He who is moral can be shamed.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
It is a self-deluding piece of nonsense to think that war become OK if you follow the rules. War is, without exception, nasty, evil, cruel, horrid, and depraved. It doesn't matter how you fight it, it's ALWAYS like that, always something to be avoided if possible. There's no point in trying to pretty it up. If what you're going to gain from victory isn't worth doing things that will soil your soul forever, then don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it.


This is exactly the point that I was trying to make and the point that can be summed up from Colonel Kurtz' lines.

Justification for what one did is judgment. You're judging those you killed, but most of all, you're judging your own actions. You cannot do that. In war, you do it because you have to, and never out of passion, anger, or emotion. You do it and move on. You remember it, but you never look back. Or look back and not be moved by what you saw.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

If that was a response to my post above, I don't think you understood the point.



That wasn't directed at you, it was just the best way for me to illustrate my point as well.



It is a self-deluding piece of nonsense to think that war become OK if you follow the rules. War is, without exception, nasty, evil, cruel, horrid, and depraved. It doesn't matter how you fight it, it's ALWAYS like that, always something to be avoided if possible. There's no point in trying to pretty it up. If what you're going to gain from victory isn't worth doing things that will soil your soul forever, then don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it.


I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. I just believe that in some cases the bigger stain on my soul is not acting. Unfortunately, a govts decision to go to war is rarely based on humanitarian efforts, and I started a topic voicing my disgust with some changes coming about in Afghanistan:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

If I had the power at my disposal, the regime in NK would be destroyed. And the civil war in Sudan would be stopped, by whatever means necessary. I would do this any place where there was the same kind of depravation and suffering because more people are tortured and die while waiting for something to be done to help them, than when help actually comes in the ugly form of military intervention.

But I do understand and respect what you said.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. I just believe that in some cases the bigger stain on my soul is not acting.


Here, we disagree. And I will give you an extreme what-if example to illustrate.

Suppose that Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime had abided peacefully with its neighbors, but commenced slaughtering Jews and Gypsies within the borders of Germany. By your thinking, the British and French, and maybe even the Americans, would have been justified in declaring war on Germany to overthrow Hitler's regime. I don't agree, nor do I believe any of those countries would have done it.

Why? Well, let's look at a few death figures. The Holocaust in actual history murdered approximately 11 million people. But a lot of those were living in Poland, France, or western Russia, and would not have fallen into Nazi hands absent the war. If Hitler had murdered only (!) the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals inside Germany, the toll would probably have been between two and four million people.

The total butcher's bill for the war in Europe that he touched off in actual history was approximately 50 million. And it makes no sense to me to sacrifice 50 million lives in order to save between two and four million.

I can understand outrage at some of the evil that takes place around the world. I can understand the frustration that there is nothing that can be done about it. But going to war to stop it is the wrong thing to do. There is no worse evil than war. Not only is it tremendously wicked in itself, but in the midst of the killing madness all sorts of other evils are tolerated and even encouraged. Liberty? There is no liberty in wartime. Compassion? We showed none to the civilians living in German and Japanese cities in the last big war we fought, and of course the enemy showed none to Russian or Chinese civilians, either. Racism? It was everywhere. War brutalizes people and ruins everything it touches.

There is only one thing worse than fighting a victorious war, and that's fighting a losing one. Hence the only justification that exists, in my opinion, for fighting any war: it is upon us, we are at war already, the enemy has struck. And the choice then is not to fight or not fight, but to fight or surrender. As I said: war is justified when, and only when, you have no choice.

And that's why I approved (with sadness along with the anger) the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002. Al-Qaeda had attacked. We were at war. Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and being sheltered by the Taliban government. That war was justified because we had no choice about it. It was fight or lose.

But by the same reasoning, I did not approve, and still don't, of the war in Iraq. We didn't need to do that. No matter how loathesome Saddam's regime was (and I don't deny that), war is worse. And apparently, the only way we would be able to restore order in Iraq is to resort to methods every bit as brutal as the ones he used. So where's the humanitarian gain?

To go to war for humanitarian reasons is bad thinking. It's like eating a creampuff diet to lose weight. There is nothing humanitarian about war, nor any evil worse than war itself that war might cure.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

The total butcher's bill for the war in Europe that he touched off in actual history was approximately 50 million. And it makes no sense to me to sacrifice 50 million lives in order to save between two and four million.


But that is only because the Germans were stopped. What would the number have been had the Wermacht kept rolling? The millions of Russians killed by Stalin could have been just as easily killed by Hitler.

I also have to consider their motives and methods. You can't do medical experiments on live subjects, test the effectiveness of artillery on people tied to posts, make lamp shades out of human skin, and rape women to death and not be held as an abomination to humanity. These weren't the criminal acts of individuals, this was govt policy. It just should not be allowed.


I can understand outrage at some of the evil that takes place around the world. I can understand the frustration that there is nothing that can be done about it. But going to war to stop it is the wrong thing to do. There is no worse evil than war.


Some of the atrocities I mentioned above were not acts of war, but of policy and in some cases "science". I think that it is more moral to kill as quickly and possibly (less time to suffer) 20 people who are supporting such actions than to allow one person to be slowly tortured to death. But something can be done, if the US would just take on the mantle everyone wants to bestow upon it as a medler in other's afairs. So be it. If the UN will not take action, we will. Of course it will take a President with no ambitions for re-election and no ties to certain special interests.

But I believe it can be done as long as there is the political will to do so.



And apparently, the only way we would be able to restore order in Iraq is to resort to methods every bit as brutal as the ones he used. So where's the humanitarian gain?


There would be violent methods, but as an institution I don't believe we would resort to the same things as drills in the knee caps and feeding people into plastic shredders. The humanitarian gain is after Saddam is gone and peace brought about as quickly as possible, through drastic means. Of course this is all theoretical because I'm not sure if a war for purely humanitarian means has ever been waged, and waged the way I'm thinking.

On a smaller scale, I liken it to walking down the street and seeing a rape in progress. Do you intervene, do nothing, or call the police? The safest choice is to call the police, but on an international scale, there are no police. So, unless there is intervention, the rape will continue, and after that one, there will be another victim, since there has been nothing to stand in the way of the previous one.

I suppose this is a personal choice, since I can not force my ethics on anyone else, but national defense is a completely logical reason to go to war, but I think if there is going to be death and destruction (and there always will be, no matter what), at least it could be for a more noble cause.

Thus endeth the sermon. I've appreciated the opportunity to discuss this.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
But that is only because the Germans were stopped. What would the number have been had the Wermacht kept rolling?


Astronomical, but please note that my what-if example assumed the Germans did not go to war. If someone attacks you, then you are already at war and the choice becomes one of winning or losing, not of fighting or not fighting. Britain, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. combined to defeat the Nazis not because they were genocidal nut jobs (actually nobody knew that at the time), but because they started a war. And if they had NOT started the war, then whatever murders they committed would have been confined to the population inside Germany, and been far less than 50 million. (That's about half the population of Germany at the time, by the way.)

That's what I mean when I say that there is no evil greater than war. The war that Hitler started killed about 5 times as many people as his death camps did.



I also have to consider their motives and methods. You can't do medical experiments on live subjects, test the effectiveness of artillery on people tied to posts, make lamp shades out of human skin, and rape women to death and not be held as an abomination to humanity. These weren't the criminal acts of individuals, this was govt policy. It just should not be allowed.


"Should not be allowed" how?

This is exactly the imprecise language that causes problems, as I see it. One speaks of not letting things happen, of putting a stop to them, of regime change, and so on, but not of the consequences of trying to stop them.

If we had a global government and all national governments were subordinate to it, then yes, I would agree that such things "should not be allowed." But the truth is that Nazi Germany was an independent, sovereign nation, and attempting to "not allow" some of its more barbaric practices would have required -- DID require -- slaughtering thousands and thousands of people.

Now, the reality of the situation is that they started the friggin' war and thousands and thousands of people were going to be slaughtered anyway, so all there was to do was to win it. I'm down with that. But no nation has the legitimate right to impose by force of arms its own standards on another. To persuade? Yes. To use trade policy? Yes. To use diplomacy and get other nations to cooperate in imposing trade sanctions? Yes. And so on and so on and so on, up to but not including going to war.

You see the evil that goes on, and you say you want to stop it. Fine -- show me a magic want that you can wave and make it stop, and I'll be fine with you waving it; hell, I'll wave it myself! But I am not prepared to resort to a greater evil -- war -- in order to eliminate a lesser one.


Some of the atrocities I mentioned above were not acts of war, but of policy and in some cases "science".


Yet those were not the reasons why World War II was justified. That Hitler started the war was why we fought him, not because of anything he did in concentration camps or death camps.



I think that it is more moral to kill as quickly and possibly (less time to suffer) 20 people who are supporting such actions than to allow one person to be slowly tortured to death.


You think deaths in war are quick and painless?

You know what happens when a tank gets hit by an armor-piercing round? Generally, the men inside burn to death. Did you see any of the pictures from the first Gulf War of vehicles destroyed on the road north from Kuwait, and the incinerated corpses in them?

You do know, don't you, that the majority of casualties in war are not killed outright; they are wounded. People go through the rest of their lives missing limbs, or confined to wheelchairs, or with brain damage, or with lost genitalia.

Then there's the psychological damage that comes from combat situations.

War is not the answer to anything except war itself.



But something can be done, if the US would just take on the mantle everyone wants to bestow upon it as a medler in other's afairs. So be it. If the UN will not take action, we will.


There's another neutral term: "take action."

I have no problem with "taking action" as long as the action is itself appropriate. I do have a problem, however, with going to war. Not going to war does not equate to not taking action. But if the problem is internal to another country, and is one that cannot be solved except by going to war, then let it remain unsolved. Some problems can't be solved, or rather must be solved by the evolution of other societies. That includes our own, by the way. Great Britain ended slavery before the U.S. did. Now, slavery was a terrible evil, I'm sure you agree.

Do you think Britain would have been justified in invading the U.S. in order to put a stop to it?


There would be violent methods, but as an institution I don't believe we would resort to the same things as drills in the knee caps and feeding people into plastic shredders.


Why not? They worked for Saddam, and what we're doing now sure isn't working.



On a smaller scale, I liken it to walking down the street and seeing a rape in progress.


No, because a rape -- interpersonal assault -- compared to one country starting a war with another. In that case, you fight.

What if you saw someone shooting up in the gutter? Do you beat him up to stop him from doing it?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

"Should not be allowed" how?



By empire. Destroy the oppostion and force our form of govt on them. Is it perfect, no. Is it the best? Its one of the top two. Great Britain has had a pretty good run.



You see the evil that goes on, and you say you want to stop it. Fine -- show me a magic want that you can wave and make it stop, and I'll be fine with you waving it; hell, I'll wave it myself! But I am not prepared to resort to a greater evil -- war -- in order to eliminate a lesser one.


There is no magic wand, but the exercising of force is the closest we've got..



Yet those were not the reasons why World War II was justified. That Hitler started the war was why we fought him, not because of anything he did in concentration camps or death camps.

Which makes those who could have stopped it earlier morally complicit.


You think deaths in war are quick and painless?


Nowhere did I say it was quick and painless. What I said was that it is more justifiable to kill 20 as humanely as possible, who are supporting a regime of torture, than it is to allow 1 to be slowly tortured to death.


You know what happens when a tank gets hit by an armor-piercing round? Generally, the men inside burn to death. Did you see any of the pictures from the first Gulf War of vehicles destroyed on the road north from Kuwait, and the incinerated corpses in them?

You do know, don't you, that the majority of casualties in war are not killed outright; they are wounded. People go through the rest of their lives missing limbs, or confined to wheelchairs, or with brain damage, or with lost genitalia.

Then there's the psychological damage that comes from combat situations.

War is not the answer to anything except war itself.


Indeed, I do know all of that. It still does not change my position.




There's another neutral term: "take action."


I'll clarify. Destroy the regime with all deliberate might and speed.


I have no problem with "taking action" as long as the action is itself appropriate. I do have a problem, however, with going to war. Not going to war does not equate to not taking action. But if the problem is internal to another country, and is one that cannot be solved except by going to war, then let it remain unsolved. Some problems can't be solved, or rather must be solved by the evolution of other societies.


Sanctions have no affect on anyone except those who would obey the international law in the first place. Sanctions have given NK cannibalism and nuclear weapons. Nothing has worked but force, and I doubt that will ever change. As for letting each country handle their own problems, I used to be a big proponent of that, but I can't see how the world has improved. Working for peaceful change hasn't worked either. I suppose the question is, does the world need to change, and is it worth changing? If so, the only way I can see it being done is through force.



Great Britain ended slavery before the U.S. did. Now, slavery was a terrible evil, I'm sure you agree. Do you think Britain would have been justified in invading the U.S. in order to put a stop to it?


If the movtives for such action are for the moral reasons I propose, absolutely. If GB was going to be the benevolent world police, then by all means, take a side and end the mess quickly. It could have saved severeal hundred thousand American lives and ended slavery that much sooner.


Why not? They worked for Saddam, and what we're doing now sure isn't working.

But there is another part of the spectrum that you are overlooking, which is violence without the intention of cruelty, but with the intention of quick victory. It is part physical, but then becomes mostly psychological. That is how the war is actually won.



What if you saw someone shooting up in the gutter? Do you beat him up to stop him from doing it?


I don't think that example applies. It would be the same as saying "what if Hitler gassed himself?" Good for him. Let him have at it. But, as soon as you say, "what if Hitler gassed someone else?" you've entered another moral realm altogether.

I call this my "Think globally, act decisively" campaign. Maybe I can get on the presidential ticket in '08. It will be the the "Violence for World Peace Libertarian Party".



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
One thing I've newly learned is that as war continues, another thing that will continue is humanity's persistent attempt to rationalize and justify it. They wll never succeed, but they will never stop trying.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Not sure if you are replying to me, but I'm not trying to rationalize anything that's going on right now. Just saying what I would do if I were king of the forest. If things worked as planned, in the end, peace would result.

I think we've gotten off topic a bit, and I'll claim my part in that.

Yes, morals can be used against you, and fighting dirty is a tactical plus. I was just saying why it was important to win fast, however possible. Fighting without morals is part of that, even though my rationalization was that war should be fought for moral reasons other than national defense.


One thing I've newly learned is that as war continues, another thing that will continue is humanity's persistent attempt to rationalize and justify it. They wll never succeed, but they will never stop trying.


War will cease when there are 3 people left on the planet. After that, it will only be a conspiracy to commit murder, then murder, then only 1 person left.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by hogtie]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Hogtie, let me explain why I do not like the idea of empire, and suggest an alternative that we as a nation might pursue -- although it will be difficult and challenging.

The reason I do not like empire is because of what it does to the imperial power. It also is a raw deal for the subject states, but everyone knows that; I want to focus on what it does to the big dog.

First, to be an empire is to be constantly at war. The U.S. enjoyed, from 1783 until 1941, a situation in which all wars that we fought were optional and due to our own greed and/or stupidity. That's not to say we fought none, but the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I were wars we could have opted out of. And even if we count in those wars, that means we had, during those 158 years, 147 years of peace punctuated by only 11 years of war. (That means we were at war about 7% of the time.)

Since 1941 -- since we became a superpower -- we have had six major wars, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War, for a total of 21 years of major war (and counting; who knows how long we'll be in Iraq?) out of 65 years. (Thus, we were at war about 32% of the time, more than a fourfold jump.) What is more, the remaining 44 years were not really years of peace, but years in which the nearly constant combat activity of U.S. forces did not reach the scale where a "major war" was recognized.

Besides the constant loss of life that being constantly at war entails, we have also faced the huge financial burden of maintaining the necessary military forces (although to some extent that would be with us under my suggestion as well). And the need to focus more than in the past on military power and national security has meant compromises in the personal liberty which is America's raison d'etre. The Founding Fathers distrusted large standing armies for a reason.

The other problem with being an empire is the opportunity for plunder that it affords to America's wealthy elite. By "plunder" I do not of course mean that our troops are baldly sent in to steal from foreigners. Empires usually institutionalize plunder, and ours is no exception; it's done by forcing trade agreements under which we buy natural resources at a discount and employ oppressed foreign labor at an even greater discount. The consequent flow of wealth to the top social strata in this country has created an imbalance of political power that is reflected in the corruption of our government.

This is an old, old story. Ancient Rome ceased to be a republic and reverted to a monarchy because the republic could not govern the empire it had acquired. Too much wealth flowed into too few hands, and the Roman elite became enamored of privileges it found threatened by popular movements -- culminating in the dictatorship of Caesar, who really scared them. After his assassination, the Roman elite put their support behind Octavian/Augustus, who established an autocratic government that catered to their interests, and the Republic, which had been reeling for over a century, finally died.

I do not want that to happen to America, and alas, I see it happening already. The Patriot Act, the internment of "enemy combatants" without trial, these are moves toward a nondemocratic government and the end of the American Dream. That dream is inconsistent with empire. Democracy is inconsistent with empire. We will have to give up one or the other.

This post is already fairly long, so I'm going to present my alternative suggestion in a separate one.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Now for the alternative to empire. The problem we face today is that, since 1941, the combination of oceans and the Royal Navy no longer keep us safe from foreign attack. We cannot simply retire into isolationism and let the world go to hell. We are at present too dependent on foreign trade, especially on foreign oil. Also, we need to be concerned about the threat from other nuclear powers.

(Were it not for the American Empire, we would NOT have to worry about terrorism, however -- except our own home-grown variety a la Timothy McVeigh -- and so that's not something to consider.)

Thus, a strong military is unfortunately necessary. Also, we will have to enter into commitments to protect our allies and trading partners. But those things do not an empire make. Great Britain, for example, is a U.S. ally, not part of the American Empire. We do not coerce Britain into trade agreements to sell us North Sea oil on the cheap, nor do U.S. corporations employ dirt-cheap British workers who are kept in line by British government thugs. Britain may be a junior partner in the empire, but a partner she is nonetheless, not a tributary province.

What I am going to suggest here is, not an empire, but an American commonwealth. A foreign nation would be a member of the commonwealth purely by choice, theirs and ours, and conditions would apply. A nation would need to have certain basic standards of democratic government, labor rights and environmental protection. It would need to commit itself to peaceful solution of problems wherever possible, and above all, no wars of aggression between commonwealth members would be tolerated. It would be required to support the common defense of all commonwealth members (although the U.S. would bear the major share of that burden). In return, commonwealth members would enjoy that mutual protection, and also free trade privileges among the members.

Something very close to this already exists, albeit unofficial. Much of western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries meet the conditions described above and have relations with the U.S. similar to what I've described.

As other nations evolved to the point of meeting the standards of the commonwealth, they would have the opportunity to join it. Ultimately, this could form the nucleus of a global government, especially as formal institutions translated the unofficial privileges of these allies into official ones.

Outside of the commonwealth, however, the U.S. should take a "hands off" stance. Except for defensive actions in the event a commonwealth ally is attacked, we should have no military involvement in any foreign country. Only thus could what we have not suffer the drawbacks of empire.

There is one major fly in the ointment, of course: oil. Currently, the only oil-producing region of the world that has not yet reached peak and gone into decline is the Middle East. A lot of our recent imperial activity, definitely including the Iraq war, has been undertaken to protect America's economic lifeline, the oil flow.

Thus, in order to make the commonwealth work, the U.S. would need to embark on a crash program of improved energy efficiency and the development of alternative sources of energy. Only then could we really adopt a hands-off policy with respect to the Middle East. But if we were to do that, the terrorism we're currently so fearful of would be a thing of the past.

With a commonwealth instead of an empire, we could preserve (or rather, restore) our democracy. The American Dream would be compatible with it, where it is not compatible with empire. And we would return to being at peace most of the time.

True, there will be problems with governments outside the commonwealth that we would not have the option of solving by invasion. But the price for having that option is exorbitant, and paying it is not in the long-term interest of either the U.S. or the planet.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Well, hell...
How am I supposed to argue with that? You've got like, seven zillion words in those two posts. I'll be here until next week trying to absorb all that.


I'm kidding! What you say makes sense, as far as how to form more common ties with other nations, but I just can't back down from my feeling that force should be used to bring peace. (I bet I could get this on the ATS board if I suggested aliens were trying to do the same thing with earth, just as soon as they finish their recon.)

Look how long we've had troops in the Balkans, for the most part forced to watch atrocities. It could have all been over if the gloves had come off several years ago. When you speak of a commonwealth, I don't imagine an organization like the UN (especially the UN) in charge.

Even with a commonwealth, there will have to be some way to unify the cultures and interests, otherwise I don't see how you can maintain a unity of direction. And if someone breaks from the commonwealth, becomes a repressive regime, then what? And say the Sudan never joins the commonwealth. To me, it still means that we should get in there and put a stop to the horrors.

What do you feel about, going into a country, destroying the opressing side's heavy weapons, and equally arming the opposition? Level the playing field on both sides. Then we get out, and not allow anyone else to intervene. Let who wants it the most fight for it.

You have put a tremendous ammount of work into your reply, and I'm sorry I'm not quite up to its standards by way of a reply. Its a little late in the day for me.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by hogtie]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
What you say makes sense, as far as how to form more common ties with other nations, but I just can't back down from my feeling that force should be used to bring peace.


Force has to be used to bring peace whenever a war has started. True pacifism, the unwillingness to fight even in self-defense, isn't workable. But you mean use force to impose world peace, don't you?

At this time, I don't think world peace is possible. If we try to impose it by force, we won't create world peace, only perpetual war. Let me say some more about this in a bit, though. I do think we can make a start, just not the way Bush is doing it.



(I bet I could get this on the ATS board if I suggested aliens were trying to do the same thing with earth, just as soon as they finish their recon.)


Heh. Probably so. There's some good stuff on ATS but a lot of really weird stuff, too.



Look how long we've had troops in the Balkans, for the most part forced to watch atrocities. It could have all been over if the gloves had come off several years ago.


History suggests otherwise. The iron fist has been applied repeatedly in that region by whoever held the whip hand, most recently the Communist government of Yugoslavia. But the violence started up again as soon as Yugoslavia came apart.



When you speak of a commonwealth, I don't imagine an organization like the UN (especially the UN) in charge.


No, I agree with you there. One problem with the UN (among many problems) is that it encompasses nations without common values. That's why I was thinking more in terms of an American commonwealth (in previous writings I've called it a "Union of Democratic States"). War will continue as long as nation-states remain fully sovereign and autonomous. The only cure for it is a global government, but realistically that's not possible right now. But I think we could make a start to it by uniting with other countries that we don't view with alarm and fear. No point in trying to make common cause with China, say, but with Canada we could.

A Union of Democratic States would be by far and away the wealthiest, most powerful society in the world, and would if enacted right hold the moral high ground. It would exert powerful social gravity on other cultures. The benefits of joining would be so great that a strong incentive would exist to make the reforms that allow for membership. Eventually, I believe it would evolve into a global government of a kind the U.N. can never be.



Even with a commonwealth, there will have to be some way to unify the cultures and interests, otherwise I don't see how you can maintain a unity of direction.


The cultures and interests need to be sufficiently close to begin with. Trying to unify them after the fact is futile.



And if someone breaks from the commonwealth, becomes a repressive regime, then what?


I can't think of a single historical example of a democracy that has been a democracy for a full generation, and then reverted to a dictatorship, can you? Germany reverted in 1933, but had only been a democracy before that for 15 years.



What do you feel about, going into a country, destroying the opressing side's heavy weapons, and equally arming the opposition? Level the playing field on both sides. Then we get out, and not allow anyone else to intervene. Let who wants it the most fight for it.


I think that would amount to increasing the bloodshed. If a society is in civil war, better it be fought with sticks and rocks.



You have put a tremendous ammount of work into your reply


This is stuff I've been thinking about for a long, long time. Ever since the Vietnam War, in fact.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Speaking in the context of warfighting, I think the only way war is TRULY worth the effort is if you're the defender, the victim, outnumbered, outclassed, and outgunned. I feel like the only way war has any sense to it is if you're a guerrilla or something.





 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join