#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
do women deserve to be on the 20 dollar bill
give reasons they should or shuldnt
no
Side Score: 24
|
 |
yes
Side Score: 19
|
|
2
points
2
points
2
points
Andrew "I killed the bank" Jackson is the most deserving president out of all of them to have his likeness on the twenty dollar bill. This is not a "gender issue" it is a history issue. Keep Andrew Jackson on the $20 If in the future the "politically correct" wish to explore this issue, please use one of another denomination bills for your experiment. KEEP JACKSON ON THE TWENTY! Side: no
2
points
1
point
Changing the subject does not change the fact he kept the bankers from their greedy manipulation of our country. Unlike other presidents that followed and enabled banker's to become the criminals they are today. That is why he should remain on the $20 http://www.history.com/topics/ Better yet take Woodrow Wilson off the $100,000 bill, and put someone else on it. He started the "sell out" of America to the banker's. Side: no
1
point
The subject in question is if women deserve to be on the 20 dollar bill. You changed the subject to "keep Jackson on the bill". My entire post is questioning why Jackson should be on the bill. That in no way, shape, or form changes the subject. I agree that Jackson did some good regarding the Financial Sector, but that in no way negates or overcomes the fact that he is the only president in the history of the United States to have committed genocide, and he did so while completely violating the separation of powers. How the hell does his work with the financial sector make up for that? For that matter, we should take Grant off for waging Total Warfare upon an American populace. Side: yes
1
point
You better open up a history book once in a while before you make wildly general and incorrect statements like this: "the fact that he is the only president in the history of the United States to have committed genocide" Barack Obama has killed 172 children with drone aircraft. How many Iraqi people did Bush Kill? How many Vietnamese people did LBJ and Nixon kill? No one regardless of gender deserves to be on the $20 bill more than Andrew Jackson, because he fought for the people and against the bank. Side: no
1
point
Genocide: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Jackson intentionally slaughtered native Americans by massive numbers. Obama's deplorable "collateral damage" does not constitute genocide by any means, Iraq, while horrible and incredibly misguided, was not intentionally killing people of a particular ethnicity, and the Vietnamese war was not intended for the purposes of killing a particular ethnicity, it was a proxy war for political ideology. So I say again, Jackson is the only American president to have committed genocide. Simply saying "he fought for the people" does nothing to excuse his genocidal actions. Side: yes
I did not suggest they were mutually exclusive, I suggested the distinction was arbitrary. If we refer to the general definition of genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation., then all wars would be classified as genocide. Like I said, the distinction is arbitrary. Side: no
1
point
Genocide often (and in modern day usually) takes place within a war, can be considered a form of warfare, and can indeed be done for purposes other than ethnic cleansing. Within the "war for land", there was still a genocide against the Native Americans. https://clg.portalxm.com/library/ That source does a good job of trying to explain a solid distinction between war and genocide, and proves the explanation I believe is most sound: Warfare (as we generally refer to it) is state against state, whereas genocide is a state against a people. Side: yes
Your source just presents his personal arbitrary differences between war and genocide. How is Mark Levene's interpretation any less arbitrary than that of the Wiki community or dictionary.com? Let's look at war #3: "Shares many of the characteristics of a genocide, but stops short of the goal of complete extermination. Dramatically unequal military power. One side is often defenseless." How is this not completely arbitrary? Just because one side is defenseless (technologically), we classify it as genocide? Does that mean a developed country must use antiquated technology in combat in order to avoid committing genocide? Stops short of complete extermination is even more ridiculous. EDIT: Just to simplify my argument. War is just justified killing for some arbitrary purpose important to some group. Limits imposed on war like those of the Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention are arbitrary. They are basically saying, "Hey, we can kill you in war because it is justified, but we won't kill you in this list of ways, because that is wrong." The fact that some people can clear their conscience in war because they have followed these protocols is ridiculous to me. Side: no
1
point
