Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:10/24/2016
Comment Ranking:#15442
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2398 total,  2750 ,  352
Comment Thumbs: 8939 total,  10119 ,  1180
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 87% (87/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Content Views:111841
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2590
FJ Points:1072
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#60 - Definition of War according to Merriam-Webster: 1. a …  [+] (9 replies) 10/09/2015 on Obama 0
User avatar
#62 - theattackmaster (10/09/2015) [-]
As far as governments across the world are concerned, a declaration of hostilities between parties or nations must be established. Why else would nations like the United States use the phrase "armed conflict" when talking about bombing ISIL. Technically speaking, the US has not been at "war" since ww2, since no formal declaration of war has been formed. Now, wars and armed conflicts are almost the same thing, the only key characteristics between the two are:

War is intentional, disclosed, wide spread and long duration armed conflict between countries.

• War requires mobilization of troops and use of arms and ammunition to destroy enemy targets.

• Conflict is disagreement between parties where parties perceive threat to their interests and needs

• Conflict can be between individuals, communities, or even countries

• There are mechanisms to resolve conflicts but when they fail, conflicts can give rise to full scale wars (when involving countries)
(These are the general accepted differences when distinguishing between an armed conflict and an actual war.
User avatar
#82 - Deeticky (10/10/2015) [-]
While I agree that the term "armed conflict" carries a different meaning than the term "war," I don't agree with the idea that a 'war" can only be a "war" if there has been an official declaration of war. For example, when referring to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, historians use the term "Vietnam War," not "Vietnam Military Conflict." In fact, the Vietnam War meets every single one of the criteria you listed above.

You and I are debating the definition of the word "war." I provided the dictionary definition, and you countered with a set of criteria that you feel must be met in order for a conflict to be a real war. I must ask, who laid out these criteria? Do they have more authority than the dictionary does to tell us what the word "war" means?

User avatar
#83 - theattackmaster (10/10/2015) [-]
The term Vietnam war is used because people are going to understand war better than an armed conflict. The Vietnam war is usually not considered a war because, technically, no two countries were at war (at least, during our involvement in it). It was US and South Vietnam vs the VietCong. While the NVA and others were present during the time, is wasn't official, and it usually wasn't widespread. The VietCong were rebels, Vietnamse (both northern and southern) rebelling against the government in an attempt to unify the nations into one nation. The US joined in an attempt to stop this from happening. While the US and her allies mobilized troop, and used their infrastructure to produce munitions with which to destroy enemies, the VietCong did not. They were poorly trained, equipped, and attacked anything and everything, whether it be a military or civilian target. Nor was the conflict widespread, as it took place primarily in South Vietnam, many air raids in the north, and few special forces attacks into neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The conflict was mostly confined. It was disclosed either. The US never came out and said, "yeah, we are waging war here". They stated they were doing everything in their power to stop the communists from taking over Vietnam, but never anything that would lead one to believe war existed between the sovereign nations of US and North Vietnam. The conflict was long, officially lasting a little more than a decade, unofficially little more than 2. But, it does outline the conflicts well. It was a disagreement between two parties, the South Vietnam and the VietCong.
User avatar
#84 - Deeticky (10/15/2015) [-]
I don't feel the need to debate the Vietnam question any further with you, as that would require us to expressly define terms such as "mobilize", "disclose," "wide spread", etc. I can tell that you and I both define those terms differently.

What I would like from you, is an answer to the question that I posed earlier: What is your source? I got my definition of War from the dictionary (like I posted above). Where did you get yours from?

User avatar
#85 - theattackmaster (10/15/2015) [-]
You don't need to, me and Vladi reached some sort of compromise on the issue, though he refuses to answer my questions, leading me to believe he is either incapable of doing so, or unwilling to do so, either way, his answer was simple, he submitted. But the sources you asked for, yes I used 4 main sources.




You and Vladi were the only ones to actually express why you disagreed with me, while everyone else only thumbed me down and moved on, and that's something I can respect, nothing is wrong with a rationalized discussion, but hey, this the tumblr version for guys here, and we love bandwagons right?
User avatar
#89 - Deeticky (10/19/2015) [-]
I agree, civil debates are always nice. Thank you for being civil with me. Yes, this website is basically man-Tumblr. I'll concede that point.
#86 - vladi (10/15/2015) [-]
And out the window it goes lel.
User avatar
#88 - theattackmaster (10/15/2015) [-]
Also, we went over this, you're continuing to bring it up, all ready after we went over it. Vietnam won the military portion, and the US won in the end, as we always seem to do. But, the new question at hand, are you willing to accept that Finland won the Winter War?
#87 - theattackmaster (10/15/2015) [-]
You may need to lay of the vodka my friend, war isn't over when the fighting ends is a common saying among humans, and it is true.
#137 - The Weimar Republic ended once Hitler took power as Fuhrer. Th…  [+] (3 replies) 10/07/2015 on *Racial Slur Here*s are funny 0
User avatar
#157 - herecomesjohnny (10/07/2015) [-]
the Weimar Constitution was technically in effect during the Third Reich.
User avatar
#164 - Deeticky (10/09/2015) [-]
True, it was technically still in effect. i think the main thing that I'm trying to say is that in order for a legal document, such as a constitution, to have any meaningful effect, there needs to be institutions in place to enforce it.
User avatar
#158 - herecomesjohnny (10/07/2015) [-]
although the enabling act does permit derogations
#291 - I can understand why people are against banning guns completel…  [+] (4 replies) 10/03/2015 on Do The World a Favor +1
User avatar
#348 - vonspyder (10/03/2015) [-]
My response is simply that I've been background checked time I've bought firearm, this includes gun shows, gun shops, and pawn shops. so we already have this.
User avatar
#390 - Deeticky (10/04/2015) [-]
In most states, background checks are not required when guns are purchased at gun shows. Under federal law, background checks are required any time a person buys a gun from a licensed dealership. However, this does not apply to "private sellers" at gun shows. 18 states have passed laws to close the loophole, but the federal government has not.
#296 - anon (10/03/2015) [-]
You say that the right the bear arms in guaranteed by the constitution, yet don't seem to comprehend that that right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Those are infringements.
User avatar
#388 - Deeticky (10/04/2015) [-]
But are they really? Where do we draw the line between a reasonable regulation, and an infringement? If all regulations are infringements, then should we allow people to possess rocket launchers? Nuclear weapons?