Wars, and the 'noble cause'

[Falco&Victory]

Due to request I decided to post a thread debating whether the cause of a war is truly noble, or if the decision should be regretted. Some wars have cost thousands of lives, only to have been started by a personal feud of fascist dictator.

To start, I would like to bring up mainly the War on Terror and WWII.
Now, the War on Terror was started after over 2,000 were killed in a terrorist suicide-bombing(any 9/11 conspiracy theories are not welcome here, unless they are relevant to a valid argument). Many claim that George W. Bush used that attack as a front to take out revenge on Saddam, but I would like to argue against that point. During the aftermath of the incident were millions crying out for revenge themselves? Terrorists are a real threat that needs dealt with, but when the conflict began to stretch out and the economical problems everyone predicted arrived, suddenly protesters sprouted up everywhere. It would of course been seen as horrible to protest right after so many died, and the war would have continued. Now more have died than would have by not going to war, but an entire nation is better off, we are receiving oil shipments we would have been cut off from, and out economy only took a bruise. Was the attack a front for revenge, and are the methods used today justifiable? I think the war was started by Americans, and when it actually affected us we started trying to back out.

WWII is another debatable topic. I think joining the war could not have been prevented, but I think some methods we used were very questionable. The bombing of Japan happened quickly, had the perfect desired effect, and saved more lives than would have been lost had Japan stayed in the war. However, would it not have been better to bomb a military base or a headquarters for major government operations? Instead thousands of innocents were killed instantly, without choice, many of whom would have preferred to not go to war at all. I believe the decision was a good one, if not noble, but all is fair in love and war(well, not so much in love).

No flames over certain politicians that are based on republican/democrat bias, it will get no one anywhere.

 

[Kalypso]

The only noble causes for war in my eyes are defense and freedom. If someone is threatening your country, war is justified and noble, otherwise it's excessive.

I'm still not really sure why we're even in Iraq.

 

[Digital Watches]

War on Terror: I agree with Kalypso. We have no real reason to be in Iraq, period. No one has yet refuted this in any satisfactory manner.

WW2: Actually, I'm quite of the opinion that WW2 could have been prevented, if that counts for anything. It's just that people don't look back far enough. Once Hitler was in power, it was of course too late for anything to go that much better, but the treaty of Versailles was freaking ridiculous, as was all of WW1, without either of which WW2 wouldn't have ever, ever happened.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Yeah, but try not to confuse war on terror with the war in iraq. In Iraq we broke down their government and tried to rebuild, fighting terror is for our safety. Leave the Iraqis between, keep killing terrorists so we get killed less

The Treaty of Versailles laid too much blame on the Germans, and they had virtually no say in creating it. It was a personal act leading to millions dying. Hitler should have been overyhrown, but we made the Germans too angry after WWI

 

[Digital Watches]

Yeah, but try not to confuse war on terror with the war in iraq. In Iraq we broke down their government and tried to rebuild, fighting terror is for our safety. Leave the Iraqis between, keep killing terrorists so we get killed less

So... wait... you're arguing that we should not be in Iraq? Then... agreed.

The Treaty of Versailles laid too much blame on the Germans, and they had virtually no say in creating it. It was a personal act leading to millions dying. Hitler should have been overyhrown, but we made the Germans too angry after WWI

Um. Yes. That was indeed my point.

 

[KevinM]

Don't forget to mention the fact that we let Hitler slide on way to many things allowing him to gain territory and power. By letting him slide we were unable to stop the monster when he finally got enough power to do what he did. By continuing to appease him when he took portions of Czechoslovakia and the rhinelands.

The war could have been finished early if they had decided to engage Hitler while he was weak.

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Digital Watches: The War on Terror was needed, but it stretched too far, and soon we were involving ourselves in problems that weren't ours to deal with in the first place, so we should be in Iraq fighting terrorism, but we shouldn't be wasting hundreds of billions waging war on their government. The media makes the subject way too confusing though.

@KevinM: While looking back that would have been idealistic, the treaty of Versailles was made to promote peace, and only a few years after WWI ended it would not have been a great idea to wage war on Germany again. The land they took in most cases was not crucial for anything, they were just trying to assert some of the dominance they had lost IMO.

