umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
Not with the current people running governments around the world I agree, and I wager that as long as there are people who believe it to be the first solution to problems, there will certainly always be war.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
2 million Iraqis had to flee their occupied country due to ridiculous increases in violence. The U.S. refuses sanctuary for these people. 100,000s of Iraqi civilians have been killed and our own deaths are quite up there as well.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Active military death statistics
Wars do tend to accelerate the Us Military death statistics, but that isn't always the case. I Also find it informative that, racially, the deaths in percentages are closely related to the population make-up.
Wars do tend to accelerate the Us Military death statistics, but that isn't always the case. I Also find it informative that, racially, the deaths in percentages are closely related to the population make-up.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.
Gee I dont know, how do you think the United States was formed? By dismantling and occupying native American lands.
Toss in Post World War II Germany and Japan.
Not that you dont have a point regarding that region, but it has been done in the past
/shrug
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Why do you want to make change in the middle east? What right do you have to use violence to force people to comply with your chosen way of living? Doesn't that sound a little like, I don't know, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? You make the mistake of assuming that your way of life is better than all others, and therefor trying to spread your way of life to others is a matter worth killing over. This is the fundamental principle behind every religious war in history, and it has proven to be absolutely disastrous time and time again. If history has taught us nothing, it's that people who are willing to kill to spread their way of life are the greatest threat to peace.
You can call me a pacifist all you want. It's not true. There are times when war is necessary. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, war was necessary. When he gassed the Kurds in the 80s, war probably should've been used. There was no justification given for this current war that passes muster (no WMDs, no yellow cake, no ties to Al Qaeda, no nothing). This war accomplishes nothing but death, and it is a sad state of affairs that anyone would applaud that.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
I said a foreign country, not the same land. Jackson killing Natives Americans and then the U.S. expanding Westward is not occupying a foreign country, that's genocide. The U.S. pushed Manifest Destiny politically starting in the 1840's to make land acquisition permanent, though the first attempts to make land acquisition permanent was after Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase 40 years earlier. So that wasn't an occupation to instill values; that was an outright takeover. I hope that's not what we're doing in Iraq (in fact, I know it isn't).
And are you really comparing at 250,000 person occupying force in Iraq with limited numbers of U.S. troops in Germany and Japan post-WWII? That's a whole other discussion, but I think it's fairly clear right off the bat the goals, objectives, and outcomes of that comparison have been completely different so far.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
So you agree that auto safety is 84 times more important than fighting terrorism, right? After all, "dead is dead. makes no difference," and there were about 250,000 Americans killed in auto accidents (within the U.S.) over the last six years vs. fewer than 3,000 due to terrorism.
I'll bet the NHTSA is thrilled to hear that by your measure, they're going to receive $1 trillion per year to protect us from the accident bogeyman, not to mention all the new ways they get to infringe civil liberties. Someone goes into a bar, arrest them on the spot and detain them without counsel indefinitely since they might get drunk and might then have an accident. After all, dead is dead, and traffic accidents deserve 84 times more response than terrorism, right?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Yep, right up until the first apologist dismissed the tragic deaths of another 853 Americans by bleating the usual tripe about "War kills people. Welcome to reality." The point, of course, is that is exactly why civilized people resort to war only as an absolute last resort, when the threat is both dire and immediate, and all other possible options have been exhausted. This is exactly why every single life lost in Iraq is an unjustified tragedy, a crime by any civilized standard.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter