Who agrees? (I want a debate) Any thoughts?

Question

Civil war
no war is civil
civil people do not deny others their right to life
killing is never moral, no matter how just the casue
there are only wars that put brother against brother
which is shameful, because is thicker than water

i want to see if people will stick around after they answer to change and debate with me.
Also, any comments are welcome.

Well, thank you for saving my life CeasersDead, but it's kind of like in third grade...when you punch someone who punched you, you've sunk down to their level. If you kill someone who killed someone, you are just as bad as them. And you don't want to be a do you?

And to mrs.jackson, you are right, they do call it a civil war because a country is fighting itself. but use civil as an adjitive and it maked everything much more debateble.

John T, yes I would think you are just as bad as him.

Use it as an adjitive, Ceasar is . BTw, no mean to be rude =]

To Mark H, my family did too. My great-great-great-great-grandfather fought. His name was Andrew and He was in the 48 regiment of Virgina, in I company

To Cesar, I agree with the bit about when "these people come together the good people must fight them off",

To Mark H., actually I am not talking about the Iraq war, just any war.

To Ceasr, I agree with you saying that killers anren't human (cause they aren't). But when you kill a killer you become a killer yourself.

But can we get back to talking about war? (no offense or nothing but it was starting to stray.)

Also, Mr. Cesar, didn't one of the wisest men once say "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, concived with liberty, and dedicated to the PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE EQUAL"???????

I just thought of this:
All wars are civil wars (meaning that we are always fighting each other) because we al exist in this world together as one, but no war is civil

Cesar: you said "If sharks walked on land and ate people, and you and your kind did nothing lest your lower yourself to his level, you and your kind would all perish. But hey, as he's feeding on you, draining the life your body, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you didn't stoop to his level."
I will say that like most humans I will do everything in my power to stop this shark, but that does not mean them. Then I would be a shark, and when I would die, I would rot in heck for denying another (shark or not) their right to life.
And, yes while he is draining away the life from my body i will have the satisfaction of knowing that I AM NO SHARK!

That man was Abe lincoln. To prove that he owned no slaves, here's another quote:
"He who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

In my opinion, Lincoln was opposed to slavery.

to gunplumber, that's what a debate is. It is arguing.

to Ceasar, BTW liberty means the act of being free, so "concived with liberty" means "concieved with being free."

Also, Mr. Ceasar, I think you are doing a pretty good job against a hot0headed eighth grader.

Answer 1

Sometimes killing somebody is the most moral act a person can commit.
Just as there is matter and anti-matter, there is human and anti- human. Humans don't harm each other, don't kill each other. They are moral. When a human harms, even kills another human, they have shown themselves to be anti- human, cannibalizing their own kind.
Killing an anti- human prevents further killings of humans. It's the moral thing to do.
If I should stumble upon a serial rapist/killer raping you with a knife to your throat, killing him would be the highlight of my life.
When such anti- humans organize into a militia and conquer a society, good humans must fight for the reinstatement of their prior moral society.

And ms. jackson is correct. civil in this instance doesn't mean civilized.

Edit: No we're not just as bad as the killer. Your mistake is in considering all people to be equal; the same. False. To me, a killer isn't a person. He's a shark, hunting and killing his human prey. If sharks walked on land and ate people, and you and your kind did nothing lest your lower yourself to his level, you and your kind would all perish. But hey, as he's feeding on you, draining the life your body, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you didn't stoop to his level.

Edit: That great man was probably a slave owner.

Answer 2

Civil war is termed as such because it is a war between civilian groups or factions within a nation. Civil denotes the populace.

Civil is the worst kind of conflict because the hatreds that lead to a civil war don't go away with the resolution of the war. Take the US, for instance. Our civil war was over 140 years ago and the attitudes and hatreds that led to it still exist today, albeit somewhat blunted, but still there. One faction will inevitably defeat the other(s) but the remnants of the losing side(s) will retain their beliefs and perpetuate them over time. These kinds of wars are possible because people as individuals are extremely intelligent, but people as a group are not (ie. riots).

I agree that war is immoral, although it IS sometimes necessary. No real combat veteran will tell you there is any glory in war. It is a dirty business and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Answer 3

Civil War is the worst kind of war. My family experienced it 140 year's ago, in Tennessee. Civil War is not civil, but no war, even Religious is as hideous as Civil War. I expect this is about the current situation in Iraq. So I will add you can mix wars. Add Religious, with Civil War, and outside political and cultural intervention and you have the absolute worst case scenario. One that can go on for decades or even hundred's of year's. I don't debate. Don't have my answer's set up for it. But think about this answer....

Answer 4

I don't think thats why they call it a civil war... I think its because it is a war between citizens of the same country... the word civil typically pertains to citizens... you know civil union, civil liberties, civil duties...

Answer 5

In a utopia, you would be right.

Civil refers to it being within a particular nation.

If I come upon you and see someone trying to kill you so he could have your wallet, would you still think it wrong of me to kill him before he finished you off?

Answer 6

i don't understand war at all. it never resolves issues.
until we find a better way to ensure harmonious relations with other countries, i will continue to pray for everyone in iraq.
i hope the civilians can forgive, as well as the families of our soldiers.

Answer 7

You are absolutely correct. I think 'civil war' is a bit of an oximoron.

Answer 8

I disagree. You don't want to debate, you want to argue.

Answer 9

say no to war