Debate and Discussion

War. What does it teach us?
kyupol at 5:11PM, June 25, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
war brings out the worst in us.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
bravo1102 at 8:36AM, June 26, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
If anyone cares the Conspiracy theory reason for war:

It goes back to those Annunaki. When they ruled the ancient world as their “gods” (or “Those who came down”) they introduced war because of internal conflicts and then encouraged them among their human successors. They still encourage them to keep us controled. One reason is that continuing warfare keeps our species from developing interstellar capacity. Since the Annunaki also introduced nation states and money, that also has led to continued intraspecies conflict.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Oneweek at 11:26AM, June 26, 2008
(offline)
posts: 13
joined: 6-13-2008
War is linked into Politics, Economy, even trying to save face.
But War can be put into these two words: Hate,Greed.
Hate when 9/11 happened caused the Iraqi War, not nuclear weapons. Humans need a simple way to cope with tramtatic effects, their mind is cluttered with depression. Then they see to that someone, ANYONE, would feel their pain.
Greed for gold as Europeans destroyed the Indian culture to find Gold, Russian's Stalin to control the entire world, it goe's on and on.
We all hate war, the only war we can stand is between two cartoon characters or in a video game. It's just that War is not as common for normal people.
The only thing that war can teach is when we find the country we are invading is actually ruled by a hideous dictator, and we have not known about this for YEARS.
When we help the people that we prevously fought though after the war…that's is simply being human.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:21PM
bravo1102 at 12:35AM, June 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
One caveat. Historically until the United States, nations that defeated another nation or group didn't go in and rebuild them. There would be changing alliances like how Rome and Byzantium used built up former enemy barbarian groups to take on the newer barbarian invaders, but usually nations didn't rebuild their defeated enemies unless they had totally taken over the place.

It has never been in a victor's interest to re-build the vanquished until the ideals of war without victory that popped up during World War One. (Civil Wars don't count) It would be in their interest to keep the defeated weak so they could be beaten up again. Look at the nearly endless wars in Europe during the 16th-17th Century for examples. Study how nations wanted to treat France after Louis XIV or Napoleon.

The thing that I loved is when I took my poli-sci classes on the Causes of War we didn't read Von Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. In the history classes on warfare that was where we started.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 7:54AM, June 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Gamers Anonymous
Use it as an “excuse”? It's no secret that Ahmadinejad seeks to wipe Isreal from the face of this earth.
It's not a secret, it's a myth. How would he do it? Magic evil Muslim powers? Hey, maybe they could develop nuclear and chemical weapons and do it that way?

Oh… wait… That would kill most of the Palestinians, and wanting to protect them is the main reason they don't like Israel in the first place. Ah well, looks like that one was built on smoke. :(

I don't care about made up fears about attacks that are based on fantasy. We had enough of that with Iraq. I care about the real war dangers.
————————————–

I don't want to see Israel harmed either- when one is against war, they're against it happening to everybody. It's simply more logical and more likely that it will not be.

————————————–
Bravo1102
One caveat. Historically until the United States, nations that defeated another nation or group didn't go in and rebuild them.
The U.S. building up places… I don't really think you can make a totally singular point out of that Bravo. You take it out of context. The context there was the so called Cold War. Straight after WW2, the U.S. knew very well that the next most likely conflict was with the U.S.S.R.
Even before the end of the war that was being prepared for. Building Germany back up was obviously a competition with the Soviets, directly. Nothing altruistic there, it was about defence. With Japan it was the same story. If the U.S. hadn't have been there, The Soviets would. Instead the U.S. made their own ally, from the ground up, with the bonus of a nice permanent outpost off Russia's east. :)

That was as strategically advantageous as it was possible to have.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
kyupol at 2:12PM, June 27, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
Ahmadinejad wants to see Israel gone but I doubt it if he will actually take steps to actually do it.

Cmon. 400 nukes vs ??? nukes (its debatable if Iran has nukes or not).

But still. Iran has a competent conventional force. They got a proper army, navy, and air force. They also got chemical and cruise missiles and can mobilize the Shiites in Iraq and across the middle east.

——

If anyone cares the Conspiracy theory reason for war:

It goes back to those Annunaki. When they ruled the ancient world as their “gods” (or “Those who came down” they introduced war because of internal conflicts and then encouraged them among their human successors. They still encourage them to keep us controled. One reason is that continuing warfare keeps our species from developing interstellar capacity. Since the Annunaki also introduced nation states and money, that also has led to continued intraspecies conflict.

Or you could say that our DNA has been tampered with and we have the tendency to dominate and destroy others who are weak. Thats our reptilian brain. As we might be a product of reptilian and human genetics.

Even if you look at it on a smaller level without including government. Why does the small kid get bullied by the big kid? Why is it that in this world you need to assert yourself or else you'd be pushed over. Its not some schoolyard thing. It happens in the office. If you dont assert yourself you'd be faced with an increased workload with others taking the credit. And even if you're stopped over by police. You know, those police can be like dogs. If you show youre intimidated by them, the more likely they'll abuse you. Just like how a dog will more likely bite you if you show fear.

One caveat. Historically until the United States, nations that defeated another nation or group didn't go in and rebuild them.

Rebuild the defeated nation in order to serve your interest. :)
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
tea_green at 2:32PM, June 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 294
joined: 6-23-2006
War can bring out the worst in you. War can also bring out the best in you. It just depends on whether or not you were a horrible person to begin with. There are many lessons that could be learned from war, it just depends on what lesson you're willing to learn.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:08PM
bobhhh at 3:37AM, June 29, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
But I don't think war teaches us anything at all, other than pessimism about the human condition.

Right on. War is just rich people who can't agree on how much they are stealing from each other who use nationalism as an excuse to end civil debate.

Oh and the poor schmucks who get sent into the meat grinder to fight their battles for them.

I bet not a single soldier is fighting for the same reasons that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had for starting the Iraq war. It is instructive that Colin Powell(who has seen first hand the ugly costs of battle) advised Bush strenuously against it, and then when forced to do so tried hard to prosecute it with strong diplomacy so as to effect a minimal loss of enlisted men being shot to pieces, but was thwarted in his efforts by Rumsfeld who couldn't give a rats ass for the lives of servicemen.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bravo1102 at 5:43AM, July 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
ozoneocean
————————————–
Bravo1102
One caveat. Historically until the United States, nations that defeated another nation or group didn't go in and rebuild them.
The U.S. building up places… I don't really think you can make a totally singular point out of that Bravo. You take it out of context. The context there was the so called Cold War. Straight after WW2, the U.S. knew very well that the next most likely conflict was with the U.S.S.R.
Even before the end of the war that was being prepared for. Building Germany back up was obviously a competition with the Soviets, directly. Nothing altruistic there, it was about defence. With Japan it was the same story. If the U.S. hadn't have been there, The Soviets would. Instead the U.S. made their own ally, from the ground up, with the bonus of a nice permanent outpost off Russia's east. :)

That was as strategically advantageous as it was possible to have.

That's what I meant. The US did it because we needed the strategic balance, the examples of the Byzantines segue into that. Of course it didn't stop the US from claiming we were being altruistic and idealistic and many believing it. Read the memoirs of the people who were there. They claim it was all altruism, in retrospect we interpret it differently as we have more insight. But the reasons someone convinced themselves they doing what they did is all too important. Some seriously suggested making Germany a pastoral wasteland like it was suggested France be left after Napoleon.

The USA did not see the USSR as an enemy but someone we could work with, even after the war. We wanted Germany to maintain the traditional balance of power in Europe and assumed it would be one nation by 1950. Practically no one foresaw the Soviet Powerbloc in 1944 and those that did were discounted.

Remember that history repeats itself and that modern history follows certain established patterns that go back as long as human history. If you are considering such a large question as war or cold wars previous examples provide enlightenment that one example does not.

