Is war right?

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Is war right?

Postby CivilDissent » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:29 am

This is a hot topic, I am sure. I am not looking for a fight or any feelings hurt I am just curious at what point do, people who are so extremely against the war, choose a time to defend themselves?

Most of the time, but not all, war is about defending ones self whether it be for good, or bad, reasons. I have seen sooo many stickers from people against the "unpopular" wars. These stickers claim that war causes death and destruction and that everything can be talked out, as Obama implies. But, that is not true. There are so many angry dictators out there who would never give in to some peace accord.

So, if war is wrong, based on many reasons that I do not necessarily disagree with, what about the results of which we have enjoyed the results of?

Personally, and this is going to get me stomped but might cause some thought provoking. I am totally against certain wars (because so many got killed) but they are the ones that were supposed to be good.

I am against: 1) The american slaughter of the "Real" Native American, the biggest slaughter of mankind ever known to exist 2) USA'a involvement in WWII 3) The Civil War (a fight where we killed our own people) 4) The Revolutionary War (a war where we murdered and took over a continents people just to claim that their land was actually ours and that another country, from across the seas, was invading ours)

All of these wars caused massive amounts of deaths to american, and other countries, citizens. So, when is war right and when is it wrong?

I say all of this because one of, if not the biggest, things that made Obama so easily get his start was being against the war.

Lastly, I will say that I do not condone killing all the way down to the axe murderer on death row but sometimes it is kill or be killed....ask those on the planes of 9/11.
"A mouth does not have to be open for words to be said or be spoken."

1836
The Year the Greatest Nation on Earth was
Founded!

"Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
CivilDissent
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby GodSquirrel » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:40 am

why are you against the US involvement in WW2?
GodSquirrel
 

Postby CivilDissent » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:51 am

Because, if something had been done before the war, like talking to a dictator, such as Hitler, just as some suggest (Obama included) we may have been able to calm Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia into some sort of agreement or scaling down just like is being suggested in today's worldly disagreements. It seems as though some, such as FDR, just waited on the war to get bigger to have an excuse to jump in.
"A mouth does not have to be open for words to be said or be spoken."

1836
The Year the Greatest Nation on Earth was
Founded!

"Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
CivilDissent
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby CivilDissent » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:57 am

I am just curious, at what point are those against the war in Iraq, etc. would be willing to defend themselves to the point of war. I realize that everyone is different, which is why it would be great for many to comment, but, many times, there is a general point, or feeling, that will turn them over the edge.

Is it the amount of people killed? Is it the specific country? Is it the proximity to oneself (have to be part of ones family, etc.)? Is it the "type" of killing happening at that moment?

Would being corralled into torture camps because of your "race", i.e. the places, in Germany, where the Jewish people were held or the South where blacks were being treated horribly, cause a person to choose to defend themselves with war? These wars are cheered by so many that claim that they are "against" wars, these days.

What does it take? Or, are people truly against war or not? What about the horrific governments in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, etc. that kill their own people basically just because they want to show their own power? Do they count? At what point is defending oneself applicable?
"A mouth does not have to be open for words to be said or be spoken."

1836
The Year the Greatest Nation on Earth was
Founded!

"Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
CivilDissent
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby CivilDissent » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:37 am

Here is a good comparison.

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140

Footnote: Notice, in paragraph 3, that the British and the French disagreed on the outcome. Notice, in paragraph 3, the US retreated into isolationism (which did not work), Notice, in paragraph 4, the failure of peace efforts (many efforts to be exact). Notice, in paragraph 5, that agreements of peace did nothing to control angry feelings. Notice, in paragraph 11, that mere defensive posture does no good. And on and on and on.

Notice the eery similarities to what is going on now. Pirates invade/take over ships around Africa all of the time. Should we just talk to them?

Sad to say but someone always has to be at the top and in control, all the time. Also, there are way too many countries, around the world, to have concession/agreement on pretty much anything.
"A mouth does not have to be open for words to be said or be spoken."

1836
The Year the Greatest Nation on Earth was
Founded!

"Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
CivilDissent
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby cw4cam » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:09 am

The desire to have more power and to rule people is the reason for wars. Dictators always want more land or some other nations wealth. What they have at home is never enough, consequently the drive is on for the production of war machines to expand their domain.

Hitler was a megalomaniac, with a burning desire to avenge Germany for what happened to it after world war 1. The manufacturing of war machines gave people jobs which put them behind him in his aspirations. The German people had also seen the same injustices done to Germany after ww1 so they wanted what Hitler wanted.

Dictators always surround themselves with people in like mind. They stroke him and tell him how brilliant he is. They are more than willing to plan and implement things that will ingratiate themselves to him. It continues to snowball until success or defeat.

Japan was a society that blindly followed their Emperor. Their military leaders also didn't like the outcome of world war 1. They wanted to rule over Korea and China.

The US government saw all this and cut off all the raw materials to them that we could. This did nothing to stem Japans expansionist desires. Consequently they attacked Pearl Harbor, at the very time our secretary of state Cordell Hull was in peace talk conference with their foreign diplomats. So, we entered ww2 by being attacked.

The Vietnam conflict, the Korean conflict and the US part in ww1 was all an attempt at upholding pacts or agreements against aggression we had made with allies.

What are we going to do if Israel attacks Iran, Which is going to happen, or if north Korea goes south again, or if china overruns Taiwan, or any number of scenarios?

Is it up to the US to take the role in keeping rogue nations getting nuclear weapons? Should we mind our own business and let things fall where they may?

We went to war in Iraq over this very thing. Discount the fact that the intel was bad, the whole world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The citizen of this country was behind the invasion. Our government mismanaged the war and when we didn't just go in, knock out Saddam and get out, it started taking on the ramifications of the Vietnam war.

Dictators with a desire to rule or take power over others is the reason for wars. There are other reasons, as differences in religious views, or territorial disputes.
"A pessimist sees a problem with an opportunity. an optimist sees an opportunity with a problem."
Winston Churchill

Civilization is invaded by barbarians every generation. (author unknown)
cw4cam
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Middlesboro KY

Postby Ghen » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:48 pm

I'm against war in theory, but there are definitely cases where it is justified. IE: one people oppressing another set of people and won't stop even temporarily to talk, or if you have to challenge a group of people that don't own a government so you can't use political power. Those are the only 2 examples I can think up.
ImageImageImage
Ghen
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 3:06 pm
Location: Delaware

Postby Roach412 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:29 pm

CivilDissent wrote:Because, if something had been done before the war, like talking to a dictator, such as Hitler, just as some suggest (Obama included) we may have been able to calm Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia into some sort of agreement or scaling down just like is being suggested in today's worldly disagreements. It seems as though some, such as FDR, just waited on the war to get bigger to have an excuse to jump in.


i studied the second world war pretty extensively in school, and spent a good while living in germany while doing so. simply put, hitler was not to be talked down - there was absolutely NO way of doing this. i would rather not go into huge long drawn-out examples and testimony - but WWII is something that europe and the US was in no way able to remove themselves from - it was set in motion the instant hitler became chancellor.

the same is somewhat true with the civil war - it was a war which was decided not by the people so much, as by the political and economic leaders of each side. in a historical and political sense, the civil war was unavoidable.

the revolutionary war was a clash of ideas which culminated in an action which was only "understandable" by both sides by a physical war - again, i would consider this war unavoidable. unless the people living in the colonies wished to continue to be 3rd rate citizens of a ruling body without consent and without representation.

i will totally agree with the native american war though. a very good point.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby thomas_w_bowman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:29 am

Didn't the World attempt to appease Germany by giving it control over neighboring nations - but it always wanted more.

One thing that can provoke (or end) a war is apparent willingness to simply fight with clear intent that the fight will not end till all resources are exausted (including soldiers). Best and mos sobering example was Japan at end of WW2, their troops had little for supplies but were prepared to fight to the death, even knowing that they would be unlikely to win - untill it became apparent that the USA had, and would use weapons that were simply too extreme to resist (Atom bomb), weapons that caused massive casualties without any 'exchange' (all casualties were on one side). Then the war ended.

If we are unprepared, or spread too thin, or as a Nation lack the will, resources, or allies to engage - some predator nation will be motivated to attack, often testing by seeing how much they can take before resistance is offered (consider Israel's problem). Too often, war starts with a 'nibbling' set of attacks (like terrorism), these tend to diminish rapidly when counter attacks escalate to indicate that even a small attack will not be tolerated. Slow wars kill many more than faster war - the Atom Bombs used by USA on Japan may have actually SAVED tens or hundreds of thousands of lives by causing such a quick end to the conflict.

I've personally been bullied (I moved a lot as a kid, and lacked allies) quite a bit - and learned the hard way that the ONLY way to stop it is to make it very clear that no matter how much I get hurt : I will hurt back till I am quite dead, even if it's not as painful as what I suffered. Bullys hate when we fight back, and like a criminal who wants no witnesses - may kill you even if you hand over what they demanded - so I'd rather go down fighting. Once my attitude is clear, there is generally no more bullying. Why did Iran release hostags as soon as Regan took office ? Because he was thought to be a person that would strike back with extreme prejudice.

'Limited' wars will always be lost by those limiting them.

Note that I would be quick to agree that it is always best to avoid conflict, especially war - I can't think of any war that was ever profitable.

Issaic Asimov wrote some profound fiction regarding social collapse and anarchy - the Foundation Trilogy, in it Science, Trade, and Psychology were used together to minimize conflict and arrive at a constructive economy as quickly as possible. Good reading on this topic.
Better living thru technology...
"Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL..."
Join Folding team #: 33258
thomas_w_bowman
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby CivilDissent » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:16 pm

It is very interesting to hear everyone's point of view from an explanation and not a debate, it is very good to hear. :wink: To be honest, and not to sound like a peace activist of the 60's, that if more people would sit down and try to understand the other side that there might be more "acceptance" of others. Now, I am not saying everyone will agree, just that I get tired of all of the screaming and angry feelings that I see so much on TV, during this election and others, etc. I do believe that most of us are closer than most want to admit, in our circumstances and beliefs. Peace.

I will say that some of what I was saying, before, is kind of cynical. I believe that war and death is not good, but, as most have said, sometimes it is the only thing that can be done.

And, Thomas, I am extremely similar to you, concerning your bullying situation, with the exception that I did not move around alot. I am a small person (5'0") and got beat up alot in school because of my small, skinny size, I was an easy target. School was not a good time for me. I finally decided, one day, after taking alot of junk, that that was it. I told the bullies picking on me 2 things: 1) Dynamite comes in small packages so watch out what they do 2) If they are going to pick on me they might as well kill me because if they leave one hair on my head moving, I will get my vengeance....10 fold. Most of them gave that careful consideration and backed off (I was kind of crazy back then and they had no idea what I might pull). :D

And, I agree with the Asimov thing. I am a big fan of his.
"A mouth does not have to be open for words to be said or be spoken."

1836
The Year the Greatest Nation on Earth was
Founded!

"Honor the Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible."
CivilDissent
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:42 pm


Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests