Whats the Issue with Conquering?

It's about our past, our ancestor's wisdom, and most importantly it's about respecting someone's humanity other than your own.

 

lol Canada is the saviors during WW2, alright. How about you read the fucking thread so you actually know the context of the post.

Also the only times America and Canada has met as enemies was 200 years ago, and we lost to the British army, not Canadians. The second time was to French Canadian militia against American militia. Jeez and The battle of Montral was the largest battle, and it didn't include more then 2,000 soldiers from each side. The only other ones had 100-200 people fighting skirmishes on both sides. Except the siege of fort st. john, that was the only other large one, and guess who won. I was wrong, apparently you can win/lose against countries that don't exist. As I recall the continentals took colonial Montreal, the British responded back 30 years later by burning D.C. to the ground, still waitin' for the actual Canadian response

So how about those second hand submarines you buy from the British that catch on fire.

 

I'm American. But as for who helped the most to defeat the Germans in ww2?

I vote RUSSIA!

America successfully stopped the conflict with Japan in it's tracks, but to me that seemed like an act of desperation because the actually militant forces were quickly becoming exhausted.

Well...looks like you did. lol

 

exactly. the scale plays as the middle man of issues and concerns for both parties. but when it comes to national economies right now, its all primitive mud-flinging. and you can look at how governments deal with problems, they just makes laws to keep people away from bad things "or else" instead of solutions to make the problem obsolete. These things can't really happen now because it's almost a responsibility of people to disagree with other people, and that comes from other people pulling the shots in the first place.
The way you think everyone should fall into one nation is not how other people think, especially the native-indians being intruded by the colonists metaphorically speaking.

 

Fued over?........o.k.

Spiritualchalist; Are you saying that, if national pride was put aside, no one should really care who is at the head of the table as long as we all are fed?

 

Seems to me his position is quite clear. Might makes right. Bullies should rule the world.

I'd like to see what his opinion would be if he was jewish living in germany during WWII. Would he gladly and willingly report to the death chambers because those with the power said so?

 

well yea, granted.But as I read the last couple lines I thought maybe he was speaking theoretically on economics.Which would allow me to at least understand,in part,this reasoning.

 

The way I see it is that reason has no place in the discussion of this nature, after all, its Might, not Reason that is right.

Anyone should be able to figure out that you can only say that (might makes right), when you are on the side that has that might. It's a very simple process to look at the situation and say to oneself, "would I think this is right if the position was reversed?"

If the answer is yes, then they are arguing for their own destruction. If the answer is no, then they are being a hypocrite and what they really mean is that they don't care as long as they are on the side that wins.

 

Well the way I see it is reason always has a place, Jeffery Dahmer was completely wrong but still had a reason for his actions,wheather we agree with them or not.I am not looking to agree or disagree with anyone,but that does not mean that I can not consider their reasoning.Coming from a native people I understand the ramifications of "might vs. right"yet the reason one would consider an idea is still open for questions as to the reasoning that brought them to such a stance or opinion.

 

I never said that reason has no place in the real world, I said it has no place in this conversation. The reason I said that is it was started on the basis of hypocritical reasoning, or stupidity.

Yes, I am sure he has his 'reasons' for his opinion, that in no way means he used the power of reason in stating this opinion.

As for what those reasons may be... he is free to state them, but anything that comes to the conclusion that might makes right is never going to get any type of support from me.

Might can feel 'right', it can feel 'just', and it can even feel damned good, but at no point in time does that mean it actually is any of those things. All you have to do is put the person who feels that way in a room with someone else (or multiple someones) who feels the same and is tougher then they are to see how quickly they will change their tune.

 

http://eroundlake.com/blog/uploaded_images/dudley_do_right-703696.jpg

 

Ain't that the shit.

 

time waits for no one, and it won't wait for you

 

But it leaps to my invitation.

 

Are you asking a moral question, or an ethical question?

Just because you can kill someone, does it morally mean you should? Same logic applies to conquering another country here.

A country, like say, America should not dominate anyone or any other country because if they respect their right to self governance, then they should respect everyone else's.