 

[Digital Watches]

(Ack! Double-post. Delete please?)

 

[Digital Watches]

@Digital Watches: The War on Terror was needed, but it stretched too far, and soon we were involving ourselves in problems that weren't ours to deal with in the first place, so we should be in Iraq fighting terrorism, but we shouldn't be wasting hundreds of billions waging war on their government. The media makes the subject way too confusing though.

Um... What "terrorist" sects in Iraq posed a threat to us BEFORE we invaded. Can you give one example?

@KevinM: While looking back that would have been idealistic, the treaty of Versailles was made to promote peace, and only a few years after WWI ended it would not have been a great idea to wage war on Germany again. The land they took in most cases was not crucial for anything, they were just trying to assert some of the dominance they had lost IMO.

The treaty of Versailles was made to blame Germany for World War 1, irreparably cripple its economy, make its military nonexistant, and while I'm not sure how the European powers that wrote the treaty missed it, it also basically gave Germany every incentive to try and upset the current political order of things in Europe, massive war or otherwise.

I'm not saying that Hitler's rise to power was somehow justified by all this, but given the state of things for Germany, it was inevitable that SOMETHING like that was going to happen.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Saddam was supplying some of the terrorists with weapons(not nukes though). Also, many terrorists were hiding in Iraq. Still not a reason to send anything more than small groups on Strykers in(off-topic, but my friend's dad who just retired lead the 1st stryker brigade, then got hit by a drunk driver and almost died...). On topic again, Bush took personal revenge on Saddam in my opinion, or he just damaged our economy to help another country's.

The treaty was very crude, but even if it had not been so I still believe that a second war would have happened. I agree though, Woodrow Wilson and the British Prime-minister(Windston Churchill I think?) laid too much blame on Germany. Serbia was also too blame, but for some reason wasn't put on the chopping block.

 

[blazedaces]

Saddam was supplying some of the terrorists with weapons(not nukes though). Also, many terrorists were hiding in Iraq. Still not a reason to send anything more than small groups on Strykers in(off-topic, but my friend's dad who just retired lead the 1st stryker brigade, then got hit by a drunk driver and almost died...). On topic again, Bush took personal revenge on Saddam in my opinion, or he just damaged our economy to help another country's.

There is absolutely no substantial evidenced of this. I dare you to go find some, because you won't... The sad truth is that some people actually believe this.

-blazed

 

[Digital Watches]

The treaty was very crude, but even if it had not been so I still believe that a second war would have happened. I agree though, Woodrow Wilson and the British Prime-minister(Windston Churchill I think?) laid too much blame on Germany. Serbia was also too blame, but for some reason wasn't put on the chopping block.

The ignorance behind these statements, as well as the ones covered already by Blazedaces, astounds me. The causes of WW1 had more to do with the huge empires that powerful European nations were keeping up, the resulting arms races, and the insane level of nationalism preached by their governments than anything to do with Archduke Ferdinand's assasination. That was just the event needed to send it into motion, and really, it could have been anything. Germany and Serbia are no more to blame for the war than any European colonial power at the time.

Also, with Germany's new democratic government after WW1, I don't think that a maniac demagogue like Hitler could possibly have come to power, let alone stay in power, if Germany's state of affairs wasn't so terrible as a direct result of that treaty. Their economic state was far worse than America's great depression due to reparations they were required to pay and parts of their industry forcibly crippled, and they had literally no viable means of coming out of this state without breaking the treaty. And this all fails to mention the fact that the people were pissed.

 

[behemoth]

Saddam was supplying some of the terrorists with weapons(not nukes though). Also, many terrorists were hiding in Iraq. Still not a reason to send anything more than small groups on Strykers in(off-topic, but my friend's dad who just retired lead the 1st stryker brigade, then got hit by a drunk driver and almost died...). On topic again, Bush took personal revenge on Saddam in my opinion, or he just damaged our economy to help another country's.

The treaty was very crude, but even if it had not been so I still believe that a second war would have happened. I agree though, Woodrow Wilson and the British Prime-minister(Windston Churchill I think?) laid too much blame on Germany. Serbia was also too blame, but for some reason wasn't put on the chopping block.

190,000 American-supplied weapons were just lost to insurgents in Iraq according to CNN. There are known terror cells in America that the government admits they allow to exist though they could be taken down at any time.

