In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by Hokie CPA »

Marine Hokie wrote:If I declare war on you, and conquer your house, how is that less acceptable than a politician sending an army to do it? What if I formally annex your land by writing it on a piece of paper and have everyone in my house vote on it?
Image

I would probably answer it's because you and I live within and subject to the laws of the United States which protect my property from you doing that. There is no such international prohibition against countries gaining territory after a war has been fought. It is what it is.

"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." -- Bruce Hornsby
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by 133743Hokie »

If you declare war on me and try to conquer my house, I have police to prevent you from doing that. I can take this down to the micro level if you'd like (seems to be your point). We're 8 years old. If you have a toy I want I might try and take it from you and keep it. You can resist, maybe even fight me to keep it. Or you can get assistance from an adult that will force me to give it back. If you don't fight back or no one comes to help you then I will likely keep the toy.

Saddam invaded Kuwait. If not for the coalition of forces led by US he would have succeeded and Kuwait would be a part of Iraq. That's how the world has worked since the beginning of time. Try looking at an historical time lapse map of the world delineated by countries -- it's fascinating. Man has tried to take things from other men. They either succeed or are fought back by one or more other parties. What part of this don't you get.
Marine Hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Course not. Now you're just trolling.

Pretty safe to say that governments/societies conquer, not individuals. Even Kubrik's monkeys weren't two guys fighting over a swimming hole.
I'm not trolling, I'm making a valid point, consistent with my overall position.

You're saying that a politician who wants more land and has soldiers murder to get it is morally justified, but not if someone did it without being told to by a state. I'm curious how far your standard reaches. Were Mao and Hussein morally justified in invading Tibet and Kuwait?
What if a government steals your land, and you want to take it back? Does the government have the moral high ground here?
I never said anything about being morally justified. But spoils of war are spoils of war. Moral's got nothin' to do with it.
Sorry, that was another poster. Five people replied to my post.
So why is there a difference? If I declare war on you, and conquer your house, how is that less acceptable than a politician sending an army to do it? What if I formally annex your land by writing it on a piece of paper and have everyone in my house vote on it?
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by Marine Hokie »

Nope. Several times the UN has declared fighting a war to acquire land to be illegal.
Hokie CPA wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:If I declare war on you, and conquer your house, how is that less acceptable than a politician sending an army to do it? What if I formally annex your land by writing it on a piece of paper and have everyone in my house vote on it?
I would probably answer it's because you and I live within and subject to the laws of the United States which protect my property from you doing that. There is no such international prohibition against countries gaining territory after a war has been fought. It is what it is.

"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." -- Bruce Hornsby
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by Marine Hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:If you declare war on me and try to conquer my house, I have police to prevent you from doing that. Saddam invaded Kuwait. If not for the coalition of forces led by US he would have succeeded and Kuwait would be a part of Iraq. That's how the world has worked since the beginning of time.
What if we live in an area where there are no police, or if I have enough firepower to fend off the police? It's acceptable as long as I can maintain my hold on the conquered property?
133743Hokie wrote:Man has tried to take things from other men. They either succeed or are fought back by one or more other parties. What part of this don't you get.
Right, we all acknowledge this happens. Surely your position isn't that something justifies itself by being the status quo?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by 133743Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
What if we live in an area where there are no police, or if I have enough firepower to fend off the police? It's acceptable as long as I can maintain my hold on the conquered property?
There is no area without law enforcement. Eventually they will arrive and use enough force to force you out. Next strawman.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by Marine Hokie »

I don't think you understand what a strawman is. You're just dodging the question.
133743Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
What if we live in an area where there are no police, or if I have enough firepower to fend off the police? It's acceptable as long as I can maintain my hold on the conquered property?
There is no area without law enforcement. Eventually they will arrive and use enough force to force you out. Next strawman.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

Post by Hokie CPA »

Marine Hokie wrote:I don't think you understand what a strawman is. You're just dodging the question.
133743Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
What if we live in an area where there are no police, or if I have enough firepower to fend off the police? It's acceptable as long as I can maintain my hold on the conquered property?
There is no area without law enforcement. Eventually they will arrive and use enough force to force you out. Next strawman.
I think you're inventing an impossible scenario. It just doesn't work that way. Even James Kirk beat the Kobyashi Maru.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
Post Reply