Question:
I'd like to find what you all think of war

Choices:
It's always evil
Only ok in dire circumstances
Ok for solving really bad conflicts
It's great all the time
I hate peace

 

quote:

---

Yeah, we saved S Korea, but we killed How many Thousands of innocent civilians in the process.

---

Ah, the ambigous "thousands of innocent civilians". How about the constant starvation, poverty, and opression the North Korean people have had imposed on them for the past 50 years? If not for the Korean war, the whole penisula would have fallen to NK forces. How many would have died in the long run? Millions, not thousands, of innocents. Read your history.

quote:

---

The Civil war was an atrocity that proved nothing

---

It proved nothing? How about solving an irreperable dispute over states rights? And the little slavery thing. Also, consider the political environment at the time. The south left the union, and in order to ensure the success of our nation, the North was forced to go to war. In the end, the war helped to strengthen the US, which has allowed it to grow into the great superpower it is today. A postion that allows it to export billions of dollars in financial aid and tons upon tons of food. Read your history.

quote:

---

and we dropped a H-bomb on Japan, tell me, how you can justify that?

---

First off, A-bomb, not H-bomb, big difference (several megatons worth). Second: 250,000 dead/wounded vs. 5-7 million dead and countless wounded. And that's just in the mainland invasion. How do the japanese justify the Bataan death marches, the rape of nanking, the hundreds of human vivisections they preformed? The atomic bomb ended any future abominations. That is how it was justifed. Read your history.

quote:

---

i think war is not the answer to anything, it dosent solve anything and it brings us no good. we should try to stay clear of wars, and never ever have them. or atleast try as hard as we can so that we dont have them

---

Great, but what do you do when you have a zealot leader waiting to export nuclear weapons and super viruses around the world to attack western countries? Pay them off? Has that ever really worked? Read your history.

quote:

---

Reason #1-Oil, Iraq's got oil and we want oil
Reason #2-His dad. His father George Bush went into Iraq in '98 and didn't get Sadam out, like possibly he should have. So Bush is trying to please his dad by finishing the job.

---

Reason #1- Yes, oil. Oil makes the world go round at the moment. However, currently the oil money is being siphoned into opressing the Iraqi people and building WMDs. The current plan in a post-Gulf War is for the allied forces to use a majority of the oil profits to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and modernize the country.

Reason #2- That is complete and utter BS. I am sick and tired of people saying that Bush only wants to go into Iraq to "avenge his father". Blah blah blah. Come on, you guys are shoveling this propaganda into your open mouths like nothing else. What proof do you have of this? One comment, when Bush was alluding to the time when Saddam had a program to assinate Bush 41. Actually I'd think the attempted assasination of the President of the United States is a red flag. And in '98? Clinton was in office then and Bush 41 had been out for 6-7 years. (This is particulary justfied this time): Read your history.

quote:

---

I have to agree with Jaouisi. I don't feel that the world would be better off if its nations decided to encage themselves. I think the US is being too cocky right now. If they would stop and think for a moment, I'm sur they could come up with a much better solution than war.

---

We have, exile, true inspections and disarmamant, economic controls...
The problem is that Saddam and his Baath party have rejcted and undermined each attempt. The problem isn't with the US, it is with the violent, corrupt, and opressive despotisms that are in control of dozens of third world countries. Read your history.

quote:

---

As seriously cliche as it is, Violence is not the answer. Countries go to war, and that may end the violence for a time, but there is always the vendetta, a feeling for revenge, hate, which, in time, swirls into another war. Sick cycle.

---

Then we're already in a never ending problem here aren't we? Actually this is the crux of the problem. There are so many out there who will only be swayed or only will change things with force and war. If you want to get rid of this cycle, the world has to be stable. You don't get that through payoffs and pacifism, at least not at this point in the game.

Peace is Our Profession

Freedom really isn't free. But I think War is an unjustifiable mean to an end. Yeah, we saved S Korea, but we killed How many Thousands of innocent civilians in the process. The Civil war was an atrocity that proved nothing, and we dropped a H-bomb on Japan, tell me, how you can justify that?

