The Use of Force
- Thread starter cwjerome
- Start date
Pacifist. War frightens me as it should you...the only thing more frightening was Bush's outburst during the second debate
voted aggressive and I am not religious and fully support our forces in Iraq and I don't care what anyone thinks.
I didn't know where to vote because I agree with both "it's sometimes good and necessary" and "it's an important and effective tool".
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I voted middle. Sometimes it's necessary, though I don't know if it can ever be qualified as "good."
speak softly and carry a big stick.
I think that diplomacy should always be the first option and war should be an absolute last resort, but sometimes it's necessary.
I think that diplomacy should always be the first option and war should be an absolute last resort, but sometimes it's necessary.
Middle, because talk is cheap if you cant or do not back it up. Aggressive is kind of where we are today, which only leads to more problems. Look I am all for hunting terrorists, but what we are doing in Iraq is just breading more terrorists. It is not the fault of our military, I am by no means against the military, BUT they are not trained for police work so they are bound to make mistakes. I have a friend that is field medic who has been both to Iraq and to Afghanistan and from his own observations of both countries our military forces are not trained to deal with civilians (especially when the civilians are blowing them selves up trying to kill our troops). He has told me calls he went on to where scores of civilians were injured and/or killed because of the lack of understanding between our two cultures. The only way out of Iraq is to train enough Iraqi people to act as their own police and army.
I do think we need to reserve the right to use force, and we SHOULD use it if we need too, BUT we should do it when there are actual reasons to do so, otherwise it will never end.
I do think we need to reserve the right to use force, and we SHOULD use it if we need too, BUT we should do it when there are actual reasons to do so, otherwise it will never end.
I don't think it can ever be qualified as good simply because bad things always occur, no matter how altruistic and genuine your(well, the country's) intentions might be. Sure, there is always the argument of "the lesser evil," much like our discussion a few days ago, but people can't use that excuse for everything.
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
Jean V. Debois
Starship Troopers
This quote from the book starship troopers came to mind while I was reading this thread. Although this book is purely fiction, this particular quote holds its weight in truth. Just my opinion though.
Jean V. Debois
Starship Troopers
This quote from the book starship troopers came to mind while I was reading this thread. Although this book is purely fiction, this particular quote holds its weight in truth. Just my opinion though.
Aggressive warfare is immoral and criminal under US law and international law.
Aggressive warfare is the supreme crime, charged the prosecutors at Nuremberg, because it contains so many other crimes within it.
Aggressive warfare is tied to nationalist agendas like imperialism. Imperialism is wrong because it contains other wrongs within it. Wrongs like militarism, expansionism, supremacism, exceptionalism, invasion, domination, exploitation and wars (like the Iraq war e.g.). These wrongs are in turn contrary to freedom of choice, liberty, economic and social progress, international peace etc. and ultimately lead to global wars, like the example of WWI shows us. (Keep in mind that the Bush administration believes it is fighting WWIV, WWIII was the Cold War). Above all in this case imperialism is contrary to the ideals of the fathers who founded the USA.
The only acceptable reason for war must be in selfdefense against an aggressor.
The OP talks about "good" wars but wars are never "good".
Aggressive warfare is the supreme crime, charged the prosecutors at Nuremberg, because it contains so many other crimes within it.
Aggressive warfare is tied to nationalist agendas like imperialism. Imperialism is wrong because it contains other wrongs within it. Wrongs like militarism, expansionism, supremacism, exceptionalism, invasion, domination, exploitation and wars (like the Iraq war e.g.). These wrongs are in turn contrary to freedom of choice, liberty, economic and social progress, international peace etc. and ultimately lead to global wars, like the example of WWI shows us. (Keep in mind that the Bush administration believes it is fighting WWIV, WWIII was the Cold War). Above all in this case imperialism is contrary to the ideals of the fathers who founded the USA.
The only acceptable reason for war must be in selfdefense against an aggressor.
The OP talks about "good" wars but wars are never "good".
Violence only settles issues if you are on the winning side. Did the violence of 9/11 solve anything? Or did it create more violence? Did the violence of the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan solve anything? What about the violence of trying to kill all the Jews by Hitler? Did that solve anything? The idea that violence solves anything is absurd. Reason, patience and time is what solves everything. Sure you can say the violence of the revolutionary war did lead to something being solved (or obtained). Sometimes violence is necessary, but does it solve anything? I do not think so.
[*] How do you know it holds it's weight in truth?
[*] What's your definition of an issue?
I think you should stop quoting Starship Troopers.
Good points. You have an interesting point of view. I was interpreting this quote on a more primal level, meaning that you must always be prepared to use force to save your life when necessary and that relying on diplomacy alone is foolish. I see where you are coming from though.
I voted "Middle"... same basic reasons. I admit I was looking to see how many pacifists there were, and what they'd say.
I prefer isolationism but if you are hit you hit back hard. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Regarding the Starship Troopers quote, the modern world was developed by the Roman empire. This was an empire built on aggression, order, and war. Their trading outpost and military garrisons were what has become London, Paris, etc. The very countries now against war were built by a country that lived by it. I am not saying war is a good thing but people have forgotten what the ultimate goal of war is: peace. There's a bully on the block and you're all getting together to beat him up. Unfortunately, it's only America and England that is beating up the bully that is picking on it.
I can't say I don't feel for our soldiers over there and anyone who says I am saying that is putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't want to be in that situation and would never want to deal with the loss of a loved one nor put someone in that situation.
However,
1. They are 18 years of age meaning fully capable adults.
2. They volunteered and choose a career as a soldier. Noone forced them to do that and you have to realize that when you enlist as a soldier that at some point you will have to put your life on the line for your country.
3. Most soldiers over there support Bush and the war (approx 75%). So if the people actually over there support what is going on why do Americans at home not? Anyone who feels otherwise needs to wake up to reality.
Regarding the Starship Troopers quote, the modern world was developed by the Roman empire. This was an empire built on aggression, order, and war. Their trading outpost and military garrisons were what has become London, Paris, etc. The very countries now against war were built by a country that lived by it. I am not saying war is a good thing but people have forgotten what the ultimate goal of war is: peace. There's a bully on the block and you're all getting together to beat him up. Unfortunately, it's only America and England that is beating up the bully that is picking on it.
I can't say I don't feel for our soldiers over there and anyone who says I am saying that is putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't want to be in that situation and would never want to deal with the loss of a loved one nor put someone in that situation.
However,
1. They are 18 years of age meaning fully capable adults.
2. They volunteered and choose a career as a soldier. Noone forced them to do that and you have to realize that when you enlist as a soldier that at some point you will have to put your life on the line for your country.
3. Most soldiers over there support Bush and the war (approx 75%). So if the people actually over there support what is going on why do Americans at home not? Anyone who feels otherwise needs to wake up to reality.
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: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter