War: pros and cons

[the alleycat]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Or am I mistaken, and the whole American Revolution was just us and England sitting over tea?

The point is, democracy was not imposed upon America by a foreign invading power.

Plus, y\'know, England did have a parliment at that time. People got to vote and everything. The founding fathers didn\'t pull their democratic system out of the air, they build upon the democracy they knew but with an elected head of state.

 

[hubbabubba]

I think that war for us is inevitable, it\'s almost part of our genetic make up, we try to get away from it, but it\'s a historical fact.

There will always be things that people will have to fight for, the issue really lies in what those things are.

The war on terror, this is the latest peice of propaganda, coming from the mouths of the same countries that invented state sponsored terrorism.

If these governments really wanted to help some civilians, surely they should start in there own country first, like by redirecting all the money that is spent on defense (defense? there\'s a joke in itself) and start tackling the real priorities.

These wars serve business intrests, corporate contracts, economic power struggles, it\'s not about people, they just happen to be on the receiving end.


Edit. good thread Vince

 

[green stuff]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
You don\'t spread Democracy and Goodwill at the point of a gun?
Excuse, me but I think history will prove, it\'s pretty much been the only way to spread Democracy.

There have been some exceptions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

 

[Evil Dave]

I look at it like this:
Iraq voter turnout has been over 80%

80% went and risked their lives to put their voice in their government.

We had 40% voter turnout on this last election.
40%, and no one was threatening to kill us for voting.

In 2005, the UK had a 50%-63% voter turnout (depending on the source), you also had no one being threatened to be killed.

It would seem to me that the vast majority of Iraqi\'s do want a Democracy, and are willing to risk life and limb to get their voice heard.
Hell, if we go by the numbers, and the actual death threats, They want it more badly than we do.
We didn\'t force them to vote, if anything they were being discouraged not to vote with threats of death.

 

[EArkham]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Name me two things a day you do that doesn\'t serve your interests in any way shape or form.

Reading and posting in threads like this count, right? <chortles>

-Kep

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by EArkham

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Name me two things a day you do that doesn\'t serve your interests in any way shape or form.

Reading and posting in threads like this count, right? <chortles>

-Kep

Nope, entertainment.
A self serving interest.lol

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Personally, I think we should have finished the job in \'91.
It would have been done and over with by now.

According to James Baker\'s memoirs, we woud NOT be done now and that\'s precisely the reason we didn\'t \"finish the job\" in \'91.

 

[Trevor]

War is generally bad. There are a few instances where it has been the lesser of two evils, although that can be a hard one to call if you are one of the unlucky dead ones or its your beliefs being crushed.

The whole defending your land/ideals/whatever is an interesting one, because it assumes that you are actually right in your beliefs, which is a rather hard call as well.

There are quite a few people that fervently believe that stoning to death is the correct punishment for adultery, I don\'t. But does that mean I have a right to impose my belief on those people by violent (or any other means?).

Taking Iraq as an example it was a sovereign nation and what we did had no basis or precedent in law, it was simply that we could do it and did, for incredibly tenuous reasons (that if are applied fairly accross the board would see us invading a number of other countries).

I predicted at the start that it would turn into another Northern Ireland...

There are some positives that come out of war, usually on the technology/medicine front, but I\'m really not convinced the price is worth paying.

I\'m undecided what it would take to make me fight, but there does exist a point where I would, I\'m just worried by the cycle of violence these things tend to degenerate into (just look at the Scots and Welsh, heaps of them still hate the English just coz they took their countries from them hundreds of years ago*).

*Being part English and part Scottish with a bit of Irish thrown in for good measure means I get to hate myself

 

[funnymouth]

force undoubtedly has its uses. war is almost always bad, but in some rare instances the eventual outcome can be good. war is a lil extreem for my tastes though, id much prefer a few targeted assasinations to deployment of an expensive army; doesnt always work though.

 

[Sand Rat]

Hmm -

Lets see can anyone tell me under what authority we did actually invade Iraq?

How about a UN resolution that called for the Iraqis to allow inspection of their WMD Sites, and the complete distruction of thier existing WMD stockpile.

Now the fact that he swore he destroyed all that stuff should have been good enough, right?

However, the 500+ Sarin Gas rounds that have been found over here kinda point to the fact that he didnt.

Make what arguments that you want that its an immoral war here folks, but we took an SOB who used Chemical Agents on his own people out of power.

 

[laurence]

raW

Some of this discussion is getting a little silly. The thing with these types of discussions is that most people\'s minds are set that no matter what you say they\'re always right. I like to think that I\'m pretty flexible and willing to accept opinions and viewpoints from people from all walks of life. Unfortunately, I can imagine that Yanks like Aussies get a fairly bias and distorted (anglo-saxon) version of history. I mean history in Australia begins with Captain James Cook discovering Australia around 1770. I mean what rubbish! We don\'t learn anything about the aboriginal inhabitants and their amazing culture.

I say this because I\'d like to highlight that fact that while most Aussies, Yanks etc hold the view that \'The Yellow Peril\' was a reality, however I\'m sure that there\'s another side to the story (or many sides). I\'m sure that the Japanese would give you a different account of what was going down.

Anyway, I view America as a nation that is always at war. Warmongers for sure. Gun lovers definately. It\'s ingrained in them. Usurps? Yes! A hegemonic despotic nation with it\'s barrel pointed all over the globe. But this isn\'t news to anyone who\'s delved in to a little world history at some time in their life. It\'s been going on forever. These song lyrics sum it up nicely.

Paddy Lament

Well it\'s by the hush, me boys, and sure that\'s to hold your noise
And listen to poor Paddy\'s sad narration
I was by hunger stressed, and in poverty distressed
So I took a thought I\'d leave the Irish nation

Well I sold me ass and cow, my little pigs and sow
My little plot of land I soon did part with
And me sweetheart Bid McGee, I\'m afraid I\'ll never see
For I left her there that morning broken - hearted

Here\'s you boys, now take my advice
To America I\'ll have ye\'s not be going
There is nothing here but war, where the murderin\' cannons roar
And I wish I was at home in dear old Dublin

Well myself and a hundred more, to America sailed o\'er
Our fortunes to be making we were thinkin\'
When we got to Yankee land, they put guns into our hands
\"Paddy, you must go and fight for Lincoln\"

Here\'s you boys, now take my advice
To America I\'ll have ye\'s not be going
There is nothing here but war, where the murderin\' cannons roar
And I wish I was at home in dear old Dublin

General Meagher to us he said, if you get shot or lose your head
Every murdered soul of youse will get a pension
Well in the war lost me leg, they gave me a wooden peg
And by soul it is the truth to you I mention

Here\'s you boys, now take my advice
To America I\'ll have ye\'s not be going
There is nothing here but war, where the murderin\' cannons roar
And I wish I was at home in dear old Dublin

Well I think myself in luck, if I get fed on Indianbuck
And old Ireland is the country I delight in
To the devil, I would say, it\'s curse Americay
For the truth I\'ve had enough of your hard fightin

Here\'s you boys, now take my advice
To America I\'ll have ye\'s not be going
There is nothing here but war, where the murderin\' cannons roar
And I wish I was at home in dear old Dublin
I wish I was at home
I wish I was at home
I wish I was at home
I wish I was at home in dear old Dublin

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by laurence
Some of this discussion is getting a little silly. The thing with these types of discussions is that most people\'s minds are set that no matter what you say they\'re always right. I like to think that I\'m pretty flexible and willing to accept opinions and viewpoints from people from all walks of life. Unfortunately, I can imagine that Yanks like Aussies get a fairly bias and distorted (anglo-saxon) version of history. I mean history in Australia begins with Captain James Cook discovering Australia around 1770. I mean what rubbish! We don\'t learn anything about the aboriginal inhabitants and their amazing culture.

