Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 118
Entire Site: 5 & 885
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-28-24 09:51 AM

Thread Information

Views
1,143
Replies
10
Rating
2
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
sloanstar1000
10-16-13 01:23 PM
Last
Post
sloanstar1000
10-19-13 11:48 AM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 358
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
 

When should a country take military action?

 

10-16-13 01:23 PM
sloanstar1000 is Offline
| ID: 907159 | 127 Words

sloanstar1000
Level: 46


POSTS: 75/473
POST EXP: 35513
LVL EXP: 669327
CP: 953.8
VIZ: 204150

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
After chemical weapons were used in Syria(Sarin gas), The US has threatened military intervention. My only thought was... why now?

Up to that point, more than 100,000 Syrians had already been killed, It didn't seem to matter when they were killing each other with guns and explosives. So the precedent that we seem to be setting here is that you can kill as many people as you want... as long as you don't use chemical weapons,  which seems a bit ridiculous to me. 2 million people died in Darfur, would we have intervened if chemical weapons are used? I guess we'll never know

Anyway, do you think that this the way military intervention should be decided? If not, at what point is military intervention justified?(if at all)
After chemical weapons were used in Syria(Sarin gas), The US has threatened military intervention. My only thought was... why now?

Up to that point, more than 100,000 Syrians had already been killed, It didn't seem to matter when they were killing each other with guns and explosives. So the precedent that we seem to be setting here is that you can kill as many people as you want... as long as you don't use chemical weapons,  which seems a bit ridiculous to me. 2 million people died in Darfur, would we have intervened if chemical weapons are used? I guess we'll never know

Anyway, do you think that this the way military intervention should be decided? If not, at what point is military intervention justified?(if at all)
Member
Destroying pixelated antagonists since 1996


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-24-12
Location: SC
Last Post: 3143 days
Last Active: 2149 days

10-16-13 08:58 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 907500 | 66 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 90/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1408990
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
sloanstar1000 : Foreign politics should be learned from 3rd and 4th graders. If there is a bully, have nothing to do with him. If he starts hurting you or your friends, make him wish he hadn't. Military intervention should only happen when a nation or one of it's allies is attacked.

I do not support bombing the Syrians because the Syrians are killing Syrians. That is stupid.
sloanstar1000 : Foreign politics should be learned from 3rd and 4th graders. If there is a bully, have nothing to do with him. If he starts hurting you or your friends, make him wish he hadn't. Military intervention should only happen when a nation or one of it's allies is attacked.

I do not support bombing the Syrians because the Syrians are killing Syrians. That is stupid.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2594 days
Last Active: 2591 days

10-16-13 09:19 PM
SacredShadow is Offline
| ID: 907513 | 119 Words

SacredShadow
Razor-987
Level: 152


POSTS: 3489/7753
POST EXP: 960743
LVL EXP: 43662935
CP: 34604.9
VIZ: 985840

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Yeah, as txgangsta said, there is no need to get involved where it is not necessary, so I really think that we should only get involved with war if we are being involved in it, otherwise, it is just best to stay out of it and avoid involvement where it can possibly get us in trouble.

Only when one of our allies are attacked, then that is or cue to get involved and take action, but aside from that, I think it is just best to keep out of unnecessary situations that could end badly. So it all really depends on what is happening and who is being attacked that should determine if we should get involved or not. 
Yeah, as txgangsta said, there is no need to get involved where it is not necessary, so I really think that we should only get involved with war if we are being involved in it, otherwise, it is just best to stay out of it and avoid involvement where it can possibly get us in trouble.

Only when one of our allies are attacked, then that is or cue to get involved and take action, but aside from that, I think it is just best to keep out of unnecessary situations that could end badly. So it all really depends on what is happening and who is being attacked that should determine if we should get involved or not. 
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-14-13
Last Post: 375 days
Last Active: 342 days

10-16-13 11:06 PM
IgorBird122 is Offline
| ID: 907573 | 114 Words

IgorBird122
The_IB122
Level: 140


POSTS: 1943/6414
POST EXP: 526201
LVL EXP: 32881232
CP: 40905.1
VIZ: 779500

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I don't think a country should take any action unless we absolutely gave to, like during WWII, that, we understand on why a country should take military action, but right now with the Syria issue, I don't personally think it's at that point to have military action because I think the Syrian government and the rebels can both fight it out and supping aid is one thing, but taking military actions is a whole another ball game, I think the United States is good enough giving aid to the Syrian rebels, but don't need to invade the country. Even if it's another country not related to Syria, we still shouldn't unless we have to.
I don't think a country should take any action unless we absolutely gave to, like during WWII, that, we understand on why a country should take military action, but right now with the Syria issue, I don't personally think it's at that point to have military action because I think the Syrian government and the rebels can both fight it out and supping aid is one thing, but taking military actions is a whole another ball game, I think the United States is good enough giving aid to the Syrian rebels, but don't need to invade the country. Even if it's another country not related to Syria, we still shouldn't unless we have to.
Vizzed Elite
The Shadow King


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-07-13
Location: The Big Easy
Last Post: 1450 days
Last Active: 1435 days

10-17-13 08:04 PM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 908135 | 94 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 5664/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35015974
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
You know I really dont think their is a one size fits all rule for this. Certainly you should never use war to resolve arguments. As they say, war doesent prove who is right, merely who is left.

If their is something really serious like a genocide then i think you need to step in.
If their is a bunch of people killing each other over ideological differences then how can you even discern someone in the fighting to support.

Syria for instance is a shambles, and i really cant see intervention going well.
You know I really dont think their is a one size fits all rule for this. Certainly you should never use war to resolve arguments. As they say, war doesent prove who is right, merely who is left.

If their is something really serious like a genocide then i think you need to step in.
If their is a bunch of people killing each other over ideological differences then how can you even discern someone in the fighting to support.

Syria for instance is a shambles, and i really cant see intervention going well.
Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3381 days
Last Active: 3381 days

10-17-13 08:38 PM
angelbear1297 is Offline
| ID: 908156 | 178 Words

angelbear1297
Level: 26


POSTS: 84/133
POST EXP: 14537
LVL EXP: 98115
CP: 785.3
VIZ: 15965

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Its really hard to consider every circumstance. In the case of people killing people (right now I'm talking about before chemical warfare) its not exactly right but they should sort it out themselves. Now when they used chemical weapons to kill people then yes let the US step in but not military means. That still does not give us a right to send in the military to force the people to stop using chemical means, otherwise we're just acting just like the government over Syria. That's right we're acting like bullies. Now asking them to stop would be a good way to intervene. If they don't listen maybe talk to some of their allies to convince Syria to stop. 

The only real time the military should step in is if there's any threat to us. With the situation of Syria there was no immediate threat to the United States. Could there eventually have been a threat? Of course I'm not ruling out that possibility. However, since there was no immediate threat we shouldn't have stepped in military wise.
Its really hard to consider every circumstance. In the case of people killing people (right now I'm talking about before chemical warfare) its not exactly right but they should sort it out themselves. Now when they used chemical weapons to kill people then yes let the US step in but not military means. That still does not give us a right to send in the military to force the people to stop using chemical means, otherwise we're just acting just like the government over Syria. That's right we're acting like bullies. Now asking them to stop would be a good way to intervene. If they don't listen maybe talk to some of their allies to convince Syria to stop. 

The only real time the military should step in is if there's any threat to us. With the situation of Syria there was no immediate threat to the United States. Could there eventually have been a threat? Of course I'm not ruling out that possibility. However, since there was no immediate threat we shouldn't have stepped in military wise.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-13-13
Location: Traverse Town
Last Post: 3440 days
Last Active: 2471 days

10-18-13 06:58 PM
Brigand is Offline
| ID: 908829 | 138 Words

Brigand
Level: 89


POSTS: 986/2233
POST EXP: 116430
LVL EXP: 6762179
CP: 2057.5
VIZ: 112856

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I don't know. Last time my country saw military action was 70 years ago.

If you ask me, you should have knocked out Syria long time ago when the opposition was still in the hands of the democratic resistance instead of the islamist mercenaries. And you also should have done away with North-Korea long ago.

But then again, who knows, might not have been that good way either. Anyway. Most people who you have wars with are not even on the same continent as you and don't share even borders with. It is just hard to figure out what are your wars trying to accomplish in the long run anyway except to profit the arms dealers.

And as far as Syria goes, it is already a lost cause. It is either pro-Russia dictatorship or another fundamentalist Islamic state.
I don't know. Last time my country saw military action was 70 years ago.

If you ask me, you should have knocked out Syria long time ago when the opposition was still in the hands of the democratic resistance instead of the islamist mercenaries. And you also should have done away with North-Korea long ago.

But then again, who knows, might not have been that good way either. Anyway. Most people who you have wars with are not even on the same continent as you and don't share even borders with. It is just hard to figure out what are your wars trying to accomplish in the long run anyway except to profit the arms dealers.

And as far as Syria goes, it is already a lost cause. It is either pro-Russia dictatorship or another fundamentalist Islamic state.
Trusted Member
Not even an enemy.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-29-12
Location: Yurop.
Last Post: 2700 days
Last Active: 2686 days

10-19-13 11:11 AM
Malchior is Offline
| ID: 909550 | 188 Words

Malchior
Level: 11


POSTS: 5/21
POST EXP: 1412
LVL EXP: 5942
CP: 95.7
VIZ: -72

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
When should a countries military force take action?, well in my opinion a countries military force should take action immediately when the lives of the common people are threatened by a external or internal force or when a countries basic liberties are threatened by another country. Also in my opinion we the United states should not take military action against North Korea because of the civilian population North Korea has (plus most of the civilian population doesn't even want to be there).Also North Korea's dictator seems like the kind of p**** who would use child soldiers and well I wouldn't except or condome the U.S or U.N soldiers killing children.
Also the only reason why countries even trade with North Korea is because of the civilian population if it wasn't for the civilian population basically starving no one would trade with North Korea, thus basically killing the country.At the most send in 1 squad of highly ranked seals to just assassinate the leader then have big bad american democracy come on in and show the North Korean people them how they should live with basic liberties and freedoms.
When should a countries military force take action?, well in my opinion a countries military force should take action immediately when the lives of the common people are threatened by a external or internal force or when a countries basic liberties are threatened by another country. Also in my opinion we the United states should not take military action against North Korea because of the civilian population North Korea has (plus most of the civilian population doesn't even want to be there).Also North Korea's dictator seems like the kind of p**** who would use child soldiers and well I wouldn't except or condome the U.S or U.N soldiers killing children.
Also the only reason why countries even trade with North Korea is because of the civilian population if it wasn't for the civilian population basically starving no one would trade with North Korea, thus basically killing the country.At the most send in 1 squad of highly ranked seals to just assassinate the leader then have big bad american democracy come on in and show the North Korean people them how they should live with basic liberties and freedoms.
Perma Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-18-13
Last Post: 3644 days
Last Active: 3608 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: jnisol,

10-19-13 11:14 AM
orionfoxgibson is Offline
| ID: 909554 | 42 Words

orionfoxgibson
Level: 79


POSTS: 1430/1679
POST EXP: 238675
LVL EXP: 4428484
CP: 2422.8
VIZ: 22257

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Any chance it gets.
"National Defence" is no joke.
The only business that never sleeps or stops.
Every country should always "stick to its guns" (Translation = Always ready.).
Who could ever be slack at a job like that?
Good Luck.
Peace.
Any chance it gets.
"National Defence" is no joke.
The only business that never sleeps or stops.
Every country should always "stick to its guns" (Translation = Always ready.).
Who could ever be slack at a job like that?
Good Luck.
Peace.
Trusted Member
Some People Call Me The Space Cowboy.Some People Call Me The Gangster of Love...


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-22-12
Location: The FlipSide Of Reality.
Last Post: 3115 days
Last Active: 3021 days

10-19-13 11:19 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 909558 | 109 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 21717/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420127119
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
the title of the thread and the content of the original question are not the same.

I think military intervention in a sovereign state should only happen with nearly universal global agreement. The idea of a handful of countries deciding to invade a country militarily when the majority of the world disagrees is wrong.


As for an individual countries decision to go to war my instinct follows many people in this thread: you go to war to protect yourself from an aggressor. That is the only reason in my opinion. And you only fight long enough to defeat the immediate threat and then you stop. That's just my opinion.
the title of the thread and the content of the original question are not the same.

I think military intervention in a sovereign state should only happen with nearly universal global agreement. The idea of a handful of countries deciding to invade a country militarily when the majority of the world disagrees is wrong.


As for an individual countries decision to go to war my instinct follows many people in this thread: you go to war to protect yourself from an aggressor. That is the only reason in my opinion. And you only fight long enough to defeat the immediate threat and then you stop. That's just my opinion.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 12 hours

10-19-13 11:48 AM
sloanstar1000 is Offline
| ID: 909583 | 89 Words

sloanstar1000
Level: 46


POSTS: 92/473
POST EXP: 35513
LVL EXP: 669327
CP: 953.8
VIZ: 204150

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
geeogree : My question isn't specific to any country, I used the example of Syria to simply point out possible absurdities in how countries set precedents for military intervention. My question was simply when is a country's military action justified.

As far as "global agreement", I personally don't think that's morally practical. There was no global agreement to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, or in Darfur. In a world where there is no global attempt to stop genocide, should individual countries not attempt to stop genocide if it's possible?
geeogree : My question isn't specific to any country, I used the example of Syria to simply point out possible absurdities in how countries set precedents for military intervention. My question was simply when is a country's military action justified.

As far as "global agreement", I personally don't think that's morally practical. There was no global agreement to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, or in Darfur. In a world where there is no global attempt to stop genocide, should individual countries not attempt to stop genocide if it's possible?
Member
Destroying pixelated antagonists since 1996


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-24-12
Location: SC
Last Post: 3143 days
Last Active: 2149 days

(edited by sloanstar1000 on 10-19-13 11:50 AM)     Post Rating: 1   Liked By: Changedatrequest,

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×