Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Monthly topics for discussion

Moderator: TalkingPoint

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Postby Bambang » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:43 pm

Yes, you are right my friend on the definition of “to invade”. I have also looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary. The definition is not much different. But my point is: there’s no debate on whether or not the American operation is called “an invasion”. It’s absolutely an invasion. They are invaders. They themselves said that too. We all know that the stupid ~ invasion is absolutely wrong. What I actually wanna say is that we don’t have to invade back the USA. We can only do that when all ways go to the dead end.

jrkp wrote:Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some points, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?


My friend, you got it wrong. I said that we could attack the USA If all approaches to stop the war fail or all ways go to the dead end. This is the last step buddy.

Here I re-quote my solution to that problem:


Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.



Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.



jrkp wrote:Including? To me this channel has to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.


Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???

jrkp wrote:So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification....


C’mon my friend !!! Wake up !!!
I didn’t say I agree with you that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable. Not at all my friend. I didn’t accept any invasions. To me, an invasion is another form of colonialism. And it goes against the declaration of human right acts.

My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.

jrkp wrote:In some special situations, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....


Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet? :evil: :evil: :evil:

:evil:

User avatar
Tora
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:57 pm
Status: Other
Location: Moscow

Postby Tora » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:07 pm

don't know what you are talking here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:

but anyhow I was told many times how private property right is violated here. many small summer cabins are located in remote places near forests. Drug addicts bent to enter it even when the owners are at home, rob them and you never know what comes next... this case I would be much glad to have a gun under my pillow to save my life. I guess when you're living in the countryside gun is a necessary thing!

User avatar
Tora
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:57 pm
Status: Other
Location: Moscow

Postby Tora » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:29 pm

dshowgina wrote:i don't think anyone should be entitled to have a private gun except the police officers. Though one claims to own a gun in the name of self-protection, no one can assure someone will not use it to threaten the others' life someday. but, everyone without a gun, it reduces the possibility that one can hurt or harm the others with a gun. i can't say it's 100% because sometimes the police officer will abuse their guns.


Oh, please, should I name ways to get guns illegally? not that I tried to :lol: but this is obvious! not only policemen do have ones, I bet :o

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Postby jrkp » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:58 pm

Bambang wrote:Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???


My friend, diplomatic channels are always useful, in spite of the parts in conflict don´t have the will to negotiate, because in some point, they will reach an agreement depending on the evolution of the war. But to do that they must keep talking. What I´m was trying to explain when I said that the parts should have the will to talk is because in that way, they can understand each other and stop the war quicker.

Bambang wrote:....... My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.


Well, no question about that point!!! of course you have to attack the invader to defend your country, in fact, we´ve descussed that point in previous posts. The problem would be that we can attack the invader in many, many forms. By the way, Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....

Bambang wrote:Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet?


Of course, I´ll tell you the ones I can recall, but I betcha that there are more examples hanging there:

During the World War II, We can see a few good examples. When the Nazis invaded Russia, red army fought bravely and at the end, they managed to expel them. But they didn´t stay in Russia, no, they chased nazis until they reach Berlin an bring down Hitler´s administration. If you look up information, a very few books (to don´t say none) refer to that action as an invasion, even though they entered a country by force and took possesion of Berlin (See invasion definition below).

Other example would be regarding Britain performance. They stayed stand when Nazis sent fightplanes to attack them but, when Americans and Russians got involved into the war, they planned to invade Germany with them to displace Hitler from power. If you analyzed this fact carefully, they invaded Germany to stop the agression that they were suffering (Protect their country invading other).

Let´s take a look to French case. They were defeated by Germany and its army were dismantled. Afterwards, they created a resistance to fight back, but they didn´t have any success until the allies re-invaded France to kick Germans out. They weren´t called invaders (even though they entered to a country by force), they were called "liberation force" instead.

I´ll give you more recent examples. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and later on the whole world gather an multinational force to expel Iraqui army from that country, As you know, They did it but again, they didn´t stop there, no, they entered into Iraqui´s soil and established the famous paralel 30 (You must remember that). The "multinational" force invaded Iraq, but, again a few countries complained about it, or at least didn´t make such a big deal that they are making nowadays about Iraq. I betcha If they had gone to take over Baghdad in that time, the world wouldn´t have said anything about it.

In 1994, NATO invaded Kosovo to expel Serbian´s Army. In fact, they didn´t called it as an invasion, they called it as an "humanitarian war" :?:. And what about the invasion of Afghanistan? Countries which have opposed to Iraq invasion were supportive to this one, or at least they didn´t offer a strong opposition as they have been giving it regarding Iraq.(e.g. France. Germany, China, Russia, etc)...

I can give you more example: Haiti, Somalia, etc, but with those ones that I´ve written above are enough. To me, the inavasion in those cases are completely justificable....

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Postby jrkp » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:15 pm

Tora wrote:don't know what you are talking here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:



You right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... :wink:.

P.S. I feel strange writing such a short post in this discussion.. :D

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Postby Bambang » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:21 am

jrkp wrote:Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....



