NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to know everyone's own stances on war. How is war effective, non effective, or just morally not right. Keep in mind economics and environment while discussing how peace can be achieved by war. If you just think war should be used to take over places keep in mind the environment too.

Dunno, maybe you should ask the Confederate States of America. If you can find them.

Like most things in life, it varies. Some wars are, some aren't. WW2 is a pretty good example I think of an effective war, effectively removing the Nazis from power, when no other options were really available.

War has a lot of side-effects. Expulsion, rape, torture, prostitution of minors, starvation, pollution of environment (since someone above insisted), murder, there's a long list of war crimes. They all occur in every war, on both sides. No exception. Plus the internal politics, the lies, the opression of the media, the efforts to cover bad things up - thereby producing more bad things, the people and society becoming brutalized, the way of dealing with dissenters and/or minorities of the enemy ethnic descent and so on.
Whoever goes to war must be aware, that all these things happen. Inevitably.
Whoever wants to go to war must definitely, deliberately want all these things too. No way out.
So, if war is to be effective, the reason should be worth it. Or else, the whole thing fires back.
The real reasons of course, not the ones, politicians give to the people.

*putting the troll back on the leash again*

There are evil people in the world. Sometimes, the only way to get rid of them is through war.

In such cases, war can be worth it.

If someone attacks you, you must fight back; failure to do so would be to show the aggressor that you are a patsy. In such cases, war is necessary, even if it consists of defensive acts.

When war is used to conquer and steal, war is not cool.

When it is used to free people from brutal/evil dictators (provided those people wish to be free)... or when it is fought in defense of an aggressor... then war is just fine and dandy.

It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. It did a pretty good job of eradicating European fascism despite the fact that there are still a few fascists floating around.

War is one of the best things that could happen for humankind. Think of the GOOD consequences:
-technology goes rapidly forward when they need better guns and armor
-it brings job for everybody (only in big wars)
-it cleans the streets from bums and homeless people (either they get executed or then they can join the military and make a good life there)
Of course there are also some bad sides but that's the cost we must pay for development.

i think some wars are unavoidable - even a pacifist must give in eventually if their life is threatened. for example: pacifism in the face of Nazi Germany would not have gone well, and the Allies would eventually have had to resort to war.

that said, war should be avoided as much as possible, imo. violence is not always the only option, and remember that violence begets violence. violence & war creates resent, nationalism, and things. i'd love to write more but i got stuff to do...

War... effective.

Not pretty, but damn effective.

i think some wars are unavoidable - even a pacifist must give in eventually if their life is threatened. for example: pacifism in the face of Nazi Germany would not have gone well, and the Allies would eventually have had to resort to war.

self defence is fine. objective pacifism would probably be closer to objecting when your country starts a war.

self defence is fine. objective pacifism would probably be closer to objecting when your country starts a war.
yeah thats true. i've been reading into Satyagraha (non-violence) recently and its kinda skewing everything i think...

I do not believe that war should be considered an effective solution to any conflict or problem. However, any conflict from a shcool yard scuffle to international boundary disputes, has the potential to escalate into violence. I believe it is our responsibility to keep ourselves in check and refrain from resorting to violence as a solution to our problems. Of course, there will always be people who resort to war and then we are left with only one choice: kill or be killed. It's sad but this has been the way humanity has operated since the beginning. :(

yeah thats true. i've been reading into Satyagraha (non-violence) recently and its kinda skewing everything i think...
y'know, i've never actually read into non-violence. i was always quite a passive guy. one day it just occurred to me how pointless it was. probably helps that i was only dishing it out in the minority of my experiences with violence.
it just made sense to change pacifism from being just a practice and actually recognise it as a policy. :rolleyes: :D

y'know, i've never actually read into non-violence. i was always quite a passive guy. one day it just occurred to me how pointless it was. probably helps that i was only dishing it out in the minority of my experiences with violence.
it just made sense to change pacifism from being just a practice and actually recognise it as a policy. :rolleyes: :D
lol :D
i used to be opinionated and quick to anger. i was bigger than the other kids, while i wasn't a bully, i wasn't adverse to using violence to get my own way.
slowly i've realised that i'm not anywhere near the most important thing in the world, my opinion - getting my own way - is not actually that important, and i do not deserve any more sway in making decisions simply because, through violence, i can cause fear in others. nothing is worth harming others over.

War is only effective when you know where to shoot.

War should never be an option! You guys have been mentioning WWII and how it was unavoidable. Well, the whole reason it started in the first place is because America and Great Britain and France put all the blame for WWI on Germany and forced them to pay 30 mil in war reparations. Germany wasn't even the one wo started the war. It was because some guy got assasinated, and Germany went in to help! Whe blamed Germany for everything, sent them into a huge depression, and they found a way to get out. If we had included them at all in the writing of the Versailles treaty, instead of just forcing them to obey our terms, the world wouldn't even have gotten into this mess!

War should never be an option! You guys have been mentioning WWII and how it was unavoidable. Well, the whole reason it started in the first place is because America and Great Britain and France put all the blame for WWI on Germany and forced them to pay 30 mil in war reparations. Germany wasn't even the one wo started the war. It was because some guy got assasinated, and Germany went in to help! Whe blamed Germany for everything, sent them into a huge depression, and they found a way to get out. If we had included them at all in the writing of the Versailles treaty, instead of just forcing them to obey our terms, the world wouldn't even have gotten into this mess!
I agree. WWII was esswntially just a continuation of WWI. which very neatly exemplifies the 'violence begets violence' theory.

Bad choices are made. That's life, people are fallable. What matters is how we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices. In the late 1930's nothing could be done about Versaille. So the question became, what do you do about what's happening now.

Bad choices are made. That's life, people are fallable. What matters is how we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices. In the late 1930's nothing could be done about Versaille. So the question became, what do you do about what's happening now.

continue taking down brutal dictators who murder scores of their own people.

Mugabe should be next.

Bad choices are made. That's life, people are fallable. What matters is how we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices. In the late 1930's nothing could be done about Versaille. So the question became, what do you do about what's happening now.

In the 1930s, we could have supported Germany! They did help America out during the revolutionary war! The US could have gone over and helped them get out of there depressioin. Or, we could have payed more attention to Hitler and realized that he was insane! America didn't even know what was going on.

Bad choices are made. That's life, people are fallable. What matters is how we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices. In the late 1930's nothing could be done about Versaille. So the question became, what do you do about what's happening now.
what do we do now?
how do we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices?

we scream loud and Clear:

4 more years !!!

comon all together now:

4 more years !!!

Today, war has become even worse. It used to be fought only in designated battle fields and such, with minimal civilian casulties. Now, we just march into cities and shoot women and children! Before, weapons required us to be close the action and see the horrors of war. Now, we can just fly overhead, drop an atomic bomb and be done with it. War has gotten so much worse over the last century!

War is one of the best things that could happen for humankind. Think of the GOOD consequences:
-technology goes rapidly forward when they need better guns and armor
-it brings job for everybody (only in big wars)
-it cleans the streets from bums and homeless people (either they get executed or then they can join the military and make a good life there)
Of course there are also some bad sides but that's the cost we must pay for development.

I am agreeing with the stance of this thread....

The development of certain beneficial technologies (like modern rocketry therefore space exploration, modern computers, penicillin, advanced numeric practises (i.e. code breaking), nuclear power etc) and unbeneficial ones (like nuclear weaponry, and more efficient ways to exterminate life) after WWII point to the fact that wars can paradoxically advance and brutalise nations (and thus the rest of the world) both technologically and philosophically when they are fought and concluded.

Nations can gain great strength at the expense of the others, (e.g. America after WWI and WWII or the USSR after WWII), which can be very beneficial for their peoples and (sometimes) the rest of the world (depending on which nation you're thinking about).

