Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is war inevitable?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is war inevitable?

    It is often said that war is a part of human nature, and that we are naturally inclined to armed conflict. On the other hand, we feel that our society is civilized, progressive and humane. Yet war is neither civil, progressive, nor humane.

    Recent talk about Iraq is an interesting example. Despite the recent UN resolution, the USA has announced as policy 'regime change' in Iraq. Despite obvious US superiority shown in the Gulf War, Iraq continues to resist US pressures. To me, it seems clear we are headed for another war. Why?

    If we truely didn't want war, we'd avoid it at all costs, since war is so horrible. Some societies have managed to avoid war and they have benefited greatly from it. Yet other societies are aggressive and sometimes seem to find a reason for war.

    WW1 was supposed to be the 'war to end all wars'. So was WW2. The Korean War was supposed to stop 'communist aggresstion', so was Vietnam. The Gulf War was supposed to defeat Saddam Hussein......

    Is war a part of human nature, or are we simply stupid and learn nothing from the past?

  • #2
    Wars win elections, didn't you know.

    Comment


    • #3
      If there would be no differences among people, there would be no war.

      But unfortunately there will always be difference. --- but it is again this difference that makes life interesting and society forward. Fortunately, to eliminate war, we do not need such strong conditions.

      War comes from misunderstanding, lack of trust, disbelieve and sheer greed. If we can get rid of these factors, we may well get rid of war. Differences are not bad, and in many cases necessary. And the recent history, esp. the practice within the US, showed it is very possible and real to coexist with difference and learn to appreciate the diversity. The base for this is understanding. Deeper communication between different people actually can open the door to some amazing world to one's new life. It is both socially and personally positive. With good understanding of each other, trust can be established and at the same time, there comes the healthy mutual respect. --- With some further contacts, you may even make friends. But even if not friends, (and not necessarily), this is already enough to prevent wars ---- will you try to rob your neighbor just out of greed? You won't. And you feel safe by knowing that your neighhor won't either --- how? that is where that trust and respect come in.
      Attn to ALL my opponents:

      If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

      Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

      Comment


      • #4
        I dearly hope we will find a way to avoid this war. It would be far better if Saddam would step down and do the right thing. That would be the best for all parties, but it's not going to happen. I also wish to avoid a war because I might have to fight in it, and I would rather surf this forum than wind up in one of my own scenarios here at Warfare HQ!

        Someone once said that all that is necessarry for evil to thrive is "for good men to do nothing." Both the US and Europe have a long history of failing to come to grips with situations that have gotten out of control until it is too late. The end result is that often we could have paid a far lower price if we would have been willing to stand up a speak in one voice right from the start.

        International diplomacy is not a court of law. I'm not saying the ideals that the UN members have formed are without merit. Quite the contrary I believe we must learn to live and work together if there is going to be any hope of a lasting peace. On the other hand, there are times, no matter much we wish to avoid them, when military force is the only option. Failing to use military force in a timely fashion has done us all great harm in the past. If the US, Britian, and France had stood up to Hitler when we should have a large portion of WWII need never have happened. We talked and talked and talked, and then proclaimed "peace in our time." In hindsight it seems like we were blind, but it didn't seem like to the diplomats of the day. They didn't see what was happening until it was too late. That's one of the major reasons the UN was formed, so that nothing like WWII would ever happen again. But for the UN to have any real meaning its members must be willing to stand for something, not just against.

        What do we stand for?
        Editor-in-Chief
        GameSquad.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Maddog
          I dearly hope we will find a way to avoid this war. It would be far better if Saddam would step down and do the right thing. That would be the best for all parties, but it's not going to happen. I also wish to avoid a war because I might have to fight in it, and I would rather surf this forum than wind up in one of my own scenarios here at Warfare HQ!
          When I said I didn't want war I meant it. However, a single well aimed 7.62mm bullet would do wonders for world peace.

          Comment


          • #6
            this is amercia buddy. none of this 7.62 bulletry. We would be shooting a good ol 5.56
            Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Headshot
              this is amercia buddy. none of this 7.62 bulletry. We would be shooting a good ol 5.56
              When did we downgrade our snipers to the same peashooter round that regular infantry use?
              "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
              Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)

              http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200601...9232.htm?blurb

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dan Neely


                When did we downgrade our snipers to the same peashooter round that regular infantry use?
                Being good at shooting and hitting your target has nothing to do with the gun at hand. A 5.56 round will still kill you at 600meters if the person shooting the gun knows what they are doing. That being said most *snipers* use the .308nato or larger caliber's.

