I do not wish our troops the very best

Originally posted by Judge
Your not too great on anything as far as I have seen.

Why bother to put forward an opinion, or argument based on assumption?

Get some facts, buy an education, and then come back and tell everyone how much of a dumb schmuck you really are.

i refuse to be called a dumb schmuck by you. My IB points, GCSE's and current state of education would disagree with you.

This sudden deviation from the orignial debate, has left me with holes in my knowledge - i'm asking you guys to fill me in. I'm sorry i don't know everything. If i had claimed to know the history and you had proved me wrong - i would be looking stupid. I didn't claim to know the history, hence i asked. You are just being an ass. Where are you from BTW?

Zar

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Zaratul
thirdly: I never said germany was a passive bystander. However i will say Britain WAS an aggressive expansionist (sort of military dominated state)

most likely because there was no germany in times of colonialism.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by wu_trax
most likely because there was no germany in times of colonialism.

Germany had several colonies, for example German East Africa (modern day Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania).

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Zaratul
[b]i refuse to be called a dumb schmuck by you. My IB points, GCSE's and current state of education would disagree with you.

Riiiiight.

The Second World War in Europe started when Germany invaded Poland, which had a defensive alliance with France and Britain. After several ultimatums, France and Britain declared war on Germany. German aggression.

Anyway...
So Zaratul, lets just take a good look at your arguments shall we?

A)
The US military deserves to die because the soldiers joined the military which might put them in a position where they would have to kill, so they obviously wanted to kill, and thus deserve death.

Correct?

Excellent.

So I assume that you also believe that all police deserve to die. After all, they joined a job knowing full well they might be called upon to kill in certain circumstances, so all Policemen must secretly WANT to kill. That is your logic, yes?

OK, so you have now internally condemned all military and police to death. How enlightened of you. Prison guards too I suppose. Wildlife wardens, Coast Guard... die, all of them die die die.


B)
Three guys are beating up a girl. You have the power to intervene and stop it. Do you?
Why? You personally are not in any danger, lets assume you do not know the girl, so you have no stake, why intervene?

If you agree to intervene, you are making the case that you believe there are actions which are dastardly and evil enough that they need to be stopped, even if you have no personal stake.

Lets take that example to the extreme, shall we? A Dictator is bent on exterminating all of European jewry, not to mention an assortment of other minorities of a racial, cultural and sexual nature. You are none of these. You have the power to intervene. Do you?

You say there is no point in having a military, they are all secretly bloodthirsty. You are a child. If you wanted to make an argument, make a case that the US military is being misused in THIS case, not that all soldiers deserve to die. Then support your point with evidence. That kind of overgeneralisation just diminishes any minute point you may have had.

You might want to try and apply some internal consistency to your arguments before you offer them. Otherwise they just make you look foolish.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Zaratul
i refuse to be called a dumb schmuck by you. My IB points, GCSE's and current state of education would disagree with you.

i'm just gonna randomly point out that there's a difference between being 'smart' and being 'textbook smart'
i'm getting A's in all my classes, but i'd by no means call myself smart :P

(not a stab at anyone in particular.. but the whole 'i'm smart cause my grades say so!' arguement is getting tiring)

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Zaratul
nb: AFTER the british empire. Still however most commonwealth nations lay some if little hatred towards the British. It's not all cosy and rosy as it might seem. The people of the former empire colonies, all have deep disdain and mild to strong hatred for what the british did to them.

Really? I'll just go ask my Australian friends what they think.

Nope, they don't hate the British. In fact, Martin's planning to go to university over here.


You LOSE

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Vermillion
*stuff*

In case I hadn't mentioned it before, I love you.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Chrism
Germany had several colonies, for example German East Africa (modern day Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania).

Namibia, Tansania and togo + some pretty much useless island next to australia and a city in china. thats it. oh, and sansiba, i have no idea where that is, somewhere in the indian ocean i guess, i only remember we traded it for helgoland with uk (that piece of rock in the north sea you later failed to blow up)
all together areas pretty much useless, we were about 200 years late .

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Chrism
Really? I'll just go ask my Australian friends what they think.

Nope, they don't hate the British. In fact, Martin's planning to go to university over here.


You LOSE

hmm.. i missed that quote of his :P
i would also like to add that Canadians also hate the british!! this is a FACT!

[Judge]

Originally posted by Aryn
hmm.. i missed that quote of his :P
i would also like to add that Canadians also hate the british!! this is a FACT!

Thats ok, cos the British hate Half of the Canadians.

The French Half.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Zaratul
i refuse to be called a dumb schmuck by you. My IB points, GCSE's and current state of education would disagree with you.

This sudden deviation from the orignial debate, has left me with holes in my knowledge - i'm asking you guys to fill me in. I'm sorry i don't know everything. If i had claimed to know the history and you had proved me wrong - i would be looking stupid. I didn't claim to know the history, hence i asked. You are just being an ass. Where are you from BTW?

Zar

Refuse all you like, it is a statement of fact.

As for deviation, you put forward the warped idea that Britain is and was the aggressor in WWII and just about any conflict since the Roman empire.

Then attempted to back it up with idiotic fiction, based on half truths lies and inuendo.

If you do not know the facts, then learn them, understand them, then use them to back up your argument.

To do otherwise makes you a dumb schmuck.

[queball]

Originally posted by Vermillion

So I assume that you also believe that all police deserve to die. After all, they joined a job knowing full well they might be called upon to kill in certain circumstances, so all Policemen must secretly WANT to kill. That is your logic, yes?

Obviously not all killing is the same. When I talk of people joining a job knowing they will kill, in this context it means people knowing they'll have to kill immorally. After Vietnam, and any other number of foreign conflicts.

Three guys are beating up a girl. You have the power to intervene and stop it. Do you?
Why? You personally are not in any danger, lets assume you do not know the girl, so you have no stake, why intervene?

If you agree to intervene, you are making the case that you believe there are actions which are dastardly and evil enough that they need to be stopped, even if you have no personal stake.

you're just extending views on foreign policy to personal views. Maybe you are attempting some argument of morality, but you are really distorting the argument. Anti-military, to me, means someone who thinks intervention is wrong. Because it is always done messily, because the American government never seems to know when to stop, because it is always corrupt, because it is used arbitrarily, presumably to further other aims. But a specific opposition to modern offensive use of military force.

Lets take that example to the extreme, shall we? A Dictator is bent on exterminating all of European jewry, not to mention an assortment of other minorities of a racial, cultural and sexual nature. You are none of these. You have the power to intervene. Do you?

If it was 1938/9, and my ally was attacked, then I would not hesitate to use my army in defence of that ally.

You say there is no point in having a military, they are all secretly bloodthirsty. You are a child. If you wanted to make an argument, make a case that the US military is being misused in THIS case, not that all soldiers deserve to die. Then support your point with evidence. That kind of overgeneralisation just diminishes any minute point you may have had.

You might want to try and apply some internal consistency to your arguments before you offer them. Otherwise they just make you look foolish.

If I said this current operation is singularly immoral out of all recent military operation and inferred that I shall wish death on the soldiers I would have a flawed argument indeed. If you want to convince us (well, me), you need to explain why a military that attacks pre-emptively and intervenes at politicians' whims is needed today. With better arguments than age.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
So I assume that you also believe that all police deserve to die. After all, they joined a job knowing full well they might be called upon to kill in certain circumstances, so all Policemen must secretly WANT to kill. That is your logic, yes?

If the police were involved in shooting innocent people in a pre-medidated fashion, then yes they'd deserve to die.

If prison officers were involved in locking people up in inhumane conditions who they knew were innocent (for long periods of time), and they were killed during an escape attempt, then yes I would give them no sympathy.

Basically it's quite possible to be excluded from the moral abacus of life by willingly and knowingly supporting opression and tyranny.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge

To do otherwise makes you a dumb schmuck.

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain.

[Judge]

Originally posted by queball

you need to explain why a military that attacks pre-emptively and intervenes at politicians' whims is needed today. With better arguments than age.

I sincerely doubt that the current conflict is undertaken on a whim?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
Perhaps taking your own advice would be more prudent.

It wasn't aimed at you :P It was backing up your argument, but I clicked on reply before I finished typing.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
It wasn't aimed at you :P It was backing up your argument, but I clicked on reply before I finished typing.

Ok I will remove my insult.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Zaratul
firstly: ok my mistake - hence i asked the question. Was it Chamberlain then who decided to take britain to war? or at least how was churchill involved in all this - fill me in?

secondly: Britain was the aggressor then. They declared war on germany, not the other way round. I don't give a rats ass if they issued ultimatums. Germany could have issued an ultimatum to britain and said "give up your empire or we will declare war on you". Britain would have most probably said no, and cried and whined as it usually did, and still have taken war to germany. (just an example)

thirdly: I never said germany was a passive bystander. However i will say Britain WAS an aggressive expansionist (sort of military dominated state)

Zar

Britain France and Poland, had a mutual defence treaty, much along the lines of NATO, if you attack one you attack all.

Germany invaded Poland, despite warning from Britain and France not to do so, it slaughtered the Polish army and Ran amok, in the space of 5 days.

Britain and France told Herr Hitler to stop or face the consequences, He did not stop. Chaimberlain and DeGaul declared war on Germany for a Hostile act against one of the Treaty Partners.

In effect they tried to defend Poland.

Churchill played no part in this, he was not even a Minister at the time.

Some weeks later when Germany had all but overrun France and the Low Countries, Chaimberlain Resigned, thus forcing a leadership election in the UK.

Churchill, given that for months/years had warned about Germany's ambitions in Europe was given the role of PM, he then formed a Coalition Gov' for the Duration of the War.

At no time did Britain decide to invade Germany for the hell of it.

Now do you understand?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Judge
Chaimberlain and DeGaul.... Some weeks later when Germany had all but overrun France and the Low Countries,

De Gualle? France being overrun a few weeks after Poland?

You need to check your history, sir.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by queball
Obviously not all killing is the same. When I talk of people joining a job knowing they will kill, in this context it means people knowing they'll have to kill immorally. After Vietnam, and any other number of foreign conflicts.

So by definition, you believe all soldiers join the military will full knowledge they will have to kill 'immorally'. I bow to your in depth knowledge of their omniscience.

Just because Vietnam was an immoral war does not mean all wars are immoral, nor that all solders get into uniform with the intent of fighting an immoral war. Once again, you (or Zeratul, whose words you are taking credit for... interesting) are massively overgeneralising, and thus making your own argument, which might have had some basis if you stuck to specifics, look silly.

you're just extending views on foreign policy to personal views.

I find it teribly ironic that I am accused of that by one who declares that all wars are always wrong and all soldiers deserve death. Who here I wonder is extending personal views to international politics?

I gave two views of intervention. I ask you to explain how intervention in one case is acceptable yet in another it is not.

Anti-military, to me, means someone who thinks intervention is wrong. Because it is always done messily, because the American government never seems to know when to stop, because it is always corrupt, because it is used arbitrarily, presumably to further other aims.

Whoops. There goes your point. So you think ALL military is wrong because you believe that it is often misused by the nited States. Well, that specific case, true or not, still does not justify your/qazok's massive overgeneralisations.

If you want to convince us (well, me), you need to explain why a military that attacks pre-emptively and intervenes at politicians' whims is needed today. With better arguments than age.

Firstly, if you really believe that the attack on Iraq is nothing but the whim of a polititian, you really should pay more attention.

Secondly, If you take issue with the specific reasoning behing an intervention in Iraq at this time, then by all means take issue. make your case, have a good time.

Its when, instead of cogent arguments, declarations are made about all US troops (or all troops in any country) deserving death that you just look silly.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
De Gualle? France being overrun a few weeks after Poland?

You need to check your history, sir.

You could well be correct, but I was working from a drunken stupor?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If the police were involved in shooting innocent people in a pre-medidated fashion, then yes they'd deserve to die.

If prison officers were involved in locking people up in inhumane conditions who they knew were innocent (for long periods of time), and they were killed during an escape attempt, then yes I would give them no sympathy.

So by definition then, you believe all soldiers fit those above criteria? And thus all soldiers, meeting those criteria, deserve to die?

