Blog Catalog Discussion: Name a VALID reason for war.

phoenix007 on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

phoenix007 — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:27:18 -0600

Sadly we do that to our own people!

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:22:54 -0600

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.

lamenews on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

lamenews — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0600

boredom

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:09:50 -0600

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.

wehireu on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

wehireu — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:26:38 -0600

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.

jkufs on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

jkufs — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:55:39 -0600

Adolf Hitler.

Oppression of personal freedom for people by oppressive governments.

There is two.

Gorric on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

Gorric — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:52:02 -0600

A Reason for War? Read this article I wrote on my Blog on subject

http://gorric.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/euros-for-oil-and-a-clear-and-present-danger/

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:44:40 -0600

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.

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:13:44 -0600

In fact 911 should have taught us to give seriousness to threats and promises.

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:08:17 -0600

@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.

bobonism on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

bobonism — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:05:57 -0600

GREEDY!

bimit on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

bimit — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:28:09 -0600

modern weaponry

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:03:58 -0600

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.

wehireu on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

wehireu — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:02:13 -0600

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.

kdawg68 on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kdawg68 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:12:02 -0600

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.

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:28:06 -0600

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.

jackpayne on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

jackpayne — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:22:07 -0600

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.

forecaster on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

forecaster — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:16:55 -0600

your site is really wonderful, Keep it up. Sport Forecast/Cricket Forecast

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:29:40 -0600

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.

jholaguepersonal on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

jholaguepersonal — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:23:38 -0600

I can't see a valid reason but I guess the only valid reason, if there is one, is Stupidity, ask Bush

ssetd on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

ssetd — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:14:56 -0600

Evil.

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:23:33 -0600

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.

Anok on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

Anok — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:57:49 -0600

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 ;)

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:31:40 -0600

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!

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:23:37 -0600

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.

lordsomber on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

lordsomber — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:22:59 -0600

Well put.

"War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil."
-- George Orwell

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:19:38 -0600

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.

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:16:43 -0600

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.

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:23:56 -0600

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.

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:22:34 -0600

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.

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:55:45 -0600

I'd settle for less war and more limits on how wars are waged, but the questions are good.

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:54:27 -0600

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?

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:47:54 -0600

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.

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:44:29 -0600

Very interesting perspective.

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:43:06 -0600

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.)

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:38:43 -0600

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.

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:34:10 -0600

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.

clioandme on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

clioandme — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:31:28 -0600

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?

kevingoodman on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

kevingoodman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:31:16 -0600

‘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.

davet on 'Name a VALID reason for war.'

davet — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:30:56 -0600

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.