                _Tim
                "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Maddog
                  I dearly hope we will find a way to avoid this war. It would be far better if Saddam would step down and do the right thing. That would be the best for all parties, but it's not going to happen. I also wish to avoid a war because I might have to fight in it, and I would rather surf this forum than wind up in one of my own scenarios here at Warfare HQ!
                  Um,baby,uh since your such a "peace" loving guy I thought you'd appreciate this little rally out there on the "left" coast the other day.Except I think they spelled the word wrong,what do you think?

                  http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/...ce_rally1.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    War is a part of man. Vanity, greed, domination, etc. have driven men to resolve their disagreements violently. Our quest to kill more efficiently has driven man to make great technological advances. Unfortunately, human beings remain relatively unchanged.

                    Those who have seen war find it hard to believe that another generation would even think of participating in such a horrific act. That's why WWI "was the war to end all wars." Yet, within 40yrs, the world would see a Second World War and the birth of the Cold War. Over 100,000,000 people have died in war. More than half that number perished in the 20th Century. You would think that’s more than enough to resolve whatever disputes we have and unite the world.

                    Stopping war might require a greater sacrifice than waging it. Acceptance and unity would retire tolerance and concession. As long as we disagree, there will be violence. As long as humans accept hurting one another for whatever reason, there will be war. One day, maybe the human race will evolve to realize the senselessness of war. Maybe our children will be smart enough to see that there is no real good reason to kill for and will find alternative methods to resolve conflicts. Until then, if you believe Plato, the dead will continue to be smartest people on earth.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not long ago I read somewhere that the numbers of ongoing wars in the world has been more or less constant in human history. I guess conflicts is part of human nature, its only the scale that change over time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush scored well among voters by calling for greater “humility” in U.S. foreign policy, decrying the overextension of U.S. military force, and criticizing the idea that the U.S. armed forces should be engaged in such practices as “nation-building” in unstable areas. As president, Bush has made a remarkable reversal of this popular position and appears eager to embark on perhaps the most reckless foreign military campaign in U.S. history. Taking advantage of the fear, anger, and sense of nationalism felt by so many Americans in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress and the media are now seeking to justify an unrelated military campaign that would have otherwise been unimaginable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I beg to differ on that point. President Bush scored campaign points by telling voters he was considering reducing American participation in Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and other open-ended peacekeeping operations. The reasons for doing this are numerous and for the most part make sense.

                          9/11 came along and completely altered the way America looks at the world at present. That's a pattern that has been repeated again and again in American history. When America is prosperous and content it has a tendency to slip more and more toward isolationism and is very averse to any type of really dangerous military action. Then some catastropic event happens and snaps America back to the reality that the world will not allow us to completely focus on domestic issues. Every time we do that we get burned.

                          America has marginally reduced in presence in the Balkans since 9/11, but President Bush has been presuaded by European leaders not to abandon the mission there just yet. Of course America went to war with the Taliban during this period, but that was a straightforward response to a blatant attack. Very small numbers of American special operations troops have been deployed to several nations, but in every case it was with permission of the host nation.

                          The only exception to this pattern has been Iraq, and I would remind everyone that nothing has yet happened there except diplomacy, diplomacy and more diplomacy. Is there anyone in this forum who seriously believes that Hans Blix would be in Baghdad tonight if it were not for the "unilateral diplomacy" of Gerorge W. Bush? Anyone? Anyone? The UN would have never got off its lazy arse if it wasn't for the American pressure.

                          During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush scored well among voters by calling for greater “humility” in U.S. foreign policy, decrying the overextension of U.S. military force, and criticizing the idea that the U.S. armed forces should be engaged in such practices as “nation-building” in unstable areas. As president, Bush has made a remarkable reversal of this popular position and appears eager to embark on perhaps the most reckless foreign military campaign in U.S. history.


                          This is exactly the same psycobabble the liberals here in the US continually spout. Apparently, liberals believe that the only time American military force should be used is when there is no decisive American interest involved. Hilarious.

                          Ann Coulter -- ON A BREAK from lachrymose accounts of Palestinian women weeping for their children, The New York Times has been trying to induce hysteria over the shocking Bush policy of deploying American troops in order to protect American interests. Such self-interested behavior is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.

