Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/22/06 09:12 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Thats a policy that relies on fear.

no, it relies on fighting your opponent until until they cant fight back. THe opponent is so worried about thier defenses that they dont think of thier offenses

:Couldnt you also say the best offense is a good defense?

i guess but its less effective, they will fight until they run out of resources and that takes a while

i dont like either of these stratagies, the best is taking things in moderation

At 2/22/06 09:16 PM, Cant wrote:

At 2/22/06 09:12 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Thats a policy that relies on fear.

no, it relies on fighting your opponent until until they cant fight back. THe opponent is so worried about thier defenses that they dont think of thier offenses

Yeah or their so afraid of moving that they just sit there afraid to do anything.

At 2/22/06 09:10 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: The same as Velocitom:

The best Defense is a good offense.

At 2/22/06 08:15 PM, PCpr0gramer wrote: Let me make it bigger. Lets say your country bombs mine from 30,000 miles away. Then sits there. I bomb your bomb factory. Defense? All i did before was pepper your eyes and make it so you couldnt hit me again, and all im doing now is bombing you and making sure you cant bomb me again.

If a country takes the action of bombing you, they have become the agressor, and yes, disabling their "bomb factory" would be a legitimate defensive move.

However, I don't think that this applies to the war in Iraq, as a full-scale air and ground invasion is not a legitimate defensive response to "absolutely nothing"

The problem is that you are assuming that the aggressor is always morally wrong or the "bad guy".

Thus the defender claims the high moral road.
Not always true. Preemtive or purely offensive tactics can be very moral, such as invading a country accused of genocide.

If this wasn't your intent, it certainly sounds that way, however unpurposefully.......

A more profound question (to which my class spent a few days discussing), is the definition of "War".......

aint this wrong, it isnt the country bombing you it was just the extremists, for instance you could blame ALL the germans for the second world war witch alot of people do thinking they are nazists. America did attack, its even a conspiracy that they took advantage and went in, staying so they can siphon more oil, for me its all lies, pointless killing for fuel and an extreme strike

At 2/23/06 02:50 PM, phantom794 wrote: aint this wrong, it isnt the country bombing you it was just the extremists, for instance you could blame ALL the germans for the second world war witch alot of people do thinking they are nazists. America did attack, its even a conspiracy that they took advantage and went in, staying so they can siphon more oil, for me its all lies, pointless killing for fuel and an extreme strike

You are assuming i am talking about the war in iraq(i did mention congress, discount that) this is a general idea of when does the defense of a nation bring about cause to attack another country.