I am trying to see a distinction between your argument that the way we define genocide is arbitrary, and the way we define any word or concept is arbitrary. Genocide is a relatively new word, and thus a fully accepted definition of it is lacking, and yet there are certain characteristics of it that almost everyone agrees upon, such as a goal of exterminating a populace. As for your defenseless comment, I fail to see what you are trying to argue. You pointed out a third type of warfare that he said might lead to genocide, not that it is genocide. It is entirely possible that if one side is technologically outmatched and the other side does not tone down their methods that it can lead to genocide, but he is not arguing that it automatically becomes genocide. You might want to re-read the part of the link that you are referencing, because it does not claim what you seem to think it does. "Levene describes three types of war. Though each has identifiable characteristics, they not only shade into each other, but may each lead to genocide as well." Again, may each lead to genocide. Side: yes
Refer to my edit. I understood what he was saying. He was arbitrarily defining three types of war. He was saying 2 and 3 can lead to genocide more than 1. It is all arbitrary. Yes. All human definitions are arbitrary, but most of those concepts are not used to justify killing other people. My point is that if one group wants to kill another group in an act of war, then they have the right to do so. However, justifying their actions by saying it is a "humane" war that has not committed genocide is a completely ridiculous idea. Justify the war using the reasons you went to war, not how you went about killing some other group of people. Side: no
1
point
You specifically noted how Jackson stood out for his actions because they were considered genocidal. That is implying it is less justified if there is genocide involved. Jackson intentionally slaughtered native Americans by massive numbers. Obama's deplorable "collateral damage" does not constitute genocide by any means, Iraq, while horrible and incredibly misguided, was not intentionally killing people of a particular ethnicity, and the Vietnamese war was not intended for the purposes of killing a particular ethnicity, it was a proxy war for political ideology. So I say again, Jackson is the only American president to have committed genocide. Simply saying "he fought for the people" does nothing to excuse his genocidal actions. Jackson did worse things because his killings were intentionally genocidal but War on Terror and the Vietnam War were not intentionally genocidal so they were not as bad. How does this make sense? Side: no
1
point
You specifically noted how Jackson stood out for his actions because they were considered genocidal. That is implying it is less justified if there is genocide involved. They were genocidal outside of any war. Additionally, saying actions are less justified when genocidal is not also implying the inverse, that warfare (that is not genocidal) is justified. His actions were worse because they were committed upon a civilian populace, which makes them worse. The "War on Terror" exists in a rather gray area in that it is difficult to classify it (Occupation, War, preventative measure, etc), though I hardly find it justified in any way and consider it rather horrible. The Vietnam War was also rather strange, as it had much to do with "Colonial" Allies (The French interests in Vietnam) as well as our Cold War anti-communist Truman Doctrine. Regardless, it was an action not against a civilian population, but against a political insurgency. Side: no
They were genocidal outside of any war. Additionally, saying actions are less justified when genocidal is not also implying the inverse, that warfare (that is not genocidal) is justified. It does not suggest complete justification, it suggests a degree more justification. This is not black and white, justification falls under a spectrum. His actions were worse because they were committed upon a civilian populace, which makes them worse. Ok, so you have defined genocide as worse because they are actions committed against a civilian population. You also mention this regarding the War on Terror and the Vietnam War. Let's look at the Vietnam War. The US bombed villages because they were hiding potential combatants. They bombed factories because they were potential producers for the war effort. These all contained civilians. They napalmed the jungles wiping out entire villages. Let's look at the US Revolutionary War. By definition, the rebels did not have a standing army so each member would have been considered an enemy combatant. However, they were mostly civilians. Does this mean the British committed genocide against these rebels? How about the bombings of Japan during WWII? The US military specifically targeted urban centers with napalm and production facilities. We don't even need to consider the obliteration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima because more were killed by napalm in Tokyo than in the aforementioned cases. The reasoning behind the actions was to demoralize the enemy, reduce the draft pool, and stop war-time production. Please explain how Jackson's policy of demoralizing the enemy and reducing the draft pool (not that there was one) is considered worse than anything mentioned prior. Side: no
1
point
It does not suggest complete justification, it suggests a degree more justification. This is not black and white, justification falls under a spectrum. Again, saying one act is less justified (negative) is not saying that another is more so (in the positive sense). The inverse is not implied at all. Let's look at the Vietnam War. The US bombed villages because they were hiding potential combatants. They bombed factories because they were potential producers for the war effort. These all contained civilians. They napalmed the jungles wiping out entire villages. Yes, and I would say much of that were war crimes. But seeing as how the intent was not to target a civilian population, it is not genocide. Again, intent is key to the entire concept of genocide. Let's look at the US Revolutionary War. By definition, the rebels did not have a standing army so each member would have been considered an enemy combatant. However, they were mostly civilians. Does this mean the British committed genocide against these rebels? A rebel insurgent is not, by definition, a civilian (within the context of warfare, which would be a non-combatant), so no, the British did not commit genocide against the rebels. How about the bombings of Japan during WWII? The US military specifically targeted urban centers with napalm and production facilities. We don't even need to consider the obliteration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima because more were killed by napalm in Tokyo than in the aforementioned cases. The reasoning behind the actions was to demoralize the enemy, reduce the draft pool, and stop war-time production. Yes, a military action taken against a foreign state, not an action specifically intended to kill a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. The Tokyo Firebombings were certainly a war-crime, I do not dispute that in any way, but the lack of intent prevents that from being a genocide. Please explain how Jackson's policy of demoralizing the enemy and reducing the draft pool (not that there was one) is considered worse than anything mentioned prior. Because the entire intent of Jackson's actions were to target a civilian population. The Trail of Tears was not committed against a foreign state during a time of war, it was not committed against insurgents, it was intentionally committed against an ethnic group. I think the entire disagreement comes down to whether or not you believe intent is important, if I'm not mistaken. Side: no
Again, saying one act is less justified (negative) is not saying that another is more so (in the positive sense). The inverse is not implied at all. How does this make sense? A A is false? Yes, a military action taken against a foreign state, not an action specifically intended to kill a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. The Tokyo Firebombings were certainly a war-crime, I do not dispute that in any way, but the lack of intent prevents that from being a genocide. The Tokyo firebombings directly targeted Japanese civilians. How is this not a genocide? There were no production facilities in the residential neighborhoods targeted. They used napalm so that the damage would spread as fast and far as possible, killing as many civilians as possible. The intent was literally the death of civilians in order to damage the Japanese war effort. Let's juxtapose this with Saddam's chemical attack against the Kurdish people. He used chemical weapons against that region as part of the Al-Anfal Campaign in order to defeat Kurdish rebels and the Iranian Army. The casualties were largely civilian as the Kurdish rebels were hiding in civilian areas. Most of the world identifies this incident as genocidal, even though it targeted guerrilla fighters. The firebombings targeted only civilians, but it is not genocidal. Not arbitrary at all. Because the entire intent of Jackson's actions were to target a civilian population. The Trail of Tears was not committed against a foreign state during a time of war, it was not committed against insurgents, it was intentionally committed against an ethnic group. I think the entire disagreement comes down to whether or not you believe intent is important, if I'm not mistaken. Intent is arbitrary. Look at the Tokyo firebombings. The intent was to destabilize and demoralize by killing civilians in the capital. There were no military or production targets. They napalmed residential areas. This intent was far worse than Saddam's chemical attack which actually targeted guerrilla fighters along with civilians. Somehow, the world seems to think the exact opposite. It does not make sense to make up a label so that one group is somehow worse than the other without some consistent logic/definition to back up that label. The judgement was not based on intent, it was based on winners and losers. Side: yes
1
point
How does this make sense? A A is false? When you start from the position that both things are not justified, claiming that one is unjustifiable does not somehow partially justify the other. The Tokyo firebombings directly targeted Japanese civilians. How is this not a genocide? You know, I am actually willing to concede that the Bombing of Tokyo was a genocide within U.S. operations against Japan. Let's juxtapose this with Saddam's chemical attack against the Kurdish people. He used chemical weapons against that region as part of the Al-Anfal Campaign in order to defeat Kurdish rebels and the Iranian Army. The casualties were largely civilian as the Kurdish rebels were hiding in civilian areas. I am not sure I agree with the comparison, seeing as how the Kurds were only rebels due to long term oppression and persecution, and were "hiding out" amongst other Kurds. Intent is arbitrary. Look at the Tokyo firebombings. The intent was to destabilize and demoralize by killing civilians in the capital. There were no military or production targets. They napalmed residential areas. This intent was far worse than Saddam's chemical attack which actually targeted guerrilla fighters along with civilians. Somehow, the world seems to think the exact opposite. That is because most people do not think of genocide as a type of war crime that can (and usually is) committed within an ongoing military conflict. It does not make sense to make up a label so that one group is somehow worse than the other without some consistent logic/definition to back up that label. It makes perfect sense to make up a term used to refer to a specific form of war crime. Anything beyond that is not inherent in the term genocide, and is sociological rather than linguistic. Side: no
When you start from the position that both things are not justified, claiming that one is unjustifiable does not somehow partially justify the other. Oops. That should have said A is less than B is true, but B is greater than A is false. I am referring to the act of labeling. Whenever something gets labeled as a genocide, it sounds worse than just labeling as a tactic of war. These labels are arbitrarily given in many cases. I am not sure I agree with the comparison, seeing as how the Kurds were only rebels due to long term oppression and persecution, and were "hiding out" amongst other Kurds. The Kurds were fighting a war with Saddam. They were allied with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. They chose to ally themselves with Iran because they wanted to rebel against Saddam. Since they allied with Iran, they were considered enemy combatants. Since you bring up persecution and oppression, we can bring up the War in Afghanistan again. The Taliban rose to power because of US involvement in the Soviet-Afghanistan War. Their country was dragged into the Cold War. The US, along with Pakistani intelligence, trained the mujahideen (Bin Laden and later Al Qaeda), to fight the Red Menace (also Soviet access to the Indian Sea, well more like mainly). Their core belief has always been that the West (US and allies) destroyed their home and took away their freedoms in order to further the West's own agenda. This is why Al Qaeda self-identifies as freedom fighters. They view the West's control over their region as oppressive. September 11th would then be viewed as an act of anti-oppression. They attacked NY and the WTC, symbols of the US economy which happens to oppress them. The Taliban would then be funding freedom fighters and so on. This would make the world's attack against the Taliban and Al Qaeda an act of genocide on already oppressed individuals. That is because most people do not think of genocide as a type of war crime that can (and usually is) committed within an ongoing military conflict. Ongoing military conflict and war crime. That is exactly what happened with the Kurds. It was a military campaign during an ongoing military conflict against a group of people who sided with opposition forces. This means that you would be wrong to assume most people do not think of genocide this way. It makes perfect sense to make up a term used to refer to a specific form of war crime. Anything beyond that is not inherent in the term genocide, and is sociological rather than linguistic. You are right that we can make up labels for these things for linguistic purposes. The issue is the label of genocide has an extremely negative connotation, but is not used consistently to describe similar situations. EDIT: Combining the two streams. Again, the fact that they are not civilians, nor a ethnic/religious/racial(etc) group means it was not genocide. As for the participation after 9/11, that was Iraq, which after a while the world also had an issue with. As U.S. operations continued, the world became more and more vocal about their objections. The Taliban is a national group which is included in the definition. Yes, they were recruited from civilians, then no longer were civilians, and do you have evidence that I haven't seen that the United States targeted non-combatant Taliban members? The US targetted non-combatant sympathizers from the get go. It was to be expected as the US was out for revenge. The US made several demands after 911 such as the unconditional surrender of Bin Laden along with the rest of the Al Qaeda network. The Taliban tried to negotiate. The US denied their requests and just invaded claiming the negotiations to be in bad faith; only considered as stalling tactics. I am not sure what the Bush administration believed they could have been stalling for; a chance to strike at the US preemptively? They even tried to set up a transfer of Bin Laden to Pakistan for trial, but Pakistan refused due to fear of the US. The Taliban obviously wanted to avoid a US invasion. The Soviet-Afghan War lasted two decades and resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians. The subsequent power struggle lasted for a decade with the Pakistani supported Taliban securing Kabul. This also cost millions of civilian lives. There was no reason to risk further devastation. The Bush administration along with the NATO coalition (which wasn't even approved by the UN), engaged after refusing all negotiations. It seems to me, the intent was always revenge. They just wanted to wipe the Taliban from the face of the Earth for hiding Bin Laden. Meanwhile, ignoring the Saudi individuals and charities who actually funded the terrorist attacks. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/ Taliban's brutal regime aside, there was more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than to invade Afghanistan, especially considering the Taliban were willing to give up Bin Laden (as was their claim). It was basically genocide against a national group who were operating a fascist regime. They just happened to be the only thing the US could attack directly since the Saudis were allies. Probably the fact that there are currently no insurgent groups that adhere to Judaism, nor any terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests abroad. That isn't an excuse, more of an explanation, and a rather cynical one at that. The Taliban were not a terrorist group (although they are now). They also did not fund 911, groups like the al Haramain Islamic Foundation in Saudi Arabia did. Except those individuals were not, by definition, terrorists. They did not perform terrorism. I'm not sure if the Cultural Revolution was genocide, however (I don't think it was), but that in no way lessens it as an atrocity. Mao considered them (the elites/land owners/whatever) economic terrorists. Corrupt bankers can do a lot of damage as evidenced by recent events. When did I label the Taliban as the government? I guess you didn't. I just assumed you did since you defined genocide as not part of a military conflict The Taliban as an organization had taken up arms long before that, ever sense the United States armed the mujahedin during the Cold War. We simply decided that we no longer liked the monster we created (as we so often do) then decided we were justified in stopping them. I am not agreeing with said justification, however. Additionally, seeing as how Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban, I am not sure if most or all of the Taliban supported said actions. I believe that Al-Qaeda supported them, obviously. Yeah. The Taliban had no part in the attacks, but they were targeted for not giving up Bin Laden unconditionally and immediately. I don't feel like asking for the same evidence, so I will ask for different evidence: Do you have a source for the claim that the Taliban was mostly composed of civilians? No, it was not. They were not trying to destroy Afghan's, they were trying to destroy an armed political group (the Taliban). A civilian can be armed. They just can't be part of the armed services. If they are armed later in defense of their home, that doesn't mean they weren't civilians during the formulation of attack. When someone targets a political group that is all one nationality/ethnicity and the group arms their civilians in defense, that doesn't take away from the original intention of destroying a group of civilians because of political affiliation. Upon further reading, it turns out the UN Convention does not include political groups. It is actually criticized for this. I am not sure if the Taliban counts as they are all the same nationality and ethnicity (and even religion). As for "wrong", that very concept is subjective and arbitrary, so you are arguing an arbitrary value for an arbitrary term which really won't get us anywhere :P Well, I didn't mean it as wrong in a moral sense. I meant wrong in a logical sense. If we are going to use a label like genocide, we should use it consistently. Like with Jackson. He is not the only US president to commit genocide. Using this terrible label arbitrarily just excuses behavior that should have been condemned. Side: no
1
point
1
point
EDIT: Just to simplify my argument. War is just justified killing for some arbitrary purpose important to some group. Limits imposed on war like those of the Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention are arbitrary. They are basically saying, "Hey, we can kill you in war because it is justified, but we won't kill you in this list of ways, because that is wrong." The fact that some people can clear their conscience in war because they have followed these protocols is ridiculous to me. Thought I'd respond to this edit separately. How is your definition of war not arbitrary? How are mutually agreed upon rules of conduct arbitrary? Arbitrary:subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion. Clearly the Geneva Convention does not fit the definition of arbitrary. Side: yes
Thought I'd respond to this edit separately. How is your definition of war not arbitrary? How are mutually agreed upon rules of conduct arbitrary? I am not talking about the arbitrary definition of words. I am talking about the arbitrary justification of actions. If you gas civilians in a kill chamber, it is genocidal and considered a "war crime", but if you kill them with bombs and bullets, it is fine. Almost everyone has a problem with Hitler destabilizing a region and murdering ~10 million people (iirc the term genocide was coined for the Holocaust), but the world had no problem jumping on the US bandwagon of obliterating the country of Afghanistan (or groups contained within) for the actions of a terrorist group. Was the most recent Afghanistan War considered genocide by large group/organization? (Other than the Dalai Lama and overall Buddhist response warning Bush against violent retaliation.) By Levene's definition, this would have been considered a state 3 war and the most likely war-state to lead to genocide. Afghanistan was completely outmatched in manpower and technology. The targets were the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The goal was the annihilation of both of these groups. How was this not genocide committed by the world against the Taliban and Al Qaeda? The world can commit justified genocide because they are bad people? This is just going by Levene's interpretation. Clearly the Geneva Convention does not fit the definition of arbitrary. The agreement is not arbitrary, the ideology behind it is arbitrary. If you refer to the Genocide Convention, not the Geneva Convention, it defines genocide as: "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Going by the definition of the 146 countries who signed it, pretty much every war ever was an act of genocide. This actually has little to do with my point of justification. I just wanted to point out how well defined the term was. Again. I am not focusing on definition of words. I am talking about the justification of actions, the reasoning behind these agreements. Side: no
1
point
I am talking about the arbitrary justification of actions. If you gas civilians in a kill chamber, it is genocidal and considered a "war crime", but if you kill them with bombs and bullets, it is fine. That isn't true at all. If you gas a couple civilians in a gas chamber, it will probably be a war crime, but isn't necessarily a genocide. Additionally, one can indeed perform genocide via bombs and bullets. Almost everyone has a problem with Hitler destabilizing a region and murdering ~10 million people (iirc the term genocide was coined for the Holocaust), but the world had no problem jumping on the US bandwagon of obliterating the country of Afghanistan (or groups contained within) for the actions of a terrorist group. The world has had a massive problem with the U.S. doing so, same with the Soviets (seeing as how it was the Cold War proxy actions of each that led to the current situation there), both then and now, and rightly so. But the actions committed there simply weren't for the purposes of annihilating a particular civilian group. Was the most recent Afghanistan War considered genocide by large group/organization? (Other than the Dalai Lama and overall Buddhist response warning Bush against violent retaliation.) Of course not, and why would it be? The war was not waged to kill civilians. War crimes were committed, and they should be called out, but it was not a state against civilians. To be fair, it wasn't even a war, it was more akin to an invasion. By Levene's definition, this would have been considered a state 3 war and the most likely war-state to lead to genocide. Afghanistan was completely outmatched in manpower and technology. The targets were the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The goal was the annihilation of both of these groups. How was this not genocide committed by the world against the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Because the groups in question were terrorists and insurgents, not a civilian population. Additionally, while the situation in Afghanistan could have certainly become a genocide more easily than most, the United States did not take the opportunity to turn it into an anti-Muslim genocide. Fighting a violent insurgency and taking redistribution actions against a hostile terrorist group do not constitute genocide. The world can commit justified genocide because they are bad people? This is just going by Levene's interpretation. No, it is going by your interpretation of Levene's classification, which is flawed seeing as how your claims would require the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to be classified as civilians. The agreement is not arbitrary, the ideology behind it is arbitrary. If you refer to the Genocide Convention, not the Geneva Convention, it defines genocide as: "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Going by the definition of the 146 countries who signed it, pretty much every war ever was an act of genocide. This actually has little to do with my point of justification. I just wanted to point out how well defined the term was. The key word you are missing is intent. Very, very few of the countries who signed it waged a war with the specific intent to commit any of those against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as opposed to the state in question. Intent seems to be the primary determining factor regarding genocide. Again. I am not focusing on definition of words. I am talking about the justification of actions, the reasoning behind these agreements. But you are focusing on the definition of words, as the entire conversation revolves around the definition of genocide, and the repercussions said definition has. I understand what you are saying regarding the justification people using as it pertains to the definition in question, but the definition is still key to the whole conversation. Side: yes
That isn't true at all. If you gas a couple civilians in a gas chamber, it will probably be a war crime, but isn't necessarily a genocide. Additionally, one can indeed perform genocide via bombs and bullets. Fair point. I was being too hyperbolic. The world has had a massive problem with the U.S. doing so, same with the Soviets (seeing as how it was the Cold War proxy actions of each that led to the current situation there), both then and now, and rightly so. But the actions committed there simply weren't for the purposes of annihilating a particular civilian group. The purpose of the War in Afghanistan was to annihilate two specific groups. Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is genocide. The world did not have a problem as evidenced by the majority participation shortly after 911. Of course not, and why would it be? The war was not waged to kill civilians. War crimes were committed, and they should be called out, but it was not a state against civilians. To be fair, it wasn't even a war, it was more akin to an invasion. Ok. So you are making the distinction of civilians here. As long as the target isn't civilians, it is not genocide. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were recruiting from the civilian population. The civilian population also assisted in hiding key members. In fact, other than the ones who held government office, a majority of the Taliban were civilians. What is the excuse for targeting this ideological group over a group that follows Judaism? Because the groups in question were terrorists and insurgents, not a civilian population. Additionally, while the situation in Afghanistan could have certainly become a genocide more easily than most, the United States did not take the opportunity to turn it into an anti-Muslim genocide. Fighting a violent insurgency and taking redistribution actions against a hostile terrorist group do not constitute genocide. Yes. The distinction is that we label these groups as terrorists. The British Crown labeled US rebels as terrorists as well. Mao labeled traditional elites as individuals whose existence only served to tear down society. The Cultural Revolution is no longer a genocide, but removal of terrorists of the state. You labeled the Taliban as the government, so it was a war and not genocide. What about the fact that their members were mostly civilians. They were forced to take up arms and defend their home from the global coalition that showed up shortly after 911. Do you believe all of them were in support of Bin Laden's actions? No, it is going by your interpretation of Levene's classification, which is flawed seeing as how your claims would require the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to be classified as civilians. The Taliban was mostly composed of civilians, so annihilation of that group would mean annihilation of a group of civilians who shared the same ideology. They happened to be in control of the government at the time. This would be like saying we can annihilate the entire Republican Party and the country they reside in because the leaders of the party funded terrorists. Al Qaeda is given the label of terrorists even though they self-identify as freedom fighters; similar to the US group terrorizing the colonies belonging to the British Crown. The key word you are missing is intent. Very, very few of the countries who signed it waged a war with the specific intent to commit any of those against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as opposed to the state in question. Intent seems to be the primary determining factor regarding genocide. The coalition's intent in Afghanistan was to destroy, in whole, a national group. But you are focusing on the definition of words, as the entire conversation revolves around the definition of genocide, and the repercussions said definition has. I understand what you are saying regarding the justification people using as it pertains to the definition in question, but the definition is still key to the whole conversation. I did point out how the definition of genocide is somewhat subjective, but my core message was that the label of genocide is only used to separate different types of targeted killings. Genocide is considered worse, because we label it as such, not because the actions are worse. This is what makes it arbitrary. Side: no
1
point
The purpose of the War in Afghanistan was to annihilate two specific groups. Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is genocide. The world did not have a problem as evidenced by the majority participation shortly after 911. Again, the fact that they are not civilians, nor a ethnic/religious/racial(etc) group means it was not genocide. As for the participation after 9/11, that was Iraq, which after a while the world also had an issue with. As U.S. operations continued, the world became more and more vocal about their objections. Ok. So you are making the distinction of civilians here. As long as the target isn't civilians, it is not genocide. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were recruiting from the civilian population. The civilian population also assisted in hiding key members. In fact, other than the ones who held government office, a majority of the Taliban were civilians. Yes, they were recruited from civilians, then no longer were civilians, and do you have evidence that I haven't seen that the United States targeted non-combatant Taliban members? What is the excuse for targeting this ideological group over a group that follows Judaism? Probably the fact that there are currently no insurgent groups that adhere to Judaism, nor any terrorist groups that threaten U.S. interests abroad. That isn't an excuse, more of an explanation, and a rather cynical one at that. Yes. The distinction is that we label these groups as terrorists. The British Crown labeled US rebels as terrorists as well. As a matter of fact, there were U.S. rebel terrorists during the Civil War. It's part of the reason why I'd say that the British actions were not genocidal. Mao labeled traditional elites as individuals whose existence only served to tear down society. The Cultural Revolution is no longer a genocide, but removal of terrorists of the state. Except those individuals were not, by definition, terrorists. They did not perform terrorism. I'm not sure if the Cultural Revolution was genocide, however (I don't think it was), but that in no way lessens it as an atrocity. You labeled the Taliban as the government, so it was a war and not genocide. When did I label the Taliban as the government? What about the fact that their members were mostly civilians. Again, do you have evidence that I have not seen that the U.S. targeted non-combatant Taliban members? They were forced to take up arms and defend their home from the global coalition that showed up shortly after 911. Do you believe all of them were in support of Bin Laden's actions? The Taliban as an organization had taken up arms long before that, ever sense the United States armed the mujahedin during the Cold War. We simply decided that we no longer liked the monster we created (as we so often do) then decided we were justified in stopping them. I am not agreeing with said justification, however. Additionally, seeing as how Bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban, I am not sure if most or all of the Taliban supported said actions. I believe that Al-Qaeda supported them, obviously. The Taliban was mostly composed of civilians, so annihilation of that group would mean annihilation of a group of civilians who shared the same ideology. I don't feel like asking for the same evidence, so I will ask for different evidence: Do you have a source for the claim that the Taliban was mostly composed of civilians? They happened to be in control of the government at the time. This would be like saying we can annihilate the entire Republican Party and the country they reside in because the leaders of the party funded terrorists. No, it wouldn't, it would be like saying that annihilating the entire Republican party wouldn't be genocide. Simply saying that something would not be genocide isn't saying that it is justified or acceptable. Genocide is simply a term to distinguish a certain type of war crime. Al Qaeda is given the label of terrorists even though they self-identify as freedom fighters; similar to the US group terrorizing the colonies belonging to the British Crown. And seeing as how the U.S. rebels performed terrorism, that label was justified, as was their own label of "Freedom Fighters" as they were fighting for independence. Al Qaeda is a bit different seeing as how they are not fighting for the independence of a specific country, and they are objectively terrorists (whether they believe said terrorism is justified or not) due to the fact that they perform terrorism. The coalition's intent in Afghanistan was to destroy, in whole, a national group. No, it was not. They were not trying to destroy Afghan's, they were trying to destroy an armed political group (the Taliban). I did point out how the definition of genocide is somewhat subjective, but my core message was that the label of genocide is only used to separate different types of targeted killings. Genocide is considered worse, because we label it as such, not because the actions are worse. This is what makes it arbitrary. Some might find it worse, others don't. It is quite common for people to find the intentional targeting of civilian populaces to be worse than other forms of warfare or other war crimes. I do not see anything wrong with that. As for "wrong", that very concept is subjective and arbitrary, so you are arguing an arbitrary value for an arbitrary term which really won't get us anywhere :P Side: yes
0
points
1
point
0
points
I dont care whos on the bill but dont put a women on the bill just for the sake of putting a women on the bill. The only other reason id oppose this is that we would have to recant all current 20 dollar currency with AJ on them and then what? Recycle them? Idk but itd take years to get those out of circulation since people can hold onto money for a while and to print all those new bills would be overhaul on the treasurey and the whole things just seems unnecessary Side: no
2
points
I believe a woman could deserve to be on the $20 bill, but I just don't see why the $20 has any significance in the matter. Just like anyone, regardless of gender, if she did a deed worthy of that much recognition, she should get her own bill instead of demoting Andrew Jackson. Side: no
0
points
1
point
|
3
points
I don't think Jackson deserves to be on the $20 bill. It would be great if they put a woman on it. I think it should be a woman from the era of the fight for female voting rights. Or, we could wait until we have a woman President and put her picture on there. I don't think that's too far in the future. Otherwise, Susan B. Anthony is still the best bet as of now. Side: yes
|
