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

[Lisa!]

kyleb:
I used "good" in the sense of "justifiable",

Like which war?

 

[arildno]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

 

[vanesch]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans

??
A silly b**ch not willing to let a civilisation with superior values instruct her people in return for a few ressources ?

 

[arildno]

??
A silly b**ch not willing to let a civilisation with superior values instruct her people in return for a few ressources ?

No, a morally bigoted b**h who wasn't able to appreciate the public rape of her two daughters as just a piece of raunchy, soldierly fun.

 

[Lisa!]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

Well I wasn't born when these wars happened, so I have no idea about them. And it couldn't be important to me why you think they were justifiable. But I'm curious to know if you think the wars that US started in Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable.

 

[vanesch]

Well I wasn't born when these wars happened, so I have no idea about them.

Lisa!, you're funny! You don't have to LIVE a historical fact to have some idea about it, you know ! Like you thinking I needed to be 65 million years old to know something about the end of the dinosaurs...

 

[vanesch]

No, a morally bigoted b**h who wasn't able to appreciate the public rape of her two daughters as just a piece of raunchy, soldierly fun.

And she waged a war just for THAT ?? Talk about a restrictive mother !

 

[PerennialII]

I'm left with my impression that war is always morally condemnable, but can be unavoidable. So don't think Lisa's etc. question can be answered to any satisfaction.

 

[arildno]

I think the US action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was justified, in that, if I remember correctly, the government there publicly lauded the terror attack 9/11, along with that there was incontroverible evidence that Taliban did, in fact, financially support Al-Qaeda along with providing them with bases of operations.
That the US may have botched the operation, does not, IMO, remove the justifiability of initiating an attack.

No such evidence, or evidence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq was ever present, and that's basically why I opposed the actual invasion, since these were the (false) grounds upon which US&UK went to war.
Furthermore, it does not hold water to say that Iraq did not comply with the inspectors; in the 2-3 weeks just prior to the attack they did, and the leader of the inspectors practically begged US&UK not to do this, along with the rest of UN.

 

[kyleb]

Archon, arildno, vanesch, I suppose I wasn't quite clear but what I am looking for examples good wars, wars where the aggressors were fighting the good fight. WWII is an extreme example of quite the opposite. Can anyone provide examples in accepted history where the aggressors are generally accepted to have been in the right?

 

[arildno]

Archon, arildno, vanesch, I suppose I wasn't quite clear but what I am looking for examples good wars, wars where the aggressors were fighting the good fight. WWII is an extreme example of quite the opposite. Can anyone provide examples in accepted history where the aggressors are generally accepted to have been in the right?

Since France&Britain declared war upon Nazi Germany when the Nazis attacked Poland, that would technically make France&Britain into the aggressors..
But I see your point, though..

 

[champ2823]

My perspective from looking at history that there is no good war at all but there are necessary wars. Throughout history it almost always seams that the country waging war on another country is in the wrong and doing it for their own selfish reasons. And the war is necessary for the country being attacked as they are defending their homeland and culture. It's always much different when a war is being waged across the world or in your own backyardFor instance the American Revolution was necessary for the U.S. as Britain was invading use for revolting against them and other reasons and thus putting in jeopardy our freedom and country. For Britain's sake, they attacked out of anger and greed. The World wars is a whole new issue as it was so many countries and I haven't done enough research to say for whom I believe it was necessary but Hitler needed to be gone for sure. But I, like one of our best war heroes ever, Dwight D. Eisenhower, believe that war should ought to be avoided at all costs.

 

[kyleb]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

I'm looking up the two I'm not familar with here, but I am guessing they were revolts on oppressors like the Vikings, and not rightly wars in the modren sense of the term.

 

[arildno]

I'm looking up the two I'm not familar with here, but I am guessing they were revolts on oppressors like the Vikings, and not rightly wars in the modren sense of the term.

They were revolts (the Sicilian Vespers were against the French).
Call them "freedom fights", revolts if you don't like to call them wars.

 

[arildno]

Here's a link to the Brits' former leading lady and her revolt against the Romans (I haven't read through it myself):
http://members.tripod.com/~ancient_history/boad.html

 

[faust9]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

Your last example is one given very often in these discussion but done so with little thought. WW2 started---STARTED---because a tyrant wanted to rule the world. How can you justify that as good? How in the hell can you justify the killing of millions of Jews(Nazi exterminations), Chinese(Japanese tyrany), and Russians(Throw 100 Russians at every German soldier) along with the hundreds of thousands of others forces and civilians as a good war? Please explain this would you?

The other examples you gave fall along the same lines. Essentially, your other examples are of the trodden raising up against a warrior aggressor. The Vikings were waging war. The Romans were ravishing the Celts for land and money. Rape and pillage were the norm. Boudicca rose up against the aggressors to reclaim ther land.

As for the Sicilian Vespers I might be inclined to give that one to you as a good war. Charles wasn't a true aggressor in that the Island was given to him By Pope Urban whereas the other examples you gave were based on rising up to defeat an external aggressor. This one was a little different(along the lines of the American Revolution or the French Revolution).

My(short) list of 'good wars'
American Revolution
French Revolution
War in Afghanistan(The current one, not the Russian invasion one)

 

[arildno]

Your last example is one given very often in these discussion but done so with little thought. WW2 started---STARTED---because a tyrant wanted to rule the world. How can you justify that as good? How in the hell can you justify the killing of millions of Jews(Nazi exterminations), Chinese(Japanese tyrany), and Russians(Throw 100 Russians at every German soldier) along with the hundreds of thousands of others forces and civilians as a good war? Please explain this would you?

Nope.
WW2 started officially with France&Britain's declaration of war against Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

I haven't the slightest idea what your gripes is.
I know you are an idiot Republican, that's probably it.

 

[Lisa!]

Lisa!, you're funny! You don't have to LIVE a historical fact to have some idea about it, you know ! Like you thinking I needed to be 65 million years old to know something about the end of the dinosaurs...

And you always misunderstand me!I say I have no idea about them because I can't trust those people who write the history. So it's not necessary to judge about those wars when I don't have reliable information. At least I don't think I need to judge about them. Think about a war which has happened 200 years ago btw X and Y. You read in X's history book that Y was guilty and vice versa.

PS Don't worry. I know you're old but not that old!

 

[faust9]

Nope.
WW2 started officially with France&Britain's declaration of war against Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

I haven't the slightest idea what your gripes is.

Your right---The INVASION of POLAND. Damn!

 

[vanesch]

Archon, arildno, vanesch, I suppose I wasn't quite clear but what I am looking for examples good wars, wars where the aggressors were fighting the good fight.

Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. The problem is that "aggressor" is often an ill-defined concept in the case where it could potentially be the "good guy". Except for the big majority of wars in history where indeed the aggressor was well-defined and just a thief (go and fight the neighbours to take their land and wealth and make it yours), in conflict situations, often there has been a degrading relation between both antagonists. So at what point is the first act of aggression defined ? Even the first Gulf war wasn't so clear. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, how are you going to define an "aggressor" ?

 

[faust9]

Nope.
WW2 started officially with France&Britain's declaration of war against Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

I haven't the slightest idea what your gripes is.
I know you are an idiot Republican, that's probably it.

Also, where did the 'Idiot Republican' comment come from? I'm saying most wars are not 'good'. I countered the examples you gave as good wars. And I get called 'an idiot republican'. Well if by republican you mean I beleave in the foundation of a republic as a stable political system then you got me pegged.

 

[arildno]

Your right---The INVASION of POLAND. Damn!

Read any official history.
WW2 is regarded to have started with France&Britain's declaration of war.

 

[faust9]

Read any official history.
WW2 is regarded to have started with France&Britain's declaration of war.

No, it started with Germanys invasion of Poland. I don't know how history is taught in Europe but over here we Americans look at the broader picture in that France and Britoon would not have declaired war had Germany not acted as an aggressor. The act of aggression by Germany was what necessitated the declairation of war.

 

[arildno]

Also, where did the 'Idiot Republican' comment come from? I'm saying most wars are not 'good'. I countered the examples you gave as good wars. And I get called 'an idiot republican'. Well if by republican you mean I beleave in the foundation of a republic as a stable political system then you got me pegged.

