NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

[Ivan Seeking]

One recent report cites

By a 54-44 percent margin, the 1,004 adults polled by telephone August 5-7 said the Iraq War was a mistake

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050809/ts_alt_afp/usiraqpoll

Sen Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, just on Meet the Press, said that in 17 town halls around the state, people are expressing the desire to cut and run.

So, people are finally starting to realize what we got ourselves into here. Well, its a little too late now [strong desire to use highly derogatory language here].

The war was based on a lie and has made the US less safe by focusing on the wrong problem. The administration has continued to lie every time it claims that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq; well, they were until we made the country a breeding ground for terrorists. But now if we cut and run we would leave a disaster behind that would certainly destabilize the entire Middle East. This is exactly why so many of us opposed this war so vehemently before the invasion. I never complained once about invading Afghanistan, but Iraq was a sucker's play, and now we own it.

I think we have two lessons to be learned here:

Never start a war unless given no options - the so called strategy of preemtive strikes is like putting Cleo in charge of the national interests.

Never elect an oil man.

 

[outsider]

Like iron filings to a magnet... intelligence is drawn to truth.

 

[arildno]

It would be disastrous if the US now leaves Iraq.
They've gotten themselves into a serpents' nest; they have the responsibility to contain the problems to Iraq, even if that means they will be bitten.

 

[Hurkyl]

I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.

Another interesting point surfaced after the invasion: the economic sanctions (y'know, the popular alternative to invasion) had been fairly effective at destroying the country. (and at breeding resentment of the West)

It bothers me that these issues never come up when people make these vehement posts about how bad it is to go to war. You can't look at it in a vacuum: I care little for narrow opinions.

 

[kcballer21]

I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.

Another interesting point surfaced after the invasion: the economic sanctions (y'know, the popular alternative to invasion) had been fairly effective at destroying the country. (and at breeding resentment of the West)

It bothers me that these issues never come up when people make these vehement posts about how bad it is to go to war. You can't look at it in a vacuum: I care little for narrow opinions.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here, maybe that it is a good thing that we went to war with Iraq? As for Saddam not cooperating with weapons inspectors, this hardly justifies a full scale war unless it was the case that Saddam was secretly stocking up for an attack, or to aid terrorists in attacks against the US. With evidence, I believe these scenarios allow for preemptive strike. The available evidence (and counter-evidence) never justified a preemptive strike at the time it occurred. It can be argued that intelligence was, um, distorted to justify a war that may have been legitimately justifiable at a later time (but probably not).

As for the economic sanctions, I also thought this was a terrible policy, and we all know the effects it had. But how are those effects worse than the innocent life lost and the infrastructure destroyed from the war? And does the current war somehow diminish the mid east's resentment of the west? What is narrow about this viewpoint? The whole situation was a big mess, and now it's an even bigger mess, initiated on false pretenses.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here

I'm mainly just venting that nobody ever seems to consider these topics when they're trying to make a case against war.

But how are those effects worse than the innocent life lost and the infrastructure destroyed from the war?

On the assumption that reconstruction will be at full steam in a reasonable amount of time, we have this fact:

War is a one-time loss of life and infrastructure.
Continued sanctions are a prolonged loss of life and infrastructure.


For example, compare it taking 5 years for reconstruction to begin in earnest after the war vs 15 years of continued economic sanctions before Iraq starts playing nice and can begin to rebuild. The damage of 15 years of stagnation and decay could easily be more than the damage done during the war, and even if it's not, it's still 10 years behind the war scenario on rebuilding the nation.

This is, of course, a hypothetical: it may or may not be what would come to pass. Maybe Saddam would have capitulated in a month or two, and not invading would appear to be a much better course of action. Or, maybe Saddam resists for 15 years and suffers a war (either with the U.N., or a civil war), and thus continued sanctions would lead to a much, much worse outcome.

But my point is that it's not a cut and dried "War bad, no war good!" situation, and it rather irritates me when people put on the blinders and pretend that it is.

 

[Smurf]

It's a shame so many people had to die before the people realized their bloodlust was unfounded. Unfortunately, this is exactly what I expected.

 

[arildno]

But my point is that it's not a cut and dried "War bad, no war good!" situation, and it rather irritates me when people put on the blinders and pretend that it is.

Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.

