there would have to be no Hitler, no Stalin, no Mussolini, and no Tojo. If Hitler hadn't been around, the bad guy would have been Stalin. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of about 11 million people during The Holocaust. It is estimated that Stalin, believed to be one of the good guys at the time, killed about 20 million of his own people in Russia. The reason no one knows for sure is that if someone even tried to speak up about Stalin's regime, they were killed. The regime also did a good job of keeping no record, so the numbers are just rough estimates. I believe that if there were no Hitler, eventually someone would have been able to speak up about Stalin, so the U.S. and the other allied forces would have taken action against the man who pretty much ended World War II. Or, let's say, that there was a Stalin, and there was a Hitler, there could have possibly never been a World War 2 if Hitler's two other axis members, Mussolini and Tojo, didn't exist, and in their place there was another totally different leader, and no other powers allied themselves with Hitler. Without the powers of Japan and Italy, Germany could not have conquered everything that it did. Mussolini and Tojo did not actually sign the treaty that created the Axis, which has a name that escapes me at the moment, but it was their military backup that caused most of the conquering of World War II. I agree though, that if the U.S. had taken quicker action, and not tried to stay neutral early on, World War II would have been a lot quicker.

These are my thoughts. Anyone who disagrees, or has other thoughts, is more than welcome to state them. World War II to me is a fascinating topic.

I was sort of over-exaggerating it, but you do have some very logical points.
Between all of the dictators, something would have went down, somewhere.
I probably should have said it would have gone quicker or something.

[I'mACup]

Ehh, we aren't at war with Iraq itself. Though if it were a different country that we were at war with and they had an earth quake, it would give us an easy victory and we wouldn't donate.
I don't think that donations help anyways, theres no way of insuring where the money lands.

[Yabba Dabba Dul]

One word: Oil.

[redwall558]

One word: Oil.

Please elaborate?

"Kick them while they're down."

If I may contribute, I believe in a situation like the one in Iraq, U.S. troops distributing supplies to the locals, while the Taliban are taking supplies for their own operation, would result in the civilians trusting the U.S. troops more and the terrorrists less.
That would be the biggest 'kick', in my opinion.

[mechazeep]

Alright, Americas current war is a bad example, for unlike most war, we are not fighting the countries goverment, we are attacking a small group of terrorists.

[scarabix]

i'm not fighting iraq and there are no earthquakes there as far as i know...

problem solved?
i don't think so.
personnaly,in this situation,i'd fight the ennemy even harder,and offer supply after ennemy's redition

[mechazeep]

i'm not fighting iraq and there are no earthquakes there as far as i know...

It is a theoretical question.

[scarabix]

[/quote]
It is a theoretical question.[/quote]
[quote name="scarabix"]
problem solved?
i don't think so.
[/quote]
QFT FTW!