What. Episode.

I haven't seen a link to an episode, you linked to a script, and if you think I'm going to search it out for myself and watch an entire star Trek episode just to try to to figure out what you're talking about then you're having a laugh. Not happening. Who does that? lol.

If you have an argument for why war is so necessary that we have to have rules to try to make it nicer, that you can't even show actually have any meaningful effect, then please, present it.

It was very clearly linked.

And it's really hard to understand how you could have missed it because you responded to the post. I mean, three sentences long is not too long to read the whole thing, imo.

Alright i looked back and maybe you did miss that part of the post and its not argument form ignorance its just you dont bother to read my posts before you cut them. I put it in there to give a little support for your argument. Which is like sigh that i have to go through this for that.

Oh and you dont need the whole script to figure out where you inserted stuff that was not there in the part i gave. Kirk did not say all rules should be removed.


As far as the rest when it take so many posts for you not to change up the other one sentence queensberry post. No ty to much effort.

No, he re-introduced 'real' war with all it's horrors as a deterrent to waging war, instead of their 'sanitised' version, i.e. rules just make the idea of war less horrifying.

Exactly the point I've been making, but I already said this so you already know it.

Don't even know what this means, but whatever, this conversation is going nowhere interesting anyway, I'm out.

War has never been waged without rules, because wars are fought a) by political entities and b) to achieve a goal.

The alternative is some kind of real life "deathmatch" of Biblical (figuratively) scope, a type of event that has never occurred.

Not sure I'd agree with this. I can think of plenty of wars that have been fought without rules, although maybe not in recent history (i.e. the last few hundred years), but there's a still a difference between the rules existing and participants actually abiding by them either at a policy making level, and even more less likely, at the level of those doing the fighting.

Maybe you mean something different by 'rules' than I do?

What do you think about my suspicion that rules make the idea of war less horrifying, when in reality it is always horrifying, and therefore simply help perpetuate it? That we might be better to change our thinking about it? And that whilst the non-use of WMD's might an example of something that could be attributed to rules, it could just as easily be attributed to other reasons?

This ought to be historically interesting. I'm quite certain that wars, even ancient wars, had a normative element to them which could be conceived of as "rules" because they were expected to be followed.

Sigh..You added no rules into the script last time. Here is what you said in quotes and ill highlight the part you added that should not be there.

Kirk did not want no rules or restrictions for war in that part of the script. Or ant other part of it. You added it. For some reason.


Oh it was nowhere a long time ago.

War is a violent conflict between political entities. This is impossible without rules, as without rules it could at best be a coincidence. What you are probably trying to describe is a war where the conflicting parties have no formal agreement on how to carry it out.

A claim that war is horrifying is hazy. That something is horrifying doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

I'm not sure if it was Cheney or Rumsfeld but he was asked about our use of torture and in his reply he said something I thought was telling, implicitly implying our use of torture was not honorable. He said something like, If a detainee has information that can save lives about an imminent terrorist attack but he has stopped talking, should we sacrifice those American lives just for the sake of our honor?

I wish he had told Nixon that idea in 1969 before Nixon sent another 40,000 or so Americans to their death in Vietnam for the sake of Peace with "Honor".

PairTheBoard

Well there is the concpet of 'total war', which I understand to mean whatever works. Still I guess that's a kind of rule?!?!

I'd always thought total war referred to basically gearing all resources and the economy etc towards the war rather than a war without rules.

according to wikipedia

I guess that still confirms there are "laws of war" even if they are disregarded!

Total war merely means that civilians are counted as legitimate targets, as opposed the typical modern warfare doctrine where civilian casualties are only accepted as collateral damage (a rule which is very often popularly misinterpreted into meaning that civilian casualties are unacceptable).

There have been numerous total wars, and all have followed fairly strict rulebooks. This is because they are armed conflicts between political entities, and as such each relevant entity needs rules for how to organize its forces and what strategy to pursue. When both do this, the war which follows will also inevitably take specific forms.

tame_deuces,

A bit off topic here but are you familiar with Noam Chomsky? If so, what do you think about his political commentary?

(more specifically in regards to US foreign policy)

Everyone Knoams Chomsky

Yes, I know him. I think he is both polite, extremely knowledgeable and very often demonized needlessly by people who disagree with him. His socialist libertarian principles strikes me as far more logical than equivalent capitalist libertarian principles. I find that he tends to overstate his case. For example in past comparisons between the US and the CCCP he often downplayed CCCP aggression to the extreme. Having grown up as a neighbour to the CCCP, the fact that it occupied half of Europe and routinely flew nuclear bombers on our borders was hard to loverlook, even for a child.

However, my I main contention with Chomsky is disagreement with his implied principle. I see no evidence to indicate that the world is a peaceful place ruined by political acts of aggression. Quite the contrary, all the evidence suggests to me that it is violent and warlike place where we sometimes are lucky enough to live in in small protected pockets of peace. And that limited peace has to fought for with both ideas and arms. For centuries armchair discussion have tried to pin the blame for war in what I can personally only describe as an intellectual parody of children whining about who threw the first punch. As grownups we know that throwing a punch is indeed problematic, but the main problem is that the capability for, rewards from and will to throw punches exist, and as long as it does children will throw them. It's the same for wars.

So essentially I'm a liberal in the sense that I recognize individual human rights, but one who believes that my liberal ideals (as of yet) must be partially attained and protected through violence and the threat of violence. This doesn't mean I excuse all such violence, far from it. Nor do I believe that it is somehow a perfect solution, it is not. It is an ugly, imperfect solution with harsh consequences and high costs. Some might then ask what separates me anyone else who defends war or violence. Which is an apt question, and the answer is of course obvious: Only what we fight for and how we do it. Anyone unwilling to compare such things, will of course never get it. Which is okay; I'm long past being an idealist, but I have no problems with those who are.

The poll results are very interesting. To me it shows that religion divides and is a conduit for evil thoughts and actions.

I think it also shows that believing in God and using Holy books as a life and moral guide is not only not necessary, to be a good and moral person it is also a detriment to that aim.

I don't think your reply actually adresses the points made in the post you are quoting. Your posting style seems kinda familiar, have you been on here before?

Have you been on here before?

I think her posting style is quite splendid

Splendid way to avoid a ban.

Bump for Esspoker. There goes your entire argument.