Morality can have some bearing on wars but once they are begun morality can soon be manipulated to allow any action that would seem too brutal in peace time, (e.g. the mass heavy bombing of civilian targets, the deployment of nuclear weapons, the extermination of whole peoples, the creation of suspect and draconian domestic laws), and the reasons for starting the war are quickly forgotten or subsumed into justifying the war, (the reason for the British and the French declaring war against Nazi Germany was merely due to the invasion of Poland, i.e. breaking an agreement to come to the defence of Poland if invaded not halting the inhumanity of Nazi Germany....we see such traits with the wars of today....)

And the idea of polluting the environment is true but surely the Western world is doing a grand job and we're at peace (if we ignore this "war on terror", whatever that means) with our modern industries and general practises in the pursuit of maintaining a high standard of living.....

what do we do now?
how do we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices?

we scream loud and Clear:

4 more years !!!

comon all together now:

4 more years !!!

The whole government is f***ed up man! seriously, this the US isn't even a democracy any more!

I am agreeing with the stance of this thread....


but surely the Western world is doing a grand job and we're at peace (if we ignore this "war on terror", whatever that means) with our modern industries and general practises in the pursuit of maintaining a high standard of living.....

Oh come on! The western world is doing a grand job?? What planet are you on. YOu can't ignore the "war on terror". Want to know where all of your tax dollars are going, they are going overseas to help US soldiers kill inocent children. Its bad enough the government is so screwed up and won't tell us what's going on. Its even worse that we have materialistic, egotistic people around who only care about American prosperity, even if its at the expense of sweatshop workers in asia.

sure, war has led to the invention and developement of some great things. but surely we should have grown out of that by now. can't people start moving forward for the betterment of our world rather than continueing to work toward our mutual destruction?

Tiocfaidh ár lá eh? wonder what your politics are. :D

Oh come on! The western world is doing a grand job?? What planet are you on. YOu can't ignore the "war on terror". Want to know where all of your tax dollars are going, they are going overseas to help US soldiers kill inocent children. Its bad enough the government is so screwed up and won't tell us what's going on. Its even worse that we have materialistic, egotistic people around who only care about American prosperity, even if its at the expense of sweatshop workers in asia.
i think the intented meaning was that we're doing a grand job wreaking the environment, etc.

Oh come on! The western world is doing a grand job?? What planet are you on. YOu can't ignore the "war on terror". Want to know where all of your tax dollars are going, they are going overseas to help US soldiers kill inocent children. Its bad enough the government is so screwed up and won't tell us what's going on. Its even worse that we have materialistic, egotistic people around who only care about American prosperity, even if its at the expense of sweatshop workers in asia.

I was making the sarcastic comment on the western world's environmental outlook that even though we're at peace, (the "War on Terror" is not a war in my definition of what a war is), we're still polluting our planet to probably as great an extent if we were fighting a conventional war....the only war that would probably exceed our peaceful excesses would be a nuclear conflict with the mass irradiation, ecological disaster and virtual destruction of humanity....

sure, war has led to the invention and developement of some great things. but surely we should have grown out of that by now. can't people start moving forward for the betterment of our world rather than continueing to work toward our mutual destruction?

Tiocfaidh ár lá eh? wonder what your politics are. :D

I would love to see and say the world and humanity could/would progress to a point of greater maturity and understanding to not resort to war but the 20th century has shown and the 21st century will probably show that war and conflict will not become an obsolete concept....there are academic arguments that peace between people is a modern invention and a peculiarity at that......

My politics? Very well picked up.....although I would say look at my nation, its more of a reflection of what my political outlook is....I don't adhere to such nationalistic tendencies especially if violence is the means to attain them...although for many, especially in Northern Ireland, violence to support and achieve your aims has gained alot compared to peaceful protest.....