How is that different than what Hussein did?

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Behemoth: I was just about to use that to counter Blaze. 'No substantial proof?' So even though there is no doubt it is true, you won't believe it until you see for yourself that Iraq is a threat to us?

@Digital Watches: I agree that the treaty created a war more dangerous than would have happened, but later on, even with a fair treaty another war would probably have started. Yes, there was blame to be laid on everyone, but to say that Germany and Serbia didn't play the largest role in the war isn't true. Germany invaded France, defeated Russia, and allied with Serbia. Serbia helped in the fight against Russia and in turn attack forces allied with the entente and forces trying to fight back for Serbian land. Germany intruded upon Belgium's neutrality as well. There was heavy blame to be given to those 2 nations.

 

[behemoth]

There is no proof whatsoever that Iraq was or is a threat to us. The only reason AT ALL that they care about our little corner of the globe is that we've been interfering in their lives constantly for the past 20 years. If you think that's some anti-American standpoint, first understand that I just paraphrased findings of the 9/11 Commission, who used extensively the idea of "blowback".

Another thing you're not considering as far as the "threat" of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and all of these oil-bearing terrorist nations, is the repeated bold use of false flag events. This is likely not the thread to discuss them, but no rational person can deny the possibility of them.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I think the government didn't need to start the war, but Iraq is supplying terrorists with guns and maybe bombs. Terrorists have tried on numerous occasions to kill Americans. You again say there is no proof, but weapons we gave to Iraqi police 'disappeared' and 'reappeared' into terrorist possession.

No threat? So 9/11 never happened? Yes, we went too far, but the danger to our country through terrorism is pretty real. Since airport security has been raised dozens of attempted attacks have been halted. Remember a few months back when more than half a dozen attempted plane-bombings were stopped in a single day?

 

[Digital Watches]

I think the government didn't need to start the war, but Iraq is supplying terrorists with guns and maybe bombs. Terrorists have tried on numerous occasions to kill Americans. You again say there is no proof, but weapons we gave to Iraqi police 'disappeared' and 'reappeared' into terrorist possession.

Give one example and prove it. I want a single instance of this actually happening.

No threat? So 9/11 never happened? Yes, we went too far, but the danger to our country through terrorism is pretty real. Since airport security has been raised dozens of attempted attacks have been halted. Remember a few months back when more than half a dozen attempted plane-bombings were stopped in a single day?

Complete and utter bull****. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and you have yet to even TRY to prove otherwise.

@Behemoth: I was just about to use that to counter Blaze. 'No substantial proof?' So even though there is no doubt it is true, you won't believe it until you see for yourself that Iraq is a threat to us?

Um, for going to war? Yeah, proof would be nice.

@Digital Watches: I agree that the treaty created a war more dangerous than would have happened, but later on, even with a fair treaty another war would probably have started. Yes, there was blame to be laid on everyone, but to say that Germany and Serbia didn't play the largest role in the war isn't true. Germany invaded France, defeated Russia, and allied with Serbia. Serbia helped in the fight against Russia and in turn attack forces allied with the entente and forces trying to fight back for Serbian land. Germany intruded upon Belgium's neutrality as well. There was heavy blame to be given to those 2 nations.

Um, that's total nonsense. The fact that Germany had allied itself with Serbia beforehand simply defined them as the opposing side to the other cluster of alliances. They recieved the heavy blame because they lost the war, not because they did anything any worse than what the other side did. There's no way we can prove what would have happened under a more fair treaty, but I highly doubt that Hitler would have come to power - considering that the poverty and ill will brought on by the treaty was his entire platform - or that we'd have gone to war with Germany. It would probably have just been the war in Japan or something.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Ok, how about a few days when terrorists were caught with US supplied weapons that were missing from Iraqi police forces? It was on serveral news channels.

I didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, I'm just saying that forces in iraq are feeding the terrorists involved in 9/11 with weapons.

Iraq is a threat to us, I didn't say we should have gone to war. I'm saying that we should be watching Iraq, but now invading them.


Ok, how did Britain and France start the war? By France getting invaded? So there were economic problems, that's not reason to start a war. A war is just a drain on resources. The war was a front for invasion, the blame was not given to Germany 'because they lost', it was given because they invaded on a country's neutrality, invaded France, and fought took land from Russia.

Why are you making this a flame war? I refuse to take part in a flame war. This is a thread for rational debate.

 

[Digital Watches]

Ok, how about a few days when terrorists were caught with US supplied weapons that were missing from Iraqi police forces? It was on serveral news channels.

Something being reported does not make it a fact. Evidence.

I didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, I'm just saying that forces in iraq are feeding the terrorists involved in 9/11 with weapons.

This is unproven, as far as I'm concerned.

Iraq is a threat to us, I didn't say we should have gone to war. I'm saying that we should be watching Iraq, but now invading them.

Wait, you're against us having invaded Iraq? Then what is there to disagree about?

Ok, how did Britain and France start the war? By France getting invaded? So there were economic problems, that's not reason to start a war. A war is just a drain on resources. The war was a front for invasion, the blame was not given to Germany 'because they lost', it was given because they invaded on a country's neutrality, invaded France, and fought took land from Russia.

There's a lot of debate as to whether WW1 was caused by the arms race, nationalism, imperial desire to maintain colonial power, trade barriers, or various combinations of any or all of these factors, as well as ones not mentioned here. Either way, most informed, historical viewpoint of the war agree that numerous problems, reaching across ALL of imperial Europe, were the cause of World War One. The simplistic viewpoint of "Germany made a pre-emptive strike and are therefore to blame" sounds like what's known as "conventional wisdom," and honestly, is the kind of argument that propoganda writers put into newspapers to try and spur the voting populace of America into desire to involve the country in the war. It sounds right, so it must be true. The fact that Germany sprung into action had to do with who they were allied with, and if they hadn't done it, France almost certainly would have. Even the Kaiser was against the war in the earliest stages, he just could do nothing to stop it. Read up a little on WW1 before you start arguing about it. Wikipedia isn't a definitive source, but it's a good place to start.

Why are you making this a flame war? I refuse to take part in a flame war. This is a thread for rational debate.

I don't understand why you think that this is devolving into a flame war. I view your points as wrong and ignorant, and am saying so, and why. A flame war would include much more argumentum ad hominem, and would probably include few to no supporting statements on either side. Heated debate =/= Flame war.

 

[behemoth]

As I stated before, this isn't the thread to discuss the circumstances around 9/11, but any rational person should be disgusted by the amount of exploitation our government has perpetrated. Examples include the Patriot Act (written before 9/11), the invasion of Iraq (a completely illogical linking of Hussein to 9/11), and many more.

As far as our "increased security" having stopped more attacks... that's a ridiculous assertion. If people would stop having such a kneejerk reaction to the word "terrorism" and really think, it's not so hard to see some of these incidents as the false flag incidents they are.

And since historic wars are being discussed, Hitler staged a false flag incident of his own, burning the Reichtag.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Digital first

US military weapons are tagged and ID'd, that's how they matched them up

The government admitted it was happening, but didn't want to risk so many lives trying to stop it. Keep in mind Iraq is in civil war

I'm disagreeing about the false facts and propaganda and everything surrounding the war. The point of this thread is to discuss whether or not a war is 'noble' or not.

Wikipedia is a good source, it's cites everything. I studied up with more in-depth sources, and I have to say all of Europe played a large part, even if the Alliance acted irrationally.

Sorry about that, thought the swearing was indicative of a flame war.


Now Behemoth.
The point of this thread is whether or not a war was started for a good cause, so 9/11 is directly involved. Invasion of Iraq, a good idea but we should not have involved ourself in their problems. Kill the terrorists, and leave, not spend our own money to fix their country.
Our government lives for exploitation, I don't think they could run without it. We are being fed lies, false accounts, and different sources are confusing other sources and distorting the truth. Screw the media, I'm going online for my facts, no one lies online.
Not increased security, but increased security measures. Before the chemicals they were using for the bombs would have passed through undetected, but several additional security measures were used to identify potentially dangerous items. If the measures had been more strict in the first place though, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Probably because Hitler only had one testicle, made him really mad.

 

[blazedaces]

=no one lies online

Is this a joke? *doesn't actually believe F&V meant to say this*

-blazed