The morality of war and human conflict

[Blackadder]

Hello, I'm Blackadder, and I'm on my trial debating run...thing.

Anyways, to point:
Inn history man has often considered war to be a noble thing.
If you fought in a war, died in a war, served any function in a war,
you were a hero. A true person of your country, as the more patriotic of you would agree. But I (for one) am pacifist, and do not believe war should ever be an option. Why do humans often resort to violence in an attempt to solve a conflict? Is it possible to avoid such horrors?
I know of a quote, were the basic message was
"I cannot think of any war that could not have been prevented thanks to 15 minutes of good diplomacy"
This is not the exact quote, sadly, I have lost it.
But if war can be stopped, as this man theorized, why do we often choose to take it's path? Is it because it is noble to kill your fellow man?
How is THAT of all things a great deed? How is destroying so much considered an impressive and respectable thing to do in war?
War also comes with trickery, or, propaganda.
The governments try to exploit a war to give the some more power, or to give rise to a new leader, or to gain them more money...why do we do this also?

If only there were more beautiful moments, such as the famous "Christmas truce" of 1914. But even then, the fighting had to resume later.
I would just like to ask you all, what are your opinions on war?
Is it a noble thing to you? Or is it as much a crime as any other bloody thing mankind has done?
Thank you for reading…and sorry if this isn’t the kind of thing that goes in the hall.

 

[Kalypso]

War, in some cases, is necessary. Anyone who fights and dies in a war should be considered a hero, because they fought and died for those who didn't fight. Regardless of the circumstances, even Vietnam, which was a stupid as **** war, the soldiers over there were heroes. Politics don't factor into that. They're two very separate issues.

No, you can not avoid war in all cases. People are ****ing stupid, and that ****ing stupidity often leads to massive conflicts when the stupid end up with power. Pure pacifism is about as bad as the aggressor when dealing with someone like Hitler. Avoiding conflict when it's not necessary is great, but avoiding it when it is is travesty.

Kind of like the quote from the Boondock Saints "We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men."

A soldier dying in war is a tragedy and should be avoided at all costs, that man is a hero.
War, whenever avoidable should be avoided, but when it's necessary the battle absolutely must be fought, causes for war are nothing short of necessary defense of homeland or humanity in general.
Someone who advocates complete pacifism, and rejects any notion of war is as bad as the warmonger urging war as a solution to everything. Our country was founded with a war, defended with many wars, and if those weren't fought we'd all be speaking British. (It's a joke)

That about sums up my views on the issue.

 

[Xsyven]

I'm not the most optimistic person when it comes to war. For example, I don't think there will ever be a more effective way of solving worldwide problems other than killing each other. And that's a shame. A cryin' one.

If you fought in a war, died in a war, served any function in a war,
you were a hero.

This is actually my biggest peeve here. As much as I appreciate our soldiers-- and you can all hate me for saying this-- but I hate the fact that most of our soldiers join solely for the money, and expect us to treat them with utmost respect as a veteran.

I was at Walmart one day, minding my own business, when an army recruiter approached me. He pretended to be really friendly, and he was in civillian clothing. Before I knew it, he spat out his routine at me. "If you join the army, we'll pay your tuition, etc..."

After a few minutes, I explained to him that I had a full ride scholarship, and I had more important things to persue in my life. "Well then, you know where that scholarship money goes? Right in your pocket."

After about ten more minutes of this guy trying to buy my service, I finally spat out that "I wasn't that desperate."

He then got extremely offended, and said that serving our country is the most honorable thing someone could do in their life.

The whole time, he was trying to buy me, and after I finally throw the truth at his face, he got all preachy.

Unless a certain soldier does something heroic, I really don't have any reason to honor them... and that's a terrible for me to think.

I think the concept of war is inevitable. But I the main focus of our soldiers these days is for the money and glory, not for the welfare of our country.

 

[Blackadder]

War, in some cases, is necessary. Anyone who fights and dies in a war should be considered a hero, because they fought and died for those who didn't fight. Regardless of the circumstances, even Vietnam, which was a stupid as **** war, the soldiers over there were heroes. Politics don't factor into that. They're two very separate issues.

No, you can not avoid war in all cases. People are ****ing stupid, and that ****ing stupidity often leads to massive conflicts when the stupid end up with power. Pure pacifism is about as bad as the aggressor when dealing with someone like Hitler. Avoiding conflict when it's not necessary is great, but avoiding it when it is is travesty.

Kind of like the quote from the Boondock Saints "We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men."

A soldier dying in war is a tragedy and should be avoided at all costs, that man is a hero.
War, whenever avoidable should be avoided, but when it's necessary the battle absolutely must be fought, causes for war are nothing short of necessary defense of homeland or humanity in general.
Someone who advocates complete pacifism, and rejects any notion of war is as bad as the warmonger urging war as a solution to everything. Our country was founded with a war, defended with many wars, and if those weren't fought we'd all be speaking British. (It's a joke)

That about sums up my views on the issue.

If we cannot avoid war in all cases, then how can you SAY you can?
Surly, if one can say that people are stupid, and it cannot be avoided, then this person must have that sense NOT to go to the war…if that made any sense.

A soldier dying is a tragedy, and I can understand that in a way he was a hero. But I the same way, I can say now, my grandfather killed people in WW2, and he sure as hell never ONCE said what he did was heroic.
In a way, risking your life for something you love is the heart of being a hero.
In another, more brutal way, killing someone isn’t. They enemy soldier must have been a hero to, and if you killed him, doesn’t that make you a hero-killer? Thus not a hero? I have to leave that one there, it seems that part of war is a bit grey.

Countries were founded on wars, yes, but I still can't see the decency in it..
Killing people over such a thing, why couldn’t we all just let each other have the land, or come up with a happy medium?
Also, I'm Australian...does that count as speaking British?

 

[Kalypso]

Unless a certain soldier does something heroic, I really don't have any reason to honor them... and that's a terrible for me to think.

You're missing the part where they're in a war, and you're sitting at home watching YouTube. Yes, some of our soldiers are there for the money, guess what, in many places there simply aren't jobs and people have to provide for their families. That's not wrong, and I can't think of a better way to make money if you don't have a trade or job prospects than joining the Army and protecting the country.

You're trying to demonize soldiers in general by the actions of a few and recruiters. Regardless of intentions, regardless of motives, regardless of money, they're fighting for our country and providing us the liberty to sit on *** and watch Desperate Housewives. It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal until it's gone.

Surly, if one can say that people are stupid, and it cannot be avoided, then this person must have that sense NOT to go to the war…if that made any sense.

You're living in ideals, I'm not in power. You can never know whether or not the person in power is going to make a good decision, and even if we had the best president ever the next Hitler could start an extermination in Asia, necessitating war. There are times it is absolutely necessary, and no ideals get around that. I only advocate war when it's absolutely necessary though, in my eyes both Vietnam and Iraq were rather uncalled for.

In another, more brutal way, killing someone isn’t. They enemy soldier must have been a hero to, and if you killed him, doesn’t that make you a hero-killer? Thus not a hero? I have to leave that one there, it seems that part of war is a bit grey.

Two men confronted in the palate of war are both heroes, the victor is simply the one who gets to go home.

 

[Digital Watches]

Regardless of intentions, regardless of motives, regardless of money, they're fighting for our country and providing us the liberty to sit on *** and watch Desperate Housewives.

I am all for respecting soldiers, and do not mean to undermine your point, but this belief is simply propoganda. Our soldiers are NOT necessarily defending ANY kind of liberty whatsoever. They may be fighting a war that's completely for someone's economic benefit. It's not the soldiers' fault, certainly. They have to follow orders, after all. But don't act as if all American millitary actions are to "preserve the freedoms we hold so dear." Not even close. Therefore, neither are the actions of all soldiers. Again, this is not their fault.

It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal until it's gone.

Actually, I kind of wish we didn't have a standing army, which brings me to my next point:

I concede that wars are impossible to avoid completely (the Hitler example, in a brilliant display of Godwin's law, is a good one) due to one person/group or another being stupid in some major way at some point in time, over and over again as history goes on. HOWEVER, having a standing army controlled by a single entity is insanity, and will only lead to unnecessary wars.

A prime example is the United States. The constitution creates a situation where the President has the sweeping power to control the military. Of course, this is balanced by congress, being the sole governmental body capable of declaring war. This worked out fine until World War 2, because the US, in times of peace, did not have a significant standing military. An army had to be constructed, either by draft or recruitment, usually both, whenever a war was declared, and was for the most part disbanded after the war was over. Unfortunately, this lack of a standing army has changed, around the time when World War 2 was over and the Cold War was starting.

THAT is why we have unnecessary wars, more than any other factor. An army exists at all times, and is under the control of the President, with no authority that can legally override him. The senate can still control cash flow, but really, that's a formality, given the political pressure that can be applied when the troops are already halfway across the world, fighting. The US hasn't had an actual, legally declared war since WW2.

So while we can't avoid wars in general, both history (Look at any prominent empire or monarchy) and modern times show us that the truly unnecessary wars tend to come about when the army is controlled by a single entity, especially a single person.

 

[Blackadder]

@Digital Watches

I myself must admit I'm now off to admitting that wars such as WW2 were very difficult to dodge out of, due to hitler being, well, completly mad.
But (In short) I am quite firm and withstanding of your opinion, I agree with
it fully.
But I do still think, while obviously VERY hard to do, WW2 could have been prevented. But I should note, that does come down to my belife that nothing is impossible. Which is an illogical view that isn't much to back up my thoughts on wars being preventable, but it's what I believe.
Another thing to keep my beliving war is never "inevitable" or "Necessary";

"For those who argue war is a necessary evil, I say you are half right. War is evil. But it is not necessary. War cannot be a necessary evil, because non-violence is a necessary good. The two cannot co-exist."

That quote is beautiful, as well as very true. Though that's just my thought.

 

[Skylink]

I think wars sometimes are necessary, but should be avoided when possible. They did found America, and they tend to be helpful in securing the world from rising dangerous powers. Some European dictators is a well recognized example of this, but some less recognized examples are the two more recent wars. Especially the Iraqi war, since that's going on now there's more information flying around about it.
We are currently loosing the Iraqi war, but we're not loosing to the jihadists or the terrorists. We are more loosing to our own media, and since there is now very little support for the war, it will probably end when the next president comes in.

The thing about the Iraqi war that most people don't see is that we are arresting busloads of terrorist groups and jihadists and suicide bombers. If we, theoretically, end the war before we finish, then the organizations we have been removing and locking up may potentially pose a threat to the world later on. If we continue to fight the war, then more people will die, but we will have been secured from whatever may have been developing down there. And similar scenarios are the options when most countries choose to go to war or not.

In the end, when going to war, the only good that usually comes out of it is sacrificing this many people in order to save, in the end, a larger number of people, wheather you're defending your country from a threat to your people, defending a reigon or continent, or defending the world from a country or organization that poses a threat to anyone from anywhere. Those are the cases in which a war must be fought.

 

[Digital Watches]

The thing about the Iraqi war that most people don't see is that we are arresting busloads of terrorist groups and jihadists and suicide bombers. If we, theoretically, end the war before we finish, then the organizations we have been removing and locking up may potentially pose a threat to the world later on. If we continue to fight the war, then more people will die, but we will have been secured from whatever may have been developing down there. And similar scenarios are the options when most countries choose to go to war or not.

I hope you're not serious. Sure, the Iraq war is stopping a lot of terrorist groups, but a lot of them are ones PRODUCED by the Iraq war. When you hear something about insurgents, you have to remember that you're hearing this from the perspective not only of one side of the war, but from a government well versed in propoganda techniques. Suicide bombing and the like are signs of desperation, and the fact that there are people fighting against the US army when they INVADE A COUNTRY is not evidence that the same people may have attacked were they not being actively attacked themselves.

 

[Kalypso]

I am all for respecting soldiers, and do not mean to undermine your point, but this belief is simply propoganda. Our soldiers are NOT necessarily defending ANY kind of liberty whatsoever. They may be fighting a war that's completely for someone's economic benefit. It's not the soldiers' fault, certainly. They have to follow orders, after all. But don't act as if all American millitary actions are to "preserve the freedoms we hold so dear." Not even close. Therefore, neither are the actions of all soldiers. Again, this is not their fault.

Obviously not all military action is to preserve our liberty solely, but it all has a purpose. And again, the reasons for ware aren't really relevant to the soldier, the soldier follows orders and the general understanding is that they're there to protect everyone else.

 

[Evil Eye]

War is unavoidable. That we didn't get a third world war with the Cold War tensions is a damn miracle, and one that historical precedent would have deemed impossible. For the most part, tensions between nations is just too much. To this day, I guarantee you that there are American politicians scheming up ways to annex Canada, as we have a plethora of untapped Uranium, oil, water, and energy. They've tried to overstep our bounds many times in the past, especially with their proposal of using a lake that is completely on Canadian soil to fuel their own energy while pumping their sewage north. This was rejected, and America was quite irked. Naturally, no war came of this.

But imagine this kind of thing on the Gaza strip. Imagine of Pakistan told Israel they wanted to use an Israeli waterbody for their own power, while reciprocating with toxic waste? In that region, it's essentially a glove-slap declaration of war.

And that's just over minor things. Imagine the severe, things like terrorist attacks, or corporate theft. Or even mid-war militaristic deception, like when Britain stole an Ottoman warship during World War One -- that's why the Ottomans sided with Germany in the first place, which resulted in nothing more a lot more of people on both sides dying and the Ottoman land being seized, pillaged, and divided. Leading to the creation of Turkey and a rightful resention of the West.

Tensions run deep in the relations between every nation. Everybody has enemies. Worries. So they build nukes, missile silos, stealth bombers... and so on, and so forth. There is rarely "right" and "wrong" in a war perspective. There's only "first strike" and "defeated".

And sadly, there's more to it than mere tension. History has created some genuine monsters -- and monsters have a tendency to be brilliant. Case in point: Josef Stalin once convinced an assassin that had come for him to commit suicide instead. Men like that cannot be defeated through diplomatic channels, and it's safe to say that they are not rightfully in power.

Can you honestly look through any information about the Holocaust and say that Hitler shouldn't have been taken from power? Of course not. And as I said, men like him cannot be defeated via orthodox channels. It's all about goals and priorities -- if the true goals are just, than so is a war.

After all, you have to make waves to swim.

-I

 

[Skylink]

I hope you're not serious. Sure, the Iraq war is stopping a lot of terrorist groups, but a lot of them are ones PRODUCED by the Iraq war. When you hear something about insurgents, you have to remember that you're hearing this from the perspective not only of one side of the war, but from a government well versed in propoganda techniques. Suicide bombing and the like are signs of desperation, and the fact that there are people fighting against the US army when they INVADE A COUNTRY is not evidence that the same people may have attacked were they not being actively attacked themselves.

From a government well trained in propaganda techniques? DW, I'm not watching the GoArmy commercials and getting weepy-eyed at the music and bravery of the soldiers, I'm simply responding logically to the progress we are making down there. We didn't attack them first either, and youre obviously very blind if you think a day like 9/11 is the worst they can do. The soldiers in Iraq are instructed to never attack unless attacked first, and to seek to disarm the enemy far before attempting to kill it. The desperation is not our problem and we are only down there for the people for the ones that were attacking us first.

Evil Eye, war may be very well be based almost soley on the values and intentions of the combatants, but you can't honestly say that war is really unavoidable. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but never every time a good cause for it comes up.

 

[Evil Eye]

I never said a proper justification will always come up. Never. As I see it, right now we have both a just war and a wasted war going on (Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively).

My point that war is unavoidable is merely call for us to, instead of fruitlessly fighting the concept of war itself, do something useful. Like what? How about preparing our foreign policies in the event of wars to avoid going to war over senseless things. Perhaps ways to cap off the potential damage that can be done in a war, like nuclear disarmament protocols. There is a plethora of things that can be done that will have a far greater impact than yelling outside the White House and waving a sign around.

 

[blazedaces]

From a government well trained in propaganda techniques? DW, I'm not watching the GoArmy commercials and getting weepy-eyed at the music and bravery of the soldiers, I'm simply responding logically to the progress we are making down there. We didn't attack them first either, and youre obviously very blind if you think a day like 9/11 is the worst they can do. The soldiers in Iraq are instructed to never attack unless attacked first, and to seek to disarm the enemy far before attempting to kill it. The desperation is not our problem and we are only down there for the people for the ones that were attacking us first.

Evil Eye, war may be very well be based almost soley on the values and intentions of the combatants, but you can't honestly say that war is really unavoidable. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but never every time a good cause for it comes up.

There was absolutely no substantial evidence to prove that Iraq had anything to do with the attack of 9/11. In fact, to this day the actual reason why we went to war with Iraq is still highly debatable, if not baffling.

-blazed

 

[Digital Watches]

There was absolutely no substantial evidence to prove that Iraq had anything to do with the attack of 9/11. In fact, to this day the actual reason why we went to war with Iraq is still highly debatable, if not baffling.

-blazed

Yeah, I was about to say that, but read on, hoping that someone would immediately refute that point. It makes me balk whenever I see someone actually convinced of a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

 

[Mic_128]

This is actually my biggest peeve here. As much as I appreciate our soldiers-- and you can all hate me for saying this-- but I hate the fact that most of our soldiers join solely for the money, and expect us to treat them with utmost respect as a veteran.

Go look at some footage from the World Wars. Then rethink.

I personally hate the idea of war. I read somewhere of a great suggestion. World leaders want to fight so bad, organise a boxing match between em. Whoever wins, wins the war. Sure, it'd never happen, but still, one can dream of a simpler way to stop wars.

 

[lonejedi]

Ooo the ongoing debate on War, my favorite! Why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into an Iraq War Debate....

So anyways, as others previously stated, sometimes war is necessary. You can't just negotiate with people who run a plane into 3 buildings, almost 4, killing thousands. No, you have to use physical means when dealing with people like that.

Regarding Iraq being connected to 9/11. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But using the excuse "We should leave Iraq, because we were decieved into thinking they were behind 9/11" is a terrible excuse. Wow, the only reason the War is not popular, is because politicians are so fickle, and they switch sides only going with the "easy choice" or the more popular choice.

Iraq is hardly a war. It's more of a defensive stand off against insurgents. We've lost close to 3,000 troops, a very very small number. Iraq is a democracy, women have rights, schools are being built, but the impatient and selfish America can't wait a few years for the turmoil to settle down.

I remember Iraqis' dancing in the streets during elections. How can you say we failed then.

I'm surprised CK hasn't posted yet, this is one those threads he would post in.

 

[blazedaces]

Regarding Iraq being connected to 9/11. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But using the excuse "We should leave Iraq, because we were decieved into thinking they were behind 9/11" is a terrible excuse. Wow, the only reason the War is not popular, is because politicians are so fickle, and they switch sides only going with the "easy choice" or the more popular choice.

This is kind of like saying, "if I drop this pencil in the air, maybe it will fall, maybe it won't..." Think about how long this debate, this issue, this war has been going on. Don't you think people would have sniffed out every possible lead, researched every possible source by now? Obviously.

This isn't a debate anymore, [highlight]there is absolutely no substantial evidence to show any connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11[/highlight]. Why didn't we attack Syria? Why didn't we attack Jordan? How about Iran? They all have some connections to terrorist organizations, so what?! What about the WMD's? Why didn't we attack North Korea? Put all your maybes to every country out there... This double standard is hardly a reason to support the war.

We aren't leaving Iraq and no one here mentioned doing so, you did. We're talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place.

There are stupid people out there believing/doing stupid things... so what? We want the facts, straight, cold, and harsh, nothing else. The fact is there is no proof to suggest a connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11, the reason someone posted was our reason for going to war.

We had a reason, albeit a debatable one, for going to war with Afghanistan, but we can't pretend we had the same reason for going to war with Iraq. I want to know the real reason, the truth.

Iraq is hardly a war. It's more of a defensive stand off against insurgents. We've lost close to 3,000 troops, a very very small number. Iraq is a democracy, women have rights, schools are being built, but the impatient and selfish America can't wait a few years for the turmoil to settle down.

To be as precise as possible let's look at the real numbers (if you're going to contest wikipedia's reliability I would point out they are sourcing just about every number themselves):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Here's just the lost US forces:

3,601 dead. 7,949 wounded - medical air transport required. 18,609 wounded - no medical air transport required. Of all the wounded 11,959 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. An additional 7,324 non-hostile injuries, and 20,365 diseases or other medical conditions (all requiring medical air transport). 35,638 total medical air transports (hostile and non-hostile). As of 7 July 2007.

That sounds a whole lot worse then "close to 3000 troops". You're on the pro-war side aren't you? Why are you not showing the proper respect to our lost soldiers?

Also, as far as I recall (I haven't researched this recent political stance, so correct me if I'm wrong) most of Congress has been proposing a data for removal and a plan to ensure we finish what we came to do by that date. Nobody is suggesting pulling out in a moment's notice.

Lastly, I'm sorry but I highly doubt this from afar (but am completely hopeful in being proven wrong): "Iraq is a democracy, women have rights, schools are being built".

Please provide a source...

-blazed

 

[lonejedi]

This is kind of like saying, "if I drop this pencil in the air, maybe it will fall, maybe it won't..." Think about how long this debate, this issue, this war has been going on. Don't you think people would have sniffed out every possible lead, researched every possible source by now? Obviously.

This isn't a debate anymore, [highlight]there is absolutely no substantial evidence to show any connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11[/highlight]. Why didn't we attack Syria? Why didn't we attack Jordan? How about Iran? They all have some connections to terrorist organizations, so what?! What about the WMD's? Why didn't we attack North Korea? Put all your maybes to every country out there... This double standard is hardly a reason to support the war.

We aren't leaving Iraq and no one here mentioned doing so, you did. We're talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place.

There are stupid people out there believing/doing stupid things... so what? We want the facts, straight, cold, and harsh, nothing else. The fact is there is no proof to suggest a connection between Iraq and the attack of 9/11, the reason someone posted was our reason for going to war.

We had a reason, albeit a debatable one, for going to war with Afghanistan, but we can't pretend we had the same reason for going to war with Iraq. I want to know the real reason, the truth.

The reason for the maybe, is because I personally don't know what to believe, you can say what you want.

To be as precise as possible let's look at the real numbers (if you're going to contest wikipedia's reliability I would point out they are sourcing just about every number themselves):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Here's just the lost US forces:


That sounds a whole lot worse then "close to 3000 troops". You're on the pro-war side aren't you? Why are you not showing the proper respect to our lost soldiers?

Also, as far as I recall (I haven't researched this recent political stance, so correct me if I'm wrong) most of Congress has been proposing a data for removal and a plan to ensure we finish what we came to do by that date. Nobody is suggesting pulling out in a moment's notice.

I do have proper respect for the soldiers, don't put words in my mouth. But those soldiers knew what they were getting into obviously, and would not have gone to the war if they did not support it. Some soldiers don't support it, but most do. Maybe you should consider how they view things.

Actually most politicians want out now, and if we do pull out, we'll have a similar fate to Vietnam.

Lastly, I'm sorry but I highly doubt this from afar (but am completely hopeful in being proven wrong): "Iraq is a democracy, women have rights, schools are being built".

Please provide a source...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/30820.htm

That should take care for all of the above, and then some. Note that this was 3 years ago, and even more has happened as of late.

 

[Xsyven]

Go look at some footage from the World Wars. Then rethink.

I actually only feel that way about modern soldiers...

 

[cF=)]

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/30820.htm

That should take care for all of the above, and then some. Note that this was 3 years ago, and even more has happened as of late.

When I saw the extension .gov, I couldn't think of anything else then propoganda. Schools are being built ? So what is there's no teachers to operate them. The same thing happens in Africa when we send machines to dig out water stations, if nobody's qualified to use them, what gives ?

Women have rights ? Take a look at this sweetheart

 

[cF=)]

Triple post is epic proportion... almost a combo

 

[cF=)]

Triple post is epic proportion... almost a combo...

stupid website bandwidth

 

[Skylink]

When I saw the extension .gov, I couldn't think of anything else then propoganda. Schools are being built ? So what is there's no teachers to operate them. The same thing happens in Africa when we send machines to dig out water stations, if nobody's qualified to use them, what gives ?

Women have rights ? Take a look at this sweetheart

And when I see someone who didn't even read the whole web page the link directed to, I can't think of anything else but spam. It says, under the education list, the second bullet says that More than 32,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors have been trained.

 

[Digital Watches]

And when I see someone who didn't even read the whole web page the link directed to, I can't think of anything else but spam. It says, under the education list, the second bullet says that More than 32,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors have been trained.

Even if what you say is true, you're basically arguing that the ends (slightly better education, I guess?) justify the means (Invading a country that had previously taken no hostile action, wasting a ton of money, getting a lot of people on both sides killed, creating a hell of a lot more chaos in the region, and apparently eroding women's rights in the country).

Doesn't seem like a very good point to me.

 

[cF=)]

And when I see someone who didn't even read the whole web page the link directed to, I can't think of anything else but spam. It says, under the education list, the second bullet says that More than 32,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors have been trained.

The Iraq invasion started 4 years ago. How is it logically possible to train 32,000 teachers if these numbers were took 3 years ago ? How much are you qualified to teach when over here in Québec, teaching in high school asks for an university diploma ? WHO trained these people and in what tongue ? What happen to students after high school should I also ask ?

Don't get me wrong, I read the text, but it is in its whole complete BS.

EDIT: Everybody should read what I hyperlinked in my last post about Iraqi women. I did not wanted to copy/paste the entire text in a quote box on this forum since it would take too much place.

 

[Skylink]

If this were a discussion about the war in Iraq, I wouldn't know what to say, and would not post in it. I do not know much about Bush or the war, and that is not the point I am trying to debate. My post was only saying that he didn't even read the page he was replying to, and that he should.

 

[Digital Watches]

If this were a discussion about the war in Iraq, I wouldn't know what to say, and would not post in it. I do not know much about Bush or the war, and that is not the point I am trying to debate. My post was only saying that he didn't even read the page he was replying to, and that he should.

If you don't want to debate the Iraq war, why the hell are you bringing up a page about it?

Don't bring something into a debate and then try to hide behind "that's not what we're debating!"

 

[cF=)]

If you don't want to debate the Iraq war, why the hell are you bringing up a page about it?

Don't bring something into a debate and then try to hide behind "that's not what we're debating!"

Errr, lonejedi did post the link. Skylink blamed me of not showing right away why I said it was impossible for anybody to teach right away in 2,000ish Iraqi schools (even if they are actually builded).

 

[Digital Watches]

Errr, lonejedi did post the link. Skylink blamed me of not showing right away why I said it was impossible for anybody to teach right away in 2,000ish Iraqi schools (even if they are actually builded).

...Oh

My mistake.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Haven't been on much this past week, I've been gone, but I need to add my 2 cents to this argument.

America's heart might be in the wrong place(they want to be the world's strongest world-power, of course), but I agree with their actions. We are rebuilding the government, saving innocents, and people complain about our economy. I believe if a soldier dies it is not in vain, where as an Innocent's wasted life is a shame.

Are thousand of innocent lives worth a slightly more harsh economy to us filthy rich Americans? Does anyone appreciate just how wealthy our country is? Some people seem to have their priorities wrapped around themselves in their own little cocoon. The world does not resolve around America, and I think that the argument is pretty much pointless. The government is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and needs to accept that they can not change the world on their own. Strength does not come in independence, it comes in team work and generosity. If I was caught in a hurricane I'd want some country's economy to extend help to me, wouldn't you?

 

[AltF4]

The morality of the Iraq war is not what this thread is debating. That probably would make a good debate topic though.

The topic is about the morality of war in general. War is inevitable. Some wars have been fought for very serious and valid reasons, and others have been fought over trivial and pointless reasons. The unfortunate reality is that humans have always found reasons to kill each other en masse.

As to whether is is moral or not? That would depend entirely on the motives behind the war. It is possible that a war is the only responsible solution to a problem. Peace should always be preferable nobody will argue that, but complete pacifism is naive and irresponsible.

 

[Falco&Victory]

The same rules generally apply however. There are many power-craving powers that will only think in terms of war and conflict, and war can not always be avoided.

Complete pacifism is not naive, only the strive for it. The idea that peace is good and conflict should always be avoided is a great one, but humans have that strive for violence, because most of us are weak-willed even if we would never admit it. I believe no war should be praised as moral, however those risking their lives for the more noble cause should be. To cause war is against all notions of good, but to fight for it is not.

 

[Blackadder]

The same rules generally apply however. There are many power-craving powers that will only think in terms of war and conflict, and war can not always be avoided.

Complete pacifism is not naive, only the strive for it. The idea that peace is good and conflict should always be avoided is a great one, but humans have that strive for violence, because most of us are weak-willed even if we would never admit it. I believe no war should be praised as moral, however those risking their lives for the more noble cause should be. To cause war is against all notions of good, but to fight for it is not.

I would agree with this post in many ways...
But still, "A noble cause" (as you put it) COULD be considered a war.
I agree with you very much, but what is noble and what is wrong is pretty much what an individual thinks. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour, as well as many Germans. With his "Super race" he could build a perfect world? That was what he felt, while the rest of the world (Mainly) thought it was a loony and a violent killer.
Noble for him and his supporters, evil for the allied forces.

Also, Kaypso below is also right.

Now that I re-read that part, it is a little..."Wha?"

 

[Kalypso]

Complete pacifism is not naive, only the strive for it.

What? That's completely ***-backwards. Complete pacifism IS naive, striving for it isn't. I'd love for there to just be world peace, but the notion that that's ever going to happen is naive, you strive for that but stay open to the realization that violence is necessary from time to time.

 

[Digital Watches]

Falco & Victory: We are saving innocent lives from the dangerous situations that, in many cases, we caused in the first place. Rebuilding the government is great, but the fact that it is in ruins is a direct cause of the war that we started. Many Americans are "rich," but being in trillions of dollars of debt after having a national surplus for the first time not ten years ago does not make the country as a whole wealthy. The Iraq war's mainly benefits corporations, such as the ones hired for government contracts to help the war effort. This precedent was set long ago in World War 2, a probably just war, but one that created a LOT of revenue for large industries. A large part of the reason the cold war started was to create a permanent war-time economy in order to allow these companies to continue to thrive. The Iraq war accomplishes the same thing. "Generosity" is total nonsense, as the civilians of Iraq have been thrown into a chaotic and dangerous environment as a direct result of this conflict: The only "Hurricane" they're in is the one caused by the fact that a war is going on in their country, not only due to American soldiers, but the "Insurgents" we are even now fighting, these being the obvious and inevitable opposition to an invasion by a foreign power. I also find it funny that you mention extending help to hurricane victims, as the current US administration has already shown its incompetence in aiding its own citizens in that very situation.

AltF4Warrior: The morality of any war is debatable. I'm certain that there has never been a war fought entirely for just motives, it is simply a question as to whether these motives (And their execution) are more just than not.

Blackadder: For one thing, there is a VERY flawed concept hanging around this debate. The Holocaust, while a great and arguably unmatched atrocity, was not the entire impetus for World War 2. The Jews have been a very popular scapegoat throughout history, and his continuing to scapegoat them was only one facet of Hitler's rise to power. The treaty of versailles, signed at the end of WW1 (The most pointless and stupid war that comes to mind) was essentially a death sentence for Germany as a nation: economically, militarily, and in terms of national pride. This came at the worst possible time, as just before the war was lost, the imperial government in Germany (Which actively tried to stop the war very early on, actually, but had no viable means of doing so.) was overthrown by a very democratic one, which freed the press, eliminating the citizens' false impression that Germany was winning the war. The fact that the new government came into power just as Germany had "started" losing the war, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world powers, in their blind rage and stupidity, decided to completely cripple Germany, allowed a demogogue like Hitler to come to power. Even THEN, the war may not have even happened if Hitler hadn't started to invade other countries, the civilians wrapped up FAR more in the regaining of their nation's power than in anything having to do with the Jews.

 

[Falco&Victory]

What? That's completely ***-backwards. Complete pacifism IS naive, striving for it isn't. I'd love for there to just be world peace, but the notion that that's ever going to happen is naive, you strive for that but stay open to the realization that violence is necessary from time to time.

I should have stated that better. Those who believe that complete pacifism is desirable are not naive, only those who think they can achieve it.



@Digital Watches: We're not in as much debt as people make out to be, several other countries are in debt to us.
We ruined the government because it was horrible and a complete dictatorship. Though civilians have been thrown into chaos at least when the war is over they won't be living in constant fear. I agree on most of what you say though. The war, being fought as it is, is not a good thing. America needs to realize that we can't fight this war alone, and that we need to draw support from other nations and apologize for any harm we've caused. I'm for the war in Iraq, but I certainly am against the government's way of fighting it.



@Blackadder: The noble cause is the cause that strives to stop conflict or needless executions.Wars started over personal causes have no noble cause in most cases, and should generally be avoided.

 

[blazedaces]

Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour, as well as many Germans. With his "Super race" he could build a perfect world? That was what he felt, while the rest of the world (Mainly) thought it was a loony and a violent killer.
Noble for him and his supporters, evil for the allied forces.

I've heard this being stated before. It's complete nonsense. Perhaps Hitler really believed he was right, but the goals and his means to these ends documented throughout Mein Kempf show otherwise. Read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

There's absolutely nothing noble to this madness. I don't even believe he thought it was noble, I just believe he thought it was "necessary".

-blazed

 

[Blackadder]

I've heard this being stated before. It's complete nonsense. Perhaps Hitler really believed he was right, but the goals and his means to these ends documented throughout Mein Kempf show otherwise. Read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

There's absolutely nothing noble to this madness. I don't even believe he thought it was noble, I just believe he thought it was "necessary".

-blazed

I feel as if you just smooshed my theory.
I'm so glad you did though, as I never said myself I felt it was noble,
just that others may.
But he may have thought it necessary, but still perhaps noble in his mind.
He thought Jews where “evil” so he killed them. He must have thought was right and pure and noble? Or am I just a young fool? But still, I would think no war is ever noble, or necessary. Ever.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Hitler was undoubtedly evil. I can never forgive the jews for crucifying Christ or creating the dradle, but they don't deserve to die.

War is always a cause of death, true, but those who die do so willingly. War is a noble cause if it saves the lives of people who don't die for a job. War can not be avoided, and I believe as long as their is a noble cause to fight for war should be fought.

Many causes claim to noble but in reality favor one race, group, or nation. The noble cause benefits everyone and saves lives. Not that simple, but it's not too difficult to figure out.