I would love to see and say the world and humanity could/would progress to a point of greater maturity and understanding to not resort to war but the 20th century has shown and the 21st century will probably show that war and conflict will not become an obsolete concept....there are academic arguments that peace between people is a modern invention and a peculiarity at that......

My politics? Very well picked up.....although I would say look at my nation, its more of a reflection of what my political outlook is....I don't adhere to such nationalistic tendencies especially if violence is the means to attain them...although for many, especially in Northern Ireland, violence to support and achieve your aims has gained alot compared to peaceful protest.....
desperation politics? :confused: :headbang:
i looked at your nation and we've got the same UN Category. :cool:
i'm going now but i look forward to speaking with you in future. :)

If you rub aloe on your neck to regrow a recently lost toe, then the treatment will be ineffective, but if you rub aloe on your neck to relieve sunburn, then the treatment was effective. War, like everything else (except for cake, and hats) is sometimes effective, sometimes not.

War is one of the best things that could happen for humankind. Think of the GOOD consequences:
-technology goes rapidly forward when they need better guns and armor
-it brings job for everybody (only in big wars)
-it cleans the streets from bums and homeless people (either they get executed or then they can join the military and make a good life there)
Of course there are also some bad sides but that's the cost we must pay for development.

:eek: :eek: Do you guys even realize what you are talking about?! :gundge:

War... effective.

Not pretty, but damn effective.


This is the most true I've heard yet

War is only effective when you know where to shoot.

Do you mean at certain facilities and if yes at which facilities would be the best to attack?

Do you mean at certain facilities and if yes at which facilities would be the best to attack?

he/she may have meant "whom to shoot"

I want to know everyone's own stances on war. How is war effective, non effective, or just morally not right. Keep in mind economics and environment while discussing how peace can be achieved by war. If you just think war should be used to take over places keep in mind the environment too.

Situational. Some wars are meant to be fought, some wars aren't.

But you'll never know the end result until you fight the war unfortunately.

Why not just send in a Spy? Get them close enough to the person and assassinate the said person. Therefore one person avoids a huge war at the cost of their lives but for the pride of their country.

Bad choices are made. That's life, people are fallable. What matters is how we respond to the consequences of prior bad choices. In the late 1930's nothing could be done about Versaille. So the question became, what do you do about what's happening now.

What do you believe should be done about any war going on now, and what do you believe would be most effective.

Today, war has become even worse. It used to be fought only in designated battle fields and such, with minimal civilian casulties. Now, we just march into cities and shoot women and children! Before, weapons required us to be close the action and see the horrors of war. Now, we can just fly overhead, drop an atomic bomb and be done with it. War has gotten so much worse over the last century!

Yes I believe whatever honor or meaning to any war was killed off when we could kill with a simple button.

Do you mean at certain facilities and if yes at which facilities would be the best to attack?

America has had a few wars against abstract things and undefined people and all those wars do is drain money. Now the wars in which they have had a definite target have generally been big successes.

Oh come on! The western world is doing a grand job?? What planet are you on. YOu can't ignore the "war on terror". Want to know where all of your tax dollars are going, they are going overseas to help US soldiers kill inocent children. Its bad enough the government is so screwed up and won't tell us what's going on. Its even worse that we have materialistic, egotistic people around who only care about American prosperity, even if its at the expense of sweatshop workers in asia.


You have to think before you say the money goes into helping Us soldiers kill innocent children. I bet you most of the Soldiers do not even want to be in any other country but there own with their families. Yes the tax dollars go into destruction, but only the officers okay the bombs that kill those innocents. Don't blame the soldiers blame the officers if you have to, but I'm sure the officers will feel horrable when they see what they have actually done.

he/she may have meant "whom to shoot"

Makes good sense there.

Why not just send in a Spy? Get them close enough to the person and assassinate the said person. Therefore one person avoids a huge war at the cost of their lives but for the pride of their country.

If someone was to get close enough to that one person to kill them, what about their followers? You can't kill them all with one man, you wouldn't know them all. This may work in very very few cases, but simply that person would only be recognised by the time they did something to start a war, or start a political mess.

America has had a few wars against abstract things and undefined people and all those wars do is drain money. Now the wars in which they have had a definite target have generally been big successes.

Your saying it is best to attack those places for money? or just what America has done?

it'd be done under the old "cut off the head and the body dies" theory.

speaking of war strategy... i'm copying/pasting this from a cable news web site... it concerns what the likely options would be for dealing with Iran if we decided to use force:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Covert Action: The Bush administration might send CIA agents or commandos to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“There were no smoking guns, no fingerprints,” said Walter Russell Mead (search), with the Council on Foreign Relations. “We wouldn’t be faced with that ugly, ugly choice of, we have a war or they get a weapon.”
---

Naval Blockade: U.S. warships would be sent into the Strait of Hormuz (search) to stop the export of Iranian oil. This would pressure the mullahs to give up enriching uranium and allow intrusive inspections.

One downside is that Iran is OPEC (search)’s second largest oil producer, so a blockade could also put a stranglehold on the economies of many U.S. allies. Other potential problems are that it may not work fast enough and it would leave Iran’s existing nuclear facilities intact.


“So the question is not whether we could do it. We could. The question is, at what cost?” Mead said.
---

Surgical Strikes: U.S. forces could zero in on Iranian nuclear targets, hitting the country’s highest-risk sites — such as Bushier, Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and a dozen or more others — using cruise missiles launched from land or sea.

“We are moving some aircraft carrier groups into the Persian Gulf as we speak," said retired Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely (search). "They will be positioned to launch any aircraft from the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.”

Next, F-117 stealth fighter jets could take out a radar system by firing missiles and anti-aircraft guns at Isfahan or surface-to-air missiles around the Bushier reactor (search). B-2 bombers carrying eight 5,000-pound laser-guided bunker busters would hit buried targets like the Natanz (search) enrichment site or the deep tunnels in Isfahan (search).

Surgical strikes would also aim to hurt Iran's ability to counterattack while limiting civilian casualties, according to Vallely.

“We're not after the population,” he said. “We're not after blowing down bridges anymore. We're trying to disrupt command and control, their ability to use their forces on the ground, their forces in the air, as well as their naval forces. ... Bring them to their knees early. That's the key.”
---

All-Out Assault: A huge American military effort, involving hundreds of thousands of troops, would be needed to get “boots on the ground.” But the experts FOX News spoke with consider that to be the least likely scenario.

The U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with almost three times as many people). A ground war could kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and the cost could run well into the billions. And assembling a broad coalition would be even more difficult than it was for the Iraq war.

“For one thing, the British don’t sound very willing. And let’s face it, without the British, we don’t have a coalition,” Mead said.

Vallely said that while the United States has the ability to launch a major ground invasion, it wouldn’t have to.

“We can take a country down with just our air assets,” he said. “We don't have put boots on the ground all the time if we're after specific targets.”
---

Iranian Response: Iran has threatened bloody retaliation if attacked, so the Pentagon’s military planners are conducting war games to be prepared for any number of Iranian responses — from attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq to missile strikes on Israel.

“I do not believe that Iran will take on the United States in a major confrontation,” said retired Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney (search).

Without a direct military response from Iran, the possibility exists for an “asymmetrical response” — terror attacks on Americans throughout the world and in the United States.

“Could they use part of the Al Qaeda network to launch a terrorist attack on the United States?" McInerney speculated. "I believe they could. That's probably going to happen to us anyhow. The real question is, will it be a nightmare scenario? … Will it be nuclear?"

Your saying it is best to attack those places for money? or just what America has done?

No, America has big on declaring war on drugs, terrorism, and small nations that have nothing to do with us. They all seem to be political dramas meant to arouse political fervor and nationalism, and they all are a very worthless drain on the country with very little gain. However, the wars we have waged that have had a defined cause and enemy have been extremely effective in accomplishing their goals.