[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?

It's you that doesn't understand. I read the first dozen pages, and posted my thoughts on the comments you made on those pages. I don't need to read another 50 pages to form an opinion on what you wrote in the first dozen.

so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked.

Firstly, it's not double standards, because I'm not drawing a distinction between which side was killing civillians. Both sides killed civilians, some were killed while military targets were being attacked, some were killed deliberately for different reasons. What number of civilian lives lost is considered acceptable is open to debate (regardless of which side you're on). I do draw a distinction between that and ethnic cleansing. And because of that, you are seriously shocked and think I'm not mature enough for this conversation. Ok.

And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies..

I'm talking about reality - the reality of whether someone is fighting for the right reasons or not. Your arguement is that the winner is always the goodie, purely because that is the story they will tell. My point is that you have to search beneath the story, and not believe everything the state tells you, and find out the truth. Your arguement suggests that I would believe the crusades were a good thing, which I don't.

I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civilians

Of course I accept that some civilians will die. Are you suggesting that if someone found a way to end a war, but it would involve one civilian dying, that the war should continue instead? If a dictatorship was developing nuclear weapons, and showed the world it had the will and capability to use them as soon as ready, but they kept the factories in a populated town, would you just accept that your country (and population) was going to be destroyed because civilian casualties in an opposing nation would be so unthinkable?

how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?

Western governments lied to their people (and those governments were lied to by certain experts too) about the evidence and reasons for going to war with Iraq. I personally think that was wrong and war should have been avoided.

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

I was simply pointing out to you that we don't always believe that the victors are the goodies, which is what you said.

excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.

No it isn't. People can be lied to and suppressed. When a country goes to war, I don't assume that is the fault of every individual in that country.