Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

To War or not to War. That is the question/


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> To War or not to War. That is the question/ Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 12:25:16 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		What justifies war?

Obvioulsy there is a point that we want, need, have to go to war. or is there?  Where should the line in the sand be drawn? 


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 12:46:37 PM   
NaiveTempest


Posts: 345
Joined: 11/20/2006
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		As long as man hungers for and desires power there will always be war in my opinion. Not everyone wants war, and maybe one day enough people in enough countries will desire peace so much that "warring" will become a thing of the past and future generations will look back on the different eras of wars like we were all uneducated, war-loving heathens, lol. The only justification, or reason?, of war (to me) is to force your will on another, be it for good or ill. But who decides is it's in good will? The UN, I guess?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 12:57:18 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		Real0ne,

Good discussion post and potentially 15 pages of heated discussion and declaration of war to follow.

Most people say they are prepared to take up arms and turn to violence when their families are threatened but war rarely threatens a family member. In that case, can killing someone else and putting your own life in danger, in a war, ever be justified?

Maybe in a civil war. If you're a Bosnian Muslim and the Serbs and Croats are trying to annihilate you then it is right to stand up and defend yourself.

Maybe when the Germans steamrollered into France in WW2. Then you would take up arms as they're in your country and a potential danger to your family and your liberty.

The Western powers? The US is certainly not justified in being anywhere near Iraq. The threat to the US was concocted on downright lies and misrepresentation.

For me, self defence is the key. When you have absolutely no option but to take up arms then war is justified.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 1:47:18 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		in wwii we essentially were isolationists and in my opinion that is a war we should have entered long before pearl.  i do not understand why the people of this country did not go to war prior.  it seemed inevitable to me.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 1:58:49 PM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		Often war is just armed robbery on a grand scale (Iraq-Kuwait). I can however forsee circumstances where a pre-emptive self defense could be an intelligent strategy (what if the US had sunk the Japanese fleet before they got to Hawaii).

Unfortunately for as long as people remain human beings, sometimes the only effective diplomacy will come from the barrel of a gun. At the risk of starting a flame and diverting the thread I think for as long as somebody can say "an omnipotent being is on our side",  or some variation of, people will happily lay down their lives for the most dubious of causes.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 2:09:41 PM   
toservez


Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline 		Self defense is going to be a routine answer and also the perceived reason for almost all wars, including religious ones, in history. Whether defending a straight attack on you or a pre-emptive measure to fight when the odds are best for you, the self defense card is always used. It is the “they hate us and are out to get us reason.”

The question to me is between power hungry leaders in control of armies, political motivations and common paranoia, when and how many wars have been started by false pretensions of self defense.


_____________________________

I am sorry I do not fit Webster's defintion of a slave but thankfully my Master is not Webster.

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned." - H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 2:15:27 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

What justifies war?

Obvioulsy there is a point that we want, need, have to go to war. or is there?  Where should the line in the sand be drawn? 



I'll try to remember what I've written previously.

Before we talk about just war, we have to consider what war is.  Remember the picture of the naked little girl running from the napalm.  That is war.  War is burned children and old people crushed under buildings.  War is innocents staring from shocked eyes at their entire lives torn apart.  War is a little boy with no hands because he didn't know a bomblet wasn't a toy ball.  War is desolation, waste and pain.

War can be justified.  There are monsters like Hitler who have to be met with force.  All I'm asking is that people weigh the butcher's bill.  If they can look upon the burned bodies of innocent children and helpless old people and say that their war is worth that price then I'm willing to listen.

About five years ago, someone asked me if a neighbor was going to kill me and my family would I feel justified in killing him.  My response was if his neighbor was going to kill him would he be justified in poisoning the neighbor's dog, running down the neighbor's little girl with his car and cutting the throat of the neighbor's wife. 

Frankly, I'd wouldn't have the least qualm about terminating Sadam... or frankly a half dozen or so "world leaders."  The atmosphere of this Earth would be better off without them using it, but I couldn't justify destroying tens of thousands of lives just because this guy was a rotter.

I'm not opposed to war.  I've done my share and I'd do it again, but I want people to think about the butcher's bill that comes with this sort of undertaking.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 2:32:19 PM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		I do agree with JW, I know many people around the world right now dealing with conflicts and the aftermaths. I see the pictures that never make the press, the videos that CNN would never air. Most of all I see the faces of those I have sent to distant lands when they return. I have an idea that some ranking officer once said something along the lines of "War is far too important a thing to be left to politicians". Perhaps given the trend of war for purely political gain over recent decades the man had a point

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 2:38:01 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

What justifies war?

Obvioulsy there is a point that we want, need, have to go to war. or is there?  Where should the line in the sand be drawn? 



The problem is there is always a justification, especially in an intractible conflict like the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where both sides feel their pain hurts more than the others. Basically people become blind and as Bertrand Russell observed "People prefer to die than think' and allow themselves to be used by psychopaths and politicians who have 'visions' or 'ambitions'.

However, even the reasonable amongst us are easily manipulated. We talk about menaces that need to be put down as though they suddenly arise and we cut off our history at a point that is convenient for us to justify to ourselves that these menaces arose out of thin air. Both Germany and Japan militarised for historical reasons and those reasons were to protect themselves and compete with other ambitious nations.

One can't suddenly start history all over again and do things differently but one doesn't have to keep repeating the same old barren policies that have served us so poorly in the past. There are issues that have to be dealt with that history has thrown up and are probably as much of our own making but there is a way of dealing with such issues that don't necessarily have to end in war.

Are wars inevitable? No. Are there wars that are justified? No. Are there wars that sometimes have to be fought? Unfortunately, yes but very very very rarely because we can't go back and replay history. I firmly believe the roots of WWII were in the armistice of WWI and WWI had its roots in the Franco-Prussian war etc etc.

The sad fact is we just don't get enough statesman as leaders and sadly, democracy appear to throw up puppets that have bought their leadership.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/7/2007 2:40:48 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 3:03:50 PM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Are there wars that are justified? No.


If an intruder enters the bedroom of your lover at 3am one morning are you justified in asking him to leave? Are you justified in forcibly ejecting him should he decline to leave? Does it make a difference if he states clear and loud his intent is to create harm?

Should you be walking the street and somebody threatens you with violence with nowhere to run are you justified in defending yourself? I ask again with the well known strategy of attack is the best form of defence to be held in consideration.

The difference between violence on an individual level, and violence at nation state level is mainly one of scale and that on the invidual level it is the individual making the war/no war choice rather than a politician/dictator/witch doctor


_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 3:21:09 PM   
BlkTallFullfig


Posts: 5585
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
What justifies war?
Obvioulsy there is a point that we want, need, have to go to war. or is there?  Where should the line in the sand be drawn? 
War is desolation, waste and pain.

War can be justified.  There are monsters like Hitler who have to be met with force.  All I'm asking is that people weigh the butcher's bill.  If they can look upon the burned bodies of innocent children and helpless old people and say that their war is worth that price then I'm willing to listen.

I'm not opposed to war.  I've done my share and I'd do it again, but I want people to think about the butcher's bill that comes with this sort of undertaking
Good Topic RealOne.
As JohnWarren states my position on war perfectly (like poetry), I will simply say I agree, and this is my position on when one ought to go to war...   M

_____________________________

a.k.a. SexyBossyBBW
""Touching was, and still is, and will always be, the true revolution" Nikki Giovanni

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 4:14:48 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Are there wars that are justified? No.


If an intruder enters the bedroom of your lover at 3am one morning are you justified in asking him to leave? Are you justified in forcibly ejecting him should he decline to leave? Does it make a difference if he states clear and loud his intent is to create harm?

Should you be walking the street and somebody threatens you with violence with nowhere to run are you justified in defending yourself? I ask again with the well known strategy of attack is the best form of defence to be held in consideration.

The difference between violence on an individual level, and violence at nation state level is mainly one of scale and that on the invidual level it is the individual making the war/no war choice rather than a politician/dictator/witch doctor



No it isn't. These sort of metaphors are totally disingenous and have no parallel with international relations. Saddam broke into Kuwait, the US and assorted poodles kicked him out, yet this leader of the self appointed world police force are against international laws that will restrict its freedom of action. In effect they are vigilantes that choose what they want to police and what they want to ignore and they usually police their interests and the rest of the world can go to hell. Superpowers always act the same, its the US now it was Britain before and France and Spain etc. These same self appointed world police forces are quite happy to run protection rackets while they profess how noble they are in keeping the peace.

Let's go back to your hypothetical burglar. Usually at an international level the burglar and the burgled have a history and usually the burglar has in the past been burgled by the person he is robbing. What we are seeing is what you get in a lawless society and that is what international relations are, lawlessness, where the strong don't want laws.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 4:52:15 PM   
NaiveTempest


Posts: 345
Joined: 11/20/2006
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		I agree John, that there are times when there is an obvious good reason to go to war. And I agree that some leaders need to be put down (not necessarily death, maybe just removal from office). In my post I was just saying that sometimes the reasons are not so easy to discern and at that point how is the question "To War or not to War?" answered? And I do think of the pain that someone will be feeling because of a war; there will always be innocent victims and that is a hard cross to bear. And it makes one wonder, in that victims mind who is the true terrorist? Or in the case of someone who lost a loved one, was it worth it to the person who gave their life?

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 5:07:30 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		War is fought for the profit of a few, the people that die and suffer for war are children, women, and the elderly... sometimes they are targets and others they are just haplessly in the way. Of course if someone comes into my backyard with a gun and tries to take over the joint because some powerful people sent him I will fight him. The thing is acknowledging that one will fight an invasion force does not mean I do not see where the seeds of war start, they start usually for ecomonic reasons... one of my favorite speeches is this one (for the mods this is not copywrited):

Smedley Butler on Interventionism-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.





War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

 
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

 
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

 
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

 
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.





< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 1/7/2007 5:09:09 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 5:40:01 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

I do agree with JW, I know many people around the world right now dealing with conflicts and the aftermaths. I see the pictures that never make the press, the videos that CNN would never air. Most of all I see the faces of those I have sent to distant lands when they return. I have an idea that some ranking officer once said something along the lines of "War is far too important a thing to be left to politicians". Perhaps given the trend of war for purely political gain over recent decades the man had a point


As a former war reporter who turned in pictures similar to those you are referring to, I know what you mean. 

By the way, the quote is from "Dr Strangelove" and is said by General Ripper... who says wisdom can't come from the mouths of maniacs.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 6:22:04 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Often war is just armed robbery on a grand scale (Iraq-Kuwait). I can however forsee circumstances where a pre-emptive self defense could be an intelligent strategy (what if the US had sunk the Japanese fleet before they got to Hawaii).



Why would you suppose the US Government would not want our battleships taken out in Pearl Harbor?

One aspect of the attack on Pearl Harbor that I found fascinating to learn is that when the Japanese carrier fleet went walkabout, the American Navy moved their carriers and retainers out of the harbor into open ocean where they could defend themselves but were also unlikely to be found.  Apparently, military strategists of the time believed that the war in the Pacific would be largely carrier fleets and planes, and getting within range to use battleships was unlikely.

Yet, all the battleships, which were largely irrelevant against Japanese carriers and torpedo bombers, were left tied up to the dock.  Along with all those sailors.

When I feel overly cynical, I tend to think the US Government left them there to get sunk, inflame US public opinion, and convince everybody to follow the president into war.

The cynicism of the US Government really shocks me.  They refused to meet with the Japanese peace delegates after Hiroshima because they had another type of nuclear weapon to test on Nagasaki first.

The cruelty of many of the members of my species shames me.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 7:10:10 PM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline 		That might be true if Roosevelt wanted a war with the Japanese.  He didn't.  He wanted a war with the Nazis and Pearl Harbour wasn't going to give it to him

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 7:22:19 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

That might be true if Roosevelt wanted a war with the Japanese.  He didn't.  He wanted a war with the Nazis and Pearl Harbour wasn't going to give it to him


Not entirely true.

The Japanese aim in World War 2 was to control the entire west side of the Pacific Ocean.  Their intention in taking out the US carrier fleet was to force the United States into a two theater war where their primary concerns would be Europe, as the US did not have any intentions in the Pacific west of Midway.  Given a choice between building a military to fight a land war in Europe, or a naval war in the Pacific, the Japanese assumed the US would go with the former.

But since the Japanese did not take out the part of the US Navy which could wage war against them, they ended up "awakening a sleeping giant," as Tojo opined after Pearl Harbor.

The AXIS powers were bound by treaty that if somebody declared war on one of them it would be war on all of them.

The battleships in Pearl Harbor being taken out would cause the US to declare war on Japan, and in doing, would bring the US into the war against the NAZIs.

This does not explain why the carrier fleet was ordered out of the harbor 2 weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked, leaving the battleships behind.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 7:54:56 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
This does not explain why the carrier fleet was ordered out of the harbor 2 weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked, leaving the battleships behind.
Sinergy


My understanding they were going out to look for the part of the jap fleet that was running south, which of course may have been a decoy?


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ - 1/7/2007 8:15:51 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
This does not explain why the carrier fleet was ordered out of the harbor 2 weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked, leaving the battleships behind.
Sinergy


My understanding they were going out to look for the part of the jap fleet that was running south, which of course may have been a decoy?



It has been a long time and it might take some doing on my part to find the historical references, but.

You are correct.  The carrier fleets were issued the orders to go patrol in the south Pacific.

It still does not explain why the battleships did not sail.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> To War or not to War. That is the question/ Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094