War

[Alien Allen]

Man is hard wired and wars will always happen. IMO

Unless we are turned into robots.

Not saying I like that but man has always had enough who wanted to conquer or divide.

Of course if we had no religion that would help. Most wars were started over religious issues.

 

[Hans]

War is a failure of humans to achieve their goals by other civilized means. Of course there are two sides in every conflict and there are some ass holes out there who need to be rapped up side their heads.

There are cases when war is inevitable and if you don't fight, you're going to be swallowed or maybe you'll witness the wholesale slaughter of a group of innocent people. So there are necessary wars and then there are total bullshit wars started by characters who either want to rule the world, don't respect their neighbors, don't accept "no" for an answer and basically want to have their way and/or think the sacrifice of their soldiers is worth the political objective. And at the lowest most heinous level, besides genocide, war is conducted as big business for profit.

From a U.S. perspective and as a veteran, I've supported every war the U.S. has been involved in accept the current war/occupation which is total bullshit for perceived political advantage and profit. Until Iraq, Vietnam (50 years ago) was the war to ponder. I realize that while Vietnam started with the goal of containing world wide communism, in time it turned into a bogged down losing proposition and the time to get out of there became long overdue.



Just curious, is this your view or just an interesting quote you threw up?



Bottom line War is a failure of the higher aspirations humans are supposed to be striving for. It scars people and countries for life however as a realist, "peace" is the exception, not the rule. Historically, people solve their differences by killing each other. It's nothing to be proud of.

Thats not true at all.

There are so many historical examples where war could have been avoided in peaceful means, but they decided to go the route of war, because they believed it would be in their best interest.

Interest is the common goal in life and war. It is always there. It is extremely rare where war HAS to take place, if a country plans on invading, you could wave a whiteflag and let them take over. However, there is no interest in the peoples of that land to hand over their land, thus the next best possible solution to the problem is war.

And as you said, people have always, and probably will always kill each other to advance their interest. There is nothing pretty in war, but you are foolish to believe it is a "last resort" or if you honestly think some people do not want other peoples blood.

Of course if we had no religion that would help. Most wars were started over religious issues.

Once again, not true either for the most part. Very, very, veeerrryy seldom is a war fought ENTIRLY over religious ideology. Many wars have began over it, but few wars stand alone on it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Thats not true at all.

You're welcome to your opinion.

The following quote reflects an attitude regarding the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s. Does it bother anyone?

"We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and becuase we limited the tools at our disposal."

It bothers me because is shows an intention to stick with a losing effort no matter what the cost, regardless if it continues to make sense or not, regardless how long the conflict had been going on.

 

[Hans]

I disagree with your last statement too. A country that is invading will continue to wage war until it no longer interests them. Once the interest dissipates to more cons vs pros, theyll withdraw. Especially in a democratically controlled system. A dictatorship or oligarchy may get caught up in an ego or power trip, to create a point, but Im willing to wager most western nations are only interested in their own gains. Once the gain isnt there, there is no reason to be at war.

 

[IntruderLS1]

It bothers me because is shows an intention to stick with a losing effort no matter what the cost, regardless if it continues to make sense or not, regardless how long the conflict had been going on.

There is a country that used to exist which would probably take strong issue with your POV. It was a called a free Vietnam.

At what point exactly did it become too constly to allow all of Vietnam to not have the opportunites that South Korea enjoys today?

If the politicans and the hippies didn't get in the way of the military, the world would have been a better place today.

 

[Minor Axis]

There is a country that used to exist which would probably take strong issue with your POV. It was a called a free Vietnam.

At what point exactly did it become too constly to allow all of Vietnam to not have the opportunites that South Korea enjoys today?

If the politicans and the hippies didn't get in the way of the military, the world would have been a better place today.

The hippies. :clap

What makes you think the military, an organization with only one purpose, military victory and deterrence, (although you know any true warrior prefers the former), has the corner on wisdom? Might makes right is your philosophy?

 

[dt3]

The hippies. :clap

What makes you think the military, an organization with only one purpose, military victory and deterrence, (although you know any true warrior prefers the former), has the corner on wisdom? Might makes right is your philosophy?

As you said, the military has only one purpose in a war-victory. Politicians do not always have that same goal. If the military's purpose in a war is to win it, shouldn't they be the ones running it? That's the wisdom the military has in this situation that politicians sometimes don't, the military has nothing to gain from losing. See what I'm saying?

 

[Strauss]

As you said, the military has only one purpose in a war-victory. Politicians do not always have that same goal. If the military's purpose in a war is to win it, shouldn't they be the ones running it? That's the wisdom the military has in this situation that politicians sometimes don't, the military has nothing to gain from losing. See what I'm saying?

While I understand the your thought process the United States doesn't have a military junta mentality (thank god or whatever deity you believe in if at all). The military should be controlled by the elected politicians at all times. Our system of promotion into the senior officer level works well and acts as a check upon the military mindset as well as a check upon the politicians themselves.

 

[IntruderLS1]

The hippies. :clap

What makes you think the military, an organization with only one purpose, military victory and deterrence, (although you know any true warrior prefers the former), has the corner on wisdom? Might makes right is your philosophy?

I think you missed my point entirely. I made no claims or mention of the military being a cornerstone of wisdom on foreign policy. I personally feel that the military is in place to answer the call when placed, and that's it.

How you got from my responce to yours, I'll never understand.

I believe once the call is placed, you should leave it to the profesionals to complete the mission. If the military had been allowed to succeed in Vietnam, they would have. Vietnam could have been the beacon that South Korea has become, and again: The world would have been a better place.

 

[dt3]

While I understand the your thought process the United States doesn't have a military junta mentality (thank god or whatever deity you believe in if at all). The military should be controlled by the elected politicians at all times. Our system of promotion into the senior officer level works well and acts as a check upon the military mindset as well as a check upon the politicians themselves.

I don't have a problem with politicians setting the goals they want the military to accomplish, that's well within the parameters of their job. My issue is when the politicians tell the military HOW to accomplish the goals.

 

[Strauss]

I don't have a problem with politicians setting the goals they want the military to accomplish, that's well within the parameters of their job. My issue is when the politicians tell the military HOW to accomplish the goals.

Differing sides of the same coin. Many times the political considerations outweigh the military objectives. It is a balancing act, clearly, but it is better to put restraint on the military than restraint on the politicians. That said, once the determination is made to win...............get the frig out of the way.

 

[Alien Allen]

Differing sides of the same coin. Many times the political considerations outweigh the military objectives. It is a balancing act, clearly, but it is better to put restraint on the military than restraint on the politicians. That said, once the determination is made to win...............get the frig out of the way.

once there is a military objective it should be up to the military to decide how the logistics should be carried out. To allow the politicians to do that would be kind of like letting the politicians figure out how to get out of a financial disaster rather than listening to economists. oh wait we just did that. carry on.

 

[Strauss]

once there is a military objective it should be up to the military to decide how the logistics should be carried out. To allow the politicians to do that would be kind of like letting the politicians figure out how to get out of a financial disaster rather than listening to economists. oh wait we just did that. carry on.

If you are talking about how to achieve a military objective you are correct. Deciding what the military objective is your incorrect. We don't have a banana republic, even taking Texas into consideration.

 

[Alien Allen]

If you are talking about how to achieve a military objective you are correct. Deciding what the military objective is your incorrect. We don't have a banana republic, even taking Texas into consideration.

I should have explained it clearer. Yes the politicians should determine the objective but the military should decide how to accomplish that.

as to Texas some of them people should be shipped back to Mexico. I think one person in particular you are familiar with would be quite appropriate for removal. and for those wondering it is nobody from this site.

 

[Hans]

One of the problems with the military controlling themselves is detrmining who will govern them. This country is founded on the principle that the people have the power over the nation, if you exclude the military and allow it to govern itself, MANY problems will arise. It is like the Roman's Rubicon. It was illegal to take soldier across the Rubicon, but Caesar did it and no one could stop him (since he had his leigion behind him). Whats to stop a powerful general from taking over our nation, and it becoming a military society if no one is governing the country? Thus, the purpose of having politicians governing the miltiary SHOULD be the representitive choice of the people controlling the military.