Discussions
Name a VALID reason for war.
Posted by techfun • 10/10/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: iraq, war
For years now there has been a huge outcry of people opposing the way in Iraq. I've been one of them. It got me wondering though, what would be an acceptable reason for a war like the invasion of Iraq. If any of the early claims had been true (WMDs, Supporting terrorism, etc...) would you have gotten behind the war?
In this day and age, what do you consider an acceptable premise for full blown war?
User Comments
-
I'll go first.
I think war is justified when one country actually invades another. Nation states need to be secure in their own territory in order for our global economic and other systems to function properly.
Look at India and Pakistan in Kashmir for an example of how ill defined and dysfunctional borders contribute to chaos and instability.-
Would you extend that to outside intervention, TechFun? -
Tiffany, absolutely as long as it was handled through existing channels like the UN. Our response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is the best recent example of what I would consider justifiable - including our not proceeding on to Baghdad.
If you didn't allow for outside intervention on behalf of the invaded country it would be way too easy for large powerful (militarily) countries to gobble up smaller less powerful countries as we saw with the USSR after WW2.
Is that what you meant by outside intervention? -
Yes, and I agree--I just wasn't sure from the language of your initial response whether you were referring only to defending one's own borders.
-
Would US 'defend' Kuwait if it wasn't just for oil?
I've seen some unfair war in my country 15 years ago. Croatia doesn't have oil, Bosnia either, but the people lived in hope someone WILL help them the same.
US government did NOTHING to help. I guess they saw killing and raping hundreds of thousands and destroying millions of homes by the Serbs as approved and justified.
Was there any oil ? No. Oh, then, who cares. -
Marko, I am sure that we would NOT have cared enough about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait were energy supplies not involved.
If any of the bullshit coming out of Washington actually meant anything we would be invading North Korea since it may be a REAL threat to our allies, if not to us. We would also be confronting Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism and do something there.
Lack of oil can prevent US involvement in your country while too much oil can prevent our involvement places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. -
techfun,
So you believe the US intervention in Iraq when it was invading Kuwait was justified but you do not think it was justified to enforce those terms of surrender? I think the current war in Iraq was justified, because Iraq was in blatant violation of its terms of surrender from a war that you concede was justified. If we allow nations to violate terms of surrender, future wars will be even bloodier, because the winning nation will have to decimate the losing one in order to ensure it never poses another threat or that it cannot renege on its promises. -
Casey: Please reread. I gave the the response of the invasion of Kuwait as the best example of that kind of warfare off the tip of my head. As far as the new war there, I don't think its justified by the very nature of the US "coalition of the willing" decision to go in without a UN mandate.
I don't agree with everything that comes out of the UN by any means, but violating its guidelines in order to retaliate for people not obeying the UN security council resolutions strikes me a bit hypocritical.
-
-
-
Thats the second time I've seen that advert in comments today. Are you actually reading the discussion before posting this advertisement?
-
Probably not, and I'd be very surprised if he actually even came back to the discussion after spamming it. So in all likelihood he doesn't even know his post was removed. I think spammers need to be banned.
-
-
Full Committment
- Genocide (Rwanda, Darfur, Chechna) (Iraq at the time we were ignoring the Kurds)
- Invasion (WWII (EU thea.), WWI, Kuwait)
- Response (WWII (Pac. thea.) Afghanistan)
Limited Commitment / Temproary Committment
- Vital Security Interest (Panama)
- Extraction of US Citizens/assets (Iran, Beriut, Grenada)
Pre-emption (commitment as required)
- Possibly N. Korea, Possibly Iran. Much More Info Is Needed at this point though.
Request For Aid/Protection (commitment as required)
- Many examples-
Good answer Dane.
Would you agree that in the case of preemption the burden of proof in terms of justifying the attack lies with the country doing the preemptive attacking? -
That's a tricky question, techfun. It's one that I don't have a real clear decisive answer for. I think it's evident that I don't waste a whole lot of trust on our governmental "caretakers" whichever side of the family is carving the turkey that particular term
On the other hand, I understand just how dangerous information leaks of even seemingly innocuous information can be to the soldiers involved. And I would do nearly anything to reduce the risk involved in their jobs.
After the fact, I certainly think that, yes, the case must be proven, and if it is not, consequences must ensue. Before the act, well, I would cringe at laying the whole thing out because doing so would by definition carry information that could be used to harden positions against the action.
I don't believe there is a way, but I wish there were, to require proof prior to action.
-
-
An accpetable premise for full blown war?
No, never. 1 race, 1 land 1 big bloody group hug to go with it.
Drop our past conditioning and labels - anything can be resolved.
(We won't mention sending flowers from our website in case that is classed as an advert and we start a price WAR) -
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a "just war" doctrine...I think that the principles set forth there are equally relevant outside the religious context:
(2309) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;
-all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
-there must be seirous prospects of success;
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. -
The post asks for ' In this day and age' but anyway, no matter how historic, still no excuse for war, under any cirumstances, no matter how well researched or presented to us in our humble flower smelling opinion.
War, what is it good for...?
(Cue Edwin)-
Putting an end to the German concentration camps in World War II?
-
So you think, for instance, that if a larger and better armed country is violently wiping out the civilian population of a smaller, defenseless nation, killing off the adults and taking teenagers and children as slaves, it would be immoral for another country to intervene by force?
-
While putting an end to Germany's genocidal activities during WWII would have been a legitimate causa belli under international law, it was not the causa belli. Most of the nations that were part of the Allied forces had either been attacked by an Axis power or had an ally that had been attacked by an Axis power.
Bill Clinton tried several times over the years to get the U.S. to militarily intervene in the Yugoslav Wars, but he was unable to get the political capital within the United States or from NATO allies for the longest time, because while genocide is forbidden under international law, the international community was unwilling to do anything about it for years, until the Kosovo campaign in 1999.
-
-
Our opinion is there is no excuse for war. Period.
We've visited the killing fields in Cambodia, Nam, live in the Middle East, travelled across Africa, lost relatives in WWI & II and on it goes.
Stopped watching CNN and reading front pages news way back.
We respect all your historic facts, examples and well educated rationale and will bodly withdraw into our flower bed now.
Our opinion stands, there is no excuse for war.
Group hug anyone? -
How about a question instead? What do you think IS the proper moral response for those standing by and watching others raped and murdered and their homelands destroyed? You've said what we can't do, but what do you think we SHOULD do?
-
If we could answer that we would be running a country.
Us flowers cannot answer that excellent question MadameX.
Hands up,
You've got us now..
NO, Don't shoot.
Love not War.
Dialogue not monogloue.
Sympathy and Empathy.
Recognise we are spiritual beings living a human existence, not the other way around.
BANG!
Dead Flowers :0(
-
-
I want what you have.
Been like that since man could walk. -
I think that the only way I can answer the question is in the abstract, rather than by example as most others here have done. I think that war can only be justified if the initiator understands and fully appreciates what a bad and harmful thing war is, and is able to conclude after vigorous and intellectual introspection that the war to be fought may prevent or stop an evil of even greater magnitude. And yeah, that is fuzzy and vague but I think it's the closest I can come to answering this question today.-
Fuzzy is fine in this context.
I don't know anyone on BC who wants war or thinks war is a universally good thing. But sometimes it can't be avoided.
I think one of the things that would help with your answer and I think should be a standard part of any movement leading towards war is an open and "official" statement of goals and an exit strategy thats in place BEFORE anything happens. This plan must be be shared and discussed with all interested parties; meaning I suppose, the neighboring nations or other countries in the region.
Despite US policy to the contrary, by invading Iraq we MADE what happens there Iran's business. Any country that thinks it can destabilize a nation and play with regime change without the neighboring countries getting involved at some level has to be stoned out of their gourds. -
(suppressing the urge to point out that even stoned out of my gourd I make more sense than the Iraq war boosters)
-
-
I only caught the end of this interview and need to go back, but check out interfaithradio.org/node/222 , which includes a talk with the author of a book that rethinks just war theory in today's context. -
Defense, Immoral treatment (liberation, more than war, applies here)-
selfdefense only..although I must say that if there were no wars there will be too many people on this planet too obtain normal life..but what G.Bush jr. is doing is just too much:)
and I'm from Croatia btw.. -
slowshow, do you consider population pressure to be a major factor in most countries' decision to go to war?
-
-
The techniques of pacifism is a good way to prevent a war.
However, given that war is a reality that occurs, and the question becomes, what is the moral response to war?
If your own nation is engaged in a morally indefensible war, pacifism might be the moral response.
If a morally indefensible war is being waged upon you or your neighbors, pacifism might not be morally defensible-- there might be non-military options that one should try first, but to not fight when fighting becomes necessary then pacifism is no virtue.
Sometimes parties can put aside their weapons and work out a peace-- but really, what do you do when the war comes to you?-
when war come, there is no time to engage in pacifist activities..so you start a war..sad but true
-
I can't begin to imagine what it would feel like to be living in a country that is suffering a war on their own turf which they have no choice but to in whatever way resist or fight one day at a time as they Can. What frightens me about all of this is that most of us Americans seem to perceive very little about the realities of life in other parts of the world and thus are easily led to conclusions we would see are patently false if we actually knew something about the place and people we are told lies about.
at the risk of shameless self promotion go read my discussion of book called Kingdom of Ten Thousand Things
blog.libdrone.org/2007/06/kingdom-of-ten-thousand-things.html
and pay particular attention to the information about everyday life in Afghanastan just before 9/11 and the much repeated vow to "bomb them back into the stone age". We Americans fail to perceive the reality of life in other parts of the world at our grave peril. -
What finally clued me in to how Israelis have to live, with this constant anxiety that someone is going to blow up the bus they are on, or the café where they are meeting their friends, was when I thought about the time an "Pro-Life" terrorist mudered the staff and patrons of a clinic where my then-girlfriend would have her examinations, or I would go to pick up her birth control. Had either of us gone in on the wrong business day, we could have been killed.
When I consider that, it is simply amazing how well the Israelis have been able to maintain their democratic institutions and troop discipline. -
casey,
I don't worry for a moment that the people who come to a forum like this and speak directly with you or me would ever take the widely known image of the 'ignorant American' as representative of all of us. But even among people online, exchanges such as this one between Americans who are not clueless and people from other countries who already see beyond the stereotypes are quite rare, imho.
-
-
this is really well said considering that you are from USA..but it's not your fault that you don't know much about other parts of the world it is because of the education system and goverment politics..'cos I would not decide on my own to check on the net or in the boooks somethinng about countries in Africa for example but I learned it it high school..correct me if I'm wrong it is not my intention to offend anyone..
-
slowshow,
I don't completely disagree that the educational system and recent US administrations bear substantial responsibility for our overall level of ignorance of other parts of the world here in the US, but I am also arguing that we each of us must take responsibility for educating ourselves about our global neighbors.
To apply an argument that JD made in a slightly different vain, we can Not wait for our teachers and leaders to help us understand the reality our global neighbors live in. We must take this initiative each one of us ourselves. And the means of doing so is right there in front of you now-- the computer on which you read these words. -
I agree with that completely...
-
I'd be willing to wager there are idiots in Croatia, too. The problem in the US is that our idiots become celebrities (and politicians) and define the image of Americans on the world stage. I assure you, we're not all as stupid as you might think.
-
Slowshow: I'm not a product of US public schools and I was lucky enough to have many smart and well traveled teachers. I have however, read books that audit the US history and social/cultural studies textbooks used in the US schools. While the are getting better in some parts of the country, they are uniformly geared towards the kind of propaganda to build up the righteous supremacy of the USA in ways that we would have called outrageous when used by the USSR.
If you want a good high level survey of this topic I highly recommend "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen.
-
-
i forgot who said this line: "if you want peace, prepare for war." -
hey, I'm back and I'm not a spammer. sorry bout the adverts won't happen again. just wanna a share a book about human similarities with chimpz. I think if one can look into themselves and never try to take advantage or interfere with other's business, there'll be peace. Even a subtle sales pitch or manipulation can hurt, not to mention political invasions.
However, to survive, human needs to exploit anything he could get his hands on, including other humans, this in turn has provoked the exploited/oppressed to become aggressive or to make allies with others, thus war. We compete for food and reproduction (best genes).
In a civilized world, we are governed by law, we have been educated, we have evolved to fear punishment (just like tamed animal), and some even have developed morals, conscience, or whatever you want to call it. Despite laws, people still try to evade by reasoning to justify their acts. Thus, back to survival, those who are influential, smarter, and more seductive can move others just like political or religious leaders, others follow.
Animals fight with strength and instinct, human with conscious brains. The theory about human biological drive for survival maybe wrong, it's just another belief. This just happens to be what I think or choose to believe.-
interesting, the biological take on the political. honestly I can't begin to respond to this. but it makes me think
-
Who was it that did the entire series on Man from a zoological perspective... Edmund Burke is the name coming to mind. Fascinating stuff, and I would tend to think that to atleast some extent conflict and war do stem from biological imperitives. That is NOT to be taken that we can not intellectually overcome those impulses, at least to some degree.
-
Dane: Are you thinking of the Pier Anthony fictionalized anthropology series?
Geodyssey
1. Isle of Woman (1993)
2. Shame of Man (1994)
3. Hope of Earth (1997)
4. Muse of Art (1999)
5. Climate of Change (unfinished) -
Thanks, JD. Adding the Piers Anthony titles to me LONGGGG list of books I need to read when I get a roundtoit. (Every store I've tried has been out of roundtoits for ages so who knows when I will get to Geodyssey...)
-
There is a biological impulse towards anger, fear, aggression, defensiveness, and violence, but I do not think there is one towards war.
The emotions involved in "you took my piece of meat" /"I want that piece of meat you have" /"stay away from my intended mate"/"I want your mate"/"stay away from my children"/"I will avenge what was done to you" are visceral and tied in with the way we function as organisms.
However, to wage an actual war that can be sustained for days, weeks, months or years, requires elaborate structures of authority, some system by which food, equipment, weapons, clothing, and personel are assigned and allocated, means of maintaining discipline, some form of an economy, technology, a communication system, propaganda, et cetera.
War is a phenomenon of the technological managment of certain human emotions, however, war is not innate to us as a species in the same way aggression is. -
No. I do love to read Anthony, but that's not what I was thinking of.
It's actually Desmond Morris.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris
He wrote The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo (among a lot of other stuff unrelated and a little stuff somewhat related) which are books examining man from the perspective of zoology. -
Ian, you haven't eliminated war as an expression of those things, only demonstrated that it requires the additional attributes we gain from our biological imperatives toward co-operative groups to manifest fully.
In the same way that our biological imperative for groups and hierarchy didn't come fully formed with 28 month election cycles, sound bytes and hanging chads. Nonetheless the presidential elections that are oh so close upon us, are so driven.
No, "war" as a modern concept may not *be* a biological imperative, but it is an expression of one. Just as having a "president" isn't a biological imperative, but is an expression of one. -
Dane, OK
I read The Naked Ape years ago. Have you read Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee? It a got a similar take on humans in which he looks at precursors to what we consider uniquely human traits in other animals. -
Haven't read that one no. I'll have to look into it though.
I know this line of inquiry has a lot of detractors, but it's extremely interesting, and to me seems compelling. -
hey techfun, DaneMorgan
I haven't read The Naked Ape nor The Third Chimpanzees. I'd be sure to read them. What I read was Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence by Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham. -
Dane,
by that criteria, all human activity is an expression of biological functions-- which means nothing.
There are many many activities that have nothing to do with war that are tie in with biological imperitives towards aggression-- sarcastic jokes, baseball, even checkers.
War is a product of our technologies and social organization-- it just happens to harness some of our biological impulses. -
"War is a product of our technologies and social organization-- it just happens to harness some of our biological impulses."
The "scope" of war may be a product of our technology, but war itself is simply an extension of our biological imperatives. The difference is one of scale, not one of type.
Personally I don't have a problem with the idea that "all human activity is an expression of biological functions" except that perhaps it does not allow for the actions of those who's biology is in someway interrupted.
-
-
So that we'd have heroes.
-
I'm guessing by the emoticon that you meant that to be funny but it reminds me of another point that I find disturbing about the war in Iraq as covered by the news media.
If you look at the coverage of troops coming home after World War II there were parades and parties in the streets. The war DID create heroes, huge huge huge numbers of heroes, even if only considered that by their family and friends.
This time around, we get heroes that are picked and promoted by the news media. Jessica Lynch jumps to mind, but there have been others. Those troops doing a next to impossible job in a horrible situation are all heroic to me, but with such low support for the war here at home I don't think we will be seeing many parades, at least not in big cities. -
fwiw, here in Pierce County WA home to the Army's Fort Lewis and the Airforce's McChord AFB, we do see local newspaper and television coverage of returning troops usually shown reuniting with family in a large on base celebration/ceremonial atomsophere. but I can't say that I've ever been stuck in traffic because they decided to throw a parade.
-
Yea, I should have excluded areas around military bases. My favorite fag hag recently moved to Colorado to be near her daughter while her son-in-law is in Iraq. They are right near Fort Collins in Colorado so you see a lot of that stuff there.
-
-
When someone reaches across my plate to grab something while eating...-
Oh, heck yeah.
-
-
Valid reason for war? Very interestingly, do a comparison with the attack on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. While nothing has been heard about the initial, we hear more outcries against the invasion of Iraq.
The reason is not being the war, but what most people are against (be it they realised it or not) how the focus of the war was conveniently shifted from The Hunt for Osama to The Hunt for Saddam. That is evidently proven with the lack of WMD and direct funding of terrorists in any way.
This itself tells us, under what circumstances demand actions of war from us. -
Actually, there is none just reason for war. So, this discussion is over
-
Deep thinker, huh?
-
-
I totally agree with your views on the Irack war. I am French and feel very strongly, like most of my compatriotes, about the action taken by the you know who's administration. It was a suicide to go in without a clear understanding of the consequences.
If you ask me there is no reasons reasons to start open wars at all. Now the past history told us that there are some people that had to taken out of power. The like of Adolphe Hitler.
Me I would like to know why they went to after Sadam Hussein because of his dictatorship and not after the regime in North Korea, Mayamar, Soudan, or in the past Staline, Polpot, Bocassa, or in Rwanda.
I think that if there are no money to make the war ends nobody is interested.-
> I would like to know why they went to after Sadam Hussein
> because of his dictatorship and not after [...]
Yann0chef-
Pol Pot was a Chinese ally, and at the time the USA was allied with the People's Republic of China against both the Soviets and the Vietamese (who were enemies with Pol Pot.)
Actually the US (and the UN, for that matter) went after North Korea in something called "The Korean War" but Korea had Chinese and Soviet backing and the war was fought to a stand still.
Rwanda? Why didn't France do anything? France has much more influence there than the U.S. does. Nonetheless, Bill Clinton has apologized for his innaction there.
Stalin? There was a conflict we, in the English speaking world call "The Cold War" (I recall that the French were allied with the USA and NATO in this conflict) that lasted several decades (it included the Vietnam and Korean Wars. Did you really want a Third World War? With nuclear weapons?
...et cetera.
Ultimately the reason Bush went into Iraq and was not satisified just to bring in arms inspectors was... oil and showing up his father.
-
-
During the Second Lebanon War (July-August 2006), my unit was drafted about 3 weeks after the fights began. It seems like many of us previously supporting the go-get-'em policy, transformed into make-love-no-war people, as soon as we traded our air-conditioned living rooms for the dusty battlefields, and the missiles started to hit really close. -
War, in the general, is needed for evolution of the species. We develop in response to the world around us - in the fight against nature look at how far we've 'grown' (depending on your green quotient).
Microwaves, genetics, airplanes, modern transportation, I think all those plus many other advancements in our society has come from war. Heck, even Silly Putty came from war dollars.
I do think it is inherent in our nature, it spurs us forward, gives people something to work on. Warring against neighbors, against each other, against animals, the sky. Where would we be without it?
Also, we don't know peace. War is a physical reality, it is a history. There are symbols of war that live in the physical world - identifiers such as guns, tanks, soldiers, even just a camo helmet. These are tangible elements. Peace is an intangible, and abstract, we have the dove of peace, the olive branch, none of these are really connected with a historically documented point in time, none are things children can go to a museum and hold in their hand as a reality. It's hard to strive for something we can't understand.
I think that's why we need a new lexicon to bridge the gap between war and peace, just in our minds and our reality and the way we view the world. We need communion with each other, conversation, cooperation. These are tangible, these we can see on television and read about.
Don't get me wrong with the above, I'm against war and the suffering it causes, I just recognize that it advanced humanity to the point it is at now (although, I think, we've gone a bit too far).-
Very well put Victoria. I think we have a tendency to say "Never Again" after every major war and that puts us into a state of denial where we never confront the underlying framework that tilts us towards war in rough situations.
-
-
Weapons of mass destruction?????? see what Mr bush is saying...
hotfunspace.com/weapon-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/#comment-161
have a fun ;-)-
If possession of weapons of mass destruction were a valid cause then the rest of the world should be issuing the security council resolutions against the US. We have the most.
Nice comic tho. Bill Hicks did a whole routine about that way back before he died based on the "we saved the receipts" idea.
-
-
I have to jump in there with the Flower Smellers. I think in all things diplomacy should rule - avoidance first.
If we realize that life really is fleeting and that we are spiritual beings the premise of war becomes absurd. -
Someone humping your wife, someone killing your children, my wife(no explanation, she could start a war anywhere), oh ... and most wars are started by penis envy.
Jack -
I once killed a man for stepping on my Puma's -
War should only be fought for defensive purposes, not offensive.-
So you don't see a third nation, who has not been attacked directly, intervening when a stronger nation attacks a weaker one as valid reason for war? Or do you consider that after the initial attack, other nations coming to the aid of the attacked nation to be acceptable?
-
That third nation would be defending a nation, thus falling under fighting for defensive purposes. At least that was the way I understood Appleman's comment.
Only problem with the third nation is the censorship, and/or propaganda that happens in all countries.
Techfun I'll use your last comment on "So you don't see a third nation, who has not been attacked directly, intervening when a stronger nation attacks a weaker one as valid reason for war?"
Well what if the weaker country was the one that actually started the fight, and the larger nation was defending itself. However all information about the smaller nation attacking the larger nation initially gets censored. Wouldn't this make the larger nation 'look' like it was invading the weaker one?
History is written by the victor. -
I was taking him at face value when he said for defensive purposes. If a weaker country attacked a stronger country then the country that was attacked would be justified in responding. in that situation it would be less likely that a third country would need get involved, but if that did, I think its fine if they are on the side of the country defending itself.
My question was based on a country NEEDING help to defend itself. -
History is written by the historians. The victors will have their spin on it. The losers will have their spin on it. It has been argued that because the ultimate aim of the American Civil War was reconciliation, the war as it appears in the popular imagination was rendered in a conciliatory manner than downplayed the role of slavery, and white supremacy-- essentially presenting the two warring sides as almost equal.
-
Well helping another country against the attacker is, in a way, defensive. I understand what you are saying, though, techfun.
-
-
Bad Placement
-
Oh I hate this war who are the US to Police the world anyways? we are wasting lives and tax payers dollars ever there. Charity starts at home fix the shit that's happenin in OUR own country -
News paper business! Think about news giants like BBC, CNN, CNBC you name it. They will have to think of another alternative
-
Just so Bush and Shot Gun Cheney could use the phrase
"SHOCK and AWE"
Big bucks are being made, if your buddy builds tanks and there is not enough war, what do you need then? You need a war.
Halburtan got the contracts and so did the Bin Laden Family
when other construction companies complained that they couldn't bid, they were told it was reason of national security. Then how did Halburtan get clearance.
Because of Dicky, he's in violation of his seat, he is not supposed to be working with them while in office.
People who know what is going on just has to look deeper into the "C" group and where all of this war crap came from.-
Yes, war is very profitable for the Carlyle Group and other parts of the military industrial complex, but that wasn't the question. The question was about a VALID reason for war. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying you consider the economic benefit of corporations to be a valid reason for war?
-
-
It's their valid reason for war
-
Fair enough, now what do YOU consider a valid reason for war?
-
-
There is no valid reason for war, because a war drags others into who may have nothing to do with it. I would protect my family, I would kill for them and I would do it alone. I, myself may be at war, but war on the grand scale most of the time BS.
Bush had a problem with Saddam, throw their asses in a ring and yet them settle it, but because we have punks with contacts and no war experience themselves running things we are in an invasion/takeover not a war.
9-11 would be a perfect example to start a war, I lost family. But, you can't go to a war on something like that till you know who did it.
So, if someone hurts my family, it's war time. But, I will not call my friends or other family members to fight my war. -
Another reason:
Governments are bored. Daily problems(like health, finance, pensions,etc) are always being pointed to the government. Hence, to get rid of these boring problems they indulge in war(where they become famous if they have a valid reason) :o -
The reason is that the Global Economy depends on Distribution of Goods, Distribution of Goods is solely dependent on Energy to transport these Goods, and our current energy is made through Oil. The Middle East has 2 times the Oil Reserves of the rest of the World Combined- see my article on this on my Blog. What is your answer?? Thanks Brian Morgan-
The question wasn't why is there war. The question was what is a valid reason for going for war. Or are you saying going to war for oil is legit. Also, if you're going to dig up a real old thread, it might be fair to expect you to engage some of the arguments above.
-
-
Peace.. Well that's the excuse used most times? -
How about P.J. O'Rourke's admonishment: Give war a chance? -
There are many valid reasons for war. It's natural-
That's a scary answer in my opinion, not least because many excuse war in this way. A little more precision would be desirable, as, for example, Dane offered last fall up above.
-
Scary absolutely - and there are different perspectives to look from - anthropological, sociological, historical would all argue that war is inseparable from nature.
The question isn’t can we remove ourselves from the nature of war but Is there a good reason for war?
Do we think of lions killing water buffalo as an evil? I would always choose my family over yours if I had too and I would easily kill to protect my family and our resources if our lives depended on those resources. My point is that many times we can’t paint something black or white – it is nature.
Sometimes the suffering in peace is much greater that the suffering in war. War can be a means towards peace. -
But to call it "nature" is to reject notions of culture and free will, the kinds of things that are supposed to set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think Techfun's question is important. Forget whether or not wars just happen. Ask when they are justifiable.
-
Sometimes the suffering in peace is much greater that the suffering in war. War can be a means towards peace.
I can elaborate that but it will probably have to wait untill tommorow.
I can't resist
Humanity will never be separated from nature there is always going to be conflict. I think with exploding populations and dwindling resources we have a challenging future – that’s another topic.
Anyways nature is relevant because human nature will always lend us tyranny and strife. Sometimes force is needed to keep the balance. -
Our view on what is "natural" is a moving target. It's not been that many generations since many Americans viewed owning PEOPLE as chattel as natural. It's been less than that since it was "natural" to only allow men to vote or that children born with Type 1 diabetes died very young.
Our culture, ethics, and our understanding of the world (and its inhabitants) and our effect on it lead to us conquering "natural" behaviors. Natural as war may be in a historical context, nature is not inevitable. -
Tech - beware of utopian endeavors. Those often require a doctrine of 'think like us'. Not only is it impossible it is the credo of tyrannies.
-
-
The only one I can think of is for dyslexics...it would be RAW and I think a raw food diet is great for some people in some clients, apert from that the only two that I can think of is the Kurushektra battle and the one in Ramayana. Personally, if I had to say when a war is necssary is if a country is invaded, then the people need to to take up arms and protect themselves.-
Did the US have a valid reason to go to war against Germany and invade Europe when we weren’t under threat of being invaded?
I for one think friendships count for a reason. -
Now you're getting less vague. Oh, and for the record, Hitler declared war against the U.S. first, not the other way around. Or are you thinking about the First World War? There our ships were sunk.
-
Kevin:
I'm not going to enter this, it's too complex and will restate my Indian references, Kurushektra and Ramayana. The other issues , I am out of my depth. -
It is indeed complex. I study war and society, in particular the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) and the First World War (1914-18), but just war theory, which is partly what this is all about, is another matter altogether. As a musician though, perhaps you know some of Eric Bogle's songs about the First World War? They're as eloquent as anything I know on the subject, even if we can't use them to make policy with.
-
I have to look up
Kurushektra and Ramayana -
They are the Hindu epics (no i'm not a Hindu) and they were wars to restore Dharma ( the Path of right action) in the world. The Kurushektra battle is representative of the light and dark sides of ourselves within our heart. The Ramayana is the story of King Rama being exiled and the battle that followed. May not be of interest to you, but I always found that stuff fascinating.
-
Yea - I just looked it up on xepedia. I would probably enjoy reading it.
-
I thought it was Japan that first declared war with us and as a result we declared war on all the axis powers. With exception for the Tripartite Pact which would have made any declaration of war mutual between axis powers – are you sure Germany issued an official declaration before the US? At any rate Germany was stretched too thin to really threaten America with invasion. Though they could menace our harbors and possibly find more terroristic ways to anguish us. We really needed a reason to enter the war anyways. I think the administration wanted it, we owed it to our friends the Brits and the French. We just needed the stupidity of a Japanese assault to convince the public.
-
-
Mark,
The resurrection of this old thread with posts that ignore the substantive arguments that have come before seems like a good example for your argument elsewhere that threads should be closed after a time. When it shot back to the top I found myself re-reading the substantive debate from October and was really annoyed when I got to the bottom to find that little if any substance had been added. I still don't agree with you about closing old threads, but the resurrection of this one is definitely an instance that supports your argument rather than mine on That question.-
Well then don't bother reading my comment...I certainly didn't have anything enlightening to say.
I didn't realize that I'm only supposed to comment when I have "substance" to add. I thought they were discussions that were open to anyone for comment. -
Alan's point is that the thread today is not addressing the previous issues raised, as if the commenters have not taken the trouble to read earlier posts here. That is a shame.
-
Alan, I'm sure Claire would have loved to lock her birthday thread today. It was from the fall, and Kevin Palmer was teasing her. Others, though, just added their birthday wishes without checking the content.
-
-
I'm certainly no expert on war, but the only absolute (meaning 100% of the time) valid reason for war that I can think of would be in the case of invasion. I'm sure there are other valid reasons, but those might be conditional upon the unique circumstances.
-
We usually get over it. I mean who is still troubled by the American Civil War. excluding the clan.
-
Wrong spot.
-
What – it’s a valid point. I’m saying the only intelligent way to look at this topic is with distance.
-
I'm still bothered by the Civil War, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, given that it was arguably the first decisive announcement on the part of the United States government that the formerly sovereign states which had voluntarily joined the union were not free to terminate that association without fear of military attack.
-
Very interesting perspective.
-
-
It's worth noting the civil war created alot of anti war protest in NY and Chicago - causing riots. When is war just?
-
Most of the NYC rioting was over the draft (and the fact that it was so easy to buy your way out of it if you had the cash). They were less about the validity of the war then about the processes used to keep the front lines filled.
-
Rioting yes - but anti war movements were as much about southern sympathy, not believing it worth, or justified.
But the largest opposition in the north were southern sympathizers such as the copperheads.
Frankly a large group of Northerners didn’t see slavery as there problem nor did they see the as south having enough economic assets to matter – let them be separate. -
Predisposition cannot be argued it is as intelligent as religion.
-
-
I'm jumping in without having followed the threads: Apology Now.
good reason for going to war? Someone takes the last piece of pizza left in the box withobut asking. Especially if it is still warm and involves garlic mashed potato pizza with sundried tomatoes and feta and basil and fresh tomatoes and sauce. -
from AppleMan -
War should only be fought for defensive purposes, not offensive.
hmmm. using the logic above from Appleman, we should wait until we're attacked by terrorists, then react? today's warfare is different than what many americans grew up with. with our geographic location, we are not going to be invaded by land from any of our enemies. a nuke attack is out of the question from another country (aka north korea) because kim knows it would be the last thing he did on this earth. several decades ago, the threat was germany and japan (pearl harbor attack). a couple of decades ago, the threat was soviet missles hitting this country. today, the threat is islamic terrorists (9/11). given that we often don't know who we're dealing with when it comes to the terrorists as opposed to a central government, i'd say the terrorist threat is worst than that of another country. barack obama, who appears to be the darling of the democratic party, said a while back that if he knew bin laden was hiding out in pakistan, he'd be okay with going into pakistan and getting him. to my democratic friends on board here, are you okay with going into pakistan and removing bin laden if we can pinpoint where he is, even though the pakistani government says no to u.s. troops setting foot there? i'm just curious because i have feeling there would be screams of impeach bush when/if he makes such a statement. on another note...should bush 41 had gone to baghdad and removed saddam a decade earlier? the u.n. didn't call for that response and we obliged. then again, the u.n. offered countless resolutions to saddam to open up his country to the inspectors that he thumbed his nose at.-
If anyone is able to find BinLaden and bring him to justice I will be the first to praise them. Imho it is very disingenuous to suggest that those of us who have been highly critical of our misadventure in Iraq since before Junior launched it are somehow arguing in favor of terrorism or against enforcing laws (hi-jacking, murder, etc) that clearly have been broken. And I have yet to see any real case that the Iraq debacle Has anything whatever to do with the atrocities that occurred on 9/11.
(and regarding your final point, I screamed for Bush to impeached from the moment he was installed rather than elected and only stopped when I realized absolutely no one was listening.) -
hmmm. using the logic above from Appleman, we should wait until we're attacked by terrorists, then react?
Well, actually Davet, that is correct, According to the UN charter there are only two allowable reasons for the use of force, "preemptive" attacks sans real, immediate, provable and tangible danger are not included. (Just thinking they might be a problem doesn't cut the mustard).
Attacking on the offense is rather frowned upon by the global community at large, unless it is accepted and agreed upon by the UN as the best and only means left at preserving global peace. -
"using the logic above from Appleman, we should wait until we're attacked by terrorists, then react?"
It's interesting that this is presented in such a way as to indicate that it is clearly ridiculous, and yet it is precisely reflective of our well-settled domestic law. If you think someone presents a threat, you're not allowed to hunt him down and kill him with impunity from criminal prosecution; violence is only considered excusable to the extent that it is in proportionate response to a direct and immediate threat.
-
-
libdrone,
no one here (at least not me) is saying that those who don't agree with the administration's war policy are unpatriotic, against fighting terror, etc. we can argue until cows fly on whether or not saddam had weapons. could they have been there and moved to syria or iran? could they have been destroyed? since we all jump around different threads on here, i apologize to those who've heard this before... but my opinion is:
*we should have finished afghanistan before we went into iraq
*we removed a tyrant and his two sons who brought nothing but terror and death to the country's citizens
* if clinton had taken out bin laden when he had the chance in '98, we possibly may have avoided 9/11
* the argument by some on the far left that bush and the u.s. government created 9/11 as an excuse to go into the middle east two years later is outrageous
* i think it is safe to say that while publically many countries say they despise our removing saddam, privately they thank us for doing it. yes, having saddam in power was a counter to iran. that being said, i doubt iran is going to invade one of its neighbors knowing u.s. troops are on both sides of it.
*finally, when will democrats get over the 'bush stole the election' drum beat? when gore can't carry his own state of tennessee, that should tell us something right there.
i'm a republican, yet i find a number of faults with bush and have said so in the past. that being said, the man doesn't stick his finger in the air to see which way the polls are blowing this week unlike the john kerry's of the world. i obviously share differing views with most on here who have nothing good to say about bush, but that is why we live in a free country. many people around the world would love to have the conversation we are having on here without fear of being persecuted. it is one of the many things that makes being in this country so great.-
* if clinton had taken out bin laden when he had the chance in '98, we possibly may have avoided 9/11
Why does Bush senior get a pass? Or any other president, for that matter? How about the CIA? We've known, and worked with Bin Laden, his family, and his terrorist group since it's inception. We funded it! We trained them!
Really, if our government had wanted to stop them, they could have done so at any point - so too, could have Bush Jr, when he was handed the information, and immediately ignored it.
I'm not giving Clinton a pass on this, but I'm sure as heck not going to blame him any more or less than anyone else who played a part.
* i think it is safe to say that while publically many countries say they despise our removing saddam, privately they thank us for doing it. yes, having saddam in power was a counter to iran.
Hussein really wasn't a threat to anyone at this point (at the time of the invasion) I think other countries are more concerned about the harm it did, than quietly thanking the US. (And when I say harm, I am speaking of increased terrorist attacks around the world, badly broken foreign relations around the world, and so forth).
i obviously share differing views with most on here who have nothing good to say about bush, but that is why we live in a free country. many people around the world would love to have the conversation we are having on here without fear of being persecuted. it is one of the many things that makes being in this country so great.
It is unfortunate that we are very quickly losing these rights, however. -
Anok - the history channel did a thing on that and that’s who you need to blame.
Clinton tried to take him out once and destroyed a pharmaceutical company that the CIA thought was a chemical manufacturing plant. The situation caused a lot of bad attention for Clinton. Later a CIA operative had confirmation of Bin Laden and Clinton was asked to authorize another strike and refused because the prior embarrassment. That’s why this comes up.
Happy B-day btw? -
Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat? I think the Kurds, as well as the many Iraqis who suffered torture and death at his hand may disagree with you. That man was a tyrant...a madman...among the most evil, vicious, and dangerous dictators in history. He's dead because of the atrocities he committed. I don't know how anyone could defend such a man.
-
Kevin, that instance you are talking about - may need clarifying. Because when he bombed that facility, that was against Hussein, not Bin Laden. That was during the four day bombing episode in Iraq, after peace talks with Annan (and Hussein) went sour.
Unless you are talking about another bombing mishap?
Kristin, no Hussein did not present the kind of international threat that the UN requires to declare war and use force against another country. Hussein was rather easy to take down, actually because both his health and his power had faded considerably.
Don't forget Kristin, we sold him the drugs and chemicals that he used against his own people. We prevented sanctions against him in the UN when he was using biological weapons in the 80's. (and before and after) But by 2002? Hussein was nothing. -
Hi Kristi
As stated before I don't particularly like these conversations but I think it's worth pointing out that the Ameericans were pro Saddam for many years in the war against the Iranians. And sure, just look what he did to his soccer team...pretty crazy stuff. But when you say " I don't know who would dfend such a man', the tragedy is that America did while all the atrocities were happening. I'm sorry to point it out, but that's the truth of the matter. -
Actually my facts are dead on
And history channel did a documentary on Osama Bin Laden that you can buy and see that it depicted just as I said it did.
On April August 20, 1998 the CIA reported that Bin Ladin was in Sudan visiting a chemical/bio weapon plant – that turned out to be a legitimate aspirin factory and bin laden was never there. At any rate Clinton approved the tomahawk cruise missile attack on the factory because he believe Bin laden was there.