I would enjoy watching you justify that.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Good work Vermillion babe, you came on at just the time when I was leaving to tutor someone, so your timing was perfect.

[BetrayerOfHope]

well i wish the us and british troops a good bodycount.
may they all die for the good in the world

just a question since everbody use wwII as an argument.
just take the normal not political motivated wehrmachts soldier, u would have been sorry when one of this ones died while fighting for nazi germany? i don't think u would ...

its not like i think the iraqi's are the good ones i only think its no point in starting that war ...

[queball]

Originally posted by Vermillion

(or Zeratul, whose words you are taking credit for... interesting)

I posted a similar opinion in this thread expressing the same idea.

If you believe I need omniscience to have any prejudice on British soldiers then surely I could never wish them death for I am not God. So I must be eternally patriotic, for any generalisation I make is silly. I'm sorry, but if you don't want to discuss our ideas on their own terms then you are a cynic.

Like Dante, I have no sympathy for people supporting oppression and tyranny. My argument is that the British forces soon (or already) fighting in Iraq should be well informed enough to know that even though most of the work is done in peacetime, they are agreeing to fighting in interventionist missions, and so do not get my respect.


Why do you think I have no stake in helping out a girl who is getting beaten up? I have empathy, and concern. As, presumably, do pro-war humanitarians, the difference is that I have specific arguments against foreign intervention, and I haven't heard any favouring abandoning maidens in distress. Yes, not everything called "intervention" is wrong, but then no words have meaning by themselves anyway. Where intervention works well there is no strong argument against it, but that is still circular and meaningless. I am being specific: modern military intervention, between countries.

So you think ALL military is wrong because you believe that it is often misused by the nited States.

The military, as in a force under the control of a state not explicitly for defence, and I am not convinced this war is about defence. How about if I reduce that to all the offensive parts of the American and British military? No other country but America seems to go in for so much peacekeeping, so I didn't take the care to clarify. I could imagine a recruiting purposefully requesting a peaceful army career and getting reassigned against his wishes. I might feel some sympathy in that case but don't believe this happens much.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
So by definition then, you believe all soldiers fit those above criteria? And thus all soldiers, meeting those criteria, deserve to die?

Soldiers that are involved in killing innocent people, yes.

I've known a few soldiers, most had not killed innocent people. Those that had (i.e. one white South African who was in the apartheid era army) killed innocent people generally deserved to die. (In this case, South Africa had conscription which is at least some excuse)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Soldiers that are involved in killing innocent people, yes.

I've known a few soldiers, most had not killed innocent people. Those that had (i.e. one white South African who was in the apartheid era army) killed innocent people generally deserved to die. (In this case, South Africa had conscription which is at least some excuse)

I thought the issue was that ALL soldiers are cold hearted spawns of beelzebub?

[Eidron]

Originally posted by Zaratul
You idiot. Read what i said properly before replying. I CLEARLY wrote, that britain had an empire at the same time that they were fighting germany. Read the other things i said also... namely

"Come along Germany which wants its own empire, and all of a sudden germany is bad. Why? Because germany wanted an empire that contained europe, which would be a threat to britain, france and the other imperialistic countries. The british did not fight for freedom, the british have NO value of freedom, they were happy to have an empire. The British fought to SAVE THEIR ASSES, because if they didn't fight they would be subjected to the same imperialism, they were so happy to deal out to other people at the same time."

Zar

Please explain to me what is wrong with saving our asses? If that isn't the point of having an army then what is? And I believe I also made the point that we helped out the French and the general German people at the same time (plus several other countries). Are you saying we should have just sat down and let Germany invade us just so we wouldn't have to kill their soldiers?

Yeah we had an empire and they didn't have much at all, but does that mean that they can come storming over to our country and take over? Remember that it wasn't Germany that was bad, It was the Nazis. Many people make this mistake.

And we were fighting for our freedom. If we hadn't fought we would have been occupied by the Germans. What is your idea of fighting for your freedom then?


Anyway, if the allied armys are massacred as you so desire then more lives will be lost than if they didn't all die. If you watch the news you would see that we are trying to get the Iraqi army to surrender and not oppose us. True some lives will be lost (including civilian lives) but more would die if both sides massacre each other. I have friends in the army and in the TA, and I know that they didn't join because they want to kill.

Remember that I do not fully support this war, and I want as few people to die as possible.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I thought the issue was that ALL soldiers are cold hearted spawns of beelzebub?

Maybe someone said that, I don't believe I did.

Some of my family members have been in the army (conscripted and non-conscripted). If you volunteer and then fight in an unjustified conflict (and as an extension of that, kill innocent people) then you deserve to die.*

There's no inherent reason why someone who's serving military service (or even a volunteer) is evil. But if they choose to obey evil orders by their commanding officers, then they are at fault.

* = Going back to the point of this thread, I must note that if I had the power to, I wouldn't kill every soldier in the US/UK armies. But I certainly wouldn't cry if they were shot to bits in Iraq.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Judge
Thanks,

and yes I know the personal attacks are not pretty, but I live and work with the most proffesional Military in the World, it annoys the hell out of me when people condemn them.

you must be the first South Korean I met on the boards. Hi

jokes aside, I don't think that one can determine the most professional military in the world. There are so many armies around the globe, most of them excellently trained, highly motivated and perfectly organized. A Korean soldier faces a military training as hard as an American or British one.

Where armies differ greatly is in their technical equipment and their weapons. That however is no indicator for professionalism.

Laputa

[acropolis]

Originally posted by queball
As, presumably, do pro-war humanitarians, the difference is that I have specific arguments against foreign intervention, and I haven't heard any favouring abandoning maidens in distress. .

HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!

Reasons not to save the maiden in distress (the situation being that she is being constantly raped while you stand nearby):

1) You might be hurt in the intervention.

2) The maiden could be hurt in the intervention as well.

3) The rapist could be hurt in the intervention.

4) You have other (more important) things to do

5) In other interventions you've done, the maiden ended up getting raped by someone else soon after you'd saved her

6) you could destabilize all the rapings that are going on in the area (perhaps the other rapists in the area would stop raping for a time. Very unstable.)

7) Maybe you have the wrong intentions. You could be saving her in the hope that someday she might have sex with you (consensually, but still...)

8) Maybe you are doing it just so the rest of your body forgets how hungry you are (if there is a better analogy for "distracting the country from a failing economy", please post. this one was tricky)

9) Maybe you are doing it just because you like to fight

10) Because while it was claimed that the rapist might at some point give someone a nuclear weapon to blow you up, evidence indicates that that wasn't true (therefore you shouldn't stop the raping)

11) A very long petition signed by A-list celebrities has been put together requesting that you not intervene in the raping

12) Because your friends don't support/aren't willing to help in your intervention

I'm sure there are plenty more of them that are used all the time, but I can remember no more off the top of my head. You get the idea.

[queball]

1) You might be hurt in the intervention. - Certainly a factor, I might consider getting police.
2) The maiden could be hurt in the intervention as well. - Certainly something I'd consider, if I thought she's likely to get knived, killed, I'd be careful.
3) The rapist could be hurt in the intervention. - Something to consider, but not a big factor.
4) You have other (more important) things to do - if I really had more important things to do, I would do them instead. Doubtful.
5) In other interventions you've done, the maiden ended up getting raped by someone else soon after you'd saved her - Bizarre, but if I knew that intervening would incite "payback" or something, I might have to change my course of action.
6) you could destabilize all the rapings that are going on in the area (perhaps the other rapists in the area would stop raping for a time. Very unstable.) - I don't understand.
7) Maybe you have the wrong intentions. You could be saving her in the hope that someday she might have sex with you (consensually, but still...) - Not my type, but I've already said I have real reasons to take action. If my overriding lust caused me to mistakenly interrupt loving couples having sex for some reason I'd reconsider my motives a little.
8) Maybe you are doing it just so the rest of your body forgets how hungry you are (if there is a better analogy for "distracting the country from a failing economy", please post. this one was tricky) - Reasons are reasons, having extra "conflict of interest" style reasons doesn't negate real reasons. For example, I wouldn't beat three guys up for raping a teddy bear just cos I was hungry, and I wouldn't take on guys with knives by myself just cos I was hungry.
9) Maybe you are doing it just because you like to fight - I'm not particualrly aggressive IRL, but as long as reasons come first it's all good.
10) Because while it was claimed that the rapist might at some point give someone a nuclear weapon to blow you up, evidence indicates that that wasn't true (therefore you shouldn't stop the raping) - Not a reason.
11) A very long petition signed by A-list celebrities has been put together requesting that you not intervene in the raping - Not a reason
12) Because your friends don't support/aren't willing to help in your intervention - Might affect what action I take.