My friend, the word "protective" originates from "to protect". Whatever you do to protect your country or families, thus the "protective actions". That simple huh !!!. My friend, don't make it complex by giving a lot of definitions from your dictionaries, ha ha ha .... ! :lol:

Well, my friend, you have just extremely impressed me on your history lesson. Frankly speaking, I had to recall that lesson. You are even much better than my history teacher then. You rock !!!! :wink:

But my friend....

I'd like to straighten the term of "invasion". Let's narrow the scoop of invasion just in WAR.

To me, the first country which attacks others is called "the invader". And the countries which attack back the invader are doing "protective actions". They are not called as invaders.

So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.

I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.

So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Postby Bambang » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:47 am

Tora wrote:don't know what you are talking about here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:


jrkp wrote:You're right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... :wink:.


My dear Tora, you're absolutely right. We have a proverb on that. Here it is : "A tongue is much sharper and dangerous than a gun".

My friend Tora, this is a discussion forum. The more words you use to support your ideas the better. The most important thing is that your words should be relevant to the topic as well as argumentative.

My friend Tora, I really appreciate your involvement in "our war". This is a smart bright war. It's not personal. It's pure a healthy war between two "countries".

So, if you wanna get involved in this war, please read first all previous posts we both have posted so that you can understand on what we are talking about.

If you do that, then this "war" would be a triangle one. It would be more interesting because we’ll get some alternative ideas.

I don't hope you take side to one of us. I appreciate you more when you have your own positions. :wink:

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Postby jrkp » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:32 pm

Bambang wrote:]So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.


I couldn´t said it better!!!! You´re absoultely right, it´s a Play of Words!!!! You can call it as whatever you want, but at the end of the day, and according to my beloved dictionaries, an invasion is an invasion. Period. And to make my point clear, I gave you a few examples in my history class....

Bambang wrote:]I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.


You see, To you and, of course, to me, that´s not a good reason to invade other country, that´s why we´ve opposed to that action. But, the thing is that every invasion have a justification, some of them have enough arguments to justify it and others don´t.

Let me give you another history class. The reason why Bush´s administation launched a military action against Iraq was because the creation of the concept "preventive" war, it wasn´t for humanitarian reasons....

Bambang wrote:So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.


So, my friend, I have to say it again, you´re actually agree with me that there are justifiable invasion,just that you call it as a protective action and I call it in that way, but at the end, it´s the same concept, don´t you think?.

P.S. The History class is free of charge... 8)

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Postby Bambang » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:50 am

jrkp wrote:...The reason why Bush´s administation launched a military action against Iraq was because the creation of the concept "preventive" war, it wasn´t for humanitarian reasons....


That's why I don't believe that there is a good invasion. To me, There are only two words : Attacking and protecting.

Anyway, thanks for the history classes.
I really appreciate your history lessons.
Even though your educational background is engineering, you know a lot on history.

Cool.... man !!!

lady
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:48 am

Postby lady » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:10 am

in my opinion nobody should be because it is very bad nobody should kill nobody

lady
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:48 am

Postby lady » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:10 am

in my opinion nobody should be because it is very bad nobody should kill nobody

User avatar
Danyet
Keeper of the Board
Keeper of the Board
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
Status: English Teacher
Location: USA

Postby Danyet » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:08 pm

Er...........am I the only person with a gun here? :?:

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Postby Bambang » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:57 am

danyet wrote:Er...........am I the only person with a gun here? :?:



No, you are not.

wyne
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: china

Postby wyne » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:39 am

Gun is not a necessity of life. Destruction is its nature, no matter what is the purpose we using it. And guns and terrorists are always together. So everyone has a gun will be a nightmare to the general public, some small unhappy things may result in unnecessary bloodshed.

norhan
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: egypt
Contact:

Postby norhan » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:42 pm

No i don't think that we all should have guns or other weapons. the only weapon that we all should have is our knowledge.it's the most powerful weapon.

wllsp
Gold Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:54 am
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Postby wllsp » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:15 pm

TalkingPoint wrote:Would it be safer for nobody to have a gun or for everybody to have one?

What do YOU think?


Criminals already have guns and will alvays have them. So the question is if it would be safer if good citizens had guns. I feel it would be definetely safer for them to have a gun in situations when they are far from a city and the police might not arrive timely. For example my parents would definetely feel more secure if they had a gun when they spend time in a small cottage and there are few neighbours around.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Postby guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:42 pm

Very controversil topic my friend. From my point of view nobody must carry a gun.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Postby guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:46 pm

Hardi wrote:
Dixie wrote:NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.[I am totaly agree with you but what about when someone try to open your door house in the middle at the night. I just wonder this question myself./quote] Do u include also teeth as weapons? If yes, then are wild animals still allowed to have teeth for hunting.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Postby guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:48 pm

[quote="norhan"]No i don't think that we all should have guns or other weapons. the only weapon that we all should have is our knowledge.it's the most powerful weapon.[wow!!! This question couldn't have been answered better.

User avatar
Alfabeto
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Spain

Postby Alfabeto » Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:45 pm

When everybody has guns the chances of shooting each other multiply. Only the police, the armed forces, and certain individuals who can prove they need guns should carry them.

brocoli
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Postby brocoli » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:34 pm

I think that having a gun itself is not tragedy , but using it is something different.


Return to “Talking Point Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests