Hi
I was wondering is there a difference between a stalin who slaughtered his own people and a president who sends people to death?
2006-09-13 17:27:24 · 12 answers · asked by Maximus 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Technically, stalin sent his soldiers against their will if you are talking about killing whoever retreated during WWII.
The president on the other hand are sending soldiers in who joined the forces on their own will. Joining the army means being prepared to fight. Secondly, some can see that it is the president sending them in, others may see that the soldiers are willing to do it to protect their country. So therefore, it is both the president and the soldiers sending them in ....and not neccessarily to die.
2006-09-13 17:31:16 · answer #1 · answered by leikevy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the version lies on the character of the two. once you kill an ant there's no regulation which will punish you or that killing an ant is a criminal offense. besides the undeniable fact that i see your factor that lives are sacred despite the type be it the backside or the optimal. yet guy is a rational being, having sid that guy has the organic reason to evaluate issues as enemies or pests as subsequently the ants. evaluate an ant biting your infant, could you in user-friendly terms enable that ant to scot unfastened? truthfully you will immediately kill the ant with the intention to guard the child. this is an argument of organic guy's protection mechanism. thank you for asking. Have a brilliant day!
2016-12-18 09:58:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference, but killing by either means is a crime if the killing is capricious and without reason, or even a good change of solving a problem.
Stalin's actions where not reasonable or for just cause.
Also, solders in Iraq are sitting ducks. They are being killed without good cause or purpose.
The soldiers are innocent of any crime but being put in a killing zone for no good reason.
2006-09-13 17:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stalin,, like Hitler, and George W Bush all ignored the rules of war, that our great leaders like FDR would abide by,,, in WW1 and WW11,,, the US won both wars against the Nazi Fascists and Communism, abiding by the Geneva Convention,,,,, without rules of war,, the fighting becomes barbaric like biblical, medieval wars, ungodly, unholy slaughter,,,,,,
2006-09-13 17:52:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The President gave his people a head start ... all the way to Iraq. Stalin just said, "f*ckit " and finished it.
2006-09-13 17:36:41 · answer #5 · answered by pickle head 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG...this is a new low for stupid people....
Let's see....Last time I checked it is still an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY!!!
You know it always amazes me that the ones that shoot off there mouths and complain about my country are the same ones that have never served for it in the first place.
I tell you what. When you put your life on the line, and serve your country...>Then I'll listen to your stupid comments.
But The funny thing is....If you actually did serve your country you would have a different opinion.
So until then shut it...
Snapperhead!
2006-09-13 17:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
both what you told are being done at Sri Lanka.. Both rebels, and Government of Sri Lanka is cleansing this.The both are not bothering about the poor human beings. The Tragedy which has not come out to World like Palestine
2006-09-13 17:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by adraya 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason is different , the results are the same .
2006-09-13 17:31:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The primary difference would be in the way they spell their names.
2006-09-13 17:33:34 · answer #9 · answered by Rvn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maximus, if you can't answer this question, there is absolutely nothing I could write here that you would comprehend.
2006-09-13 17:46:47 · answer #10 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