I'm sure there are plenty more of them that are used all the time, but I can remember no more off the top of my head. You get the idea. - Nope. Your post seems quite clever, but I don't get the point and you might have to spell it out a bit. Are you saying there are good reasons that you wouldn't try to help a girl from being raped? Or that you would personally intervene even if there were good reasons not to?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by queball
Your post seems quite clever, but I don't get the point and you might have to spell it out a bit. Are you saying there are good reasons that you wouldn't try to help a girl from being raped? Or that you would personally intervene even if there were good reasons not to?

These are the common reasons given why we should not go to war with iraq. In perspective, many of them look nothing short ridiculous, and even the best ones are poor.

I'm still against the war, but I get just as annoyed listening to anti-war as listening to pro-war:/

Originally posted by Chrism
Really? I'll just go ask my Australian friends what they think.

Nope, they don't hate the British. In fact, Martin's planning to go to university over here.


You LOSE

Originally posted by Zaratul Still however MOST commonwealth nations lay some if little hatred towards the British

NB: you idiot, i said "most". This is the second time so far this thread (judge was the first), where i have had to make a correction to a smart ass, because he or she refuses to read the words properly. "MOST" does not mean "all".

Having to correct people who try to make me look stupid for no reason whatsoever apart from their inability to read properly, or as it may seem, their need to read what they want so that they can act all smug - is getting rather annoying. If you reply READ PROPERLY FIRST

Zar

Originally posted by Eidron
Please explain to me what is wrong with saving our asses? If that isn't the point of having an army then what is? And I believe I also made the point that we helped out the French and the general German people at the same time (plus several other countries). Are you saying we should have just sat down and let Germany invade us just so we wouldn't have to kill their soldiers?

Yeah we had an empire and they didn't have much at all, but does that mean that they can come storming over to our country and take over? Remember that it wasn't Germany that was bad, It was the Nazis. Many people make this mistake.

And we were fighting for our freedom. If we hadn't fought we would have been occupied by the Germans. What is your idea of fighting for your freedom then?


Anyway, if the allied armys are massacred as you so desire then more lives will be lost than if they didn't all die. If you watch the news you would see that we are trying to get the Iraqi army to surrender and not oppose us. True some lives will be lost (including civilian lives) but more would die if both sides massacre each other. I have friends in the army and in the TA, and I know that they didn't join because they want to kill.

Remember that I do not fully support this war, and I want as few people to die as possible.

I love when ever people reply to such arguments of mine, they always brush over the "empire" bits. Either giving it a light dusting in a reply, just because it is there, or ignoring it all together. In that reply of mine, the empire was the main focus, more-so than the focus on britain saving its ass. Britain had an empire. Britain did not care for the liberties of the people in its colonies, no matter what it say's. Controlling the lives of other people who do not want to be controlled by you, is not freedom no matter what you give them (or take away).

I was drawing light to the fact that i always hear so damn often that Britain was fighting for "freedom". Agreed it fought for freedom itself and those in Europe, but only because if it didn't fight it would have probably been subjected to imperialism it was dealing out itself, and thus there was little choice.

EMPIRE EMPIRE EMPIRE. It was a dark dark blip in British history. Stop ignoring it as if it wasn't there. It is the main focus of my argument (in this situation) and i will exploit it to the max.

Zar

[Sandsnake]

I've had enough retardation for one day. Go play in one of the slightly sane threads.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'm going to kill someone in your name.

By your argument of empire, this would then allow someone else to kill you.

The Empire was a nightmare of crimes against humanity.

The English invented the Concentration Camp, you know?