Damn straight and that is also why we have that organization known as the UN which is mandated with finding solutions WITHOUT war.

Might be an idea to fully utilize them next time.

 

[Lisa!]

Absolutely correct!
But one shouldn't necessarily assume that those who were opposed to US&UK aggression towards Iraq fell into that category.

Could you please name some of good wars? I asked this question but none of you gave me an example. I know some of wars were necessary but I don't know which!

 

[arildno]

Could you please name some of good wars? I asked this question but none of you gave me an example. I know some of wars were necessary but I don't know which!

Hmm..can I be allowed to mention the Nazis again, Lisa!?

 

[Lisa!]

Hmm..can I be allowed to mention the Nazis again, Lisa!?

I have to yes since you're yelling at me again! But I think you support the war against Afganistan too, am I wrong?

 

[kyleb]

Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.

 

[Lisa!]

Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.

I don't know what would happen to you when arildno sees your post.

 

[kcballer21]

I'm mainly just venting that nobody ever seems to consider these topics when they're trying to make a case against war.




On the assumption that reconstruction will be at full steam in a reasonable amount of time, we have this fact:

War is a one-time loss of life and infrastructure.
Continued sanctions are a prolonged loss of life and infrastructure.


For example, compare it taking 5 years for reconstruction to begin in earnest after the war vs 15 years of continued economic sanctions before Iraq starts playing nice and can begin to rebuild. The damage of 15 years of stagnation and decay could easily be more than the damage done during the war, and even if it's not, it's still 10 years behind the war scenario on rebuilding the nation.

This is, of course, a hypothetical: it may or may not be what would come to pass. Maybe Saddam would have capitulated in a month or two, and not invading would appear to be a much better course of action. Or, maybe Saddam resists for 15 years and suffers a war (either with the U.N., or a civil war), and thus continued sanctions would lead to a much, much worse outcome.

But my point is that it's not a cut and dried "War bad, no war good!" situation, and it rather irritates me when people put on the blinders and pretend that it is.

I see your point, but in this instance I don't think the options were limited to 'sanctions or war.' What's more, is that even though we did decide to invade, things could be much better than they are, but because of a lack of priorities, it's a mess. Maybe war was the answer, but not this way.

 

[kaos]

Call me crazy, but I can't rightly call the war started by the Nazis "good" by any streach.

He was referring to the war AGAINST the nazis.That is a good thing right?

 

[Smurf]

Hardly. A war in which millions of people die on every side is not good by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[kyleb]

I don't know what would happen to you when arildno sees your post.

You were looking for "good wars" in the sense of wars that brought good and not wars that were good to put a stop to, right?

 

[kyleb]

He was referring to the war AGAINST the nazis.That is a good thing right?

Obviously it was good to stop the Nazis, but I can't consider the war itself a good thing by any means.

 

[kaos]

Yeah wars aint a good thing. But in all, it was necessary.

 

[outsider]

In what way is war productive?

no matter how you look at it... everyone loses. one might say that one country gains power over another, however the sum total of the value on Earth has been diminished. Morale of people, Land, resources, and last but not least, lives. Where is the good?

Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried. Temper tantrums are for kids.

 

[kyleb]

I take it you didn't see Halliburton's latest quarterly profits?

 

[outsider]

I knew someone was going to bring up stock markets and finances... you know i didn't mean this type of productivity... companies in the business of war and supplying for war will benefit... but it's not to the benefit of the world... so take your yin-yang and spin along cassidy

 

[Hurkyl]

In what way is war productive? ... Where is the good?

Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried.

Giving up can be worse than war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.

The justification used to invade was that Iraq was an imminent threat the US security. So maybe you favor taking UN law into our own hands and spiting our allies, but this was not good enough for US law. We have this little thing called the constitution.

Another interesting point surfaced after the invasion: the economic sanctions (y'know, the popular alternative to invasion) had been fairly effective at destroying the country. (and at breeding resentment of the West)

Oh, the resentment is greatly reduced now.

It bothers me that these issues never come up when people make these vehement posts about how bad it is to go to war. You can't look at it in a vacuum: I care little for narrow opinions.

I don't see that it applies in either case, as stated.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:

A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

And so ends the tale of the crap shoot of life. One man's opinion that will imediately change if it is HE and HIS family that face anihalation at the wrong end of the gun.

Why is it that leaders always sue for peace when the canon fodder is gone and 'the enemy' is banging at the gates of the capital?

Again an American displays a lack of knowledge about the effects of war since it has never actually been seriously threatened by war.

Thank heavens for impenetrable defences and moats ... er? Oceans.

(Dare I say, "Remember the Alamo" at this point and remind you of that wall between you and Mexico?)

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

Like people!

Giving up can be worse than war.

Not a fan of Ghandi are you.

 

[kyleb]

so take your yin-yang and spin along cassidy

I was simply pointing out that your question "In what way is war productive?" has a different answer for people like the guys at Halliburton.

I think me and my yin-yang have a place here. ;)

 

[Entropy]

I think war is futile. Man will never be able to stop all the violence in the world. So why be a part of it?

 

[outsider]

Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:

yes, let's.

A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me.

Wars are good motivators.

in what way? That scary, run for your life way?

They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

they can... but it's just not necessary.
The progress that you speak of, what are they? better weapons? W's of MD? Where are the cures for cancer / aids / TB? Why is there poverty? Why do we still use oil / gas? Why is the world heating up and the environment going to ****? If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?

Giving up can be worse than war.

there are those who consider war the ultimate surrender.

 

[outsider]

I was simply pointing out that your question "In what way is war productive?" has a different answer for people like the guys at Halliburton.

I think me and my yin-yang have a place here. ;)

you are right... please stick around..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

Holy cow!

This is so outrageous I'm nearly speechless. I think you should run down, sign up, and hurry over to Iraq. Talk about arguing in a vacuum!

Giving up can be worse than war

This was part of my original point which you chose to ignore.

 

[Hurkyl]

TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?

Man will never be able to stop all the violence in the world. So why be a part of it?

One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.
Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.

Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me.

You asked how war could be productive, not for a moral judgement.

However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.

The progress that you speak of, what are they? ... If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.

I found some articles with a quick search... not exactly history texts, but they are the sort of thing I expect to find:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/966882281.Sh.r.html
http://www.accel-team.com/scientific/scientific_04.html

But the point is that scientific development isn't done in a vacuum. It's not like there's a field of science called "weapons research" that is 100% independent from all other fields of science.

The principle here is the same as with economic stimulation: war creates a need, and is willing to pour money and people into satisfying that need.

so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?

I assume you mean that in a moral sense, in which case I would have to say that my post says nothing about this question.

 

[Entropy]

One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.

That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.

Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.

Like you said before, it isn't that simple. Most violent actions are the direct result of other violent actions. By being the better man and forgiving people you stop the circle. This isn't even taking into consideration that mankind doesn't know what the hell is good for them. No man can fight for the greater good because man doesn't know what it is.

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?

You're just so easy and the typical 'everyman' of America.

A Homer Simpson of the PF Lounge epitomizing all that is wrong with the USA.

It's true, I do tend to address more than you have said because I find it hard to assume the narrow view of reality of the American psyche and this certainly must confuse you.

I sort of get the impression of that 'deer in the headlights' stare as your eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension.

Step back and read what you wrote.

You are trying to justify that war is a 'good thing'.

War is Peace ... "Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war." I mean ... Do you really need me to quote the Orwell or are you capable of getting there on your own? When do we discuss 'freedom is slavery'? We have all noticed that the 'ministry of information' has been changing the reason for the war.

However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.

Hence the Ghandi comment. As an American, you truly have not explored the alternate methods of reaching a goal, have you? I mean really, for a 'Christian Nation' you really have to wonder what it is all about when the religion itself was named afer a man who would rather get nailed to a cross than raise a hand to despots even though HE could weild the power of GOD!

Do you know what war does to a nation other than people go away from your town occasionally and some of them don't come back?

Hurkyl, I sure as heck hope you are really good at some branch of science and have a really valid reason for being here because your ranking as a theologian, philosopher and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean. (The character and NOT Rowan Atkinson the actor)

 

[Hurkyl]

That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.

I was answering the question "So why be a part of it?". I was not answering the question "What morally justifiable reasons are there for violence?"



TSM: If I'm a "Homer Simpson" whose "eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension", and my "ranking as a theologian, philosopher, and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean"...

then of the two of us, why am I the only one who is able to respond to a question directly? And why are you the only one who is attacking straw men, and bringing in emotionally charged baggage?