Bill Clinton had at least one other chance to assassinate Bin Laden but backed out because he was embarrassed over the last disaster. – so reported the history channel in there documentary.
The Sudanese attack is well know but you can read this 1998 article that testifies to a much earlier war against Osama and the Sudanese assassination blunder www.apfn.org/thewinds/1998/08/clinton_osama.html -
i don't think we can really trust much information we hear or read, and that's what makes this all so hard.
For me here is a major issue and it comes from the CIA mission statement. And I am not knocking the CIA, their role, intentions or integrity. "Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives. "
"Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests."
Woh, hang on.
The parts that I'm pointing to is the "achieve US policy objectives" and "charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests."
These statements are minefields, and here's why and where it can go skewiff.
Whoever is writing the policy will always need to have integrity, and that cannot always be guaranteed and there are instances where integrity has been bottom of the list. But regardless of that it is the role of American Intelligence agencies, known, unknown and others to carry out whatever comes from whoever writes the policy. So my problem is, how can you guarantee who is writing the policy has humanities best interest at heart, and what if big business that have no integrity influences the policies. And the dilemma, there needs to be transparency, but transparency means that private information is made public, and if private information is made public, it could be a security risk.
And the information of what is really going on never gets out. So in my thoughts I always come back to the same point, who is really running the USA or the EEC or any other country for that matter and what are their agendas.
So wars happen, endless tragedy that impacts for many generations because of policies that are written that have underlying hidden agendas. And how to discriminate which wars are genuine and which ones are based in greed and control, I have no idea. One year a country is on one side and at some other point they could be the enemy.
A script gets written and fed through the media and then everyone believes what they are told. I don't believe that the general public is being told the truth on all occassions, and history is being rewritten the way people want it to look.
So is there a reason for war, yes, and that war is within ourselves and the war is when the good part ourselves goes to war against the part of us that has no integrity. -
Kevin - sorry I had confused the bombing of Baghdad, which was supposedly to hit Iraqi intelligence, but really hit a suburban area - with the bombings you are talking about.
Hey, honest mistake - I mean, after a while these mistakes certainly sound the same
That said, it was in retaliation for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and was rumored to have been at the hands of Bin Laden, or his allies, and was supposedly bombing areas that housed his supporters - and was only rumored that Bin Laden himself was there.
That said - I will again state that I don't give Clinton a free pass, however our CIA had contact with Bin Laden for years before he turned terrorist, and we could have stopped him at any given point in time way before Clinton came into the picture.
In fact, if I may argue this point, Clinton did try (I disagree with his methods, however) - Bush still did nothing upon getting the reports during the first few months of his presidency. I mean, if we were hot on his trail when Clinton was in office, why didn't Bush follow through? He certainly could have. Why does Bush Sr get a pass? His policies and attempts at meddling in the Middle East, use of force and need for a new world order was ultimately what lead to our demise. There is a reason they tried to assassinate him....
No one gets a pass as far as I'm concerned....the US messed up big time, form the word go, and we paid for it.
-
-
anok,
all administrations have made mistakes in their dealings on the foreign scene. reagan's iran contra scandal was a major stain on an otherwise pretty good presidency. jimmy carter's lack of support for the shah led us to the revolution in iran and we all know what that produced. my point with clinton is that he and others in his party shouldn't be coming down on bush 43 for bin laden still being in the picture when he had an opportunity to remove this cancer. if clinton was gun shy about taking out bin laden because innocent civilians might be killed, it then means that we will never stay ahead in the war on terror. why do you think many of the terrorists in iraq, afghanistan and other parts of the world move themselves into heavily populated areas? not only for cover, but they figure we will not strike them there for fear of killing civilians. they are basically taking an area hostage. as for us being in bed so to speak with bin laden for years.... we also were one time at war with germany and japan (today they are 2 of our strongest allies). who knows, maybe some day we'll be at war with one or both of them again. it is easy for critics to say we cozied up to this person or that country for a while when it served our purpose, then we turned on them or vice-versa. it happens all over the world, not just with the u.s. some good news coming out of pakistan is that groups with militant support did not do well in the recent elections. maybe people are finally waking up and seeing that these terrorists offer them no hope.-
Dave, the terrorists hide in civilian areas regardless of the US, Clinton, or anyone else being gun shy....I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make with that? Bush Jr has been after been Bin Laden for 6 years now, still haven't got him! Now matter how aggressive we are! The fact of the matter is this, it isn't that we simply cozied up to Bin Laden, we funded him, we trained him, and his people.
Thats not cozying up, thats a bit closer than that....the fact is, after we created a couple of serious monsters (politically and literally) we turned around and decided to [insert curse word here] with them, and take control, create puppet governments, and the whole of it bite us in the tuckass. That really is our fault.
But to use your logic for just a second here, (or the logic that has been used time and time again to defend Bush and punish Clinton) if Bush didn't and still doesn't have enough information on Bin Laden and his gang, not enough to catch him, stop him now, before 9/11 right after....then why is it that everyone expects Clinton to have been able to do it?
If there isn't enough information now does anyone actually think that there was more information when Clinton was in office?
And if Clinton did have the information, why didn't Bush have enough information to use when he had the chance? If Clinton had the ability to stop 9/11 before Bush was in office, but didn't for whatever reason (most likely it wasn't the right time politically speaking) than Bush certainly had enough information to stop him.
It's insane, really. I personally have very little faith or trust in the vast majority of presidents that have served. But constantly blaming one president (Clinton) and not the rest (Bush, Bush, Reagan etc)when it is even logically sound....yeesh....
-
-
Well, actually Davet, that is correct, According to the UN charter there are only two allowable reasons for the use of force, "preemptive" attacks sans real, immediate, provable and tangible danger are not included. (Just thinking they might be a problem doesn't cut the mustard).
Attacking on the offense is rather frowned upon by the global community at large, unless it is accepted and agreed upon by the UN as the best and only means left at preserving global peace.
Anok,
if we waited for the U.N. to sanction everything we do in the world, this country would have been occupied, bombed, terrorized, etc. more times than i care to think. the U.N.'s credibility is far from where it should be here in this country and in other places around the world. should the u.s. be running around the world invading every country it doesn't agree with - absolutely not. should the u.s. be going after terrorists around the world wherever we find them? absolutely. i know it is a cliche, but i'd rather fight these people (and i use the term loosely in some cases) in other parts of the world than in new york city, washington, d.c., los angeles, etc. if the U.N. wants to regain some of the credibility it once had, finding some backbone would be a start.-
if we waited for the U.N. to sanction everything we do in the world, this country would have been occupied, bombed, terrorized, etc. more times than i care to think.
Um, no, Davet. Just...no. That position doesn't even make sense. I'm not trying to be snarky....but there hasn't been a reason to sanction a war, according to the UN - and yet, we have endured exactly one attack, since the UN was created. Furthermore we have proceeded to invade countries that had nothing to do with that attack, or in history had not threatened the US with an invasion, or attack.
i know it is a cliche, but i'd rather fight these people (and i use the term loosely in some cases) in other parts of the world than in new york city, washington, d.c., los angeles, etc.
There is a little something called "home field advantage". Fighting and chasing perceived enemies all over the world is a huge waste of resources, energy, and lives. Our military can't protect us here when they are over there dig?
Right now we don't have the military man power, in the US to protect the US if someone actually did decide to really, actually invade us. Our guys are everywhere else, not finding terrorists, but maintaining "peace missions".
Here's the deal, whats the best way to win a fight? Lure the biggest guy who's most likely to whup your butt away from the area and waste his time, while you pummel his defenseless friend.
That is exactly what is happening now. The terrorist attack, although certainly part of a grudge against the US, is diversionary. Now we are all over the place, trying to find the elusive madman and his jolly jihadists, while we leave our homefront wide open for attack.
I'd rather stay right here, have our troops right here, and smack down anything that comes our way. Of course, that means that our government actually has to use the intelligence and information it collects.....
-
-
Well maybe not War but "Occupation" - we have to "ensure" that the World at large has the energy that it needs. Security for this resource calls for nations to think about and do something to "insure" (?) that some country or group doesn't "hold us hostage" and limit our energy supply - this is what I think about the USA being in the Middle East right now. Thanks Brian
-
Greetings
FREEDOM!
Biobob -
The only one, who needs a valid reason to go to war, is the country who is willing to engage in war.
If that country makes the decision to engage their citizens in a war - Its Valid, at least to them. No matter how terrible we may think their decision was to engage in war. So for us to make lists "we" consider valid is meaningless, since we do not decide.
This takes me to another point in this thread. To say us going into Iraq, Kosovo, Kuwait or any other country was wrong, is not really our call either. We elected every president, senator and congressional representative who has engaged the US in war for over two hundreds years. Did all those folks you voted for know what you’re thoughts were on war? Did they vote on going to war in a way that supported your position, not just on war but what about other issues?
That is why it is critical we read and learn (not just from Fox News or Moveon) about every single one of our elected officials. We can no longer follow along with the crowd when we hear a catch phrase. Democracy is hard, maintaining our freedom is getting harder and we need to get smarter about what is going on in the world.-
Well said, AmmoBob.
Actually, this hit a particular point very well for me:
Did all those folks you voted for know what you’re thoughts were on war? Did they vote on going to war in a way that supported your position, not just on war but what about other issues?
This is why I actually started writing The Codependency of The State, it's about how our government was set up, and why it no longer functions correctly. Its the reason you mentioned above - the fact that the people we elect don't, or can;t actually represent their constituent's wishes.
See? We agree on a lot more stuff than you realized -
AmmoBob, I think Techfun might have been getting at a different issue, and that is just war theory, which has a very long intellectual tradition. Of course, Machiavelli had no use for it.
Your point about a citizenry informing itself is important. To do that, though, maybe said citizenry needs to think about where it stands on this issue. To find that out, it is not unreasonable to turn to recent history.
-
-
Hey, that's mine. Give it back. Mom, he won't give it back...
-
from anok....Right now we don't have the military man power, in the US to protect the US if someone actually did decide to really, actually invade us. Our guys are everywhere else, not finding terrorists, but maintaining "peace missions".
anok,
i wouldn't lose sleep at night worrying about someone invading the u.s. i have a better chance of being on and winning american idol than that happening. on a more serious note...i do worry about terrorists slipping into this country and doing things, hence why i'm in support of tracking them down wherever and whenever we can. has bush made mistakes? absolutely. i've come on other threads and said that repeatedly. but clinton can't get a free pass here because he was mr. smooth. the bottom line is he had a chance to get the guy and didn't take it because he feared the political fallout.
from anok....
The terrorist attack, although certainly part of a grudge against the US, is diversionary.
i respect your views even though we differ, but pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze tell me your above statement abut terrorists having a grudge against us is not part of the "blame america crowd" for all the world's ills?? are we're to blame for 9/11? i just want to make sure i understand you on this important matter. what grudge do they have with us? because we're trying to kill them before they kill us and thousands of other innocent civilians in afghanistan, iraq, africa, etc? we're somehow holding them down from getting real jobs, productive lives, instead of sitting in houses and garages making bombs?
from anok.....
but there hasn't been a reason to sanction a war, according to the UN - and yet, we have endured exactly one attack, since the UN was created.
one attack too many, but how about giving bush a little credit for the fact that we've not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001? or is this just luck and he deserves no credit for keeping us safe for nearly seven years? it sure is heck hasn't been barack, hil or nancy pelosi who has kept the terrorists out of this country for the last seven years.-
i wouldn't lose sleep at night worrying about someone invading the u.s. i have a better chance of being on and winning american idol than that happening. on a more serious note...
OK, so why the rant about having to go out around the world to protect the US from invasion, and the whole rant about the UN being useless? Obviously if we shouldn't be worried about invasion, and haven't been invaded, than the UN, and it's rules about the use of force, are working quite well. Actually, I think that our actions have only increased the chance of attacks and invasions, on US soil. We have enraged the global community as a whole - haven't you seen attacks on the US embassy lately? And, for what it's worth, in seven years we haven't actually stopped terrorism.
i've come on other threads and said that repeatedly. but clinton can't get a free pass here because he was mr. smooth. the bottom line is he had a chance to get the guy and didn't take it because he feared the political fallout.
Absolutely agreed about not giving Clinton a free pass either. But lets get real - we haven't found Bin Laden, stopped Al Qeada, or even really tried. In fact, we're in Iraq, and Bin Laden nor his counterparts are there. So, what the heck are we doing there? If we're going after Al Qeada, then do it! Let's not waste lives, time, money and energy in Iraq.
i respect your views even though we differ, but pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze tell me your above statement abut terrorists having a grudge against us is not part of the "blame america crowd" for all the world's ills?? are we're to blame for 9/11?
Don't confuse justifying an attack because of US actions (thus, "blame America") with holding the US accountable for it has done to the Middle East, and other countries, for decades. What do they have to hold a grudge against? Oh, I don't know, the US support of dictators, the sale of chemicals for use against the people there, US economic intrusion, puppet governments, use of force against civilians and the constant need to be there, and show force for decades? We've done it in the Middle East, as well as other countries, throughout our history.
Does the US actually believe that it's actions are without consequences? Of course they aren't! That doesn't mean that it was OK to bomb us and crash planes into us, however we are reaping what we've sown. There comes a time to stop playing the innocent victim and say "yeah, OK we did do a lot of things wrong, and hurt a lot of people, and they have every right to hate us" Once that happens, we can clear our name, and then, and only then, can we actually make progress in world peace, and clear foreign policy.
I won't hold my breath though.
one attack too many, but how about giving bush a little credit for the fact that we've not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001? or is this just luck and he deserves no credit for keeping us safe for nearly seven years? it sure is heck hasn't been barack, hil or nancy pelosi who has kept the terrorists out of this country for the last seven years.
I don't think there ever was any intent to attack us after 9/11. That said, to use your reasoning, then the non existent war on terror pre- 9/11 kept us just as safe from attack from terrorists for decades upon decades. Or, to be more to the point - no I don't think Bush's policies have actually made the US any safer from attacks than it was before 9/11.
In fact, I think his mistakes and serious errors have only increased the risk.
It is no coincidence that the attack occurred exactly 11 years, to the date of his father's proposal to create a new world order, and initiate the use of force in the Middle East. The son just paid for the sins of the father, and I think they made their point. Except that Bush didn't seem to get it, and has now put the US in a pickle of a situation.
-
-
-
I think that's an excellent reason for killing people too...
that and someone gets between me and the last piece of pizza. -
So I haven't been around for a few weeks and didn't see what happened to that thread where we were hashing out rules...it appears that the final decision was that no one could say anything serious or positive about religion but it was still a great idea to gratuitously throw attacks on religion into as many threads as possible whether it had any relevance or not?
-
huh? im just saying that war is a motif in the bible. huh? -
Yes, and a few minutes ago you were comparing Jesus to the tooth fairy...
I'm not sure what happened in my absence. When I left, there was a debate raging about how everyone should know better than to mention religion in a public forum. Now, the thread that was supposed to establish rules to deal with the issue seems to have disappeared, so the only basis I have for drawing conclusions about how it was resolved is that there seem to be just as many (or more) gratuitous and irrelevant slams on religion. That seemed to be what the majority was aiming for, so perhaps that's the new rule--I just didn't see it posted anywhere. -
madame, could you point me to the new rules in writing? I would hate to have anyone take something too seriously that wasn't meant to be taken seriously...
-
Obviously not, Freeatlast...that's why I said that I hadn't been able to find the rules and so couldn't base my conclusions on anything except the behavior that seemed to have evolved in the wake of the discussion. I thought that was pretty clear.
-
You're right, Tiffany. That's why I've reported the remark here and the other thread.
-
Here's the link: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/read-this-before-posting-1
-
-
I have never given a specific answer to Techs Question.
But yes I would. I would support a war against Iran right now. Hell I half way support a war against the Peoples republic of China and Putin’s Russia.
Though I opt for a more remote airial type camphain --
Surely you jest.
-
No - certainly I would support military action against Iran and I would certainly support making the Chinese and the Russians sweat a little. Though I think they are both on scales that require more covert actions, economic and political maneuvering? I would still make them sweat and be ready to back the bark up with a bite.
-
You said you would support war. I wonder if you know what that means. But I can't go on here. Iran, Russia, and China . . .
/ me stepping away from the keyboard and shaking my head -
Yes Stoneman - I would authorize annihilation, even my own children before I surrender certain freedoms. Thats what we're fighting for - other countries want to 'Dominate' thats why we have to dominate.
-
-
The Chinese and the Russians are sneaky bastards.
-
Um. Well. Sadly, so are we.
-
well then for that reason - I only hope we are better at it.
-
I'm not sure I understand, Kevin. In what way is it desirable for one set of ill-intentioned, dishonest behavior to triumph over another?
-
Part of the problem with this specific discussion is the vagueness. I am talking about the Chinese stealing some of our most vital technology. The Russians forming an alliance with the Chinese just to spite us and to stress their own strength. The Chinese and the Russians have now over the last four years conducted some of the largest Joint operation war exercises on the globe – the US is openly the enemy in these games. Starting last year Russia has started buzzing Canadian and American airspace in Alaska – and now we have renewed cold war type displays of force.
Simply put we are being taunted and tested. Madame X, I offer that as an elaboration of what I mean by saying the Chinese and the Russians are sneaky. They have an open plan, a doctrine, and a political manifest for world domination. We’re not nearly as organized in our vision for our place in the world. We often impose our belief that freedom is best and make it a global doctrine but I think it is an ill comparison to the Chinese-Russian axis. Did you know that they have a treaty that if one is attacked by ‘us’ the other is obliged to enter war with us - and it is all about taiwan? So much focus is put on the Middle East – but in terms of capabilities and determinations the real volatility is in Beijing and Moscow. I hope that sums up my reasoning better than simply calling the Chinese and Russians sneaky bastards. I really need substance to respond to you specifically.
-
-
Read – China: the gathering threat by Constantine C Menges. Despite being three years old, everything I see in the news only confirms its validity. We are in a new cold war and Russia-china is the new axis or so they are effectively positioning themselves for the role.
-
I did hear "China: The Gathering Threat" in audiobook format and it confirmed the same thing many economists have been saying for years. They are beating us at our own game. The US and Western Europe laid down the rules for global economic power years ago when we were using protectionist trade policies and tariffs to ensure that the US and its allies stayed on top.
The "Free Trade" zealots and deregulation fans are the ones we have to think for leveling the playing field so we had to compete against places like China and Russia. Another sad legacy of the Republican party thats biting them on the ass. It's been awesome for the very rich but at the expense of everyone else. -
The funny thing is that I am a registered democrat and you’re making this an issue between parties. But all of us here have admitted a bias so none of us can truly know better. I read in a persuasion science text that we discredit or assign less values to evidence that debunks or positions and more to evidence the supports our positions. They had did some studies on this and found that nearly every one tested clings to their trivial biases. Those of us that invest in a position hold to it irrationally according to cognitive dissonance theory. If changing minds wasn’t hard enough we have to contend with the psychological heuristic of consistency. – Referenced from Robert Cialdini , John Seiter, and Robert H Gass.
Persuasion psychology says we cannot make a truly rash decision on this matter if we enter into it with a bias.
So we understand that we’re not as intelligent as we think are. I don’t mean that as a personal attack, I mean it for all of us that speak from a ‘position’ – myself included.
What are these ‘protectionist trade policies’ laid down years ago? Protectionist from what? The United States didn’t have real economic competition at nearly anything until twenty-fifteen years ago? -
Kevin, there is a review of a book that details the history of US trade policies called "Remaking U.S. Trade Policy: From Protectionism to Globalization" at eh.net/bookreviews/library/1287 - the review touches on some of the stuff I was talking about.
Beginning with 1st U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures", in which he advocated tariffs to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs, the United States was the leading nation opposed to "free trade" theory.
You can read an essay about the history of US Protectionism at www.americanprotectionist.com/Archives/TheFallacy.html (I am not a member.) -
Considers re-subscribing to the journal of foreign affairs. Thanks tech, it sounds like an interesting read – though I cannot deduce the position or context from the review. I don’t know a whole lot about trade policy – that is something I should probably catch up on. But economics was a fractional topic is Menges China the gathering threat. Asides from stealing and implementing some of our most advanced nuclear weapons in only a few years –
How likely is a Taiwanese take over? Intelligence confirmed a debate among Chinese generals a few years ago with a large number of them (wanting to take Taiwan now – then) believing the US was stretched and would ultimately back down from heads on heads war. If such a move happened and the US did not react the implication means a restructuring of world alliances and the loss of American influence and leverage. Would China risk it? Look how peoples Republic of China came about? It’s a high stakes game and whose to say. -
Lets not forget that China proudly and openly shares the fact that they have nuclear armed ballistic missiles aimed on key American cities. They have openly said those missles will be fired if the US intervenes in a Taiwanese takeover.
One of many reasons for why we can't take the use of force off the table. -
Let's see if I follow your logic. China and Russia are up to no good, you say, so let's go to war with them. Since war at some time in the distant future is possible, let's make it inevitable. Not good. Downright reckless.
-
Absolutely not.
I got to make a phone call but I'll get on this asap afterwards. -
I am going to try to be careful about how I go into this because of the complexity I could go off in many directions.
First I have to say that I am disappointed Stoneman that you deduce such a generality – I have a good professor friend that always reminds me ‘it’s never that simple’. Especially after warning about intelligent generalities.
Though I take the blame for how I opened this discussion up.
Let’s assume America is well intended – let’s take the first step and remove all our offensive capabilities? What will happen if American does not have a global military? Taiwan will go – Russia and China will dominate and a new world would emerge – Europe and America will suffer economically and we could see a complete collapse of the system as we know it – at which case it may as well have been war.
Do you put the gun down to get a madman to put his down? Do you disarm when somebody really really hates you? Do you disarm when somebody sees you as an obstacle? Do you disarm when somebody is robbing you of your children’s livihood? Perhaps not, but he will be black and blue and poor if he is alive.
The problem with the idea of peace is that it depends on a mutual acceptance and respect – that this will come, though a nice idea is not realistic. The idea that web 2.0 is an evolution of human consciousness that preludes the nature of war is equally idealistic – we are heading towards the most challenging issues we have ever faced. Do you really think war is going to disappear from human landscape with dwindling resources, exploding populations, climate change, disease, and madmen? Second question – do you trust the powers that be excluding the US enough to surrender our dominant position for an equal position? The ideology verges towards a world socialist cooperative which is neither fair but also idealistically unreal. -
Having a strong defense posture and going to war are two different kettles of fish. You were talking about going to war, or at least you were bringing this all up in a thread that is called "Name a valid reason for war," and you took such a casual attitude towards war as something natural that I felt pushing you on your logic was justified.
Regarding your first question, I have never made predictions about the future. I have been addressing the question here, which is when do I think war is justified.
Your second question follows a logic Mitt Romney might understand, since he worries about us becoming a 21st-century "France". I do not even want to get started on the premises of said question.
Regarding who I am and what I do for a living, this is not the university, and I do not owe anyone here the same kind of consideration that I give my students. This is just conversation. -
‘like the logic a Mitt Romney’? – Stoneman, please don’t do that.
I come from an acadimic family and have a few professor friends - I was not referring to who you are. I was just stating what a friend of mine tells me when I generalize in debate. -
Romney is concerned about us becoming an effete, second-rate power. If we're not the only superpower in the world, he's not happy. How is what you said different?
-
Sometimes attempting a generalization can lead to clearer thinking. Generalizations are not in themselves bad. They're just bad if that's all we've got to work with.
-
Once again I don’t think it’s that simple.
Let’s go back to China having nuclear armed ballistic missiles programmed at American cities? I don’t think it’s about becoming second rate it’s a question of trust. At least from my perspective.
Though your right- I was a little too casual – I was just trying to get people to look at the concept of war with some emotional distance. -
Did I say it was simple? I'm objecting---and have been objecting---to your sweeping and casual statements about the nature of war and the desirability of sweeping military action at this particular juncture in our relations with the world.
Edit: Let's be clear. You weren't just talking military action, though. You talked about war and annihilation, the two of which you seem to equate, at least in one statement. -
Haphazardly speaking. But as I said, I am ‘Half’ willing and not wishing. I mean it as an expression to say to them (Russia and china) ‘don’t test the waters’. But yes I would certainly sacrifice for certain values and that is without doubt the selfishness of war.
-
-
Yikes... I guess Bush would be a valid reason for war. (that was a joke. War is bad, mmk? I don't advocate it) -
hmmm....has the republican party done anything good in say the last 28 years?? three of the last 4 presidents have been republicans. is the country just so out of touch that they voted them in? did reagan win 49 of 50 states in 1984 because the electorate was so foolish? bush sr. won over dukakis by a 426-111 electoral count. hmmm.. country must have still been foolish. we had 8 years of clinton and i give the man credit for doing some good things. then bush 43 reportedly steals the election in 2000. gore can't carry his own state of tennessee in 2000, yet he feels the election was taken from him. in '04, already having boots on the ground in iraq, bush 43 still beats john kerry. according to polls out today, if the '08 election were held right now, obama beats mccain by four percentage points and mccain tops hil by three points. seems to me if the republicans are so terrible and so out of touch with the country, obama or hil would win in a landslide, yes?? i think extremes on either the left or right are wrong. most of us are more towards the middle. where i do wholeheartedly support the party is on spending whatever resources it takes to remove as many terrorists as possible. i know the "blame america crowd" will say we shouldn't be involved in this country and that country, but rather we get them now before an iran or the like arms them with real weapons.
-
davet, look at the nation during those years. Every single Democratic president has come into office on top of a crisis of some kind. Its a very clear pattern.
Carter took over during an energy crisis (and the stagflation and other economic side-effects of that crisis) that the US had never faced before or since, at a time when Nixon's impeachment had taken away the faith many people had in the presidency.
Then Reagan spent us into massive debt, followed by GHW Bush who watched the savings and loan industry implode on his watch and added to the national debt bailing it out before handing over the reins to Clinton who left the presidency with the economy growing and budget surpluses.
After Clinton we have the current President Bush, who, like his father, is sitting in the Oval Office while a huge sector of the financial industry melts down. Most of the problems coming out of the Republican presidencies stem from the deregulation of financial markets and industries. The deregulation of those industries - and others - have been a pet project of the Republican party for decades.
The next president, probably a Democratic candidate, will inherit the mortgage and SIV meltdown and a federal budgetary system ravaged by years of wars and tax cuts.
-
-
Greetings
Name a valid reason for war?
-distract attention from your failed domestic policy.
-distract attention away from a faltering economy.
-see how good all those expensive gadgets really are.
-finish daddy's business.
-you hate guys with mustaches.
-nothing good was on tv.
War never solves anything, it just
brings death and destruction.
Biobob
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-Dylan Thomas -
War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man 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 mad and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-- John Stuart Mill-
Ah, the nineteenth century, when war was supposed to have brought out the best in man. Well, it does sometimes, but let's not romanticize it. And let's not forget what followed the nineteenth century.
-
Well put.
"War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil."
-- George Orwell
-
-
Defence. Pre-emtive Defence. To keep factories busy. To keep standing army in fine fettle and used to doing the dirty work. Control of adolescent male population. To get resources in the lands of other people that you haven't got. -
@ Kevin: I responded to your remark above.
@ Everyone else: Has anyone who has commented on this this month even bothered to go back and think about the original question here and answer it? Why wars happen is a different issue. While everyone is free to give their two cents, I would suggest more clarity would be achieved by taking some of these questions to other threads. One could be about why wars happen. Another could be about the position of the U.S. in a multi-polar world. Another could be about whether it is okay to talk with the bad guys, like we did for more than 50 years during the Cold War, or whether these days we should give our enemies the silent treatment and watch things get worse. All of these questions are different. -
from techfun....davet, look at the nation during those years. Every single Democratic president has come into office on top of a crisis of some kind. Its a very clear pattern.
Carter took over during an energy crisis (and the stagflation and other economic side-effects of that crisis) that the US had never faced before or since, at a time when Nixon's impeachment had taken away the faith many people had in the presidency.
Then Reagan spent us into massive debt, followed by GHW Bush who watched the savings and loan industry implode on his watch and added to the national debt bailing it out before handing over the reins to Clinton who left the presidency with the economy growing and budget surpluses.
techfun,
you conveniently left out the mess reagan inherited from carter. do we blame everything on ford and give carter a free pass? the man was a nice guy, but a disaster as a president. an argument can be made that today's war we face with terrorists began on carter's watch. his lack of a response to the embassy takeover in iran led many to believe around the world that the u.s. was a paper tiger. a stiffer response may have thwarted the terrorist regimes we've seen in iran since. and as for clinton.... more people were uninsured when he left office than when he took over. the economy was heading south when he left office. there was no military response from clinton to the bombing of the u.s.s. cole in oct. of 2000. then we had this thing called 9/11 fall on bush' lap. republican administrations have certainly made their mistakes over the years, but to give the impression that the dems (carter/clinton) just came into large messes and cleaned everything up is not reality. the voters showed what they thought of carter in 1980. some times nice guys do finish last.-
Forget the U.S. and it's domestic political squabbles, which neither of you is going to agree on. How about going back to great power relations in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century? How about going back to what George Kennan called "the seminal catastrophe of the twentieth century", the First World War?
And no, I'm not dragging this up as an example of all war is pointless. I'm just trying to think of a multi-polar period in our world history when states were worried about their individual power in a Social-Darwinist sense. Of course, going back to this time is useless if you want to talk about war in the name of human rights, which some have raised much earlier in this thread. (Although we did talk about civilizing peoples back in those days.)
-
-
I’m going to start a new thread in an attempt to make matters more peaceful by eliminating the concept of war and focusing purely on the idea of peace.
What role should the U.S play in creating global peace?
What could the U.S. do to accomplish peace?-
I'd settle for less war and more limits on how wars are waged, but the questions are good.
-
-
the debates on here for the most part are respectful and thought out. we agree to disagree and that's totally fine. i guess where some of us get a little wound up is that it is so easy to monday morning quarterback and say we should have done this/we should have done that (myself included). i've acknowledged differences with bush 43 on other threads, where i thought he's made mistakes, etc. and am happy to do it again. those on the opposite side could bring more appreciation to their views if they can do likewise with carter, clinton and other democrats who've held the office. to say that they're in the past and do not matter today are not correct. arguments can be made that carter and clinton's non-actions on several foreign fronts during their days in power have contributed to the issues we face today. i'm NOT blaming them for the issues today, simply saying there is reason to argue they had an impact on today's issues. as i said in a blog today, last night's democratic debate blamed bush for just about everything in the world except the miami heat having the worst record in the nba. had they talked hoops, i'm sure barack or hil could have found reason to blame bush for miami's woes too. barack and hil's arguments that they're against the war in iraq and they'll begin pulling troops out in 60 days upon being in office is soooooooooooo old by now. they need to talk about the likely ramifications of such a move. in an ideal world, we sit down as nice boys and girls and leaders talk, have a drink and salute each other. in the real world, we sometimes need to use military force to obtain the goal of eliminating a threat, offering hope to others, etc.
-
Suggestion: It's really hard for my forty-five-year-old eyes to read your long posts. Perhaps you could use more white space in them, that is, use shorter paragraphs with an empty line between them? My eyes get lost otherwise and i end up only taking in half of what you're saying.
-
last night's democratic debate blamed bush for just about everything in the world except the miami heat having the worst record in the nba.
LMAO! Good one Davet....
But I thought Billary, I mean Hillary said she wasn't going to pull out of Iraq? Darn Clinotns, they just never seem to know when to pull ou....oh, never mind
-
-
stoneman...45 is young!!! you've only got two years on me. by the way, i like your avatar, one of the better ones on here.
-
I may be young, but my eyes are having a harder times with certain kinds of layouts these days. Happens with white text on black too, or the small print on labels. Probably time for reading glasses.
-
-
i hear ya.... my girlfriend and i go out to dinner at a restaurant and the lighting is too low to see the menu...have to have her help me order. i just tell her no sushi!
-
from anok...But I thought Billary, I mean Hillary said she wasn't going to pull out of Iraq? Darn Clinotns, they just never seem to know when to pull ou....oh, never mind
hi anok,
i believe she's stated she would start pulling troops out shortly after she becomes prez. looking at the recent poll numbers, the only thing she is going to be pulling out is the 'vote for hillary' signs in the ground around the country shortly after obama wins the dem nomination. i actually agree more with her than i do him, but i tip my hat to him for running a strong campaign. while i'll be voting for johnny mac, i think obama has served notice he's going to be around for some time. unlike gore and kerry, obama has some energy to him and is a lot more likeable. as for bill clinton, looks like he's not going to get to be the first husband. -
Evil. -
I can't see a valid reason but I guess the only valid reason, if there is one, is Stupidity, ask Bush -
Interesting thread, but I wouldn't touch it--in any depth--with a 10 foot pole. Big question, to me, at this point, is what do y'all think of our military shooting down a satelite on the first pop? After it had just barely re-entered the atmosphere. I'll just bet the Russian Generals and Chinese Red Army boys are doing a double take, thinking long and hard about that one.
-
jack,
you raise a good point. i don't want to sound arrogant...but i'm not worried at this point about nukes flying over here from china, russia, north korea, etc. even the most out of touch leaders like kim, etc. know that the first missle launched at the u.s. would be their last. they covet power too much to do something that risky. i'm more worried about terrorists coming into this country with dirty weapons, etc.-
In fact 911 should have taught us to give seriousness to threats and promises.
-
-
You guys have already stated this and I'm joining late, but valid reason for war in recent memory would include that Poland was right to defend itself from the Nazis in WW2. Russia had a right to defend itself. There's obviously a pattern here. The defender typically has the easier job of validating their motives for war. The aggressor seldom does. -
Because you spread butter on your toast the wrong way, and I spread honey instead of butter. This is a good enough reason for me to force you to tend my bees without protective clothing in bee camps. I must of course prevent
you from turning my citizens into forced cow labor.
War in general is a way to get rid of the excess population of violent young people that are far away from you.
There really is no justification. -
so now serbia is mad at the u.s. and the west for supporting freedom in kosovo. i doubt we will, but now is not the time to cut and run on those in kosovo who fought for freedom. it looks like putin was not quite who bush thought he was. i would have thought the russians would have learned in the last several decades that they can't keep good people down forever.
-
@Davet
It all depends on how you look at it. Russia and china share a doctrine and a strategy for world domination.
Terrorist just want to kill us and scare us. The Russian-China axis is much more a capable of a calculating organized effort at reducing our influence. China already has considerable weight and bullies many countries about supporting American policy – threatens them, especially in the eastern hemisphere but also South America. China has economic weight in the world community and it is only getting stronger.
Terrorist fight without much rationality and that is something to be scared of. I still don’t take it lightly that China has twenty ballistic missiles programmed on us – and as late as June 2007 still sees it fit to remind us they are willing to fight us. But it’s the long term implications that we have to watch out for.
At any rate the SM 3 was designed for the Chinese ballistic threat. It’s a good probability that the exercise was a much a demonstration or an exercise as it was a necessity. But I still wouldn’t trust that it’s ok to have these missiles programmed at us. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about second tier technology – we’re talking about one of four or five countries capable of manned space flight.
While we like to think everybody is rational, that a gambling speculation. Communist Chinese turned on their own parents, killing and imprisoning those who gave them life, the rise of communist China was cultic, radical and insane. The Chinese psychology can’t even be compared to western psychology.
I just want to stress the seriousness of it – I don’t personally feel military action is looming but I say strategy of it is something to watch for. I am more worried about the Chinese and Russians achieving half their global ambitions then I am about terrorist – because the long term implication means a neutralized global voice, ineffective influence, and disastrous economy. Arrogance that it can’t happen is the real danger.
It doesnt make the news like the war on terrorism does but I can promise you that our defense budget and intelligence budget and resources is on these issues as much as they are on terror.
-
-
modern weaponry -
GREEDY! -
kevin,
i'm not in disagreement with you that china and russia can certainly pose a threat. i do feel comfortable, however, in saying that i feel we still own military superiority over the two. in my opinion, a russian attack is limited in that we've won over a number of their former satellites and i think their economy is still in real trouble. as for china, i know that we will not fight them in a land war due to the numbers, but we still clearly have the edge on them in the air and at sea from a technology stand point. if you throw in our neighboring ally japan sitting on their doorstep, i don't see the chinese ever launching a missle at us because they know there would be intense retaliation that could easily bring down their way of life as they know it. i can see where taiwan could be a trigger for this fight, but again, i think both the u.s. and chinese see that there is too much at stake to wage war there. at least with the russians and chinese, we know what and who we're dealing with as opposed to these rogue terrorists running around.-
I’m just stressing why we must be the world power. We are certainly the singular superior military force on the planet. I just like to emphasize the need to keep humble. We’ll be OK so long as we don’t believe in our own omnipotence.
As a marketing professional I always say that companies fail when they lose touch of their ideas. The most successful companies are not arrogant by their success but constantly adjusting and attending to the consumers needs. The same with nations – power is failing when we believe in our own infallibility.
So long as we remember we are vulnerable, we are not all powerful, and the competition is serious about beating us we’ll be OK – maybe. When we are beaten it will have seemed like the blink of an eye.
-
-
A Reason for War? Read this article I wrote on my Blog on subject
gorric.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/euros-for-oil-and-a-clear-and-present-dange... -
Adolf Hitler.
Oppression of personal freedom for people by oppressive governments.
There is two.-
Sadly we do that to our own people!
-
-
It is not that hard to figure out who the lunatics are as they rise to power. That we get to the point where we have to go in and kill thousands or even millions of people to get rid of an imbalanced regime is sad. Hitler was the result of loss of leadership and an urge to create world order. That Hitler rose to prominence in the world took years. It is the prevention of Kim Jong Ils that needs to be done. We know who the lunatics are and we tolerate them.
We need to get the delusions of power blocks creating world orders. No thousand year reichs, no as Woodrow Wilson said it, New World Orders, the dream of empire should end and there should be a new dream to replace it. Oppression is not always ended by wars.
There are less and less of them as the years pass. The environment which supports the rise to power of despots needs to change. -
boredom -
unfortunately, too many people in this country figure the kim's, ahmadinejad's, etc. are of no immediate threat to the u.s., the infamous u.n. didn't sanction any call to act tough with them, and they have the support of their people (through fear), so we should not have any involvement in their doings. the problem is, they become our problem by not acting tough in dealing with them in the first place. if obama wants to sit down with kim, ahmadinejad, etc. without any change in their behavior first, good luck.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
