I am a life long pacifist. I never saw a war I didn't hate. But throughout my life the "war is essential" and "only the irrational or cowards oppose essential war" have won the day - in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq ! and Iraq 2, Afghanistan (have I left any out - there are so many. All are failures - some more arguably so than others - but. Who would argue that we have spent our citizens lives and our treasure successfully? 60 years later, Korea remains divided and an area of constant threat. Vietnam, ironically, might be the most successful but remains in the hands of a Communist regime - domino theory be damned. Iraq is on the edge of civil war and, inspire of practically unlimited expenditure of treasure and lives, stands ready to fall. Afghanistan - who he hell knows. I would love to see anyone defend our last 60 years of almost constant warfare as a success. Isn't it time to rethink this disaster?
There won't be any "civil war" in Iraq. No one over there has the guts to stand up and fight for their own freedom. They'll let the Islamist have their way effortlessly.
No,I fully support giving peace a chance. I just have a different interpretation of it. Plus, those radical Islamist do not value peace. They will not accpet anything other than complete domination of everyone. They only see peace as a mans to regroup and renew their strength. They will not stop until either they or us are all dead.
Okay even if you think that the wars you mentioned should not have been fought... you cannot ignore that war has it's place. I see you ignored WWII. You say you are a pacifist... what would be your solution for Hitler?
War is never a good thing, But the people of S Korea would differ with your Opinion. We went to war to fight, what people do with the country we leave them is their choice, you seem to think we were supposed to be Nation Building, LOL.
This same old song and dance again? Really? I hate America i (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate the hell out of it.
I'm a non-interventionist myself. Most war is stupid, but Korea made sense. The current situation between the North and the South is about as good of an outcome as could be hoped for, because MacArthur's idea of invading China was insane and would have caused WW3. Today, South Korea is one of the world's most advanced economies. North Korea might be one of the world's worst dictatorships, but it's not a sustainable system. Eventually, North Korea will embrace the outside world. It may take decades, but the writing is on the wall.
I don't understand? Do you dislike the point because you can't refute it? It doesn't need to be Hitler. It can be any would-be conqueror. While war may not always be the solution and is used more often than it should be as a solution.... The necessity of being willing and able to go to war, in at least some circumstances, is undeniable.
WW2 is always the one people bring up as the essential war. There are several answers. 1. WW1 was the cause of 2 and it was not essential. 2. Since the entire world spent a number of years ignoring what was happening in Germany during the Nazi takeover, it is hard to say what would have happened had there been attempts to deal with the issues earlier. 3. Since war seems nearly always to be the first answer for much of the world, including the US, it it very difficult to say what would happen in a world in which it was the last answer. If we had a world of pacifists, not likely I know, we would all be better off.
Yes, we went to fight. What result should war have? I notice we changed the name of the War Department. Too bad our actions (only fight for defense) have not followed our words since we seem to be the nation on the planet most continuously at war - we with our mercenary army in which our wars rarely put at risk the children of those who call for them. How many congressmen have children in the military? Who makes up our armed forces? Do they accurately reflect the society at large? The draft would, I believe, alter the willingness of the country to support wars.
The removal of whatever threat to the Nation existed, that is the goal. With Afganistan we had the probable cause to Invade, The Government was supporting the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 and before that and had proven they would assist those that would attack us. The goal there was to remove the main threat, the Terrorists and remove the Taliban from power. The first was successful in that we killed many of their leaders and fighters (the terrorists) and we removed the Talibam from power and from running the Nation. Whether the newly elected government there can fight off the Taliban once we leave is up to that government and the People of Afganistan, if they go back to their old ways we can and should go back to do it again, sooner or later they will stop or all be killed. With Iraq we have a very different scenerio, we were not attacked by them and there were no WMDs being found by the inspectors, so we really had no real cause to invade the country and remove Saddam. Some will say he was a monster and had even comitted acts of genocide, but that arguement was flawed in that we are not going around the world removing Monsters from power, we leave many in power without a word, and the act of genocide was comotted over ten years previous so if we were going to act we should have done so at that time. Bush Sr, knew what a mess Iraq was and that it would be even worse if Saddam or another power were not there to keep the three factions from going after eachother. The Civil war there was going to happen the second we left and as we can see that is exactly what is happening, it is up to the People to decide what they want and to fight for it, we cannot earn someone elses Freedom, only the People of a Nation can do that. True we are at War too often, some are justified others are not, unfortunately sometimes War is not avoidable. How many politicians sons and daughters are in the Military? I have no idea but if the time I served is any guide the sons and duaghters of the powerful and rich rarely serve or if they do they serve in a way that does not put them in any danger of seeing combat. I am against the draft, because I have served under both the draft and after everyone joined on their own free will, the Armed Services are far better operationally and moral wise with those that joined verses those that were forced to serve. Yes, it would compel those sons and duaghters of the rich and powerful into service but even then they will find ways to keep them safe from harms way, I doubt it would change a thing as to the Nations willingness to go to war.
This reference is a bit dated, but I doubt much has changed since 2006. You may be right that the rich will be able to protect their children and nothing will change. But we can be certain nothing will change under current conditions. I hope a few of you will read this article. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2270473&page=1&singlePage=true
I am afraid you are stuck with it as it is, the history of our Military has been this way except for one major exception, WWII, and I supect that was because they would be shamed in public had they not joined, even though many managed to stay away from any real combat. I do not see a cure for it and I would rather be fighting next to someone that join to serve than someone that was forced to serve as those forced are not always reliable when the ballon goes up.
