Wars: Are they good or bad?

Remove all ads!

excuse me, are you suggesting there is such a thing as a truly altruistic nation in this world? Please point them out to me.

I suppose the $250 million worth of grain we recently sent to africa was an attempt to get oil. As was the 50% increase in foreign aid since Bush was elected.

Can America do more? Yes. Should America do more? Yes. Does America do everything for altruistic reasons? Of course not. But then, neither does any other country in the world. At least we do some altruistic things for the world at large. What has YOUR nation done recently? Yes, I want a real answer.

 

The events in America and Iraq are starting to sound familiar, see what you think:

A relative unknown, came to power on the back of big business with some dispute as to the regularity of his appointment. He sought to sway people to his cause by the championing of the common man. Now he seeks to increase his power by stoking up the populace to support a war which will result in the deaths of many innocent people, ostensibly because of the threat the enemy nation poses, but mainly to prove himself to be worthy to succeed his father.

Did George W Bush kill Gorion?

 

Slightly off topic here but sticking to the title of the thread

Wars being good and bad are a matter of opinion.

Pacifists with hate it while people like Hitler would have seen it as a necessary means in order to aquire Lebensram for the German 'Empire'

So in a way, he may have seen war as a means to an end and thus war would appear to be a good factor if it ment 'bettering' the German people. Then again, I'm sure that if he idn't have to fight wars, he would. For example, when he re-took Austria and the Sudetenland.

Okay i've said my piece. Thanks.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussain is a terrorist and will try to develop nuclear weapons. Why react to him when we can proact to him and stop him developing nuclear war heads instead of waiting for him to make the first move.

We have the initiative here ... why waste it on time consuming debate and strike while he is weaker than he will be in the future.

 

http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/Nfaq7.html
A list of countries owning nuclear weapons.
Think of my country. Germany is capable of the development of nuclear weapons. Do we/they already have the nuclear bomb. Germany should be a country of peasants, but it is not. We/they have industry. Some Germans are really weird. Think about Hitler or Karl Marx. Some terrorists were captured in Hamburg. There was a fanatic muslim leader in Köln.
Why not invade Germany. We/they have good sausages.

[ September 18, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: Oblate ]

 

Also, pretty women!

-thanos

 

Oh no! Don't get me started on the heaven that is German meats. Ragusa made that mistake once

 

Faerus, keep in mind that that was with the help of the draft. We haven't used one of those since Vietnam. Getting it started again would cause an amazing uproar, barring another post-9/11 rally-to-the-flag.

As of a year ago, our military was quite a bit smaller than it had been when we rescued Kuwait(3 million as opposed to 5 million I believe...I'm pretty sure this includes everyone that could be sent without instating a draft, such as the Army Reserves). I'm sure there has been an increase in military personnel since 9/11, but I don't know to what extent.

 

*clears throat*
*darth vader like voice*
war doesn't determine who is right, only who is left

 

Blackthorn TA:
Since it seems that you believe this war has nothing to do with oil, what is your opinion about the following:
"What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

I hope that you consider BBC as a reliable source.

AMaster:
There is no room for altruism and humanism in world politics. It always has been this way and it always will be this way. The thing that drives me mad is when USA or any other country try to hide their motives by using an altruistic/humanistic cloak.

 

Hmmm, sounds very much like the US and George Bush

All wars are useless, there are no winners in wars, just loosers. Refuse! The world today really suck hard, some people live extremly well, To well, ehen others starve. Rebell against capitalism! We can make a differense!

Slim, i hope i'm not with the bunch that's directed to. I have defended the USA on every topic where there has been America-bashing. And i'll continue to do so. So all these mainland European America bashers, just think where'd you be right now if it wasn't for the USA and Britain, slaving for a Nazi most likely.

Well, from Stalin maybe. Hitler was as good as defeated when the US troops arrived.

I think the USA is a strange nation.
Hitler put jews in camps, beacuse they thought them as a risk...USA condemned it hard. Not much later they put Japaneses (?) in camps, and now they got prisoners on Guentanama without a trial and on unfaie conditions. Far from all of them ares o called Terrorists. (= People with defferent oppinions then USA) You condemn Terrorism, Facism, diktators and such, and with all rights. But no country have supported more of these folks then the USA, yes not even the sovjet union. Chile, Afhanistan, Israel and many more.
You cannnot hope to make up rules for everyone to follow when you don't do it yourself.
USA is alowed to have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons but Iraq is not. I do not trust either of you. And I don't like capitalsiem either, but that soesn't belong here....

[ September 18, 2002, 23:43: Message edited by: Turandil ]

 

Word up Turandil! *waves the red flag around*

And war is always bad, nothing can justify a war. I can perhaps agree that it might be righteous to defend yourself if your nation was attacked, but even then thousands of lives would be spared if the attacked nation just gave up. (Very unrealistic and it wouldnt exactly be a deterrent for nations to not attack but in a cold bodycount it would be the way to save lives.)

 

Joaquin:

That is totally out of the question. Give up when attacked, just like that? Great deterrent...

I think the only way to prevent war from actually happening is extactly that, deterrence. It got us all through the cold war in one piece (more or less). The only way to make aggresive countries give up their adventourous and risky thoughts is to make it clear to them that attacking you would be a difficult thing indeed. If they do indeed get that message, they won't attack. No one is THAT suicidial.

-thanos

 

The trick is Joacqin. What was the motive for invading? What if millions died of starvation or poverty if they just gave in to the attackers? Which is then better? War or not?

ON TOPPIC
There are so many aspects of each war, that the only fact I am sure of is that I cannot be sure of a general opinion. Some concepts are better discussed in individuality. On the Iraq war. I don't think it is a good idea as long as UN is pushing so hard for allowing the weapon inspectors. The concept of UN is that we are united. Just look at the name. UN= United nations. If one part wants to negotiate and the other wants to fight, we don't seem united anymore. And that can be taken advantage of.

 

-- Ramsey Clark, former United States Attorney General and human rights activist

 

Deviant Mage, 3 million men is still an incredible amount of manpower. The US doesn't need to start up another draft, unless another world war starts (which I'm sure everyone here can agree, would NOT be a good thing), especially considering all the incredibly high-tech stuff the US has now.
If you want a small point of comparison, just think that there are more (and more advanced!) fighter jets on ONE American aircraft carrier (Harry S. Truman Class, maybe some smaller ones too) than in the ENTIRE Canadian Air Force.

joacqin, that would be extremely stupid. By not defending oneself, one only suffers more. Think of the Jews when they were being rounded up in the ghettos by the Nazis, if they had resisted, especially at first, much suffering may have been prevented. Likely, (since moving the Jews into the ghettos happened BEFORE WW2 started) the war would have started earlier, and had that been the case, the Nazis may have been caught a little less prepared. (Although, one must consider the alternate possibility, that the Nazis would have likely began mass executions...but had THAT happened, they could, and probably would, have lost the support of the German people at large). Granted, this argument is full of "what-ifs," but it'll hopefully help you consider the possibilities of simply giving up before anything has began.

 

Actually, I believe Saddam has survived at least a half a dozen assassination attempts so far. He's a slippery b**tard.

The question, I thought, wasn't whether he has nuclear weapons or not. Bush's position is he has been working to gain nukes, and once he does you will have this crazy person running around with weapons of mass destruction in his hands. It would be only be a matter of time before he attacks someone with them. He HAS used chemical weapons on his own citizens and engaged in "ethnic cleansing" against the Kurds.

Mind you, this is Bush's position, not mine.
I see no easy solutions either way.
I do not think Saddam should be in power. He has shown blatant disregard for the freedom and welfare of his countrymen and those of other countries. Should we attack Iraq and go to war to remove him? I don't know. That might cause more problems than it would solve.

And who will guarantee that the next ruler will be any better? Look at what happened after the US helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanastan by supporting the Taliban. Then we have to go in and remove the Taliban from power. Who is to say we will not be back in Afghanistan again 5 or 10 years from now to remove the Taliban's replacements? All of the Arab countries hate us for our perceived (rightly or wrongly) interference in the Middle East.

 

the thing is, out of the 3 million people, only 250k - 500k or so are actually combat troops.(don't have the stats on hand right now)

even a Nimitz class carrier only carries 50-70 combat aircraft

 

Yes, approximately, in cold war days the number was highter, up to 90 aircraft. However, the US have about 10 carriers of that size, that makes some 500-700 aircraft. Usually two of them are deployed in *areas of interest*, makes 100-140 aircraft, still much more than the average small airforce is able to set up. These aircract can attack targes in a circle of around ... let's guess ... 1.000km around the carrier with sophisticated standoff and precision weaponry - and a high rate of success. Indeed the US forces have become weak.

[ September 19, 2002, 08:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@who ever asked me what my country has done lately.
Well, as mentioned, we helped peacekeeping in East Timor in their completly unstable state with (as far as I can tell) no other motive than to help them.