"Somebody" needs to do "Something!"

by Terry 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • Terry
    "SOMEBODY" needs to do something"!
    IT'S ALWAYS unjustifiable for a country to attack another country without having first been attacked itself.
    The Nuremberg Trials at the end of WWII made this clear.
    More vividly too: following orders as a patriotic duty is never secondary to the pangs of your personal conscience.
    Worst of all, HYPOCRISY destroys credibility when you
    criticize other countries for doing what you have done.

    Simply stated: If you've been doing "it"
    you are in no moral position to condemn others for doing "it" too.

    Moral Leadership?
    Who is Moral Leader qualified to punish others for doing"it"?
    Would a powerful hypocrite fill that role nicely?

    "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
    Oops. Guess not.

    If a country cannot credibly invoke legal or moral principles
    as justifications for military action - it should shut the hell up, hang its sorry head and step aside - so that morally fit non-hypocrites can take the lead. IF SUCH EXIST.

    The United States over the last 20 years has attacked other countries that did NOT commit the first attack.
    Before you shout: NINE ELEVEN! Stop.

    No "country" performed that foul deed. The perpetrators died in the attack, and the mastermind was hunted down and executed.
    MEDIA was used to LIE about "WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and we all know that now.

    The United States invaded Afghanistan
    The United States invaded Iraq
    The United States engaged in drone attacks in Pakistan
    The United States attacked Somalia and N. Kenya
    The United States "intervened" in Libya
    The United States "intervened" in Uganda
    The United States "intervened" in Syria
    The United States "intervened" in Yemen

    Our Media is complicit in drumming up emotional consent
    in the American Public for each act of moral hypocrisy in the name of Righteous Indignation.

    Here we go again.
    The lessons we do not learn from our history have doomed us to repeat the consequences.
  • waton


  • Fisherman
    IT'S ALWAYS unjustifiable for a country to attack another country without having first been attacked itself.

    That is not always true, Terry. You can push a person too far.

  • Simon

    The current financial system is backed by the petro-dollar. All conflict is ultimately caused by that and about that.

    Wars also lead to huge profits for some, which is why those people are always keen on having them but never want to be on the front lines themselves.

  • redvip2000

    I understand the point, but this is a false equivalency. The USA has invaded sovereign countries yes, but in response to something. Now, you can debate the validity of that like you have, but it's true. Worth mentioning that those countries usually don't have legitimate governments anyway, but instead dictatorships.

    But the USA states does not go around invading democratic countries, unless my memory is failing me.

    But even when the Unites States engages in war, it does not do it in this brutal way. The US goes to great lengths to spare innocent lives, most of the time using technology to hit with pinpoint accuracy, often aborting strikes if there will be large collateral damage.

    Israel does the same. Israel goes to the extent of dropping a mock bomb in a building first, so that it is evacuated and then hitting it with a real bomb afterwards.

    Russia still wages war like in the 1950's, also due to outdated material. Apartment buildings, neighborhoods, anything is fair game. Russians don't think the same way, or have any of the ethical concerns that many countries in the West do, and why would they? It's not like they have those concerns even domestically.

  • Fisherman

    Is US killing with cotton or blowing up people so they don’t get maimed or killed or hurt. —Watch the movie “ Turtles can fly.”
    The media only shows the wrongs of the enemy.

    Sometimes the length is too short or not long enough like in the sinking on the Maine, allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked, nuking Japan and the Vietnam war as you have seen in the movies. Anybody that gets in the way during battle can get killed “innocent” or guilty. Soldiers are not judges, they want to get put of there alive.

    But the USA states does not go around invading democratic countries, unless my memory is failing me.

    How sweet no to invade your allies.

  • slimboyfat


    The US used the same excuses for invading Iraq in 2003. They claimed Iraq was developing nuclear weapons just as Putin claimed Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons. And the US claimed theirs was a humanitarian mission just as Putin claims it is a humanitarian mission to save Russians in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly committing war crimes in Ukraine, but unfortunately the west has no moral authority because they have done worse in Iraq and are supporting worse in Yemen.

    A big difference between the Iraq war and the current war in Ukraine is the scale and brutality. Because Russia has a long way to go before reaching the 1 million Iraqis killed in the 2003 war of aggression. Nothing in Ukraine has yet reached the wanton destruction of Fallujah or the systematic brutality of Abu Ghraib. I hope the war in Ukraine never reaches the same levels of depravity and suffering as the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


    I hope all those guilty of war crimes are brought to justice. However the US has a specific law to prevent any US leader ever facing charges of war crimes at the international court. Clearly they believe international law should not apply to them.


  • Terry

    ROME operated on the principle of NEVER STRIKE FIRST.
    The Roman military sought pretext.
    A vassal would cry out for protection and straightaway there was a World Power ready and able to kick ass and take names.
    In modern times, the U.S. (usually with C.I.A. busy at work) creates false pretexts such as THE GULF OF TONKIN
    in the days of JFK.

    It is a game all "great" powers play.

  • shepherdless


    of the eight conflicts that you list, there are only 2 that I would class as “utterly reprehensible” or on the scale of what Putin is doing to Ukraine, namely Iraq (second gulf war) and Yemen. And in relation to Yemen, USA only provided early indirect support, and withdrew it, once USA realised it had been tricked by its ally. The rest were justifiable to varying degrees, usually for humanitarian reasons, and with broad international support.

    That being said, and acknowledging USA has made mistakes, what Putin is doing is evil, and should not happen in the 21st Century. Putin is the one here attacking a country first. It is entirely right for all countries to criticise, be outraged etc. It is not just a USA thing; the outrage and criticism is near-global.

  • LoveUniHateExams


    Putin has already said he'd nuke the West if the West gets involved - he's made that quite clear.

    There's not much the West can do, apart from giving food, water and shelter to Ukrainian citizens, and giving sanctuary to refugees. That's about it.

    The West needs to stop poking its nose into other countries' wars.

    I'm sick of Boris Johnson postering on the international stage, claiming to care about Ukraine.

    FFS, he's the Prime Minister of the UK, not Ukraine. His top priority is to keep UK citizens safe, healthy and fed.

Share this