War

[dt3]

ANTI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It makes absolutely no sense... people killing each other is not solving or has ever solved ANYTHING.

You're right. Other than stopping Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and now working on Terrorism, war has never solved anything. :clap

 

[Sdrawkcab]

Sweden hasnt been in a war in almost 200 years, and I hope it will take atleast another 200 years before it happens again.

 

[JulioO101193]

You're right. Other than stopping Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and now working on Terrorism, war has never solved anything. :clap

There is still communism in Cuba and north Korea.
Arguably many country are still fascist.
Ok nazism did ended, so yup it has solved some things, which where forsed to be solved like that because of peple that used war for selfish and false ideologies, but besides DEFENCE it should never be used.

 

[333halfabeast]

I am anti war. Simply because I think violence is despicable.

 

[dt3]

I am anti war. Simply because I think violence is despicable.

I hope you're never mugged or your home is never invaded. Or is violence ok in those situations?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

haha here we go again.

 

[dt3]

haha here we go again.

I said the same thing when I typed it out

 

[Hans]

War from any western society is going to have two view points that are usually accepted.

Either killing is bad, thus war is bad. Or war is "acceptable", never a good thing, to ensure a more peaceful life for its citizens.

However, go talk to a Marxist in Russia, some of them will smile upon war and use of terror to ensure a better life also. The interesting thing about this, is that the Mongols used to control central/eastern Russia. They did well against the Russian peoples for a long time due to the use of force/violence. It is believe by many war experts that the Russians/Marxists still use tactics that the Mongols used against them. If iits not broken, why fix it?

As for my views, I believe war should be avoided. Life is sacred and precious. However, if kiling 50 peopple will save 100 people, I think that is justifiable. However, the issue of "who is going to judge the 50 people vs the 100 people" is the harder question in my opinion.

 

[dt3]

There is still communism in Cuba and north Korea.
Arguably many country are still fascist.
Ok nazism did ended, so yup it has solved some things, which where forsed to be solved like that because of peple that used war for selfish and false ideologies, but besides DEFENCE it should never be used.

Ah yes, those two bastions of freedom and stability :smiley24:

 

[Hans]

China is also communist, although realistically its ideals are more capatalisitc than communistic (is that a word?)

 

[All Else Failed]

Um, I would hope everyone would be anti-war?

 

[lumpenstein]

I am pro war in the right circumstances. The Civil War is a good example.

I also support the war in Iraq. I personally believe that this war is a just war, being fought for a good cause and that a greater good will come of it in the end. I hope to see changes in the next generation of Iraqi people...changes that help them to be more tolerant of others who are different. I mostly want to see them have the same kinds of freedoms that we take for granted in our day to day lives.

I think the thread starter specified war in general, not any specific war, as in Iraq, so I will refrain from responding on your comments.

War in general, if initiated, is either the act of a state gone mad or the failure of diplomacy. As in Mystic's post, war ingaged on a defensive position is of course perfectly justifiable - on the part of the defending nation.

 

[Alien Allen]

I think the thread starter specified war in general, not any specific war, as in Iraq, so I will refrain on responding on your comments.

War in general, if initiated, is either the act of a state gone mad or the failure of diplomacy. As in Mystic's post, war ingaged on a defensive position is of course perfectly justifiable - on the part of the defending nation.

At first blush I thought was nonsense. But damn you Lumpy you got me thinking. You might be onto something. Can be a fine long though as far as why diplomacy fails it seems.

 

[Hans]

I disagree...there are many diffrenet philosophers that have intesesting ideas on war, some of my favorite are...
The ancent greek Thucydides, who believed war was driven by "Honor, fear, and interest"
Karl von Clausewitz, who was a Prussian, said "War is the continuation of policy by other means"

For a "state gone mad", its all perspectives. A foriegner to an African genoicde would call that madness, the people doing the killing would call it religious purification, higher than any law of man. To them, how is that madness? You cant just stand from America, look at other places, and assume they are like you. Stand in their shoes and understand that people are different. People have different ethics, values, these arent birthrights, they are developed by the civilazations of the people that inhabit the land

 

[lumpenstein]

I disagree...there are many diffrenet philosophers that have intesesting ideas on war, some of my favorite are...
The ancent greek Thucydides, who believed war was driven by "Honor, fear, and interest"
Karl von Clausewitz, who was a Prussian, said "War is the continuation of policy by other means"

For a "state gone mad", its all perspectives. A foriegner to an African genoicde would call that madness, the people doing the killing would call it religious purification, higher than any law of man. To them, how is that madness? You cant just stand from America, look at other places, and assume they are like you. Stand in their shoes and understand that people are different. People have different ethics, values, these arent birthrights, they are developed by the civilazations of the people that inhabit the land

Yes, well, I am standing from America, which is easy, being non-American, but I am looking at it, not other places. Val brought up Iraq, therefore letting the cat out of the bag. In that instance it was both a little bit of madness coupled with failure of diplomacy. The Bush squad insisted Saddam hand over his weapons or they would invade. They were not taking no for an answer. Demanding something that doesn't exist (madness) and threatening full blown invasion (diplomatic failure) are textbook examples in this scenario. When it comes to enforcing one's ideology one must demonize the enemy, thereby convincing the populous that killing them is not really the same as killing humans, thus removing the guilt. Having been made to feel threatened by their own government, the people will then enthusiastically support the killing of those people who are different, whom the government will have convinced them that the enemy populous has been brainwashed into thinking that the other people are out to get them!

And don't forget that in any war truth is always the first casualty.

 

[skyblue]

Yes, well, I am standing from America, which is easy, being non-American, but I am looking at it, not other places. Val brought up Iraq, therefore letting the cat out of the bag. In that instance it was both a little bit of madness coupled with failure of diplomacy. The Bush squad insisted Saddam hand over his weapons or they would invade. They were not taking no for an answer. Demanding something that doesn't exist (madness) and threatening full blown invasion (diplomatic failure) are textbook examples in this scenario. When it comes to enforcing one's ideology one must demonize the enemy, thereby convincing the populous that killing them is not really the same as killing humans, thus removing the guilt. Having been made to feel threatened by their own government, the people will then enthusiastically support the killing of those people who are different, whom the government will have convinced them that the enemy populous has been brainwashed into thinking that the other people are out to get them!

And don't forget that in any war truth is always the first casualty.

before the invasion convoys of lorries drove out of iraq into syria.....surely they weren't carrying saddams gold

 

[Alien Allen]

before the invasion convoys of lorries drove out of iraq into syria.....surely they weren't carrying saddams gold

That is what many refuse to believe is a possibility. They just don't get it that there was a ton of time to move stuff out. Given how Iraq folded once we invaded I believe Sadaam felt the invasion was inevitable and his plan was to go into hiding and wait it out. Expecting in the chaos that once nothing was found the populace would welcome him back. Just a theory. With as much validity as those who claim there were not WMD's. Seems like the Kurds found out the hard way about WMD's. Doubt they got all used up.

 

[darkangel]

I have Served my Country. When it comes down to what is going on in the world these days I believe that we have a right to protect ourselves and others who are less fortunate. I mean we shouldn't go starting wars for any damn reason but when it boils down to what is happening in the world some things just have to be done. When Terrorists come into our Country and kill innocent civilians then we are obligated to track them down so they won't do the same things to others. But our time in Iraq was uncalled for!

 

[lumpenstein]

before the invasion convoys of lorries drove out of iraq into syria.....surely they weren't carrying saddams gold

That line has been beaten to death years ago.

 

[Hans]

Yes, well, I am standing from America, which is easy, being non-American, but I am looking at it, not other places. Val brought up Iraq, therefore letting the cat out of the bag. In that instance it was both a little bit of madness coupled with failure of diplomacy. The Bush squad insisted Saddam hand over his weapons or they would invade. They were not taking no for an answer. Demanding something that doesn't exist (madness) and threatening full blown invasion (diplomatic failure) are textbook examples in this scenario. When it comes to enforcing one's ideology one must demonize the enemy, thereby convincing the populous that killing them is not really the same as killing humans, thus removing the guilt. Having been made to feel threatened by their own government, the people will then enthusiastically support the killing of those people who are different, whom the government will have convinced them that the enemy populous has been brainwashed into thinking that the other people are out to get them!

And don't forget that in any war truth is always the first casualty.

Actually, there was a failure of cooperation/Iraq not following clauses set up in the Golf War, I dont see how that is "not taking no for an answer" at all really. There was itnelligence that poitned to the possibility of existance of nuclear weapons, I dont see how misinformation is "madness", even if it is a blatant lie to create a pre-text for an invasion, that is still far from "madness". If anything, it is an intelligent, calculated plan to progress the ideas of those with power from MY point of view.

As for a diplomatic failure, a threat of full force is by no means a failure. How would Iraq respond of we went into negotiations and claimed "If you dont do this this and this, we are going to send a few troops in and take over a few towns!" That doesnt seem too scary. If you go to the table and say "If you dont do this this and this, we will invade your nation, remove you from power, and instill democracy into your lands". Somehow I think they would take the 2nd one more seriously, I dont see that as a failure, but rather playing your cards at the table.

However, I do think you are missing my point in my original post, but I tried to kind of create an example in my above text. Your "madness" is anothers salvation, joy, or life. You cant make general assumptions that everyone in the world has a similar mindset about war, because they dont.