No, you are a conniving, disgusting person who just because you are brainwashed politically will use any measures to demonize others with differing politic views.

In this case, your disgusting personality shows itself in insinuating that I was justifying Hitler's extermination of Jews.
Shame on you.

 

[faust9]

No, you are a conniving, disgusting person who just because you are brainwashed politically will use any measures to demonize others with differing politic views.

In this case, your disgusting personality shows itself in insinuating that I was justifying Hitler's extermination of Jews.
Shame on you.

You called WW2 a good war. Shame on you.

 

[vanesch]

because I can't trust those people who write the history. So it's not necessary to judge about those wars when I don't have reliable information.

I would trust historians more. I know that sometimes history as been distorted for nationalist reasons, but I have the impression that everything pertaining to, say, more than 50 years ago or so has been reliably studied (in that not much nationalist bias remains). There are some exceptions, like the Turks still not wishing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and so on, but outside of *Turkish* history books, I think the fact is documented. There are indeed some fools who deny the Holocaust, but I think it is well documented. I'd say, I would trust the consensus amongst historians about a conflict 200 years ago much more than the sometimes biased view of press reports about recent events. So I think that paradoxically I have a more objective information available about things I DIDN'T live, than those that I saw on TV.

 

[Lisa!]

I would trust historians more. I know that sometimes history as been distorted for nationalist reasons, but I have the impression that everything pertaining to, say, more than 50 years ago or so has been reliably studied (in that not much nationalist bias remains). There are some exceptions, like the Turks still not wishing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and so on, but outside of *Turkish* history books, I think the fact is documented. There are indeed some fools who deny the Holocaust, but I think it is well documented. I'd say, I would trust the consensus amongst historians about a conflict 200 years ago much more than the sometimes biased view of press reports about recent events. So I think that paradoxically I have a more objective information available about things I DIDN'T live, than those that I saw on TV.

You're right. I don't trust media most of time too. I think we should get information from different media. Well you can put this information beside each other and find out what's really going on . Of course it's still impossible to know whole the truth.
But you know it doesn't matter to me that what happened in X country 200 years ago unless I learn something from that for the present time. WW2 could be still important and worthy to discuss, but here I'm not interested to know whether anyone thinks it was a mistake or not. In fact ww2 was started by Germany and then US and other countries stopped it. But my point about good or bad wars is about the situation that you can avoid a war but you don't. I mean I want to know whether the country (Like US) that starts a particular war did the right thing or not.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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

Can I just point out (once again) that, ultimately, it was the coalition, in particular the Bush administration, that prohibited the UN weapons inspectors doing their job, not Saddam. Also would like to point out that 'not cooperating with weapons inspectors' was a UN problem, not a US problem, and the UN did not deem military action the logical course.

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

This long after Bush announced "mission successful", you have to be kidding, right?

Though invasion of Afghanistan was invasion of a nation state that had done nothing as a state against the U.S., at least it was a "war on terror" in that it was believed that OBL was hiding there.

Yes, alas, only in this day and age can it be considered acceptable to bomb, invade and overthrow an entire country on the off-chance we might hit one fella. It's the international equivilent of the old sight-gag of one man whacking his friend across the face in an attempt to hit the fly that had just landed on his nose.

As I said before I asked this question before, but I'm still waiting for someone to respond. Of course I'm interested to know the reasons which make a war good!

When not going to war would be bad, e.g. WWII. If the world stood by while Hitler invaded whichever countries he wished, it would not have been termed a 'world war', so arguing that the cause of the war was terrible is not really an argument. The reason for WWII was to defeat Hitler, not Hitler's go at world domination.

I think the US action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was justified, in that, if I remember correctly, the government there publicly lauded the terror attack 9/11, along with that there was incontroverible evidence that Taliban did, in fact, financially support Al-Qaeda along with providing them with bases of operations.
That the US may have botched the operation, does not, IMO, remove the justifiability of initiating an attack.

The reason we went into Afghanistan was that it refused to hand over OBL, and this flew in the face of Bush's fascistic "You're either with us or against us" view. Of course, we have to take Bush's word for it that the Taliban could have handed over OBL even if it wanted to. Still, I'm sure if you've just been landed the devastating blow of 9/11, it must seem justifiable to bomb, invade and overthrow a country that had the eeeeeeevil terrorist nerve to... uh... warn the US beforehand?

And AQ having a centre of operations in Afghanistan is not a reason to go to war, or else we would have invaded Spain too and saved the terrorists the effort of derailing the train in Madrid, no?

 

[kyleb]

Since France&Britain declared war upon Nazi Germany when the Nazis attacked Poland, that would technically make France&Britain into the aggressors..
But I see your point, though..

I'm not really looking to make a point here, Lisa asked the question and I have pondered it before and I can't think of an example but I accept the possablity that some might exist.

As for France and Britain, stepping up to defend ones allies doesn't rightly make one an aggressors.

My(short) list of 'good wars'
American Revolution
French Revolution
War in Afghanistan(The current one, not the Russian invasion one)

Britian declarded war on us, and they were ocuppying France as well; So Britian was clearly the agressor in those cases. As for Afganistan, it seems a bit to early to use that as a histoical example; but I think even now most will agree the Taliban started that one.

Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. The problem is that "aggressor" is often an ill-defined concept in the case where it could potentially be the "good guy". Except for the big majority of wars in history where indeed the aggressor was well-defined and just a thief (go and fight the neighbours to take their land and wealth and make it yours), in conflict situations, often there has been a degrading relation between both antagonists. So at what point is the first act of aggression defined ? Even the first Gulf war wasn't so clear. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, how are you going to define an "aggressor" ?

Very true, it can get quite muddy when it comes to who did what. However, we were clearly the aggressor in Iraq, and there are many wars in history where the aggressor was equally obvious; yet I have yet see one example of where the nation that started the war was in the right.

 

[Smurf]

Read any official history.
WW2 is regarded to have started with France&Britain's declaration of war.

Britain and France were allied with Poland. Hitler knew fully well that by invading Poland it was, diplomatically, an invasion of France and England as well.

 

[kyleb]

The entry of Britain and France is what made it classifiable as a "World War", but all the same Germany quite clearly initiated the war.

 

[arildno]

The entry of Britain and France is what made it classifiable as a "World War", but all the same Germany quite clearly initiated the war.

I've never disputed that.
I am, however, correct on the side of technicality.
It remains uncalled for and disgusting of faust9 to insinuate that I justify Hitler's extermination of Jews, or his invasion of Poland, or anything else he did.

 

[Smurf]

Nonsense, it wasn't a world war until Japan got involved. Before that it was a european war.

 

[arildno]

Nonsense, it wasn't a world war until Japan got involved. Before that it was a european war.

Good point!
It is European historians who classify WW2 as starting in 1939 rather than in 1941..

 

[vanesch]

But you know it doesn't matter to me that what happened in X country 200 years ago unless I learn something from that for the present time.

It's important because human nature and its relation to power, ideology and violence doesn't change much through the ages.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, i suppose you can't rightly have a "World War" that doesn't even span beyond a single continent.

It remains uncalled for and disgusting of faust9 to insinuate that I justify Hitler's extermination of Jews, or his invasion of Poland, or anything else he did.

I took that as him just being sarcastic in elluding to the fact that we already discussed how the Nazi's war was clearly a good war to put a stop to, but not a "good war" itself.

 

[kyleb]

It's important because human nature and its relation to power, ideology and violence doesn't change much through the ages.

Exactly, cricle of life and all.
See avitar
<-----

 

[Smurf]

Good point!
It is European historians who classify WW2 as starting in 1939 rather than in 1941..

Actually if you want to state when it "started" it was in 1931. but it can't rightly be called a "World" war until Japan attacked the UK in the pacific.
I wouldn't call it a world war at all since there were no open hostilities at all in South America at the time.

 

[vanesch]

Very true, it can get quite muddy when it comes to who did what. However, we were clearly the aggressor in Iraq, and there are many wars in history where the aggressor was equally obvious; yet I have yet see one example of where the nation that started the war was in the right.

I think the US vs Iraq case just falls in the large majority of historical wars: go and steal the other nation's stuff, and find some bogus reasons to justify it to the home front. (this is maybe something which is different from historical conflicts: if King A said he was going to hit King B's land, King A didn't always need to justify it ; his Royal and Divine decision was to be accepted as such... nevertheless, saying that King B is a vile poison spitting monster who didn't worship the right deity often DID help, no matter how great King A's authority was on paper).

EDIT: this to put labels on it. Yes, the US clearly was the aggressor in this case, and when it is clear like this, the aggressor most of the time is just the thief with a gun.
What I wanted to point out is that in those few cases where war WAS probably the least of two evils, one cannot clearly identify the "first aggressor". But I do believe that in some rare cases, the war WAS the least of two evils, and the only example that really comes to mind is indeed, stopping the Nazis. There too, it is not evident who was the first aggressor.

 

[arildno]

Actually if you want to state when it "started" it was in 1931. but it can't rightly be called a "World" war until Japan attacked the UK in the pacific.
I wouldn't call it a world war at all since there were no open hostilities at all in South America at the time.

Colombia along with other Latin American states, did however declare war on Japan in the summer of 1945..
(I guess they wanted a few pieces of the cake or something)

 

[arildno]

I think the US vs Iraq case just falls in the large majority of historical wars: go and steal the other nation's stuff, and find some bogus reasons to justify it to the home front. (this is maybe something which is different from historical conflicts: if King A said he was going to hit King B's land, King A didn't always need to justify it ; his Royal and Divine decision was to be accepted as such... nevertheless, saying that King B is a vile poison spitting monster who didn't worship the right deity often DID help, no matter how great King A's authority was on paper).

Not to mention how horribly the Poles treated the poor Germans living among them prior to Hitler's rectifying move..

 

[Smurf]

Really? All I found was that they severed diplomatic relations, and Brazil had a joint-defence thing with the US. No war was declared.

 

[arildno]

Really? All I found was that they severed diplomatic relations, and Brazil had a joint-defence thing with the US. No war was declared.

I am quite certain that some of the Latin American countries did, indeed, declare war as well as severing diplomatic relations.
I might be wrong, though.

 

[Smurf]

I think you are, I think it would be in my book if they had.

Edit: okay I was only looking at South America. You were right about Latin America, as I know that Cuba did declare war in 1941. However, no countries in South America did.

 

[vanesch]

Not to mention how horribly the Poles treated the poor Germans living among them prior to Hitler's rectifying move..

Ha, see, there is some justice after all, those vile Poles got what they deserved !

 

[vanesch]

I think you are, I think it would be in my book if they had.

It's not in my book either. Now, it is a book on radiation detectors, so that's maybe the reason ...

 

[Smurf]

It's not in my book either. Now, it is a book on radiation detectors, so that's maybe the reason ...

Yeah.. See mine's an encyclopedia of World History from pre-historic to 1965-ish.

 

[outsider]

Alright Hurkyl, I will let you be... this is peace. I will retract my request for your response... where ever you are. I'm taking a few days away from PF.

 

[Lisa!]

It's important because human nature and its relation to power, ideology and violence doesn't change much through the ages.

Could help to stop another war?

 

[Lisa!]

I think the US action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was justified, in that, if I remember correctly, the government there publicly lauded the terror attack 9/11, along with that there was incontroverible evidence that Taliban did, in fact, financially support Al-Qaeda along with providing them with bases of operations.
That the US may have botched the operation, does not, IMO, remove the justifiability of initiating an attack.

I don't know why you didn't mention about it at first, but thank you anyway. All right. Us had good excuses to start that war, but I don't know if they were the real reasons. It seems that everyone agree that Al-Qaeda was guilty about 9/11.

No such evidence, or evidence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq was ever present, and that's basically why I opposed the actual invasion, since these were the (false) grounds upon which US&UK went to war.
Furthermore, it does not hold water to say that Iraq did not comply with the inspectors; in the 2-3 weeks just prior to the attack they did, and the leader of the inspectors practically begged US&UK not to do this, along with the rest of UN.

And if they find muclear weapons, it was a justifiable war, am I right? As I remmember Iraq let IAEA experts to go to Iraq and do their investigations, but US attacked Iraq anyway. I think if there would be a serious problem with nuclear weapons , it's about US because they have NUcks and US politicians are crazy enough to use them , so if any country start a war against US, it could be justifiable as well!