Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Anyways, the united states military is currently occupying over 150 countries!
|
^ This is a surprisingly large figure. Are you confusing "occupying" (which implies controlling the govment and people by force) with "maintaining a presence in"? Plankton can explain the difference, I imagine, because he was stationed in Germany as part of a continuing US military presence there. I don't think he would have considered himself as part of an occupying force and nor should he have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exo
I get the point you're making. 'I'm just saying it's more complicated than that and you know it. I'm not a war supporter. I'm basically a pacifist. Yet, I'd have been in support of going to war in WWII knowing what we know now. Sometimes there's a gray area where there is no other choice but to fight back. Problem in the last 70 years though is that there were SO MANY other choices and we chose to go kill people. That I'm against.
|
^ I agree with Exo, and especially the bolded. I'm no fighter either, but in the face of physical aggression, it's a natural response to physically protect what is yours - and that applies at an individual, tribal and national level. During the First World War, the military authorities in Britain had this question for people who claimed to be pacifists, "If you saw an enemy soldier raping your sister, what would you do?" There were some true courageous pacifists who wouldn't resort to violence, but most people, of course, opted for a violent solution. As such they were considered not morally so far from fighting men and therefore suitable for conscription.