                          The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of American mothers weeping for their sons, but only if their deaths will not make America any safer.

                          Thus the Times and various McTimes across the nation have touted the idea that invading Iraq "only" to produce a regime change is unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.

                          As the left's new pet, Henry No-Longer-a-War-Criminal Kissinger, put it: "Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. ... And the notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats."

                          The idea that America would be transgressing the laws of man and God by invading Iraq (unless and until Saddam nukes Manhattan) is absurd.

                          Does no one remember Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans? Liberals loved that war because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States. To the contrary, as President Clinton put it: "This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage."

                          Deposing Milosevic, Clinton explained, vindicated no national interest, but was urgent because it was akin to stopping a "hate crime." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said our purpose in the Balkans was "ending ethnic strife" and creating "multiethnic societies."

                          One searches in vain for some description of an American interest in the Balkans.

                          Instead, Milosevic was denounced -- by Clinton, Albright, Tony Blair and the whole croaking chorus -- for "genocide." Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, estimated that 100,000 Albanian civilians "may have been murdered."

                          Liberal enthusiasts for our "humanitarian" war in the Balkans, it turned out, were over-hasty in their use of the word "genocide" in connection with Milosevic. In the end, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found fewer than 3,000 bodies, most of them men of military age.

                          Commentators were soon rushing in to explain that these "new details" did not change the fact that Milosevic had engaged in ethnic cleansing and the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

                          That doesn't make Milosevic a hero, but he's a piker compared to Saddam, who has gassed tens of thousands of his own people and killed almost a million enemy troops in the war with Iran. Liberals oppose a war with Iraq, despite Saddam's far more impressive credentials as a mass murderer, because acting against Saddam is in the self-interest of the United States.

                          The left's theory of a just war is that: (1) military force must never be deployed in America's self-interest; and (2) we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. (Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941!)

                          By liberal logic, preventing Saddam Hussein from nuking Manhattan is not sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq because the United States has a special self-interest in not being nuked and therefore can't be trusted.

                          Similarly, Israel has less claim to act against Yasser Arafat than NATO did against Milosevic because actual Israelis are getting killed by the terror forces they are battling -- so they are self-interested. The Times was warmly enthusiastic about Clinton's humanitarian effort in Kosovo, but is indignant about Israeli self-defense in Gaza.

                          Moreover, if forced deportation (aka "ethnic cleansing") is grounds for a war crimes trial of Milosevic, what is Arafat doing when he demands that all Israeli settlements be removed from the disputed territories of the West Bank? Milosevic gets a trial at the Hague for forced deportations. Arafat stages terrorist attacks to compel the forced deportation of Israelis, and he's a martyr if Israel messes up his office furniture in Ramallah.

                          The point -- which is always the same point -- is that we must not protect ourselves but should just let liberals run the world. Liberals believe they are best qualified in war and peace and forced busing because they aren't going to suffer the consequences. Thus, they can act freely for "humanity." If it turns sour, like their adventure in Vietnam, they can always drop it and pin the blame on others.
                          Editor-in-Chief
                          GameSquad.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's good Al Gore wasn't elected President. I don't think he would have had the stomach to follow the same path Bush has over the past year. Bush clearly has leadership ability that both Gore and Bill Clinton lacked.

                            Many criticized Bush over his strategy to win the war in Afghanistan. Those on the left didn't want the United States to begin a war with the Taliban. It didn't matter if they wanted one with us. Peace at any cost so to speak.

                            On the right Bush was being hit with the charge that he was relying too much on the troops of the Northern Alliance. They wanted a major US presence on the ground with two or more divisions.

                            The war quickly ended with a riot of the Taliban and only a few hundred American troops were actually involved in the war on the ground. This was a major success at minimal cost.

                            After this success the far left and right now are targeting Bush over Iraq. The left again wants peace at any cost and the right again wants American troops on the ground.

                            Bush has ignored these two sides as well as the do nothing 'international community' and forged ahead in the interest of world peace. The so-called unilateral approach of the Administration has brought the kind of weapon inspections that will finally prove what Iraq is up to. If he had followed the multilateral appeasement approach that most of Europe has called for than these new weapon inspections would never had happened.
                            Last edited by Chuck?; 20 Nov 02, 16:00.
                            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Only the dead have seen the end of war.
                              -Plato (428 - 327 B.C.)
                              "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                              Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X