Thats because by its very definition History is a recorded (written) series of events - before it is written down it is refered to as an oral tradition and can be referenced by historians, but is not seen as history per say.

On top of that, Historians dont look at culture, Anthropologists do - and by and large one both of those groups look down upon one another -

 

[Brimshack]

The boundaries between anthropology and history are not as sharp as that anymore. There is an entire sub-field, Ethnohistory, which consciously blends the two fields together. For example, a good deal of scholarly work on American Indians these days comes from people who would call themselves Ethnohistorians.

 

[Sand Rat]

True - but they are probably anthropologists by training, not historians.

Having degrees in both fields I get to get looked down on by purists in both areas.

Plus the fact that I believe that both areas should be made more \"accessable\" to the public by writing for the general public, not other historians or anthropologist makes me a real outcast in some circles.

 

[laurence]

Under fire.

I\'m sorry Steelcult. Have I said something to upset you? You seem determined to have a plug at my viewpoints on this matter. On the previous 11/11 thread you had a go at my views and here you go again. You seem to be out to get me or something. Let it rest man! I\'m not going to go digging up information from history books to prove some point on a public (miniature site) forum. This would be a waste of time. I have my opinions on war and on America and so be it. I don\'t need you pointing out the distinction between anthropology and history. Nor do I need you to tell me what actually went down with the Japanese war. All I kinda implied was that dropping the Atom bomb was a serious crime against humanity. Agree or disagree, this is my opinion.

 

[paintingploddy]

Brief view, war is bad though there can be good reasons for going down that path. Likewise good things can come from a bad or evil act.

I think the Iraq war was a mistake, I\'ve held that view from the start - that said I think to pull our heads will be a huge disaster in the long term and will lay the groundwork for worse in years to come.

The dropping of the atomic bomb was a pragmatic solution which has saved countless lives. Even ignoring whether Japan fought on (bearing in mind the firebombing of Tokyo actually killed more people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II)it probably prevented another European war pitting the Soviets against the west in the forties and fifties. War is a systematic application of violence. If your opponent is fighting as hard as he can you would be an imbecile not to do the same.

 

[Sand Rat]

Nothing personal Laurence -

It just bugs me when opinion is stated as fact, or statements are made with nothing to back them up - and I will, as is my right, disagree and put up the facts as I understand them.

If you want to change my view, show me the supporting evidence, not your feelings.

 

[Brimshack]

Originally posted by steelcult
True - but they are probably anthropologists by training, not historians.

Having degrees in both fields I get to get looked down on by purists in both areas.

Plus the fact that I believe that both areas should be made more \"accessable\" to the public by writing for the general public, not other historians or anthropologist makes me a real outcast in some circles.

Looks like a pretty even split to me, but you may be right about the purists. When I was studying history, I didn\'t sense any real disrespect to the subfield. When I switched to Anthropology, I got the definite sense that ethnohistory was not widely respected in the program. Course Chicago was all historical anthropology anyway, but the ethnohistorians were a little too lowbrow for the rest of the department.

I don\'t really think too many of the historians I\'ve known draw the line so sharply at non-literate sources as you suggest. Bill Cronon and David White come to mind. Certainly their work incorporates lots of written records, but they don\'t simply reference anthropological materials. The non-literate resources are fully integrated into their workds, just as written records.

 

[Sand Rat]

True -

And the anthropologists tend to be a bit less uptight about spreading the field as it were than historians are - which could be related to the basic desires of the two fields -

And most of the historians I\'ve read do make a clear difference between the \"recorded verifiable word\" and the \"oral tradition\", which just indicates a difference in what we have read, or worked with.

 

[Brimshack]

Yeah, approaches vary rather widely from place to place. I\'m not suggesting the historians I read don\'t make a distinction, just that they tend to regard oral history as much a part of their field as the written texts. There are certainly others who would disagree.