Is War Hell?

[The Captain]

Sort of a broad question, so let me break it down:

1. Should war be avoided at all costs until everything else has been tried, or if fighting a war will gain you a victory, should you resort first to that?

2. It is well known about the service histories, or lack thereof, of several prominent Government Officials... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc etc. Do you think that a government official would be more willing to fight or take part in a war if they actually experienced the same type of combat as a regular soldier being sent in? (Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

3. When is war justified?

Anything else you wish to add or address, by all means. The questions are just to stimulate a debate and need not be restricted to just those topics on war.

Take care all.

[TasteyPies]

War is justified when there is a job to be done and war is the best answer. As for veterans feelings i have no idea because im not a veteran.

[The Captain]

Indeed, but WHEN is war the best answer?

Take care all.

[TheAbominatrix]

1. I do believe, personally, that war should be avoided at all costs. My heart just feels that way. Logically, though, I believe that diplomatic answers should at least be sought before running off into battle... at least try to solve the problems like human beings, and then if all else fails... to war. Though I cant think of a situation where war is truly truly needed. And I'm sure everyone will point out all these terrible things to prove me wrong... but war just disgusts me. I live everyday with what war does to you.

2. On talking to my dad, a veteran of Vietnam, I can tell you that it's a bit of a duality. For example, there's a lot of reasons a veteran would want to return to battle. Spending so much time fighting, it soon becomes the only thing that makes sense to you. It's home. When you return to normalcy, you feel out of place and lost... not to mention paranoid as all hell. Then there's the high you can only feel in battle... the adrenline rush that pushes so many veterans of Nam (I dunno if any other war has caused this particular reaction) to seek to recreate that high with drugs (not to mention their addiction to the speed the Army handed out to keep the guys awake, that's a whole different story). Then again, I believe my dad would be hesitant to run off to war again, perhaps because it's been too long. He doesnt believe in this war in Iraq right now, I can tell you that. But it is hard to get a serious answer out of the man.

I'd reckon that a bigger deterent to governments sending boys off to die would be if it was their kids going off. Or if they themselves had to fight in whatever they started. Of course that one wouldnt work very well, though.

3. If a country is invading your own home, I would say war is justified them. Like the situation in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were invading and doing horrific things to people, and fighting back is only logical. Another thing I think war would be okay with is a situation like what was happening in the Nazi Death Camps. Say a country knew something like that was happening, then going to war to save them would be alright.

Sending boys to die to fill political agends is not okay.

[The Captain]

"3. If a country is invading your own home, I would say war is justified them. Like the situation in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were invading and doing horrific things to people, and fighting back is only logical. Another thing I think war would be okay with is a situation like what was happening in the Nazi Death Camps. Say a country knew something like that was happening, then going to war to save them would be alright."

Hmm, that's a nice answer.

I believe the reason there's such a spilt between those who favor war and those who don't is because: It's tough to see good and evil at the time. In WWII, by the time America had come in, Hitler was obviously evil. What he was doing was wrong no matter how you view it. However, wasn't Stalin equally as guilty of such crimes? Yet, we sided with him... why is that? If you look just at sheer numbers, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, yet his viewed as less evil. Is it because he killed his own people? Who knows really. The point is, it's very hard to pinpoint good and evil, until you have hindsight. When you can actually see good and evil, and find agreement with your assessment, then justifying war becomes easier, I'd warrant.

Take care all.

[Dr Unne]

1. War should be used in self-defense, when self-defense is necessary. Should it always be a LAST resort? That depends on what you consider a last resort. A last resort to preserve a country's very survival? Or just to preserve its well-being? Or just to preserve its right not even to be threatened? Or just to protect against a potential threat? Or just to protect financial interests? There are varying levels of "being threatened". Some, financial interests for example, probably don't necessitate war. Some, defending the very survival of a country for example, probably do. Some in the middle, I don't know. I don't know where the line is drawn.

2. I've never fought a war myself, so my opinion can't matter that much. But I have family who has done so, and we have what we see in the media, and what we can read in books; poor sources though those may be, that's all we have. The President has even more than that; he has the opinion of the most qualified people in the world, namely generals, who presumably HAVE fought wars, and know war inside-out.

Our legislators aren't murderers; can they pass laws regarding murder? Our judges aren't all pregnant females; can they interpret laws about abortion? Our President isn't an immigrant; can he enofrce laws about immigration? The answer is yes; you don't need personal experience to understand something. I don't see any reason a President who never personally served in the military would be more willing to go to war.

3. In self-defense.

[DocFrance]

I believe the reason there's such a spilt between those who favor war and those who don't is because: It's tough to see good and evil at the time.

Very good point. JFK said pretty much the same thing when speaking at the graduation of the Annapolis class of 1961:

"When there is an enemy to fight in open combat... many serve, all aplaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long slow struggle, with no immediate, visible foe, your choice [to serve in the military] will seem hard indeed."

Eerily prophetic of the Viet Nam war, as well as the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Rei]

1. Try to avoid war, but certainly not at all costs. If you risk too much by not fighting, or if the diplomatic route proves too costly, then war is acceptable. That is, unless you're the aggressor. If you decide that you risk too much by not invading, say, Kerplakistan, because you need more living space for your people, then you're clearly in the wrong. But if you wanna save some poor minority from destruction, or protect precious resources from some maniac who wants to control them and try to blackmail the world, or something, then that's fine.

I was listening to Real Radio, and this guy, Phil something or other, was interviewing this woman who said that she appreciated the troops because their sacrifice allows her and all other Americans to live in luxury, and that's what they're there for. It was such a ridiculous caricature that I think it was a set up, but, if toned down, it shows one of those grey areas where you have to weigh the pros and cons. I mean, if, what was it, OPEC, decided to raise the price of oil to astronomical levels, say, ten bucks a gallon, I think we'd be forced to go to war. But if it's just because we're a bit paranoid about possible future fluctuations, eh, we'll see what happens.

2. I wouldn't know, not being a veteran or anything, but I don't think it should. The President, or whoever, MIGHT hate war a good deal more than someone else if they fought in one, but that doesn't mean he (or she) will shy away from it if they feel the war needs to be fought. And someone with no war experience won't necessarily rush into a war just because they didn't shoot Viet Cong in the jungle. Maybe I feel this way because I only know the horrors of war in my imagination, but hey, who knows.

3. When there's a good reason, of course. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, and various other Constitution-soundin' things.

[Garland]

War is just a tool for a leader to get what s/he wants. It's not the only tool, but one of many. Just like you can't fix a car with only one sized wrench (and I know, as I'm always the wrench fetcher), you can't fix a country with only one type of diplomacy. Sometimes talking will work, and if it does, then that's a good thing. However, talking to some people is like talking to a wall. The world has no shortage of idiots, and with so many countries, some of them are bound to become leaders. Time is as precious a commodity as oil or gold, and shouldn't be wasted. If talk doesn't work, there are economic sanctions and trade embargos - not to mention a cold war situation with a lot of posturing and bluffing. If you can intimidate and coerce the villain without violence, then kudos to you. However, some leaders don't get the point. That's when war is useful.

[Casey]

If talk doesn't work, there are economic sanctions and trade embargos - not to mention a cold war situation with a lot of posturing and bluffing. If you can intimidate and coerce the villain without violence, then kudos to you. However, some leaders don't get the point. That's when war is useful.

Yeah like the Oil for Food for program that the U.N. had on Iraq several years ago, but it sadly failed. Some members of the U.N. profited off it by taking bribes from Saddam, and it just shows the U.N. is corrupted and is a failure. Im pretty sure, soon there will be no U.N... :mog:

1. Should war be avoided at all costs until everything else has been tried, or if fighting a war will gain you a victory, should you resort first to that?

Yes, everything should be tried out first. And if it does not work, then war it is.

2. It is well known about the service histories, or lack thereof, of several prominent Government Officials... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc etc. Do you think that a government official would be more willing to fight or take part in a war if they actually experienced the same type of combat as a regular soldier being sent in? (Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

Well, Bush was in the Coast Guard, and Kerry in Vietnam as a soilder. I dont really know. Sometimes people from war, people change, sometimes they think it was right in a way. Some people have to understand that ''to do good, some evil must be done'' like war. Then some of them resent it, because it was bad. Vietnam on the other hand was bad, 1000s of dieing everyday, and that was a un winnable war. Iraq on the other hand is not a vietnam. But it can turn in to one.

3. When is war justified?

War is justified, when it makes sense to do somthing, then not to do nothing.

[Talus]

Well, Bush was in the Coast Guard

Texas Air National Guard

(Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

It seems that way because those in opposition are more vocal. What you don't see is the soldiers that are re-enlisting, extending, and silently heading back out for additional deployments.

[TheAbominatrix]

It seems that way because those in opposition are more vocal. What you don't see is the soldiers that are re-enlisting, extending, and silently heading back out for additional deployments.

It depends on the circumstances. My dad served two and a half tours (he only left when his division was stepped down as a combat division because of heavy losses in Cambodia) not because he supported the war, but because when he came home he felt lost. The only place he felt at home was in Vietnam, which is odd to say because of all the horrific things going on, but that's the way it went. It varies from person to person, and while they may redeploy, it doesnt mean that they'll support whatever war the country chooses to go to. My father never supported Vietnam in the first place, he merely went to make his own dad proud, and to serve his country. So being a veteran of actual war (and not just serving in the military) gives one a different outlook on war... as a whole maybe, or gives them cause to look deep into each individual war. It's too broad a question to really come to a flat conclusion.

[Iceglow]

I would love to be able to solve every situation with diplomatic measures to be honest killing isn't a great idea. Yet what do you do when the other side just wont listen whilst people or countries are ignorant or have free will there will always be a need for war

[The Captain]

So, essentially, war is a part of human nature?

Take care all.

[Garland]

Yes, it is. It's right up there with "tool-making" and "language-using" as our defining characteristics. Society imposes monogamism and marraige on us, but we keep war around by choice.