Do the ends justify the means. Did the ends justify the means in WWII when we defeated Hitler and his hun of anti-semetic warriors? Did the ends justify the means when we saved S. Korea from the N. Koreans who entered a sovreign nation? Did the ends justify the means when we re-united the Union during the Civil War? I think so.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

i think war is not the answer to anything, it dosent solve anything and it brings us no good. we should try to stay clear of wars, and never ever have them. or atleast try as hard as we can so that we dont have them

I once read,
"Humans, along with ants and termites are the only animal species that hold wars against themselves."
I have always liked to hope that we, the human race is slightly above the average ant or termite, but obviously not.
I believe that Bush is wanting to go to war for some reasons that does not justify killing innocent people.
Reason #1-Oil, Iraq's got oil and we want oil
Reason #2-His dad. His father George Bush went into Iraq in '98 and didn't get Sadam out, like possibly he should have. So Bush is trying to please his dad by finishing the job.
Now I haven't spoken to Mr. Bush, but I think that these are some of the reasons he is so interested in Iraq and not lets say, South Korea.
I disagree with him. No life can be measured in oil.

"I couldn't have said it better. On the other hand I disagree on 1 viewpoint. In Revolutionary War, the "Americans" fought for their right of freedom. They won that war. My point? Not all wars don't necessarily "not acomplish" something.

I have to agree with Jaouisi. I don't feel that the world would be better off if its nations decided to encage themselves. I think the US is being too cocky right now. If they would stop and think for a moment, I'm sur they could come up with a much better solution than war.

quote:

---

Because I would be fighting for the continuation of my right to disagree with my government. Wouldn't you fight in support a the US? Even if you disagree with the conflict, you are fighting for the right to make your disagreement public...isn't that what freedom is?

---

No. Because if I refused to fight in Iraq, would that automatically take away my freedoms?

Did the hippies who burned their draft cards in order to stay out of Vietnam get all their rights taken away because they wouldn't fight?

I was thinking about how I feel about the draft. I'm neither for nor particularly against war with Iraq. But if I was drafted (an impossibility, but for argument's sake), I would fight in support of our government. Because I would be fighting for the continuation of my right to disagree with my government. Wouldn't you fight in support a the US? Even if you disagree with the conflict, you are fighting for the right to make your disagreement public...isn't that what freedom is?

A lot of people here raise issues of being resentful towards our government. Don't you appreciate the fact that you aren't be held in prison or shot in your sleep over your beliefs? We are citizens of this country, whether we agree with the party in charge or not...we don't just stop following the laws because we don't like the people who make them. That would lead to anarchy.

skydive or kayakee for some adrenalin rush? Sure
Hand to hand combat (with another human)? Yes
In the name of freedom? Probably not
Maybe FOR another human? Depends who
Run with the bulls? No
Religon? No
What are you going to send others off to die for? I dont send anyone to die.
What would you give your life for? A lot of stuff

"You either do or you dont. There is not much middle ground"

disagree. WHAT.. are YOUwilling to die for?

skydive or kayakee for some adrenalin rush? hand to hand combat (with another human), in the name of freedom? maybe FOR another human? run with the bulls? religon? what are you going to send others off to die for? what would you give your life for?

Found that quote for you:

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
Former President Jimmy Carter

quote:

---

Dont you people have anything you will fight for?!

---

First off, there is a major difference between a fight and a war. But, yes, there are many things I am willing to fight for, although I choose to try to resolve the situation using words first. There is however, nothing that I can think of, that would justify me going to war.

As seriously cliche as it is, Violence is not the answer. Countries go to war, and that may end the violence for a time, but there is always the vendetta, a feeling for revenge, hate, which, in time, swirls into another war. Sick cycle.

You cant say "Of course I do" and then follow it up with "But I'm not willing to send others to die, or even to kill, for what I believe".

You either do or you dont. There is not much middle ground.

Of course I do. But I'm not willing to send others to die, or even to kill, for what I believe. I will fight for the innocent, the truth, and freedom. But nations do not go to war for any of these things, though they do often proclaim that they do. They go to war for money and power.

This is a quote from John Stuart Mill that i agree with and pertains to the discussion.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The deacyed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Dont you people have anything you will fight for!?!?!?!?!!!

Jimmy Carter eh? Cool. Anybody know where I could find the exact quote?

Nice point Solemn. I think the governments want to go to war and win to get power. All the governments of the world are run on power and greed. There is even something called "Baptism of fire" its to achnowledge your first war as a country, thats pretty wrong. I think people are getting into a frameset in which they think war is the only answer. To governments I think war is a way to prove themselves to the world. I think Bush is trying to prove himself as a good president.
Cheers Steve

War is, in a word, idiotic. Humans get pleasure out of owning this or defeating that. It is the instinct of greed that has been hammered into our brains over the centuries of battle. We always want to win, and winning to us means defeat of an enemy. But where does this all get us? Nowhere. People think that defeating some other army is the key to peace. No. It is nothing more or less than the key to finding more hatred and more people who dispise us.

~Solemn.