mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
 |
« on: August 27, 2005, 09:12:42 pm » |
|
I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that the reason the US went to war with Iraq turned out to not be valid. That brings up a good question, though. What do you think is a good or justifiable reason to go to war?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2005, 09:15:52 pm » |
|
Shouldn't this be under the political section?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2005, 01:57:35 pm » |
|
There is no justification for war. Murder is murder, no matter what flag you bear. Borders need to be phased out, but that will only happen when racism is finally ended, and education & international cooperation in education is needed for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2005, 02:23:33 pm » |
|
I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees that that should be humanity's goal, but the reality is that we do have expansionist countries (china, japan), psycho dictators (hitler, hussein, castro, mao, etc), and extreme fundamentalist governments (taliban, etc), and as you say, we still do have racism.
The utopian view of society requires that most people cooperate, and in turn, ignore their core nature and instincts, which, in my opinion, is not likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2005, 05:23:16 pm » |
|
I think Nelson Mandela did quite a good job on South Africa in terms of fostering peace and reconcilliation in a country that was riddled with hate on all sides of the race divide. Considering that it had even gotten so violent that a State of Emergency was declared on a number of occasions, plenty of bombings, necklacings, etc, within a few short years that climate has changed - and that after many years of suffering! Perhaps world leaders should have a closer look at how he managed to pull it off and look for ways to promote a similar change in the international community?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2005, 08:37:44 pm » |
|
I'm not saying that it absolutely can't be done, but the Nelson Mandela's of the world rarely get to a position of power in countries because they aren't shady enough to get elected or to steal power.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2005, 12:55:07 pm » |
|
Very true that! I think, as with any area of life, one has to try to imagine what the people of the day might be like, what advances might have been made in science, how much smaller the world will seem with future travel, etc. THEN... try imagine how all that would have affected the young people's mindsets & what they would grow up to be.
Sure, in our current situation, it's a certain impossibility. But what about 50 years down the line? 100 years?
What was it like 100 years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2005, 02:50:18 pm » |
|
100 and even as recent as 60 year ago, it was perfectly acceptable to kill millions of people in a war, irrespective of whether they were civilians, military, babies, etc, etc. Today, nearly any civilian casualties are unacceptable. That is why I think that nuclear bombs are pretty much relegated to a deterrent, never to be used again. "Civilized" governments MUST only do the MINIMUM amount of damage in a war these days, because people in the far off places we used to bomb the shit out of are now just like us. We know them, we see them on TV crying when someone gets killed, we work with them. The world is much smaller, but that has meant that we must be much more precise in our wars going forward. It would have been so much easier and less costly, in terms of US soldier's lives, to simply bomb the crap out of Iraq like we did to Germany or Japan - hell, even the casualties in first gulf war would have been unacceptable now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2005, 05:49:12 am » |
|
Yeah, but at the end of the day, war is still war and the objective is to kill people. Is it really any more noble that you only intend to kill 1000 people vs 1000000?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2005, 02:44:49 am » |
|
100 and even as recent as 60 year ago, it was perfectly acceptable to kill millions of people in a war, irrespective of whether they were civilians, military, babies, etc, etc. Today, nearly any civilian casualties are unacceptable. That is why I think that nuclear bombs are pretty much relegated to a deterrent, never to be used again. "Civilized" governments MUST only do the MINIMUM amount of damage in a war these days, because people in the far off places we used to bomb the shit out of are now just like us. We know them, we see them on TV crying when someone gets killed, we work with them. The world is much smaller, but that has meant that we must be much more precise in our wars going forward. It would have been so much easier and less costly, in terms of US soldier's lives, to simply bomb the crap out of Iraq like we did to Germany or Japan - hell, even the casualties in first gulf war would have been unacceptable now.
You make an excellent point there, Jerry! Perhaps we need to televise soldiers being killed in battle - no 2-21 type of thing! Perhaps when we see what happens when we send our boys off to war, we will think twice about allowing it! Being presented with flags & medals is noble - being presented with body parts would be reality! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2005, 08:52:25 am » |
|
Propoganda will ALWAYS be a necessary part of war, meaning that showing soldiers dying is not likely to happen. But, conversely, because the world has become so small, that increasingly, any time any civilians are hurt, even in a war, there will be outrage.
For a while, the US government had a policy that didn't allow any pictures to be taken of the US soldiers being returned to the US. CNN sued and won, just as they recently did with the Katrina recovery. There's a big difference between showing a bunch of flag draped coffins and actual bodies. I don't see that happening. We can't even handle seeing a nipple here, how could we possibly handle a bullet hole?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