One event has to be considered in a larger perspective as well as the thoughts and ratinalizations made by those present. Some of my original research on these questions ended up in a work on the US approach to Vietnam in the immediate post war period so I just might know what I'm talking about after all those hours in the library wading through the writings in US, French and balance of power diplomacy and policy of the time period (especially as it related to Vietnam and it was all related)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 4:21AM, July 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
I don't know if the U.S. didn't see the U.S.S.R. as an enemy back at the end of WW2. Patton wanted to go after them right after. They weren't really let in on the Manhattan project either were they?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Faliat at 7:02PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
War doesn't teach us anything if we pretend it never happened or treat it like it was nothing and that everything was all sunshine and rainbows.

Relatives kneeled screaming at graves with grief, babies dead as part of collateral, corpses lying in roads being picked apart by birds and bugs.

War is trivialised so much nowadays. We put humans through such suffering.
We cause uproars over culling seals while people are blown apart by bombs, being tortured or slowly starving to death at the same time.

Humans aren't cute and fluffy. So we don't matter.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
ozoneocean at 7:50PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
I don't agree with the comparative caring equation. You could say that cows aren't human so it doesn't matter if we kill and eat them, or that chickens aren't human so it doesn't matter if we keep them in cages all of their lives and force them to lay eggs until they die.

What you say about grief and dead bodies though reminds me of a truism expressed in a Led Zeppelin song:
The pain of war cannot exceed the woe of aftermath.

-What you're left with after a war is much worse than anything that happened during it. That's a very good argument for not having them in the first place. Not thinking of them as “inevitable” parts of life. That's a cowardly rationalisation.
—————-

In fact, most of the research I've done into arms races and weapon technology points to one startling conclusion over and over: The weapons aren't really meant for war. They're meant to scare off your foes and prevent them from wanting too attack you.
That seems to be the prime mover in the development of most new weapons and the driver behind arms races-> not a rush to battle, but a fear of it.

-The most obvious indication of this is that if all you want to do is make war and kill people, you don't need to spend billions on expensive weapons tech.
—————-

But to your post again no, war shouldn't be trivialised, it should be be respected as the worst situation than humanity can get into and so avoided at ALL costs. These recent adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Israel's shelling and bombing of Lebanon have proved over and over how amazingly pointless and destructive such activities can be.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Faliat at 7:14AM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
The comparitive caring statement is to do with cuteness, not whether they're human or not.
Nobody gave a damn about the baiji. Now they're all gone.

Yes, the aftermath of war is horrible. But most of the people describing the aftermath of war only describe the aftermath because they've never been involved while the war was going on.

My cousin's grandfather fought in WW2 and he won't say anythything about it. And my mum's uncle was in a Japanese Prisoner of War camp in Burma. And all he told anyone was of the instance he got a large machete scar up his chin.

When my grandfather was 20 he was riding his bike home from work and then a bomb was dropped on a row of houses nearby. A coffin flew out of one of the windows and landed right in front of his bike… A very tiny one.

My mum said my grandmother said that he never really got over it.

For such an aftermath, the events to cause it must've been a whole lot worse.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
StaceyMontgomery at 7:46AM, Aug. 2, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I think i disagree that the US somehow invented the idea of defeating nations and then rebuilding them. This has actually been a standard model throughout history - defeat a nation, then make it a satellite/colony/vassal, rebuilding it so that you can profit from owning it. (I do not mean to say it has been the ONLY model, of course).

It is true that the US has made rebuilding a much more focussed effort than say, the Roman Empire did, but then again, being defeated by the US tends to mean your infrastructure has been bombed (something the Romans did not do) so there's actually a more pressing NEED for rebuilding. What's the point of stealing money if you then set all the money on fire?

Would that we could go back to the days when wars were fought largely between armies on the field of battle. War used to mean “I can defeat your army!” but now it largely means “I can kill your civilians before you can kill mine!”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
DAJB at 8:50AM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
The idea of rebuilding defeated nations is certainly not an exclusively US one. After WW2 it was widely recognised that the circumstances which had led to the rise of Hitler (and therefore the war) were largely created by the hardship imposed upon the defeated Germany after WW1.

To prevent the same thing happening again, it was decided that Germany (and Japan) should be helped to rebuild their economies. The US played its part by financing most of the cash cost while Europe set about founding the political and trade ties that would become the EEC (now the EU).
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
bravo1102 at 7:18AM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
StaceyMontgomery
Would that we could go back to the days when wars were fought largely between armies on the field of battle. War used to mean “I can defeat your army!” but now it largely means “I can kill your civilians before you can kill mine!”

It's kind of difficult to go back to what never was. There has always been “collateral damage” to civilians. It took the German people 200 years to recover from the Thirty Years War and that was all about those armies marching back and forth trying to defeat each other. It can be argued that Germany's “never again” attitude because of that led to the rise of Prussia and then a united Germany that valued its army over its people so its people would never be subject to another army. Deterrence. But when you have something that nice and shiny someone's gonna wanna see if they can provoke you into using it because they think theirs is bigger and shinier and they feel threatened by yours. Deterrence: for everytime it worked there is another time it didn't.

Pissing contests to drag races to arms races. Human nature.

As for intrinsic cuteness: Babies and children are cute so we don't eat them. Many animals raised for food aren't very pretty.

War by its very nature makes everything ugly so everything can be destroyed without remorse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 7:48AM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
The comparative thing was talking about how your humans aren't cute so we don't care idea was corrupt. ;)
Chickens and cows are cute, you see? People still kill em. Bravo is right. During war it's ok to kill anything.
Faliat
Yes, the aftermath of war is horrible. But most of the people describing the aftermath of war only describe the aftermath because they've never been involved while the war was going on.
No. The aftermath is worse for people that experience it. During war people get hurt and die etc. But what they mainly care about is surviving. Afterwards, you have billions of dollars worth of infrastructure destroyed. Hospitals bombed, farms burnt to the ground. Rapped women stuck with babies they can't care for, people to mourn… War brings with it as a direct consequence both famine (from all the destroyed farms, dead farm workers, no infrastructure to carry food eic.) and plague (because of the destroyed hospital facilities, shortage of care workers, destroyed sanitation facilities, lack of clean water and so on).

And it takes decades to rebuild. When people say several billion dollars worth of damage was done and billions were spent on the war, that means work of the backs of your people. Thousands of hours of work required, blood and sweat to make up the value that the war has robbed you off. Your life after the war is working to repay its debt.- ON TOP of everything else.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 5:19PM, Aug. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
ozoneocean
The comparative thing was talking about how your humans aren't cute so we don't care idea was corrupt. ;)
Chickens and cows are cute, you see? People still kill em. Bravo is right. During war it's ok to kill anything.

Yeah, chickens and cows are cute. Yet there's more people in the western world complaining about the mistreatment of such animals being made into food that we have to eat unless we die or become malnourished, than caring about the people that actually ARE starving and malnourished.


Faliat
Yes, the aftermath of war is horrible. But most of the people describing the aftermath of war only describe the aftermath because they've never been involved while the war was going on.

ozoneocean
No. The aftermath is worse for people that experience it. During war people get hurt and die etc. But what they mainly care about is surviving. Afterwards, you have billions of dollars worth of infrastructure destroyed. Hospitals bombed, farms burnt to the ground. Rapped women stuck with babies they can't care for, people to mourn… War brings with it as a direct consequence both famine (from all the destroyed farms, dead farm workers, no infrastructure to carry food eic.) and plague (because of the destroyed hospital facilities, shortage of care workers, destroyed sanitation facilities, lack of clean water and so on).

And it takes decades to rebuild. When people say several billion dollars worth of damage was done and billions were spent on the war, that means work of the backs of your people. Thousands of hours of work required, blood and sweat to make up the value that the war has robbed you off. Your life after the war is working to repay its debt.- ON TOP of everything else.

Ah, but a lot of these things that you say are part of the aftermath also happen actually during the war itself.

Difference is, in the aftermath, there's no more fighting and death going on around you while you're trying to rebuild the hospitals/sanitation facilities/farms and look after those children.

And most wars, yes, a lot of people die and a lot of bad things happened in the war. But if you look at how many things World War 2 taught us, there were a lot of good things that happened as a result. In Britain at least. People who used to starve were now guaranteed meals because of war rations that still carried on after it had ended. Healthcare for the poor improved. That saved more lives than were ever lost in the war.

I think the aftermath of wars depend on exactly what caused the war in the first place. But despite that you're always certain that the war itself will be horrific beyond imagination.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
ozoneocean at 12:42AM, Aug. 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Very few people complain or care about animal welfare. Far, far more people simply don't. And they don't tend to care about lots of people dying in wars either. The thing is, the bigger the numbers the less they mean ;)

—————
We're being a bit pedantic about the war and aftermath argument now, but yes, it tends to be nastier. Just look at the dragging situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, After invasion they're still dragging away in a rather nasty state.

Ever hear about the massive famine in Ethiopia during the 80's? Bob Geldof with his Band Aid programme? Millions were starving and dying there. They'd had a drought, but the real cause were the destroyed farms because of the war they'd had. Most famine in Africa is caused by war, exacerbated by drought.

-The important thing about aftermath for the survivors is now they have time to mourn and live with how crappy everything is. During war they know the situation is temporary and a lot of them actually find it very exciting.

As for the “good things” from war, do you really think means much at all in comparison to the rest?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 8:05AM, Aug. 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
The whole situation with Iraq and Afghanistan is, in reality , we're still at war.

We're not warring against these particular countries. We're supposed to be at war with Terrorism. And so far there is still terrorism in the world.

And in regards to the aftrmath of war making improvements… Yes. I do believe it.

Wars create opportunities for massive cultural and technological development.

If you look at wars now compared to how they used to be, the difference is huge. And in comparison, overall casualties are lower. In World War 1 you were pushed up over the edge of a trench and ran at the enemy forces with your gun. If you stopped or didn't get up there fast enough, you were shot dead and classed as a traitor. Yes, less civillians were killed, but more soldiers died. A lot of them lied about their ages to get in and fight for their country without knowing what was really in store for them.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
ozoneocean at 8:29AM, Aug. 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Not really Faliat. No one can ever have an actual war with a method of fighting. Not literally.

In “reality” you have two occupations, with some on-going resistance in both places. You can call it “war” in terms of continuing commitment of military forces, but that's not really what's happening. If we're going to be loose with wording and extend definitions we can talk about “cold” and “hot” wars, and how the U.S. is still at war with North Korea (only a truce signed), and the “war” on drugs, obesity, and illiteracy, but it makes things a bit of a nonsense. -_-
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 9:23PM, Aug. 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
But we didn't DECLARE war on Afghanistan and Iraq. We overthrew them. So basically judging by what you wrote, we're not even at war at all.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
ozoneocean at 12:50AM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
You really are being pedantic now. Declarations are irrelevant, whether there was on or not, the invasions happened, were successful in their objective and now those countries are currently under occupation. In Afghanistan there's more organised resistance, as there always is in that country.

If you'd like that overlay some fantasy situation so things fit in with your preconceptions, I can't prevent you.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 6:03PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
The declarations are relevant when you consider that this is a discussion about war.
And if there was no actual war to start with, or if the war is still going on, then Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really going through the aftermath of war.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
ozoneocean at 2:06AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Faliat
The declarations are relevant when you consider that this is a discussion about war.
And if there was no actual war to start with, or if the war is still going on, then Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really going through the aftermath of war.
That's not being pedantic now, that's just… hmmm.

We're not in the 19thC anymore. Armies don't nicely write out declarations and present them as challenges etc. Look, in the case of Iraq there was a process n the U.N. certain rulings were manipulated to make the use of force appear acceptable. They ruled that it wasn't, so the U/S.A. went it alone and got their own coalition together to invade away. The invasion went through, Iraq FELL. Major hostilities CEASED, war OVER, the country was brought under the coalition's control and was occupied. There are still resistance forces operating, but most attacks are against civilians and most are actually rival political and criminal groups. Actual anti-coalition forces don't make up the biggest group. because it's a lot easier to fight among themselves than take on soldiers.

Afghanistan was different. The countries in the U.N. felt sympathy for the U.S. Afghanistan didn't have any international support so there was no opposition to the calls to invade. They had the war against the poor Afghanis, thousands died, they ousted the silly conservative Taliban government, put a mixture of other extremists in charge under a westernised leader when the war ENDED and occupied the country. Al Quiada got away fine since they weren't much to do with Afghanistan to start with.
Now there is still some resistance that;s getting a bit stronger since things were more stable under the extremist Taliban before and people want that back again, but it's the kind of political unrest that was there before the U.S. and the rest of the occupation forces came along ;)

How's that? Got it now :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 7:04AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
Yes, We're not in the 19th century anymore!
We have more rules in place. More pathways to take before we actually have wars.

The US and the UK ignored a lot of those rules and didn't even have a solid reason for it. The public had massive campaigns against the invasion of Iraq. But they did it anyway. That's why it was illegal.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
supermathsbeaver at 3:11PM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 50
joined: 1-18-2006
#absolutely nothing# :whistling:
GREEN BURGERS KILL PEOPLE!!!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:04PM
KomradeDave at 4:32PM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
War teaches us how to make more war later on. Ever since the first caveman saw the second caveman's fire and cave, and how the first cavewoman was eying them both, man has brought war.
Now me, I'm not much one for killing. I'm a Marine, irony therefore ensues. The thing about war is though that while it was a once extremely simple, if artful, practice (destroy a rival and take their shit), it has become complicate by things such as politics. War got refined over so many years until there were “conventions.” There are rules for warfare brought about by the inevitable horrors of the last war.
An unconventional war is pretty much like a fistfight in a darkroom. Now imagine that during that fight one guy is told to go nuts, no holds barred, while the other is given a list of rules they must follow. We have constant reminders on what we are never to do, especially to those who are captured(more than usual with the eagle eye of the public watching and criticizing the slighting infraction or their perception thereof), while they have nothing stopping them from committing the various humiliations and tortures that await captured westerners and their collaborators. I hesitate to even call our current situation a war. War is neat regiments in uniform with generals sipping cognac on the hill. This is a brutal fight with no way out, not even victory. Our enemy trains harder, sleeps less, improvises more, believes more than wholeheartedly in his cause, and will go farther than any of us are allowed, assured that he is justified in everything he does. The fighting men and women have to just keep doing our thing, and hope the next generation can do it better.

OzoneOcean
Oh… wait… That would kill most of the Palestinians, and wanting to protect them is the main reason they don't like Israel in the first place. Ah well, looks like that one was built on smoke. :(
Protecting Palestinians is really their way of being politically correct. One of the reasons it's so important for Palestinians to have their own homeland is that at present they are spit on by the other ethnic groups of the area. I have a Palestinian-American in my platoon right now. His parents came to the US because military service in middle eastern countries is mandatory, and the Palestinians almost always get sent into combat units. Nuking them to take out Israel would be called unfortunate, they may get a token holiday in some countries, but the threat of their deaths wouldn't actually prevent anything. What really keeps them at bay is the same thing North Korea has going for it. As a threat they are way too successful. As an actually enemy they would be destroyed, even if it was long, bloody, drawn out, and costly.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
ozoneocean at 9:16AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Yes, the Palestinians are spread out everywhere, literally millions forced out and forced on everyone else. Permanently living in refugee camps in many countries or the prison of permanent occupation at home. The anger at their situation is more than symbolic…
But the Christian world supports Israel and the Muslim world supports the Palestinians.
———————

Much like the latest conflict in Georgia in South Ossetia. A separatist state within that country, the Georgians thought to exterminate them and bring it back into the fold, but the Russians came in to protect their own.

And the usual double standards apply, the world is split: The Russians are the baddies to the West and the Georgians are the goodies. So while Serbia was evil for what they did to Kosovo and the U.N. bravely attacked them for it, Russia is bad for taking that same role and should let the civilian population of South Ossetia perish.

So another war, helped by the fact that idiot outside countries don't want to understand and instead take sides because it's in their interest (Georgia being pro-west and a rebel breakaway from Russia itself really).
This time, in this situation it could have been avoided if Georgia had been forced to leave South Ossetia well alone, Like the Serbs with Kosovo… So easy and simple.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
bravo1102 at 11:26AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
History repeats itself. Russia used a similar excuse to annex Georgia the first time a few centuries ago.

Thankfully Georgia isn't a full-fledged member of NATO yet. That would really be a tight pickle.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved