Register to reply

The Human Toll Of The War 'To End All Wars'

by Astronuc
Tags: human, toll, wars
Share this thread:
mheslep
#19
Sep2-11, 12:47 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by SW VandeCarr View Post
I think I made it clear that it was my opinion that the 9/11 attacks created a state of war not of our choosing. Some have argued that it was a criminal act that did not justify a military response, I simply disagree since most of Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban regime which served as base for Al Qaeda. I did not specifically equate 9/11 to the situation regarding Poland in 1939 except that in both cases, a warlike act was inflicted on a nation at peace. One could argue that a military response was not required after the Japanese attack on Hawaii since there was no imminent threat of invasion of the US mainland. One member of Congress did in fact vote against a declaration of war.

On the other hand, Iraq did not attack, nor did it serve as a base of operations for an attack on the USA.
Well I'm in agreement with most of that except what creates "a state of war", or perhaps what brings it into being. I don't mean to address here simply a legalism that may never followed up by any action, and which I'm not qualified to address.

Before 9/11 most might have commonly said a state of war results via military attack from another nation state that significantly threatens the safety of the US or one of its allies. Surely, we don't say massive acts of violence alone are sufficient, or the Oklahoma City bombing would have thrown the US into a state of war. Surely we don't say lawlessness abroad against US interests, alone, is sufficient or the US would be thrown into a state of war with Somalia the first time two guys in a motor boat fired on a US manned container ship. I'm suggesting, then, that after 9/11 the state of war came about not after the attack, but after the US assessed a future threat from AQ in Afghanistan and brought itself into a state of war, justifiably so, and acted accordingly. The US assessed a future threat, that could not be addressed adequately by sending in the FBI or reinforcing cockpits.
turbo
#21
Sep5-11, 05:30 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
I don't mean to pull a hijack, but there are other "great wars" and our WWII vets are currently being shortchanged. My father and his compatriots are almost all in their mid-80's or older (much older in some cases) and the VA is planning on pulling the portable trailer that acts as the VA office in northern Maine. If the VA is successful at nickel-and-diming our vets, most of them would have to drive over 100-300 miles round-trip to get to the old Togus VA hospital to get basic medical care, like blood pressure checks and medication, screenings, etc. That is just wrong. My father and his fellow old vets don't like to ask for help, and they are liable to forego medical services when it is made inconvenient or personally difficult to access them. Can we afford to give Pakistan $12B to build a dam, and not afford to provide our vets (WWII and more recent) the VA health care that they were promised?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Norwegian death toll probably lower Current Events 1
Iraq death toll hits 4000 Current Events 3
Death Toll Reaches 2000 Current Events 14