New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

war

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
What do you think of war?
post #2 of 22
I'm not sure what you are expecting to get from that poll. In an ideal world, I'm sure no one *likes* war. But in some cases it is necessary because of human nature. America wouldn't have won independence without war, Hitler's Nazi party would control all of Europe without war.
post #3 of 22
I agree with Heidi, no one that I know of likes war, but sometimes war is necessary. The inhuman acts that result from countries going to war is an entirely different matter.

I doubt you will find anyone here that thinks War is good.
post #4 of 22
You could try to read Carl von Clausewitz's 'On War.' He stated that war is a continuation of politics and diplomacy by other means. I never really completed reading the book, just scan read it. But it is not bad.
post #5 of 22
No one is 'pro" war, just like no one is pro abortion. But I do think some people just go to it as a knee jerk. Like did you know how close to war we really were during the Cuban missle crisis? There were people in power who wanted us to nuke Cuba. I was just thinking, did anyone ever think of finding a way to rid Iraq of Saddam BESIDES shock and awe? I mean I understand the Clinton administration looked into alternative ways. But Bush was so anti Clinton that he didn't want to take that route.
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
No one is 'pro" war, just like no one is pro abortion. But I do think some people just go to it as a knee jerk. Like did you know how close to war we really were during the Cuban missle crisis? There were people in power who wanted us to nuke Cuba. I was just thinking, did anyone ever think of finding a way to rid Iraq of Saddam BESIDES shock and awe? I mean I understand the Clinton administration looked into alternative ways. But Bush was so anti Clinton that he didn't want to take that route.
Technically speaking, I believe it is a violation of an existing presidential executive order to target a head of state for assassination. I think it was Gerald Ford that put that in place but did not double check that.

That being said, I think quite a few people tried to 'get' Hussein over the years, including Iraqis, and were all unsuccessful. Remember this was a guy who had multiple body doubles and never stayed in the same place for more than one night. Plus, he did have the loyalty of his own 'clan'. Look at how long it took the US military to find him after Bagdhad had fallen.
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanor Rosevelt - 1938
"I have never believed that war settled anything satisfactorily, but I am not entirely sure that some times there are certain situations in the world such as we have in actuality when a country is worse off when it does not go to war for its principles than if it went to war."
I do not like war, but I do agree that there are times and places where the most effective solution sometimes has to involve war. Any possible, and reasonable solution needs to be sought first, but sometimes a line just cannot be crossed, and sometimes War is the only effective way.

However, I can't stand when a country commits itself to a war, and then tries to minimize it's involvment under the premise that the less they are involved, the less people will get hurt. That's heavily flawed logic, especially with war, and it ends up costing more lives than it saves...how?...by prolonging the conflict.

Spotz
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenCat
What do you think of war?
That it is something far more complex than 'good', 'bad', 'don't care' can reflect.
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucia
Technically speaking, I believe it is a violation of an existing presidential executive order to target a head of state for assassination. I think it was Gerald Ford that put that in place but did not double check that.

That being said, I think quite a few people tried to 'get' Hussein over the years, including Iraqis, and were all unsuccessful. Remember this was a guy who had multiple body doubles and never stayed in the same place for more than one night. Plus, he did have the loyalty of his own 'clan'. Look at how long it took the US military to find him after Bagdhad had fallen.

Yeah I think you are right about the assassination rule, that was Ford and I think it was post CAstro era where the CIA
agenda included assassination and that led to a lot of trouble (and perhaps an outshoot was the assassination of JFK..we will probably never know)

But crap, wasn't there another way other than what they did? Pay off his military etc?
post #10 of 22
The reason I voted that war is bad is because of the death and suffering it brings. But if one really thinks about it, war is another term for conflict, competition, one trying to best another...a basic part of being human or the animal in all of us. If we could satisfy that desire in us for violence by having safe wars (like computer games) will war still be "bad"? Mmm, am I making any sense?
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
You could try to read Carl von Clausewitz's 'On War.' He stated that war is a continuation of politics and diplomacy by other means. I never really completed reading the book, just scan read it. But it is not bad.
I have the documentary series "The World at War" on DVD; it offers a lot of interesting perspectives on what led up to WW2, as well as coverage of the war.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Yeah I think you are right about the assassination rule, that was Ford and I think it was post CAstro era where the CIA
agenda included assassination and that led to a lot of trouble (and perhaps an outshoot was the assassination of JFK..we will probably never know)

But crap, wasn't there another way other than what they did? Pay off his military etc?

I'm sorry, I know this is bordering on completely out of line, but I am totally APALLED that bribery would even be an concept on the drawing board. I'm at a loss for words here.... ::censor::censor::censor::

Only thing I can say right now is that we do not fight Crime with CRIME...TWO WRONGS DO NOT A RIGHT MAKE.

Spotz
post #13 of 22
I agree no one is pro war , I'm coming from the place of having my brother serve in both Afghanistan and Iraq, When he was in Afghanistan it was a just cause in my mind to stop the terrorist training camps to try to make sure nothing like 911 happens again and to get those behind it . I'm not sure why we are in Iraq , not anymore there were no WMD , the Intel was bad somehow things have become sidetracked , which is digging us deeper and deeper in a hole in the eyes of our own people and the Arab world.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spotz
I'm sorry, I know this is bordering on completely out of line, but I am totally APALLED that bribery would even be an concept on the drawing board. I'm at a loss for words here.... ::censor::censor::censor::

Only thing I can say right now is that we do not fight Crime with CRIME...TWO WRONGS DO NOT A RIGHT MAKE.

Spotz
War is a crime, a socially acceptable crime, but a crime none the less. Hemmingway has a great quote about that, saying basically that never forget it is a crime, even if you feel it's justified.
post #15 of 22
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a
crime."
- Ernest Hemingway
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarius
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a
crime."
- Ernest Hemingway
And Hemingway spent his time in the Everglades & in a bottle, not in a German concentration camp. Tell the survivors of WW2, of all ethnicities, that the Allied efforts to liberate them were a crime.
post #17 of 22
Well, Hemingway was a military ambulance driver in world war 1 in Italy -- he signed up for service, but was excluded for health reasons.

In Austria, he volunteered onto canteen duty during WWI, and was shot, was able to keep his leg, but was severely jaunidiced, and he had a long recovery period.

He also worked as a correspondent in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

In addition, he crossed the English Channel with American troops on D-Day, and later participated in the liberation of Paris.

Aqua
post #18 of 22
Oh, and for his work in Austria he was promoted to First Lieutenant and awarded a silver medal of valor.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarius
Oh, and for his work in Austria he was promoted to First Lieutenant and awarded a silver medal of valor.
Good for him. I stand corrected on his personal valor. I still have the same opinion of his opinion.
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
War is a crime, a socially acceptable crime, but a crime none the less. Hemmingway has a great quote about that, saying basically that never forget it is a crime, even if you feel it's justified.
Sorry for the delay in response.

I agree fully with the viewpoint, however there has to be a difference between barbarism and controlled force.

When a person kills in self defence, even though it is effectively murder, the person was responding to a threat not making one. (I hope this makes sense)

Even though War, by its very nature is criminal, it does not mean that standard rules of conduct do not apply. Warfare must be as civilized as possible, oxymoron though it may be, you do not fight barbaric conduct with barbaric conduct.

Cops are not issued guns to shoot first ask questions later, these weapons are issued as a last defense. If a cop shoots and/or kills a person there is always an investigation to determine if the course of action was warranted. The shooting is a crime no matter what, but sometimes it is an unaviodable crime and as such, forgivable.

I'm not sure if I'm rambling or making sense, so I will leave with one last thought/Statment

War is something that must be avoided at all reasonable costs, war is not something to take lightly nor a practice that anyone should ever grow accustomed to, however there are times and places that war is the most appropriate response, and in these times and places, there are established international guidelines to follow regarding the action of war. These guidelines were established to make sure that the criminal aspects of war are minimalized.

Invariably there are times that these guidelines are violated in warfare, and every such violation must be investigated to establish a reason for the violation. Exceptions have been made, and policy adapted, but these are exceptions and beyond the exceptions there is absolutely no reason for soldiers to lose their humanity, or to dehumanize their adversaries.

I am definately rambling now, I hope some of what I said makes sense.

I do not like war, but there are times and places where it is justified, this doesn't make war any less criminal but it also doesn't make it any less justified.

Spotz
post #21 of 22
Okay, my turn to ramble. IMO, war is sometimes the only reasonable response. The Allies' involvement in WWII was justifiable - it was purely self-defense, though I have my doubts about having used the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not in Germany, because I feel there was a lot of racism at play. I have no qualms about the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - the Taliban were allowing al Queda to use Afghan territory to train terrorists, and the country was/is totally out of control. Intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo was necessary to stop the bloodshed, but probably futile in the long run. There's simply too much ethnic hatred there. The invasion of Iraq falls into a different category, IMO. The U.S. administration originally claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was supporting international terrorism, but since no "proof" has been forthcoming, we're supposed to believe that it's a war of liberation. What I've feared for well over a year is that this invasion will simply lead to civil war. Will the Iraqis be served by that? Saddam was really bad, but - we have a situation where U.S. and allied troops are dying by the dozen every week, and Iraqi citizens have little or no security. Iraqi POWs have been tortured for information - information about non-existent WMDs? Many people think we (the U.S.) should simply pull out of Iraq. What will happen then? The Shi'ite majority might decide to establish an Iran-like Islamic republic. The Sunni Moslems and Kurds obviously won't be able to accept that. Iran has been working on its nuclear weapons capacity. Syria and Kuwait, along with many other Arab states, won't accept Shia authority. Turkey will probably have to crack down on its separatist Kurds.
The current administration, with its GI-Joe macho behavior, has opened up a real can of worms, and it's not the "suits" that will be paying the price in blood and guts. I know I'm ranting but - the point I want to make is that there are justified wars and those made for personal/political gain. Our elected officials make the decisions, but are highly influenced by thoughts of re-election and "glory", while it's the enlisted personnel and the taxpayers who have to bear the brunt. I'm totally disgusted at this point.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Okay, my turn to ramble. IMO, war is sometimes the only reasonable response. The Allies' involvement in WWII was justifiable - it was purely self-defense, though I have my doubts about having used the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not in Germany, because I feel there was a lot of racism at play.
The Germans had already surrendered before the atomic bomb was actually even tested, although clearly the plans to potentially drop the bomb in Japan if necessary were underway in late 1944. The war in Europe had really turned in the Allies favor by the summer of '44. Japan had vowed to fight to the last man. Was racism an underlying motive? I don't know. The fact that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor may have been more an emotional motivator than their ethnicity.
It's hard to guess whether or not they would have bombed Germany, had the bomb been available in 1942, after Germany officially declared war on the U.S. in late 1941. But it was not available.

I've been reading a 1,200 page novel for quite some time now, called 'The Children's War'. I read abt 50 pages of it, then put it aside for months. The underlying premise of the novel is that the Nazis conquered all of Europe, including Great Britain. A truce has been reached between the North American Union, the Third Reich & the Soviet Union and it takes place 50 years after the war ended. I don't read much of it at a time because it is very disturbing, largely in its simple 'possibility'. America may have managed to stay out of WW2, but the thought of what the world would look like today is not one easily entertained. The main character is a Brit who escapes slavery/servitude in a German home and stumbles into the arms of the Polish Resistance, who are trying to determine how to re-engage the Americans to fight the Nazis. Curiously, it is a debut novel (at 1,200 pages) and was written by a a nuclear physicist living in Germany.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion