NationStates Jolt Archive

I have no love for war, and from the very begining I have been against the conflict in Iraq. It was rushed, and it was for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. It pains me to know that we're spending so much money on a trivial engagement that has resulted in thousands of deaths.

However, I have been thinking. Is there any kind of war that I could throw my support behind?

I'm not certain. What do you think?

-snip-

A.. just one?

I'd support a war against Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe. It should be fairly easy (and hence avoid civilian deaths), as Zimbabwe's army is primitive (and short of food). Plus the opposition Movement For Democratic Change appear to have majority support (it's hard to tell as Mugabe fixes the elections), so it'll be easy to establish a new government.

I have no love for war, and from the very begining I have been against the conflict in Iraq. It was rushed, and it was for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. It pains me to know that we're spending so much money on a trivial engagement that has resulted in thousands of deaths.

However, I have been thinking. Is there any kind of war that I could throw my support behind?

I'm not certain. What do you think?
A war of defense absolutly (there would have to be some strange circumstances to change that for me)

Otherwise it is touch and go ... depends on the situation

I'd support a war against Mugabe's dictatorship in Zimbabwe. It should be fairly easy (and hence avoid civilian deaths), as Zimbabwe's army is primitive (and short of food). Plus the opposition Movement For Democratic Change appear to have majority support (it's hard to tell as Mugabe fixes the elections), so it'll be easy to establish a new government.

I'm sure they have plenty of AK rifles, RPG rockets, land mines, and old artillery shells to set up as roadside bombs...

yep.... easy as pie...

The only war that would ever be justified is a war of self-defense, if your nation was being invaded. Otherwise, war is never justified, regardless of the circumstances.

I have no love for war, and from the very begining I have been against the conflict in Iraq. It was rushed, and it was for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. It pains me to know that we're spending so much money on a trivial engagement that has resulted in thousands of deaths.

However, I have been thinking. Is there any kind of war that I could throw my support behind?

I'm not certain. What do you think?My Grandpa wouldn't support any war. Can't blame him. His childhood consisted of fleeing from the Russians.

Yeah. World War Two was justified. Excluding the Dresdens and the Hiroshima's and what Russia did to Eastern Europe.

No, only in defensive cases. This is: Spain is being attacked, then I go with Spain. Zimbabwe is being attacked, I go with Zimbabwe. The US are being attacked, I go with the US. Iraq is being attacked, I go with Iraq.

No, only in defensive cases. This is: Spain is being attacked, then I go with Spain. Zimbabwe is being attacked, I go with Zimbabwe. The US are being attacked, I go with the US. Iraq is being attacked, I go with Iraq.

So, the US, UK, and USSR were attacking Germany in WW II... invading Germany... LOL

Yeah. World War Two was justified. Excluding the Dresdens and the Hiroshima's and what Russia did to Eastern Europe.

World War Two was not justified by any stretch of the imagination. It liberated Europe from the tyranny of Hitler, only to hand over most of it to the tyranny of Stalin. It was basically a total waste. The West should have simply sat back and let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, so they would (hopefully) wipe each other out.

Millian thought would go with Humanitarian causes as well... but then the whole thought of 'Is there ANY war that would be fought completely devoid of self aggrandisment and self interest?'

Hiroshima was unfortunate, but it was necessary.

World War Two was not justified by any stretch of the imagination. It liberated Europe from the tyranny of Hitler, only to hand over most of it to the tyranny of Stalin. It was basically a total waste. The West should have simply sat back and let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, so they would (hopefully) wipe each other out.

Your ignorance of history knowledge appalls me. The USSR most likely would have won such a war; even if the Germans had, the resulting loss of civilian life, as well as military, would have far exceeded even the most liberal estimates of the casualties taken in reality during that conflict. Thus invading and fighting the conflict was extremely justified as a war against dictators; although the occupation of Eastern Europe was unfortunate, any attempt to have fought the USSR by the Allies would have resulted in massive casualties as nuclear weapons and the such were unleashed.

They tried to, it didnt work, besides, any war with a result beneficial to the masses (truly beneficial, not just "hey, look, free oil") is justified in my opininon

Hiroshima was unfortunate, but it was necessary.

No, it wasn't.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no17/vo11no17_bomb.htm

However, I have been thinking. Is there any kind of war that I could throw my support behind?

I'm not certain. What do you think?
I personally could not support any war of aggression. And I don't care how some people want to characterise the Iraq invasion...to me it is a war of aggression. The ONLY thing I could support is the right of a people to resist such aggression...as in, if someone invaded Canada, I could support the resistance...but not physically. I would seek other means to cease the conflict.

Millian thought would go with Humanitarian causes as well... but then the whole thought of 'Is there ANY war that would be fought completely devoid of self aggrandisment and self interest?'

I think not. There is always some ulterior motive. Though that is not always easy to see.

People want to see the "good" things that can come out of war, and they are blinded to the evils that also exist. This is partly due to ignorance and partly due to propoganda.

No, it wasn't.

Well maybe just the right decision then

Your ignorance of history knowledge appalls me. The USSR most likely would have won such a war; even if the Germans had, the resulting loss of civilian life, as well as military, would have far exceeded even the most liberal estimates of the casualties taken in reality during that conflict. Thus invading and fighting the conflict was extremely justified as a war against dictators; although the occupation of Eastern Europe was unfortunate, any attempt to have fought the USSR by the Allies would have resulted in massive casualties as nuclear weapons and the such were unleashed.

Why not let the Nazis and Soviets fight, then finish off the winner? Yeah, the casualties would be enormous, but then we could destroy two birds with one stone.

Millian thought would go with Humanitarian causes as well... but then the whole thought of 'Is there ANY war that would be fought completely devoid of self aggrandisment and self interest?'
Of course not.

I think not. There is always some ulterior motive. Though that is not always easy to see.

People want to see the "good" things that can come out of war, and they are blinded to the evils that also exist. This is partly due to ignorance and partly due to propoganda.

I.E. People suck.

I.E. People suck.

They sure do.

They sure do.
Sometimes in a good way though...never forget that!

I'd support a war being fought on our soil against an invading enemy. That was easy.

Sometimes in a good way though...never forget that!

No, humans always suck. 999 out of 1,000 people are total assholes. 1 out of 1,000 are mostly assholes.

World War Two was not justified by any stretch of the imagination. It liberated Europe from the tyranny of Hitler, only to hand over most of it to the tyranny of Stalin. It was basically a total waste. The West should have simply sat back and let the Nazis and Soviets duke it out, so they would (hopefully) wipe each other out.

And how many millions more would have died? What if one of them got the A-bomb first?

And don't forget, the war started because Hitler invaded Poland, not the USSR. Poland was an ally of the west. It would be just as abhorrent to throw them to the wolves.

Hiroshima was unfortunate, but it was necessary.

I don't think so. By that stage of the war, the allies had total naval superiority to the point where I believe a land invasion wasn't necessary. The IJN was a complete wreck. Japan has very few natural mineral resources. A blockade would have destroyed their economy and thus their war machine.

Well maybe just the right decision then

Was it?

An invasion would've certainly caused massive casualties, and the dropping of the bombs introduces to the world weapons beyond scope.

There was no "right" decision, only the one that was less harmful to the aggressors, and that was the bomb.

Sometimes in a good way though...never forget that!

Well...I... can't argue with that :D

I'd support a war being fought on our soil against an invading enemy. That was easy.
Would you support a war against a certain group within your nation?

And how many millions more would have died? What if one of them got the A-bomb first?

I doubt they would have. One of the main reasons Germany didn't get the A-bomb first was because of their persecution of Jews (many of whom emigrated to the West and helped with the Manhattan Project). And there's no way a backwards nation like the U.S.S.R. would have developed an A-bomb without spies.

No, humans always suck. 999 out of 1,000 people are total assholes. 1 out of 1,000 are mostly assholes.
Source??

Hahaha...just kidding:)

But you missed my point.

I would support any war in which I happened to be a part of - that is, if people were trying to kill me, I would most certainly respond in kind.

And how many millions more would have died? What if one of them got the A-bomb first?

And don't forget, the war started because Hitler invaded Poland, not the USSR. Poland was an ally of the west. It would be just as abhorrent to throw them to the wolves.Wait a moment... The USSR invaded Poland at the exact same time the Nazis did. That's what the whole secret annex of the non-aggression pact was all about. The USSR just wasn't going on a land grab the way Hitler was and Britain and France weren't really interested in getting Stalin and Hitler to ally against them.

I don't think so. By that stage of the war, the allies had total naval superiority to the point where I believe a land invasion wasn't necessary. The IJN was a complete wreck. Japan has very few natural mineral resources. A blockade would have destroyed their economy and thus their war machine.
I agree- they had complete naval supremacy, air supremacy and J was essentially under siege. With nearly the general population on a diet of grass(!) by the time the first was dropped- the people would have been in no physical state to fight. The invasion would have taken a few months to organise.. probably by Feb the next year. By THEN, there wouldn't be much of a pop left to defeat never mind the military. [/off topic]

Finnish wars, 1939-1945

Winter War, Finnish Defense Forces vs. Russia, Russia attacking for no particular reason (Russian artillery bombed their own men with artillery and claimed that the shots came from Finland)

Continuation War, Finland goes to claim back what was took from them (Karelia) in Winter War.

(note that there were 10 times more men in russian army than in finnish defense forces, and over 100 times more equipment in tanks, planes etc.)

well, Winter War was not justified but continuation war was, I believe we have right to take back what was took from us ? even if it was by force :upyours:

I would support any war in which I happened to be a part of - that is, if people were trying to kill me, I would most certainly respond in kind.
I hope it would be more than happenstance that found you fighting in a war...that you wouldn't find yourself fighting in a war you didn't agree with...or that you simply agreed with whichever war you happened to be in, regardless...

I agree- they had complete naval supremacy, air supremacy and J was essentially under siege. With nearly the general population on a diet of grass(!) by the time the first was dropped- the people would have been in no physical state to fight. The invasion would have taken a few months to organise.. probably by Feb the next year. By THEN, there wouldn't be much of a pop left to defeat never mind the military. [/off topic]

Plus, read my link. The Japanese were more than willing to surrender, but Truman never specified what "unconditional surrender" meant, and they feared losing their Emperor.

I'm sorry, but Kanabia is right here. Also, your ignorance shows again. Germany was extremely near to creating a viable atomic nuclear program, and within a few years I'm fairly sure they would have been created and used. As for the Soviets, the same goes, if not adding a decade or so. By which time, in your viewpoint, "finishing the both of them off" would have caused a full-scale nuclear war, killing hundreds of millions.

Wait a moment... The USSR invaded Poland at the exact same time the Nazis did. That's what the whole secret annex of the non-aggression pact was all about. The USSR just wasn't going on a land grab the way Hitler was and Britain and France weren't really interested in getting Stalin and Hitler to ally against them.

Meh... timing. Hitler hit Poland about a week before the Russians did. Technically, Hitler started it :p

Plus, read my link. The Japanese were more than willing to surrender, but Truman never specified what "unconditional surrender" meant, and they feared losing their Emperor.

Yup. Also, doug-long.com is one of the best (in academic circles) sources for the Hiroshima bombings.

I'm sorry, but Kanabia is right here. Also, your ignorance shows again. Germany was extremely near to creating a viable atomic nuclear program, and within a few years I'm fairly sure they would have been created and used. As for the Soviets, the same goes, if not adding a decade or so. By which time, in your viewpoint, "finishing the both of them off" would have caused a full-scale nuclear war, killing hundreds of millions.

I don't see how Germany could have developed the bomb before the West. Many of their best scientists were Jews, and fled to the West to avoid persecution.

Wait a moment... The USSR invaded Poland at the exact same time the Nazis did. That's what the whole secret annex of the non-aggression pact was all about. The USSR just wasn't going on a land grab the way Hitler was and Britain and France weren't really interested in getting Stalin and Hitler to ally against them.

I know. But the war started because of the German invasion, not the Russian one. I don't for a moment think the USSR's invasion was any more justified, however, there was little that could be done about that, as you said.

(IIRC it was a week later, not the exact same time)

I don't see how Germany could have developed the bomb before the West. Many of their best scientists were Jews, and fled to the West to avoid persecution.

I never said that it would develop the bomb before the West. Most likely they would have taken a year or so more, as their research was still extremely advanced. I'd also say that although many of their best scientists were Jeiwsh and fled, many were not, and continued on to create and further Nazi Germany's nuclear program.

I don't think so. By that stage of the war, the allies had total naval superiority to the point where I believe a land invasion wasn't necessary. The IJN was a complete wreck. Japan has very few natural mineral resources. A blockade would have destroyed their economy and thus their war machine.
Yes, Japan was going to lose, but it was going till massive numbers of people on both sides first. Blockading Japan would actually have led to more civilian casualty than the two A-bombs, and generally destabilises society as was shown when Germany was blockaded in World War One, so I dont see your argument there at all. The fact is that every night American bombers were killing the same number of people as each of the A bombs did, but the A bombs had the pyscological power necessary to persuade them to surrender.

I never said that it would develop the bomb before the West. Most likely they would have taken a year or so more, as their research was still extremely advanced. I'd also say that although many of their best scientists were Jeiwsh and fled, many were not, and continued on to create and further Nazi Germany's nuclear program.

True enough.

I have no love for war, and from the very begining I have been against the conflict in Iraq. It was rushed, and it was for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. It pains me to know that we're spending so much money on a trivial engagement that has resulted in thousands of deaths.

However, I have been thinking. Is there any kind of war that I could throw my support behind?

I'm not certain. What do you think?

I was for the war in Afghanistan, because that was undeniably needed. There was no question they were harbouring terrorists who were a threat to everyone. Sometimes war is necessary, but it should be a last step, not a first. (i.e., Iraq)

Starting a war, as we did in Iraq, was the result of the Bush/Cheney administration's failed doctrine of "Premptive War".

Without going into why this doctrine is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure from the outset, we can just look at the miserable results.

It's the same thinking that spawned Vietnam.

Gandhi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

We should stay out of Zimbabwe, or conflicts in any 3rd world nations, via military intervention. Although I think one could make a better case to interfere or threaten to interfere in the genocide in Western Sudan.

In the last 195 years ** ... The only war that has ever been "necessary" I think was WWII, since the alternative was unthinkable. Even then WWII would never have happened had Europe not blundered into WWI. Probably the most useless conflict that ever occurred.

While Saddam was a tyrant, he was being contained, pretty much completely. Now the results of this lunatic policy will be instability in the region for generations to come.

Also by going into Iraq we have "shot our wad", we are committed our military resources to this conflict, which ties down about 80-95% of our ground capacity. So what if some other loony gets loose? Case in point the new president of Iraq.

This was my personal assessment prior to the war and this has been bourne out by history.

War has no place in the modern world. But containment does have a place and will be a necessary evil until humanity is done with War as an idea and ideal.

** since the battle of Waterloo which was necessary.

I don't see how Germany could have developed the bomb before the West. Many of their best scientists were Jews, and fled to the West to avoid persecution. If the U.S. had decided to "stay out of it" then it would have most certainly happened. The war was obviously what spurred the fast-tracking and development of the Manhattan Project. Hitler's "Heavy Water" project would most likely have succeeded and we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

Would you support a war against a certain group within your nation?
Against a "certain group"? Sorry, but that just brought to mind some kind of racist war or something. What do you mean by "a certain group"?
If you have one in mind, go ahead and say it.

If the U.S. had decided to "stay out of it" then it would have most certainly happened. The war was obviously what spurred the fast-tracking and development of the Mahattan Project. Hitler's "Heavy Water" project would most likely have succeeded and we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

Damn, didn't think of that.

(I confess, Skinny87 is right, I am ignorant on WWII history. If it was Vietnam War history, African history, or something, it would be an entirely different story, but my WWII history knowledge is pretty thin.)

Yes, Japan was going to lose, but it was going till massive numbers of people on both sides first. Blockading Japan would actually have led to more civilian casualty than the two A-bombs, and generally destabilises society as was shown when Germany was blockaded in World War One, so I dont see your argument there at all.

The destabilisation through lack of consumer goods is the goal. If the regime can be forced to resign (or a coup occurs), conditions are ripe for peace. Maybe something should have been done about the food situation by a neutral party - not that there were many left by that stage of the war, though. I don't think a blockade would have been bloodless, but it in my opinion would be far less costly than the deaths of several hundred thousands from the effects of nuclear weapons use.

The fact is that every night American bombers were killing the same number of people as each of the A bombs did, but the A bombs had the pyscological power necessary to persuade them to surrender.

I really doubt some 100,000 people were dying *every night* from conventional bombers. If so, that is absolute overkill and I am appalled.

I really doubt some 100,000 people were dying *every night* from conventional bombers. If so, that is absolute overkill and I am appalled. The Tokyo firebombing killed 150,000 in one night, but no the casualties were not that extreme all the time.

The destabilisation through lack of consumer goods is the goal. If the regime can be forced to resign (or a coup occurs), conditions are ripe for peace. Maybe something should have been done about the food situation by a neutral party - not that there were many left by that stage of the war, though. I don't think a blockade would have been bloodless, but it in my opinion would be far less costly than the deaths of several hundred thousands from the effects of nuclear weapons use.
In the meantime killing hundreds of thousands - millions of civilians. The blockade of Germany killed 763,000 due to malnutrition alone. By comparison, the whole of WWII only killed 700,000 Japanese civilians, of which only 110,000 were killed by nuclear bombs compared to the 393,000 killed by conventional bombing.

In the meantime killing hundreds of thousands - millions of civilians. The blockade of Germany killed 763,000 due to malnutrition alone. By comparison, the whole of WWII only killed 700,000 Japanese civilians, of which only 110,000 were killed by nuclear bombs compared to the 393,000 killed by conventional bombing.

You have backflipped on your previous statement, "The fact is that every night American bombers were killing the same number of people as each of the A bombs did, but the A bombs had the pyscological power necessary to persuade them to surrender", then?

And you aren't factoring for the latent effects caused by radioactive fallout, there. People were still getting sick ten years later. The human cost could very well be greater than any blockade could have been.

I war of self-defense, or a war for humanitarian means against a dictator or group of people that the U.S. hadn't propped up in power beforehand.
Or any war in which only the people who vote for the war fight it...incidentally, this should be every war.

Or any war in which only the people who vote for the war fight it...incidentally, this should be every war.

Agreed.

I pretty much agree with this whole passage. Sorry about the length but I feel it's worth it to quote the whole thing.

This is excerpted from pages 804 through 807 of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. All text is Enoch Root's dialogue--Randy Waterhouse's few lines here are omitted.

Instead of calling Athena the goddess of war, wisdom, and macrame, then, we should say war and technology. And here again we have the problem of an overlap with the jurisdiction of Ares, who's supposed to be the god of war. And let's just say that Ares is a complete asshole. His personal aides are Fear and Terror and sometimes Strife. He is constantly at odds with Athena even though--maybe because--they are nominally the god and goddess of the same thing--war. Heracles, who is one of Athena's human proteges, physically wounds Ares on two occasions, and even strips him of his weapons at one point! You see the fascinating thing about Ares is that he's completely incompetent. He's chained up by a couple of giants and imprisoned in a bronze vessel for thirteen months. He's wounded by one of Odysseus's drinking buddies during the Iliad. Athena knocks him out with a rock at one point. When he's not making a complete idiot of himself in battle, he's screwing every human female he can get his hands on, and--get this--his sons are all what we would today call serial killers. And so it seems very clear to me that Ares really was a god of war as such an entity would be recognized by people who were involved in wars all the time, and had a really clear idea of just how stupid and ugly wars are.

Whereas Athena is famous for being the backer of Odysseus, who, let's not forget, is the guy who comes up with the idea for the Trojan Horse. Athena guides both Odysseus and Heracles through their struggles, and although both of these guys are excellent fighters, they win most of their battles through cunning or (less pejoratively) metis. And although both of them engage in violence pretty freely (Odysseus likes to call himself 'sacker of cities') it's clear that they are being held up in opposition to the kind of mindless, raging violence associated with Ares and his offspring--Heracles even personally rids the world of a few of Ares's psychopathic sons. I mean, the records aren't totally clear--it's not like you can go to the Thebes County Courthouse and look up the death certificates on these guys--but it appears that Heracles, backed up by Athena all the way, personally murders at least half of the Hannibal Lecterish offspring of Ares.

So insofar as Athena is a goddess of war, what really do we mean by that? Note that her most famous weapon is not her sword but her shield Aegis, and Aegis has a gorgon's head on it, so that anyone who attacks her is in serious danger of being turned to stone. She's always described as being calm and majestic, neither of which adjectives anyone ever applied to Ares....
Let's face it, Randy, we've all known guys like Ares. The pattern of human behavior that caused the internal mental representation known as Ares to appear in the minds of the ancient Greeks is very much with us today, in the form of terrorists, serial killers, riots, pogroms, and agressive tinhorn dictators who turn out to be military incompetents. And yet for all their stupidity and incompetence, people like that can conquer and control large chunks of the world if they are not resisted....

Who is going to fight them off, Randy?

Sometimes it might be other Ares-worshippers, as when Iran and Iraq went to war and no one cared who won. But if Ares-worshippers aren't going to end up running the whole world, someone needs to do violence to them. This isn't very nice, but it's a fact: civilization requires an Aegis. And the only way to fight the bastards off in the end is through intelligence. Cunning. Metis.

Or any war in which only the people who vote for the war fight it...incidentally, this should be every war.

Heh. And all the violent people will blissfully blow themselves into oblivion, leaving only we civilised folk. Natural selection at its finest, if I do say so myself. :p

Germany... Many of their best scientists were Jews, and fled to the West to avoid persecution.Hollywood?

Hollywood?
http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/meitner.html

any war in which only the people who vote for the war fight it."any war in which only the people who vote for the war fight it."

Well said.

http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/meitner.htmlits was team research.

giving all the credit to one person is st00pid.

its was team research.

giving all the credit to one person is st00pid.

Maybe you should read more books about Meitner. The other scientists on the team give her the credit for all the insight.

I would support a war under any or all of the following conditions:

1. We were attacked first.
2. All other means of conflict managment were exhausted.
3. The cause was just and the people wanted our help.
4. A close ally asks for our aid, and their involvment meets the above criteria.

Examples of wars i support:
World War II - England needed our aid, and were under attack by the Germans. Also, we were attacked first by the Japanese, and we retaliated.

Any Revolution - If the people strongly disagree with their government, and feel that said government endangers them, they have a right and a responsibility to overthrow it.

Only war that I would support is a war that ends all war.

I guess I am being silly, but being in the military helps.

There are a number of wars I'd support.
I just doubt that a President with Haliburton's hand stuck up his arse like a suppository is very likely to start any of them.

Was it?

An invasion would've certainly caused massive casualties, and the dropping of the bombs introduces to the world weapons beyond scope.

There was no "right" decision, only the one that was less harmful to the aggressors, and that was the bomb.
Sorry ment from our perspective

And while droping it did introduce it to the world so to say, at that point there was no stoping it from being introduced to the world
(my point is not that all the deaths are not bad, just that the introduction at that point was essentialy inevitable in some form or another)

The only war I can say I'd support that wasn't one in self-defense would be a war against the Sudanese government, to try to stop the genocide.