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

Hurkyl said:
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?
Because ... of the two of us, I seem to know that war and the results of war are not controled by the mentality of the computer.

Wars conclude with 'emotion' and this is what Americans fail to understand with their cool calculation.

You DO remember Iraq and that little 'sticking point' called 'hearts and minds'?

THAT's the emotional component you fail to understand.

Few seem to comprehend that the advice from most of Europe was as a result of two world wars which cost loss of families and not just soldiers.

So yeah, Hurkyl, you can sit there and play your little games talking about acceptable collateral damage and the like and 'regime change'.

However, that is why I can also sit here constantly poking fun at you with black humour over your success in Iraq and your 'Redneck Rationalization' originating from Rummy and that 'Sock Puppet' known as Shrub.

And no, I am not only talking about foreign 'terrorists' fighting in Iraq. I am talking about the current government of Iraq which is going through the motions to deliver a piece of paper to get you out of their country while ... at the same time ... negotiating with the country of Iran, your sworn enemy.

Yes, Hurkyl, that has been their 'emotional response' to you and what they perceive to be your quest for oil.

Like all fascist approaches to war, you cut out the human element and speak of it in terms of a computer game totally ignoring anything that was said and its effect on the population, who was killed and what it did to them and a whole host of other features that will eventually result in a disaster for you.

After all, the two governments and people you just toppled where your allies only a few years prior to this.

Your next target, Iran, hates you because of what you did there in the 1950's in toppling their democratic government.

Just when will you learn the lesson, Hurkyl?

When will you understand the irritation you cause in Europe each time you state you won the Second World War? ... When you insult them with movies like U-571 ... Blackhawk Down, etc.?

What about the opinion of the loss of people in China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, Holland, etc. and the hatred you dredge up when you mention beating Japan and signing them to the Treaty of San Francisco which effectively cut out any hope of repatriations for 60 years?

Emotion, Hurkyl, get used to it. Saddam was easy to control however you just released a nation now free to help in the war oF terrorism and not oN terrorism as you had hoped.
 
Hurkyl, you still did not address my post....

Warriors.... come out and play ay.
 
Hurkyl said:
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. :uhh:

Wars are good motivators.
in what way? That scary, run for your life way? :eek:
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.

You've sort of avoided this question by redirecting links that I won't read cuz it doesn't come from your own knowledge... therefore I cannot consider it part of your previous argument (plus they dont appear relevant to my questions)
Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.
so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?
Giving up can be worse than war.
firstly, where do you derive "giving up" from "doing the best you can"?

if you think war is a solution, there are those who consider war the ultimate surrender. :biggrin:
 
I

Icebreaker

Wars bring out the worst of humanity. No war has ever been good, period.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
0
0
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.

The invasion of Iraq was questioned at the outset for many reasons. First was that there was no link between 9-11/OBL and Iraq/Saddam. ME experts no doubt questioned why a religious idealogue from Saudi Arabia would partner with a self-serving dictator who was unpopular with the Islamic/Arab world as a whole. As for WMD, after the Gulf War and inspections thereafter it was questionable if these existed in a quantity of real concern. Even so, a "clear and present danger" was never evident.

Not only were these two reasons for invasion questionable to begin with, the reasons soon changed to "freedom and democracy" and now "nation building." Aside from the fact the the U.S. itself ignores UN resolutions, how can one argue that this was sufficient reason for war? Oh and I know the next argument--the ruthless dictator argument. We've already discussed at great length that regime change not only is illegal and not U.S. foreign policy, but this ruthless dictatorship did not represent a "clear and present danger" to our own national security--no matter how ruthless he was, the level of ruthlessness did not change this. You don't ask Americans to sacrifice their lives unless they are clearly defending their nation.

Sorry, but most of us are really tired of those who are still reaching, really reaching for justification for this war. I hope an international peace-keeping effort can be organized so the U.S. can withdraw, and I hope this will be the kind of alternative used with cases such as this in the future.
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
594
90
kyleb said:
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.
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! :bugeye:
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,995
16
kyleb said:
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.
It's discussable. For instance, the war against Nazi Germany had of course a lot of side effects which were regrettable in some sense, but given the atrocities of their plan, it had something good to it too. The point can be made, however, that one should weight (with enough hindsight) what was worse. After all, similar atrocities were committed by Stalin, and he was NOT stopped by a war. So what has been the "best" solution ? Let some fools do horrible things until people get enough of it and get the fools out, or go and bomb the fools ? I think, with hindsight, that it was a better thing to throw a bomb on Hitler's house than to let him do his thing. Maybe it would have been a good thing too to throw a bomb on Stalin's house, I don't know - but probably not, because the damage of such a war would have been terrible.
The point is, sometimes, horrible things happen. Does that justify going at war ? I don't think so, automatically. In fact, it's a gamble to wage war, and you don't know if after the fact, the war did in fact more bad things than it was supposed to eliminate. So in any case it should be a last option, and only when the horror it is supposed to stop is so terrible, that it's worth the gamble. I think the war on the Nazis DID satify that criterium. Most other wars after that didn't. Most other wars before that didn't either.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
kyleb:
I used "good" in the sense of "justifiable", not in the sense that I believe that some wars were really entertaining song&dance acts.
 
A

Archon

Whether or not wars are "good" is a meaningless question: I think we all agree that wars are, in general, bad. Like people have been saying (more or less), you can't argue this in a vacuum. If you consider only the immediate effects of war, then you see that people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, etc. To ask any question like this, you must look at the bigger picture: that is, you must measure the relative benefits and detriments of war and any other alternatives.

Thus, what we should be asking is: "Have there been wars that were better than the alternatives?" The answer to this question is yes, i.e. stopping Hitler by means of war was better than allowing him to conquer the entire world. Few people would disagree with this given the levels of death that would have resulted had Hitler been allowed to proceed as he wished. But if you look only at the millions of deaths due to the War, you think immediately that war wasn't worth it. This may be a somewhat unlikely example, but the same principle applies to less obvious wars.
 
224
2
I disagree with it.
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
594
90
arildno said:
kyleb:
I used "good" in the sense of "justifiable",
Like which war?
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,995
16
arildno said:
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 ? :tongue2:
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
vanesch said:
??
A silly b**ch not willing to let a civilisation with superior values instruct her people in return for a few ressources ? :tongue2:
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!

Gold Member
594
90
arildno said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,995
16
Lisa! said:
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... :smile:
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,995
16
arildno said:
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 !
:tongue2:
 

PerennialII

Science Advisor
Gold Member
897
0
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

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,846
130
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.
 
K

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?
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Top Threads

Top