# War! post your opinions here!



## russianshephard (Dec 21, 2009)

this is just a thingy for those of you who think that war is stupid and pointless. I think it is a good thing because if not for war, problems would never be resolved and countries would be going down one by one. But if you think otherwise, post here!


----------



## Attaman (Dec 22, 2009)

The price to win a war is bad.  The reasons to declare a war can be bad.  However, you cannot categorize all wars due to their price (human lives) and reasons.  A war to prevent the extermination of a race that, say, numbers five million, that in the end costs twenty thousand lives, is a war that was declared for the right reason (to save lives) that in the end saved more lives than it claimed.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 22, 2009)

War is undesirable but inevitable, because there's always going to be some fuckhead who thinks that having a few guns and some idiot thugs to hold them for him gives him the right to stomp on someone else and take their lunch money.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm still waiting for a war on gangs, destroy the enemy at home before dealing with other nations' problems.


----------



## Jalieya (Dec 22, 2009)

The war going on now is absolutely preposterous. I don't agree with it one bit, and I believe that the reasons that this war started are mostly lies created by the United States government. I may be a conspiracy theorist, but really?!?! Our government is so stupid to think that we'd believe half the shit it feeds us!


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 22, 2009)

russianshephard said:


> this is just a thingy for those of you who think that war is stupid and pointless.


And here I thought "your opinions" implied more than one.

Nonetheless...
I think war is a necessary evil. Sure, people would like reality to be be all rainbow-spewing glitter-shitting sunshine and smiles, but it's not. 
People conflict, and conflict violently. And benefits do come after times of competition. 
Lessons are learned, and those technologies and new resources we were forced to create to give ourselves an edge in the war later go to benefiting the people.

War does have its costly downsides, but don't let those downsides completely blind you to the benefits it also has had. At least attempt to acknowledge them both.

I don't think we should go around shooting anything that moves remotely funny, but I don't disagree with war as a whole in all situations.


----------



## Conker (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm fine with war as long as it doesn't effect me!

But to be honest, you can't have peace without some show of force.

And without war the video game market wouldn't be as big as it is. WE NEED MORE WWII SHOOTERS GFDI!

My friend joined the military :3 I worry about him


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 22, 2009)

I am against anything that causes people to die.

However, because some people just can't seem to do without killing someone else, it's unavoidable.

Hopefully one day mankind will grow out of it...


----------



## Tycho (Dec 22, 2009)

Jalieya said:


> The war going on now is absolutely preposterous. I don't agree with it one bit, and I believe that the reasons that this war started are mostly lies created by the United States government. I may be a conspiracy theorist, but really?!?! Our government is so stupid to think that we'd believe half the shit it feeds us!



The war in Iraq was predicated on lies, greed, and 3rd-grader-level vengefulness.  The war in Afghanistan was the "right" war, I think, though improperly waged (in part due to the Iraq distraction).  At this point, I don't see much point in trying to do any more in Afghanistan - the people don't like us and never will, no matter how much we try to do for them.  We had a CHANCE to "mend fences" with Afghanistan and Bush blew it.

They don't want democracy.  The Taliban can't ever be actually destroyed, it will grow back, and possibly stronger than before.  If we stay, we are labeled as occupiers, if we leave, we are abandoning the cause of making Afghanistan a better, safer place and look like utter asses (AGAIN) in the world's eyes.  If we go in on foot with soldiers to try to minimize collateral and bond with the people there to get more cooperation and to train a new generation of Afghan soldiers and police that will keep the peace when we are gone, we get ambushed by gunmen dressed as civilians, we get harangued for shooting people that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are effectively using in the capacity of human shields both for bullet-catching and propaganda purposes.  If we draw out and attempt to use surgical strikes with UAVs, black-ops-esque Delta Force-whatever covert deployments, and long range guided missiles, we STILL get yelled at.  Our "allies" in the region are nil (Pakistan is completely untrustworthy IMO).  The "homefront" is increasingly against further involvement in Afghanistan.

It's a fucking doozy of a snafu.  All because the fucking CIA dicked around in Afghanistan way back when, to wage a pointless cold war against the Soviets.


----------



## TriggerhappyWolf (Dec 22, 2009)

humanity is on repeat. Go to war, finish it, wait 10-20 years fight someone else, repeat.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 22, 2009)

All I know of war is that it seems a pretext for resources and gaining allies in resource-rich regions. Maybe I'm just hopelessly distrustful of government, but I think there's something to Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. War can be necessary, but there are too many lackings in diplomacy, at least from an idealist's perspective. Too many double-standards. It's sad that War Crimes only seem applicable to the _bad guys_. Because we all know that anything else would just be impeding justice and liberty, right?

Money seems far too involved for me to agree that it's acceptable, although I guess it's only natural.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 22, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> *It's sad that War Crimes only seem applicable to the bad guys. Because we all know that anything else would just be impeding justice and liberty, right?*



History is written by the victors.  Morality in war is a joke.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 22, 2009)

"Remember: When they do it, it is a war crime. When we do it, it is harsh times calling for harsh measures to ensure the freedom of the American people."


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 22, 2009)

Tycho said:


> History is written by the victors.  Morality in war is a joke.





Unsilenced said:


> "Remember: When they do it, it is a war crime. When we do it, it is harsh times calling for harsh measures to ensure the freedom of the American people."



Sad but true.


----------



## Isen (Dec 22, 2009)

Fuck war.  Fuck imperialism.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Dec 22, 2009)

All for imperialism.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 22, 2009)

TriggerhappyWolf said:


> humanity is on repeat. Go to war, finish it, wait 10-20 years fight someone else, repeat.



"I don't know whether war is an interlude during peace, or peace is in interlude during war." -George Clemenceau


----------



## foxmusk (Dec 22, 2009)

_"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."_


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 22, 2009)

War is money. All war is about profiteering. The US doesn't belong in ANY war that it's in right now. The only war it ever belonged in was WWII, and that because we were directly attacked. Every other war has been sheer profiteering, nothing more, nothing less (well, excluding when Britain and France attacked in the early stages of creating our nation, I'm talking since that time).

Our boys are dying not to protect us... we're not in danger and never were. Our boys, our husbands, our fathers... they are dying for money for greedy rich fuckers who can just never get enough no matter what they do.

The average person would never go to war without propaganda by their government or other nations attacking them. Consider honestly for a bit, how very SMALL the number of people is who actually decide to have and pursue wars. It's tiny, infinitesimal. 

Most people don't want war and wouldn't have a damned thing to do with it. 

Someday, hopefully, the common man will turn his guns on his commanders and tell them to fuck off. He'll let his 'boss' know that the bossman's outnumbered and outgunned and common Joe isn't going to go off and kill anymore for the pride and money of a few stupid, deluded, self-important pricks.

If they want wars to profit from, let them go fight them themselves.


----------



## Wreth (Dec 22, 2009)

I would prefer it if war didn't exist, but I understand there will always be a need for it in reality, because some fuckwad who thinks he's better than everyone else needs to be taught a lesson


----------



## Cindercheth (Dec 22, 2009)

War wouldn't be so bad if the chickenshits who start it, LED the frontlines of them, instead of sitting back and going on about their lives (Steward of Gondar -if I spelled that right- come to mind, anyone? Sitting back eating as his son was sent off to die?

I say "only for a good cause". Attaman summed it up pretty well.

Otherwise, I think if people would just get over their bad selves, and stop listening to all the BS that they learned drom their parents (who learned it from THEIR parents...) (namely religion, no intended affront to the religious folk, here), and were smart about how we lived out lifes, then we wouldn't need war.

Not to obtain, not to destroy, not to cull overpopulation (start breaking the predudices against gay folk can do wonders to help, and maybe give foster care kids a real home, to boot!).

In short: this world is what we make of it. And we're all (generally speaking) way too selfish to make it into something beautiful. Oh, I know... nature itself can be most cruel. But we, as a species, are the first species able to give that old coot mother nature the bird (although I think some aspects of nature are needed for us, as yet another animal species on the planet, to remain somewhat sane).

On that note: you all get a break from me, as of now. Byeeee.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 22, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> War is money. All war is about profiteering. The US doesn't belong in ANY war that it's in right now. The only war it ever belonged in was WWII, and that *because we were directly attacked*. Every other war has been sheer profiteering, nothing more, nothing less (well, excluding when Britain and France attacked in the early stages of creating our nation, I'm talking since that time).



I am open to your opinion on why 9/11 does not apply to necessary retaliation. Keep in mind that I am well aware of the many, many mistakes the U.S. has made during this "crusade" as well as it's sinister agenda.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Dec 22, 2009)

people so often forget, that war, is pretty much an economy in itself. without war factories wouldnt produce guns, jeeps, jets, uniforms, helments, tanks, ammo, and an assload of more stuff i dont feel like listing. then you have Military jobs, you also have technological advancements due to war, look back at 1945. WWII had just ended and The Cold War was begining, operation paperclip and the Soviet conter part, we went from V-2 "buzz bombs" to a orbiting satilite in about 12 years, same with the fighter jet and medical technologies. most people dont realize this sadly.


----------



## Duality Jack (Dec 22, 2009)

A great pastime for the combat inclined.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Dec 22, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> people so often forget, that war, is pretty much an economy in itself.



Of course it is, but most people don't realize that jumping into a war doesn't create jobs anymore since we're always producing weaponry and stockpiling it. Production hardly ramps up at all, so money simply gets siphoned away from people without any jobs being created.

Not to mention plenty of weaponry is manufactured by robots.



blackfuredfox said:


> without war factories wouldnt produce guns, jeeps, jets, uniforms, helments, tanks, ammo, and an assload of more stuff i dont feel like listing. then you have Military jobs, you also have technological advancements due to war, look back at 1945.WWII had just ended and The Cold War was begining, operation paperclip and the Soviet conter part, we went from V-2 "buzz bombs" to a orbiting satilite in about 12 years, same with the fighter jet and medical technologies. most people dont realize this sadly.



Technological advancement and war are not mutually inclusive. Don't treat them as such.

Most people don't realize this, sadly.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 22, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> _"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."_



This.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Dec 22, 2009)

Exunod said:


> Of course it is, but most people don't realize that jumping into a war doesn't create jobs anymore since we're always producing weaponry and stockpiling it. Production hardly ramps up at all, so money simply gets siphoned away from people without any jobs being created.
> 
> Not to mention plenty of weaponry is manufactured by robots.
> 
> ...



i do realize this, in the end though war is needed as a part of society, it cant just stop, its the feral nature in humans, so unless we kill every single thing on earth that could become an organized fighting force, it will always be there.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 22, 2009)

I like the mechanics of war, but not the war itself. :/


----------



## Morroke (Dec 22, 2009)

FIGHT FOR THE GLORY OF THE MOTHER COUNTRY?!


----------



## Tewin Follow (Dec 22, 2009)

On topic: Watch _Lord of War_, gurls. It's about the gun-trade and wars and cocaine and Nicolas Cage.

Off topic: Nicolas Cage owns a castle IRL.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 22, 2009)

lupinealchemist said:


> I am open to your opinion on why 9/11 does not apply to necessary retaliation. Keep in mind that I am well aware of the many, many mistakes the U.S. has made during this "crusade" as well as it's sinister agenda.



Let's pretend for a minute that we really believe that 9/11 was what it's claimed to be. Some resistance faction in another country came along and blew up one of our buildings.

Now, let's turn this around. A bunch of skinhead nazis from the US go to Iraq and blow up one of their central buildings.

Do you want to go to war and be invaded because some fuckwad nazi took it upon himself to attack another country? Or do you want to hunt those nazi fuckers down YOURSELF and take care of biznez?

You think about that, and get back to me, and we'll pretend in the meantime that it was everything it appeared to be. In which case, we attacked a country for its dissidents, rather than for its military. Pearl Harbor was an official act of their country, and they not only had NO interest in hunting the dissidents down themselves, but their government supported the whole action.


----------



## Bokracroc (Dec 22, 2009)

War, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again, y'all.


----------



## ironwolf85 (Dec 22, 2009)

to me war is a neccary but unpleasent evil. a good war is fought for a just cause, and in the right way.
if you take down a dictator, you must do it the right way. get the people behind you, treat the locals well, fix the problem, pack up, go home.
war is a freaking complex thing nowadays, but at least it's better then any of the prior ones.

the current war has nothing on any prior war in terms of casulality rate, this is the first war that had US and Allied casulaties in the triple digits.


----------



## ironwolf85 (Dec 22, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Let's pretend for a minute that we really believe that 9/11 was what it's claimed to be. Some resistance faction in another country came along and blew up one of our buildings.
> 
> Now, let's turn this around. A bunch of skinhead nazis from the US go to Iraq and blow up one of their central buildings.
> 
> ...


 
problem is the taliban government supported and was propped up by fighters from the group that attacked on 9/11 and when the US asked them to hand over the mastermind for proper trial they refused.

If an american skinhead went over and blasted lets say... the kremlin... the US would try to find and hand over the little bastard as fast as possible, maybe sending some dignatries along to make sure the russians treated him according to international regulation.

the Taliban did not... they relied on that same network of jahidists to prop up their government and provide most of the forces facing the rebel Northern Alliance. Thus they sheltered bin ladin, if they'd have handed him over there would be no war at the moment.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 22, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Let's pretend for a minute that we really believe that 9/11 was what it's claimed to be. Some resistance faction in another country came along and blew up one of our buildings.
> 
> Now, let's turn this around. A bunch of skinhead nazis from the US go to Iraq and blow up one of their central buildings.
> 
> ...



Of course, allowing for more pretending and assumed variables... So you're saying not only did the Taliban hunt those al-Qaeda fuckers down but did everything within its power to offer assistance to the US in order to avoid invasion? That not only weren't the attacks condoned by the Taliban but they did attempt to bring al-Qaeda to justice?


----------



## ironwolf85 (Dec 22, 2009)

looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that way


----------



## ironwolf85 (Dec 22, 2009)

I think war exists because when two sides, whatever the cause, cannot reconsile a problem with words, they inevetibly use force.

force should only be used when other means fail to acheve their goal. in Afganistan it was neccary.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Dec 22, 2009)

ironwolf85 said:


> looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that way



I'm more curious than anything, I've already got my mind made up by I'd like to keep the dialogue going.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 22, 2009)

Bowtoid_Obelisk said:


> Of course, allowing for more pretending and assumed variables... So you're saying not only did the Taliban hunt those al-Qaeda fuckers down but did everything within its power to offer assistance to the US in order to avoid invasion? That not only weren't the attacks condoned by the Taliban but they did attempt to bring al-Qaeda to justice?



How much believable proof did we have?

So much that even our own countrymen question the official story... Yet enough that they should have just handed over their own countrymen without a whisper?


----------



## Thatch (Dec 22, 2009)

War. War never changes.



MOAR DAKKA!


----------



## OhBloodyHell (Dec 22, 2009)

Soldiers are not heros in my opinion, I don't know why people call them that.
In war both sides are just as bad because at the end of the day their aim is to kill the other side.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 22, 2009)

OhBloodyHell said:


> Soldiers are not heros in my opinion, I don't know why people call them that.
> In war both sides are just as bad because at the end of the day their aim is to kill the other side.


This is where I call you a worthless slob to your face.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Dec 22, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> Let's pretend for a minute that we really believe that 9/11 was what it's claimed to be.



*Warning: Incoming Conspiracy Theory detected! Please evacuate the thread!"*


----------



## SnowFox (Dec 22, 2009)

War is naughty, naughty naughty, and people who go to war are naughty people


----------



## OhBloodyHell (Dec 22, 2009)

Ahkmill said:


> This is where I call you a worthless slob to your face.


 
Why?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 22, 2009)

OhBloodyHell said:


> Why?


Because it's not the soldier's choice to go into war. It's the asshole government's choice. The soldier proves his/herself as a hero simply by showing what horrific things they are willing to go through in order to keep the citizens safe, or at least happy. If anyone is to blame for the whole "KILL THE OTHER GUY" thing, it's the government, not the soldiers themselves. The soldier is just doing their job.


----------



## OhBloodyHell (Dec 22, 2009)

Ahkmill said:


> Because it's not the soldier's choice to go into war. It's the asshole government's choice. The soldier proves his/herself as a hero simply by showing what horrific things they are willing to go through in order to keep the citizens safe, or at least happy. If anyone is to blame for the whole "KILL THE OTHER GUY" thing, it's the government, not the soldiers themselves. The soldier is just doing their job.


 
I know, I completely agree with you. 
I know the soldier's themselves don't want to kill people. That's what I mean by both sides, the gonvernments.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 22, 2009)

OhBloodyHell said:


> I know, I completely agree with you.
> I know the soldier's themselves don't want to kill people. That's what I mean by both sides, the gonvernments.


Well, the way you worded it, it sounded like you were talking shit on the soldiers, which kinda pissed me off.
I mean, just dealing with Bush as Commander in Chief deserves a fucking medal. :/


----------



## Thatch (Dec 22, 2009)

Akhmill, BloodyHell, WHICH type of soldiers are you talking about? Defenders or agressors? That's a vital difference.


----------



## Jashwa (Dec 22, 2009)

How is this rants and raves and not off topic?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Dec 22, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Akhmill, BloodyHell, WHICH soldiers are you talking about? Defenders or agressors? That's a vital difference.


Defenders are heroes, aggressors are... fuck the government.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 22, 2009)

Ahkmill said:


> Defenders are heroes, aggressors are... fuck the government.



Ah, ok, I have nothing to add to that.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 22, 2009)

The 72 virgins thing is more truthful if you multiply by 1000 and replace virgins with maggots. But then again they'd still be virgins.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Dec 22, 2009)

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives


----------



## SnowFox (Dec 22, 2009)

I take it nobody watched spitting image. Fucking youtube removed the video I was looking for.


----------



## Ratte (Dec 22, 2009)

A necessary evil.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Dec 22, 2009)

War is ugly, despicable, senseless, or whatnot.

However, it is necessary at times. Humans are just...fallible creatures.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 22, 2009)

McFacepalm: I'm loving it.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Dec 22, 2009)

Est ist gut.


----------



## russianshephard (Dec 31, 2009)

war is the best thing ever to happen to mankind. Without it, we wouldnt have half the technological advancedments we have today. Without war, there would have never been the need for superadvanced medical remedies to most the stuff we get today. The list of things that war made that help in everyday life is just amazingly long


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2009)

russianshephard said:


> war is the best thing ever to happen to mankind. Without it, we wouldnt have half the technological advancedments we have today. Without war, there would have never been the need for superadvanced medical remedies to most the stuff we get today. The list of things that war made that help in everyday life is just amazingly long



*sniff sniff*

This thread smells a little ripe to me.  You sure you wanted to dig it back up?

Anyway, medical advances and other technological wonders were bound to come about without warfare as a catalyst.


----------



## Viva (Dec 31, 2009)

War is only necessary in certain cases, like invasion.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2009)

adog said:


> War is only necessary in certain cases, like invasion.



Why, pray tell, is "invasion" necessary?

And war is hardly a necessary prerequisite to invasion.  Israeli settlers on the West Bank, in Palestinian territory, for example.


----------



## Viva (Dec 31, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Why, pray tell, is "invasion" necessary?


 
It's not necessary.  I'm saying if someone invades your country, you have the right to fight back.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2009)

adog said:


> It's not necessary.  I'm saying if someone invades your country, you have the right to fight back.



Even then it's not necessary.  It's an option, but not necessary.


----------



## Viva (Dec 31, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Even then it's not necessary. It's an option, but not necessary.


 
Why would you just want to sit there and let some other country take over?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2009)

adog said:


> Why would you just want to sit there and let some other country take over?



You're assuming the invaders are that much worse than the current government you live under.  This is not ALWAYS the case.


----------



## Viva (Dec 31, 2009)

Tycho said:


> You're assuming the invaders are that much worse than the current government you live under. This is not ALWAYS the case.


 
True, but I wouldn't want my country constantly changing hands, either.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 31, 2009)

I can give you my opinions on specific wars:
Revolutionary War: Noble cause (independence), but profoundly retarded tactics.
Civil War: Noble cause (preservation of union), but insufficient punishment of rebel scum.
First World War: No cause whatsoever, also the most pathetic tactics EVER (the same as Rev. War, but they dug a hole first).
Second World War: Someone actually ATTACKED US?! *gasp*. They asked for it for sure, but too there were too many civilian casualties.
Korean War: ????
Vietnam War: Just embarrassing. What were we trying to accomplish anyway?
Gulf War: ????
Iraq War: Even more embarrassing than Vietnam. We cannot lose to these barbarians!!!


----------



## Jelly (Dec 31, 2009)

I think that's exactly the retarded rhetoric that justifies wars you know nothing about.

oh boy
my benevolent society of necessary malevolence
yay
yay


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 31, 2009)

My opinion, only go to war in the most dire situations or if some country is doing something on par with hitler because it's too expensive.


----------



## ShadowEon (Dec 31, 2009)

I don't know but I am definitely not for the current one. US just needs to pull out, they aren't wanted there and it only leads to more soldiers being killed. Generally not a fan of war though.


----------



## Azure (Jan 1, 2010)

Wow.  This thread is full of horrible opinions with nothing but raw emotion backing them. For the few that have reasoning within them, good on ya. But honestly, the OP never defined what he considered a war, and since conflict has evolved so much, it's really difficult to give a blanket opinion to such an ambiguous cluster of shit.  Aggression and defense are states of mind, and variable depending upon which side you speak too, and in which circumstances they are fomented. So I can't answer your question, really.



Grimfang said:


> All I know of war is that it seems a pretext for resources and gaining allies in resource-rich regions. Maybe I'm just hopelessly distrustful of government, but I think there's something to Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. War can be necessary, but there are too many lackings in diplomacy, at least *from an idealist's perspective*. Too many double-standards. It's sad that War Crimes only seem applicable to the _bad guys_. Because we all know that anything else would just be impeding justice and liberty, right?
> 
> Money seems far too involved for me to agree that it's acceptable, although I guess it's only natural.


And you wanted to join the military? Also, Idealists never accomplish a fucking thing, because nothing is ideal to all people. 



HarleyParanoia said:


> _"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."_


 LOL lack of context get.


----------



## Brazen (Jan 1, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2Gve7oh_4


----------



## russianshephard (Jan 2, 2010)

war is not only a very nessasary evil, but it is also a uniter. I mean, when you think about it, does war not unite everyone to one good cause and unite those that once fought eachother to fight a common enemy?


----------



## PheonixStar (Jan 2, 2010)

russianshephard said:


> war is not only a very nessasary evil, but it is also a uniter. I mean, when you think about it, does war not unite everyone to one good cause and unite those that once fought eachother to fight a common enemy?


That's an oxymoron. Or something.

"Don't wars make people stop fighting wars with each other and fight wars with other people instead! That's GOOD, right?"

Um... no.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

russianshephard said:


> this is just a thingy for those of you who think that war is stupid and pointless. I think it is a good thing because if not for war, problems would never be resolved and countries would be going down one by one. But if you think otherwise, post here!



BS problems can be resolved without resorting to violence. Violence is what pussies use cause they don't have the balls to discuss anything.


----------



## Viva (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> BS problems can be resolved without resorting to violence. Violence is what *pussies* use cause they *don't have the balls* to discuss anything.


 
Haha.  But, yes.  Violence is not always the way to solve things.  There has to be at least ONE instance where violence is necessary, though :/


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

adog said:


> Haha.  But, yes.  Violence is not always the way to solve things.  There has to be at least ONE instance where violence is necessary, though :/




When I do actually think of one instance I will let you knoe. Cause Right now I can't think of any instance violence  or war is necessary.


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

I think war is sometimes necessary, even if it does suck. NOBODY likes having innocent civilians or their own troops die. But sometimes war is necessary to defend yourself, or to make the world a better place. WWII comes to mind. If we were to just let Hitler take over the world, well, you know what the world would be like. Also, the Revolutionary war. Without it, we wouldn't have the US. However, there are plenty of STUPID reasons to start a war. The Vietnam war and the War in Iraq come to mind. 

Personally, I think people who HATE war, and HATE soldiers that fight it wars, are complete idiots. If you need to hate something, hate the ones who started the wars for stupid reasons in the first place. Don't hate an entire concept that can potentially bring LOTS of good, or hate good people who are only doing their job. These people that say they hate war and hate soldiers are the same morons who say they hate killing, but would gladly take antibiotics if they got sick.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Nargle said:


> I think war is sometimes necessary, even if it does suck. NOBODY likes having innocent civilians or their own troops die. But sometimes war is necessary to defend yourself, or to make the world a better place. WWII comes to mind. If we were to just let Hitler take over the world, well, you know what the world would be like. Also, the Revolutionary war. Without it, we wouldn't have the US. However, there are plenty of STUPID reasons to start a war. The Vietnam war and the War in Iraq come to mind.
> 
> Personally, I think people who HATE war, and HATE soldiers that fight it wars, are complete idiots. If you need to hate something, hate the ones who started the wars for stupid reasons in the first place. Don't hate an entire concept that can potentially bring LOTS of good, or hate good people who are only doing their job. These people that say they hate war and hate soldiers are the same morons who say they hate killing, but would gladly take antibiotics if they got sick.



I don't hate war at all. I just feel things can be resolved easily without taking drastic actions.

Also name a time when war is an absolute necessary.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't hate war at all. I just feel things can be resolved easily without taking drastic actions.
> 
> Also name a time when war is an absolute necessary.



When the idiots on the other side aren't willing to come to the table with level heads and reasonable discussion.


----------



## Viva (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't hate war at all. I just feel things can be resolved easily without taking drastic actions.
> 
> Also name a time when war is an absolute necessary.


 
Hmm...how about when the citizens start being harmed along with the army? But at the same time, how would that explain Japan's backing off because of Hiroshima? It's a very difficult situation


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

adog said:


> Hmm...how about when the citizens start being harmed along with the army? But at the same time, how would that explain Japan's backing off because of Hiroshima? It's a very difficult situation



...What?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't about making Japan "back off", they were about massive demonstrations of firepower on our part to beat the already mostly-beaten Japanese into submission and to let the rest of the world (particularly the Soviets) know that we were not to be fucked with, because we had "the bomb".

Japan was already pretty much on the ropes after we started flying sorties with B-29s armed with incendiary bombs over the Japanese mainland.  The atomic bombs were nothing more than a couple of big punctuation marks on the story of the War in the Pacific.

And it does not take the death of a civilian to take a country up to and over the cusp of open warfare, nor would such an event necessitate the declaration of war.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

adog said:


> Hmm...how about when the citizens start being harmed along with the army? But at the same time, how would that explain Japan's backing off because of Hiroshima? It's a very difficult situation



Innocent civillians get hurt on either side of a war, so does that not make each country and army just as bad as one another? "Lets have a war and hurt innocent people because we do not agree on something or hate each other" 



Tycho said:


> When the idiots on the other side aren't willing to come to the table with level heads and reasonable discussion.



Not an excuse to blow up innocent people.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Not an excuse to blow up innocent people.



Blowing up innocent people isn't the first thing on most generals' mind, despite what you seem to think.  And anyone carrying a weapon or manning a war vessel in service to the other country is not "innocent".


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't hate war at all. I just feel things can be resolved easily without taking drastic actions.
> 
> Also name a time when war is an absolute necessary.


 
I already named TWO. Please reread my post.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Blowing up innocent people isn't the first thing on most generals' mind, despite what you seem to think.  And anyone carrying a weapon or manning a war vessel in service to the other country is not "innocent".



Unfortunately though, innocent people end up getting caught up in war, even though the war is not directed at civillians.



Nargle said:


> I already named TWO. Please reread my post.



Oops sorry Nargle.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Unfortunately though, innocent people end up getting caught up in war, even though the war is not directed at civillians.



I believe the term is "shit happens".  Also, civilians are the ones manning the assembly lines and the food processing plants that the military needs.  In a war of attrition they are bound to suffer casualties - civilians they may be, but they're also the lifeblood of the country and consequently the military.

It's generally bad press and a waste of munitions and effort to go around toasting civvies willy-nilly.  It makes far more sense to destroy the enemy's ability to effectively fight and hope that they're smart enough to realize that resistance beyond that point is pretty fruitless.


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Unfortunately though, innocent people end up getting caught up in war, even though the war is not directed at civillians.


 
But isn't it true that innocent civilians die in car crashes every day, too? you wouldn't suggest that all cars should be destroyed, though, because cars are an extremely valuable piece of technology, and even though people die, they make life easier. Same as war. Even though people have to die, there are many instances that without war, life would have ended up MUCH crappier than it is today. As Tycho said, shit happens, and sometims you have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Would you rather sacrifice lives in order to ensure freedom for the rest of your people, or be forced to live in a concentration camp and get thrown into a furnace under the reign of Hitler because nobody wanted to sacrifice their troops and stand up to him?


----------



## Jelly (Jan 2, 2010)

russianshephard said:


> war is not only a very nessasary evil, but it is also a uniter. I mean, when you think about it, does war not unite everyone to one good cause and unite those that once fought eachother to fight a common enemy?



No.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Nargle said:


> But isn't it true that innocent civilians die in car crashes every day, too? you wouldn't suggest that all cars should be destroyed, though, because cars are an extremely valuable piece of technology, and even though people die, they make life easier. Same as war. Even though people have to die, there are many instances that without war, life would have ended up MUCH crappier than it is today. As Tycho said, shit happens, and sometims you have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Would you rather sacrifice lives in order to ensure freedom for the rest of your people, or be forced to live in a concentration camp and get thrown into a furnace under the reign of Hitler because nobody wanted to sacrifice their troops and stand up to him?



I don't see how comparing civilians dieing in war to civilians dieing in a car crash relates.

Civilians die in car crashes due to either mechanical failure of the vehicle or someones stupidity. People die in war because the government declares war, People don't declare a road accident do they? War is no accident either. Also it was a furnace in concentration canps, it was gas chambers, they gassed the jews.

Yeah shit happens, but do you know how many times said shit can be avoided?


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Yeah shit happens, but do you know how many times said shit can be avoided?



It can't be fucking avoided if the other guy doesn't want to avoid it.  War is not a one-party scenario, it's two parties who can't get along for one reason or another.  Go ahead and hike out to Whateverstan and tell the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or whoever that you don't want to fight because it hurts people and extol the virtues of a peaceful solution to them.  When they're done laughing, they'll kill you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It can't be fucking avoided if the other guy doesn't want to avoid it.  War is not a one-party scenario, it's two parties who can't get along for one reason or another.  Go ahead and hike out to Whateverstan and tell the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or whoever that you don't want to fight because it hurts people and extol the virtues of a peaceful solution to them.  When they're done laughing, they'll kill you.



Ok, don't get ya panties all twisted. Also I already said once I am not against war. I am just pointing things out from a different perspective. 

Sometimes, just sometimes things can be resolved without resorting to drastic measures. However in the case of the current war I doubt the taliban would ever listen to reason anyway, to which force is needed to be used.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

I think that war, like anything else really, is a tool. It is by no means inevitable and there are certainly many other tools to get what you (as a nation; because it is nations that go to war) want, but it can certainly be the most _efficacious_ at times. Naturally no one likes the idea of killing people or even getting killed themselves, but like all things war is not automatically bad just because people die by definition. Hypothetically, if it came to my country starving in a decade long drought -or- invading another (not drought-ridden) country for its resources, I would rather there be a war. Again, and I can't stress this enough, war is not something to take lightly but there are certainly things _worse_ than war in my opinion and so it naturally follows that I support the idea of war as a tool. 

But you can use tools incorrectly and end up hurting yourself. If a war is fought, it better be for a good reason that clearly benefits you as a nation, either directly or indirectly. And in this respect I feel wars are too often declared for stupid or otherwise frivolous reasons. That, however, has more to do with the wielder of the tools, rather than the tool itself.


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't see how comparing civilians dieing in war to civilians dieing in a car crash relates.
> 
> Civilians die in car crashes due to either mechanical failure of the vehicle or someones stupidity. People die in war because the government declares war, People don't declare a road accident do they? War is no accident either. Also it was a furnace in concentration canps, it was gas chambers, they gassed the jews.
> 
> Yeah shit happens, but do you know how many times said shit can be avoided?


 
I SWEAR I already explained in my other post why I'm comparing car crashes to war. Do you read more than the first sentence of every post? It's not about WHY people are dying. It's because you are saying that because people are dying, war shouldn't exist, with absolutely no regard to the good things war can bring. If you were to hyperfocus on the fact that people die in car crashes, thus decide that cars shouldn't exist, it would be just as stupid, because cars can make lives much easier.

Also, I'm not saying every war is necessary, but that doesn't mean every war is UN-necessary. I'm responding to your posts about how you keep saying war shouldn't exist, everything can be solved with negotiation.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Nargle said:


> I SWEAR I already explained in my other post why I'm comparing car crashes to war. Do you read more than the first sentence of every post?
> 
> Also, I'm not saying every war is necessary, but that doesn't mean every war is UN-necessary. I'm responding to your posts about how you keep saying war shouldn't exist, everything can be solved with negotiation.



If you read mine you would know why I dissagree with you comparing car ACCIDENTS to war.

Also I never once said war should not exist I have actually been saying that SOMETIMES things can be resolved without resorting to such drastic actions.


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If you read mine you would know why I dissagree with you comparing car ACCIDENTS to war.
> 
> Also I never once said war should not exist I have actually been saying that SOMETIMES things can be resolved without resorting to such drastic actions.


 
I edited my post to clarify, just in case my original post wasn't clear enough.

Also:


RandyDarkshade said:


> BS problems can be resolved without resorting to violence. Violence is what pussies use cause they don't have the balls to discuss anything.


 


RandyDarkshade said:


> When I do actually think of one instance I will let you knoe. Cause Right now I can't think of any instance violence or war is necessary.


 
I beg to differ. Sounds pretty much like you think war doesn't have any place in this world.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> *Sometimes, just sometimes things can be resolved without resorting to drastic measures.* However in the case of the current war I doubt the taliban would ever listen to reason anyway, to which force is needed to be used.



Can you name a major conflict in recorded history that could have been solved without "drastic measures"? There are very few, that much I can guarantee.  Also, some wars were not predicated on any sort of reason whatsoever beyond 4th grader playground turf-war logic.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Can you name a major conflict in recorded history that could have been solved without "drastic measures"? There are very few, that much I can guarantee.  Also, some wars were not predicated on any sort of reason whatsoever beyond 4th grader playground turf-war logic.



Wasn't referring to war specifically. I was referring to anything, street fights, police using force etc etc. Perhaps I should of been more specific.



Nargle said:


> I edited my post to clarify, just in case my original post wasn't clear enough.
> 
> I beg to differ. Sounds pretty much like you think war doesn't have any place in this world.



Did I mention war specifically in my post? No? I said "Problems" as in all types of violence. there is such thing as "Gang Wars" to you know, civil wars also. Not just a war between two or more countries. Perhaps I should of been more specific.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 2, 2010)

lupinealchemist said:


> I'm still waiting for a war on gangs, destroy the enemy at home before dealing with other nations' problems.



This really.  Yeah, helping other countries is good at times, but sometimes taking care of your own country is more important especially when your own country is turmoil.

It's like "Hey, we'd love to help you out, but we got some shit of our own to settle first.".


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Wasn't referring to war specifically. I was referring to anything, street fights, police using force etc etc. Perhaps I should of been more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention war specifically in my post? No? I said "Problems" as in all types of violence. there is such thing as "Gang Wars" to you know, civil wars also. Not just a war between two or more countries. Perhaps I should of been more specific.


 
Well, this thread is titled "War! post your opinions here!" and war IS violence, so it pretty much applies. And yes, you DID say war. 



RandyDarkshade said:


> When I do actually think of one instance I will let you knoe. Cause Right now I can't think of any instance violence or *war* is necessary.


 


RandyDarkshade said:


> Also name a time when *war* is an absolute necessary.


 
You've just backed yourself into a corner and you're trying to weasil your way out by twisting your wording. It's perfectly fine by me if you've realized that your beliefs about war were false, but you don't have to try and cover it up and pretend like you still think you're right.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> This really.  Yeah, helping other countries is good at times, but sometimes taking care of your own country is more important especially when your own country is turmoil.
> 
> It's like "Hey, we'd love to help you out, but we got some shit of our own to settle first.".



You know if we waged a "war on gangs" we'd have people SCREAMING "OMG they have instated martial law, TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION ARE UPON US".

Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a damn good one personally.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 2, 2010)

I think World War 2 was necessary.

On that same note...  The Cold War was never necessary even if it wasn't really much of a war.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Nargle said:


> Well, this thread is titled "War! post your opinions here!" and war IS violence, so it pretty much applies. And yes, you DID say war.
> 
> 
> You've just backed yourself into a corner and you're trying to weasil your way out by twisting your wording. It's perfectly fine by me if you've realized that your beliefs about war were false, but you don't have to try and cover it up and pretend like you still think you're right.



I was referring to the two posts you quoted me before. The two posts you quoted me before this did not have war in them. 

Oh so I am wrong for not liking violence? because I don't like violence that makes me a bad person does it?. I will say this:

No I do not agree with violence or war, but there are times when it is necessary to resort to it to solve a situation.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 2, 2010)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> I think World War 2 was necessary.



In the Pacific: The Japanese, who were campaigning in China and elsewhere, had grown leery of us and were afraid that we would interfere with their progress there with substantial military force.  They chose to try and strike first, to cripple us and hinder our ability to wage war against them in the Pacific.  They forced our hand there.

In Europe: The festering wound that World War I had left in Europe had now burst open, and a Germany that had grown resentful of the Versailles Treaty's harsh terms had found a voice to rally behind, to restore their pride, their power and their wealth - Hitler and the Nazi Party.  Hitler and the Nazis were beyond reason.  The only way to avert WW2 in Europe would have been to revise the Versailles Treaty back in 1918 (1919? I forget) to avoid putting such crushing penalties upon a Germany already as beleaguered by war as any other country, if not more so due to the fact that they had LOST.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 2, 2010)

Tycho said:


> In the Pacific: The Japanese, who were campaigning in China and elsewhere, had grown leery of us and were afraid that we would interfere with their progress there with substantial military force.  They chose to try and strike first, to cripple us and hinder our ability to wage war against them in the Pacific.  They forced our hand there.
> 
> In Europe: The festering wound that World War I had left in Europe had now burst open, and a Germany that had grown resentful of the Versailles Treaty's harsh terms had found a voice to rally behind, to restore their pride, their power and their wealth - Hitler and the Nazi Party.  Hitler and the Nazis were beyond reason.  The only way to avert WW2 in Europe would have been to revise the Versailles Treaty back in 1918 (1919? I forget) to avoid putting such crushing penalties upon a Germany already as beleaguered by war as any other country, if not more so due to the fact that they had LOST.



Yeah.  And the fact that the League of Nations at the time was too weak to avoid war as well.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

The League of Nations gets a pretty bum wrap for not doing a good job stopping ww2, but in all reality of the League had been replaced by something resembling the UN, the war still would have come about. There is no stopping a powerful nation from going to war if it wants to if you are a multinational organization who just mitigates talks, as both the UN is and LoN was. More or less. 

@Randy, I would like to know, in a little more detail, what you think "necessary" actually is. Technically, you can avoid "war" with an invading power by simply letting them storm your lands but that really would not be advantageous for you now would it? The only time war is no _ever_ necessary is when no one resorts to violence in the first place. Since this is has not been the case in the past and will likely not be the case in the future, war will always be "necessary" under certain circumstances, if a country wishes to exist that is.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> @Randy, I would like to know, in a little more detail, what you think "necessary" actually is. Technically, you can avoid "war" with an invading power by simply letting them storm your lands but that really would not be advantageous for you now would it? The only time war is no _ever_ necessary is when no one resorts to violence in the first place. Since this is has not been the case in the past and will likely not be the case in the future, war will always be "necessary" under certain circumstances, if a country wishes to exist that is.




My answer is below.



RandyDarkshade said:


> No I do not agree with violence or war, but there are times when it is necessary to resort to it to solve a situation.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

Randy you are being awfully schizo with your references to "war" and "violence" as separate entities. You strongly implied you think war and violence is not necessary by saying you can't think of any times they are, then you specifically say there are times is is necessary. Either way you look at it, your posts read as contradictory. Still, the hang up here is _on the definition of necessary_ and you haven't given one. If you think the only thing that is "necessary" in the world is the preservation of life then direct action by war can never be justified. More moderate and rational definitions allow more room for violent action, but we still need to be on the same page here.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jan 2, 2010)

I accept it as a reality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Randy you are being awfully schizo with your references to "war" and "violence" as separate entities. You strongly implied you think war and violence is not necessary by saying you can't think of any times they are, then you specifically say there are times is is necessary. Either way you look at it, your posts read as contradictory. Still, the hang up here is _on the definition of necessary_ and you haven't given one. If you think the only thing that is "necessary" in the world is the preservation of life then direct action by war can never be justified. More moderate and rational definitions allow more room for violent action, but we still need to be on the same page here.



Because I am not getting into a discussion just to be bashed because I don't like violence. I plainly do not like fighting of any sort be it two drunks outside a pub or a war zone. I don't have a reason for not liking it is just one of those things where you plainly just do not like something. I am not a violent person at heart. 

War only becomes necessary when one party starts it in the first place, one one party starts a war the other party will naturally fight back. Now is it an absolute necessary to start a war in the first place? The only reason I contradicted myself in my previous post is because Nargle and a couple of others had made me see war is necessary, especially if your country was attacked first.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I accept it as a reality.



Unfortunately war is reality and despite the fact I don't really like war there is no other way to make the taliban see we will not tolerate their shit.


----------



## Nargle (Jan 2, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was referring to the two posts you quoted me before. The two posts you quoted me before this did not have war in them.


 
No, the second one did. Why not go back and look for yourself? You really need to stop skimming over things. This is like the third time you've done that in this one discussion. 



RandyDarkshade said:


> Oh so I am wrong for not liking violence? because I don't like violence that makes me a bad person does it?. I will say this:
> 
> No I do not agree with violence or war, but there are times when it is necessary to resort to it to solve a situation.


 
That's a MUCH better statement than "Violence is for pussies! War is never necessary!"

I'm glad you've decided on this new opinion.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 2, 2010)

Nargle said:


> No, the second one did. Why not go back and look for yourself? You really need to stop skimming over things. This is like the third time you've done that in this one discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think one of my biggest flaws is I brisk read way to much.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Jan 2, 2010)

I hate war. Damn humans are so vile.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> I hate war. Damn humans are so vile.



Chimpy the Chimpanzee says "hi."


----------



## Duality Jack (Jan 2, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> I hate war. Damn humans are so vile.


Furry or not your still a human.

SELF HATE FOR HE WIN.

Naw joking you fail.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Jan 2, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Chimpy the Chimpanzee says "hi."


 I do not know what you are talking about. Are you that utilitarianism person?


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> I do not know what you are talking about. Are you that utilitarianism person?



What I meant by that intentionally cryptic statement is that Chimpanzee clans/groups/whateverthefuckagroupofminkiesiscalled have been known to violently murder entire other groups of chimpanzees (in other words; make war) and so it is hardly a thing unique to humans. Animals are perfectly capable of inflicting terribly cruelties on other creatures, so I see no reason to single humanity out.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Jan 2, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What I meant by that intentionally cryptic statement is that Chimpanzee clans/groups/whateverthefuckagroupofminkiesiscalled have been known to violently murder entire other groups of chimpanzees (in other words; make war) and so it is hardly a thing unique to humans. Animals are perfectly capable of inflicting terribly cruelties on other creatures, so I see no reason to single humanity out.


 OK then. Damn everything.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 2, 2010)

That's the spirit!


----------



## Telnac (Jan 3, 2010)

russianshephard said:


> this is just a thingy for those of you who think that war is stupid and pointless. I think it is a good thing because if not for war, problems would never be resolved and countries would be going down one by one. But if you think otherwise, post here!


I wish I could disagree.  War is horrible, and declaring war just because someone claims to have a bigger cock than you do is downright stupid.  But conflicts can't be always resolved by rational discourse.  This is especially true when one party or both are anything but rational.  When someone's out there essentially saying: "OMGWTFBBQ, kill the Jews!" ... yeah, not rational.  Sometimes, war just can't be avoided, and declaring war is the right thing to do.

What really frosts me is this whole desire to make war politically correct.  Killing people & breaking things isn't politically correct, and no amount of PC wartime policy bullshit can make up for that.  There is one way & only one way to win a war: to kill so many of your opponent that they cry Uncle... or cease to exist altogether.  Yeah, schools, religious institutions & neighborhoods full of kids will be blown away.  That sucks balls, but it's what happens in a war.  The best way to cut down on the collateral damage is to end the war quickly.  The only way to end the war quickly is with overwhelming & terrifying force.  You don't just bring a bigger gun to the gunfight.  You unleash the forces of Hell if that's what it takes.  

It's bloody and horrifying.  Pieces of kids & burned out tricycles will be on CNN and you'll be called an inhuman monster.  But that's far better than year after year of roadside bombs, bombs on buses, insurgent warfare and all the crap that comes along with fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back.  It's much better to kill 100,000 people in one month than 500,000 people over 10 years.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 3, 2010)

i like it when they cull the population c:


why dont they have a war in america

i hate fat people :c


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Jan 3, 2010)

Telnac said:


> I wish I could disagree. War is horrible, and declaring war just because someone claims to have a bigger cock than you do is downright stupid. But conflicts can't be always resolved by rational discourse. This is especially true when one party or both are anything but rational. When someone's out there essentially saying: "OMGWTFBBQ, kill the Jews!" ... yeah, not rational. Sometimes, war just can't be avoided, and declaring war is the right thing to do.
> 
> What really frosts me is this whole desire to make war politically correct. Killing people & breaking things isn't politically correct, and no amount of PC wartime policy bullshit can make up for that. There is one way & only one way to win a war: to kill so many of your opponent that they cry Uncle... or cease to exist altogether. Yeah, schools, religious institutions & neighborhoods full of kids will be blown away. That sucks balls, but it's what happens in a war. The best way to cut down on the collateral damage is to end the war quickly. The only way to end the war quickly is with overwhelming & terrifying force. You don't just bring a bigger gun to the gunfight. You unleash the forces of Hell if that's what it takes.
> 
> It's bloody and horrifying. Pieces of kids & burned out tricycles will be on CNN and you'll be called an inhuman monster. But that's far better than year after year of roadside bombs, bombs on buses, insurgent warfare and all the crap that comes along with fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back. It's much better to kill 100,000 people in one month than 500,000 people over 10 years.


 
You sir, are wise beyond your years...disregrding the fact that I don't know your age.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 3, 2010)

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato

Humanity will always kill, it is the only way we can live.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 3, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> "Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato
> 
> Humanity will always kill, it is the only way we can live.



wow

im gonna put that on a mug

and drink only the finest of domestic beers from it


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 3, 2010)

Hmm.  From what I've gathered, Randy is most likely pacifist.  Which is alright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

For those who don't know what it is.


----------



## Vintage (Jan 3, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> "Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato



"life is like a game of football, played with hitler's severed head" -socrates

too true, too true


----------



## Unsilenced (Jan 3, 2010)

Vintage said:


> "life is like a game of football, played with hitler's severed head" -socrates
> 
> too true, too true



...

waaaaiiiit... -.- =p


----------



## Telnac (Jan 3, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> You sir, are wise beyond your years...disregrding the fact that I don't know your age.


*lol*  Not likely, since I'm 36 and my attitudes toward war were crafted mainly by my having experienced the ever-present fear of being instantly vaporized during the Cold War.  Then it was reinforced by watching the success of our operations in Panama, the results of the Gulf War, the epic fail of Somalia, the WTF that was Kosovo/Bosnia (my brother was involved in Bosnia, so I got to hear a lot of first-hand stories), as well as the wars that I'm sure all of us have kept tabs on: Iraq & Afghanistan.  In each of those cases, PC bullshit either resulted in our defeat (Somalia) or a bogged down conflict that lasted far longer than it needed to.  With the end of the Cold War, Panama and Iraq I, on the other hand, we told the PC whiners to go fuck themselves & did what we had to do.

Then you have the many history courses I took in college, which go far more in depth about various conflicts than the joke that is high school history class.  The same pattern's repeated throughout history, too.  Appeasement & PC bullshit = bigger wars, longer wars and more people killed.

Yeah... my age is a strong factor in how I feel about war, so I wouldn't call myself wise beyond my years in any way.



Vintage said:


> "life is like a game of football, played with hitler's severed head" -socrates


*LOL*  Awesome.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 3, 2010)

Vintage said:


> "life is like a game of football, played with hitler's severed head" -socrates
> 
> too true, too true



You, sir, have just won an internet.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 3, 2010)

Telnac said:


> In each of those cases, PC bullshit either resulted in our defeat (Somalia) or a bogged down conflict that lasted far longer than it needed to.  With the end of the Cold War, Panama and Iraq I, on the other hand, we told the PC whiners to go fuck themselves & did what we had to do.
> 
> Then you have the many history courses I took in college, which go far more in depth about various conflicts than the joke that is high school history class.  The same pattern's repeated throughout history, too.  Appeasement & PC bullshit = bigger wars, longer wars and more people killed.



Hmph. And what exactly are you referring to with regards to "PC bullshit"? Stuff like international law, perhaps?

Interesting that you mention Panama in your list of wars... now, what was the US doing invading Panama again? Oh yeah, that's right - the local military dictator that the US had been best buddies with finally got too big for his boots and had to be "taken out". But was Panama a "clear and present danger" to the USA? Like fuck it was.

And Panama also reminds me of that other US Caribbean incursion into Grenada, where fine upstanding US forces valiantly invaded a small island nation and went into battle with... Cuban construction workers. Over a new international airport that Reagan claimed was going to be used as a Soviet military base - a claim described as "absurd, patronizing and totally unwarranted" by a US representative who had inspected the offending construction. Again, was Grenada a "clear and present danger" to the USA? Nope.

Frankly, being trigger-happy over perceived threats and attacking countries on a whim then claiming it as "defence" is just as bad as any "appeasement".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 3, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Hmph. And what exactly are you referring to with regards to "PC bullshit"? Stuff like international law, perhaps?
> 
> Interesting that you mention Panama in your list of wars... now, what was the US doing invading Panama again? Oh yeah, that's right - the local military dictator that the US had been best buddies with finally got too big for his boots and had to be "taken out". But was Panama a "clear and present danger" to the USA? Like fuck it was.
> 
> ...



Looks like I was half right when I said wars are not always necessary.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 3, 2010)

Both Panama & Afghanistan are wars that have their roots in US imperialism gone awry.  I'm not disputing that in the least.  But when the shit starts to hit the fan... you do what you have to do.

As for Grenada, you might want to look at your history again.  It was because the UK consulate was under siege after a coup & a nationwide news blackout that we went in.  It wasn't just because Reagan felt like kicking around some construction workers.  It was because Grenada was looking like it was about to fall under the sphere of Soviet influence.  Rather than waiting on the sidelines & trying to go in after the fact in a Bay of Pigs type scenario, Reagan took quick & decisive action.

Regardless, assume for the sake of argument that I agree with you: that all of the wars you mentioned were unjust and that we were the bad guys for starting them.  Be a war just or unjust, once it's started, it needs to be finished quickly.  Fighting with one hand tied behind our backs because we're trying to look like the good guys is absurd.  Better to look like the bad guys & kill less people in the long run than to end up prolonging a war by fighting limited engagements & being all PC about it.

Truman knew that concept.  His name is still reviled today, even though he saved millions of lives by killing a few hundred thousand.

As for international law, the concept is nice but the fact is that all nations ignore international law whenever it's convenient.  I'm not saying it's right, only that it happens.  That's especially true during a time of war.  Since the victor writes the history books, well... such things are often quickly forgotten.

The USA is hardly alone in that.  Ironically, what makes us different than nations run by thug dictators is that we allow our population to bitch about such transgressions w/o shooting them.


----------



## Beta_7x (Jan 3, 2010)

War is.... War. You can't live with it, but you can't live without it.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 3, 2010)

Because we are just the highest form of life on this planet does not mean we are any less of an animal.  Just more dangerous.

Be it right or be it wrong, ask yourself, what would this world be like if Khan still ruled?  

Just food for thought feel free to puke at any time


----------



## Barak (Jan 3, 2010)

War is necessary >.<


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 3, 2010)

jagdwolf said:


> Because we are just the highest form of life on this planet does not mean we are any less of an animal.  Just more dangerous.
> 
> Be it right or be it wrong, ask yourself, what would this world be like if Khan still ruled?
> 
> Just food for thought feel free to puke at any time



Khan?



Barak said:


> War is necessary >.<



War is only necessary when some dumb shit starts one in the first place. Ask yourself this, is it necessary to START a war?


----------



## Barak (Jan 3, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Khan?
> 
> 
> 
> War is only necessary when some dumb shit starts one in the first place. Ask yourself this, is it necessary to START a war?



War is not necessaryi was quoting a song D:


----------



## Nargle (Jan 3, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Khan?
> 
> 
> 
> War is only necessary when some dumb shit starts one in the first place. Ask yourself this, is it necessary to START a war?


 
There are a lot of things that you can do to make it necessary for the other party to retaliate in the form of starting a war to defend their livelihoods. Like tax the shit out of them and give them very few rights/no representation of their own territory. (American Revolutionary War)


----------



## Beta_7x (Jan 3, 2010)

Shit happens, just gotta move on. >_<


----------



## Delta (Jan 3, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You know if we waged a "war on gangs" we'd have people SCREAMING "OMG they have instated martial law, TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION ARE UPON US".
> 
> Not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's a damn good one personally.



Please..

It would be another battle that we don't know how to fight but are determined to win.

As I see it we're already engaged in too many of those: 
"War on Terror"
"War on Drug Trafficing" 
"War on Crime" 

But like you,
I just cant believe we would invade two countries trying to track down terrorist when the KKK still exists and Zetas are still crossing the border and wreaking havoc in the U.S. and Mexico. Not to mention the other gangs I don't know of who join the military for the purpose of getting training and taking it back to the streets. 

And a little off topic, but:
Really? A billion dollar war on the other side of the planet while the Homeland squirms in 13 trillion dollars of debt?
Great idea U.S. Government, you really got your ducks in a row.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 3, 2010)

Telnac said:


> As for Grenada, you might want to look at your history again.  It was because the UK consulate was under siege after a coup & a nationwide news blackout that we went in.  It wasn't just because Reagan felt like kicking around some construction workers.  It was because Grenada was looking like it was about to fall under the sphere of Soviet influence.  Rather than waiting on the sidelines & trying to go in after the fact in a Bay of Pigs type scenario, Reagan took quick & decisive action.



Considering that Grenada is a member of the _British _Commonwealth, one would have thought that the US would have at least _consulted _with the British _before_ going in boots and all. (Not to mention trying non-military options like sweetening the case for Grenada to remain under the Western sphere of influence by using trade incentives and so forth.)

However, it would seem that Reagan didn't have that much respect for the UK after all... 

From Wikipedia:


> Grenada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations and, following the invasion, it requested help from other Commonwealth members. *The invasion was opposed by the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada, among others. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher personally opposed the US invasion*, and her Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, announced to the British House of Commons on the day before the invasion that he had no knowledge of any possible US intervention. Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, assured Thatcher that an invasion was not contemplated. *Reagan later said, "She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun."*
> 
> After the invasion, Prime Minister Thatcher wrote to President Reagan: _"This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country... I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication." (emphasis added)_



And it's also interesting to note that the US invasion was condemned by the UN General Assembly by 122 votes to 9 (with 27 abstentions). But I suppose that "the end justifies the means" whenever it comes to big powers like the US...



Telnac said:


> Regardless, assume for the sake of argument that I agree with you: that all of the wars you mentioned were unjust and that we were the bad guys for starting them.  Be a war just or unjust, once it's started, it needs to be finished quickly.  Fighting with one hand tied behind our backs because we're trying to look like the good guys is absurd.  Better to look like the bad guys & kill less people in the long run than to end up prolonging a war by fighting limited engagements & being all PC about it.



Again, please state what you mean by "PC bullshit" and "fighting with one hand tied behind your back" - surely you're not suggesting that stuff like nuking North Korea / China during the Korean war (like General MacArthur recommended to Truman) or nuking Vietnam were anything like acceptable options? Or maybe a few more My Lai massacres might have done the trick? Considering that the US dropped more bombs in terms of tonnage on Vietnam (6-7 million tons) than it did on Germany and Japan _during the entire Second World War_ (2 million tons), it's hard to see how the US then had "one hand tied behind its back" while it was "bombing the Viet Cong back to the Stone Age". 



Telnac said:


> Ironically, what makes us different than nations run by thug dictators is that we allow our population to bitch about such transgressions w/o shooting them.



Oh, and that's supposed to make it all right then? 

Allowing someone to bitch about a crime doesn't make the act any less of a crime.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> War is only necessary when some dumb shit starts one in the first place. Ask yourself this, is it necessary to START a war?



World War 1: War was not necessary. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria need not have started this war if Austriaâ€“Hungary had actually made _reasonable_ demands of Serbia for extraditing the assassins, and hadn't been a bunch of total idiots spoiling for a fight. Especially if there wasn't a bunch of interlocking alliances and treaties that wound up dragging everyone else into the fray...

World War 2: War was not necessary (for Germany and Japan).
a) If World War 1 hadn't started, the Treaty of Versailles wouldn't have existed which put Germany under the kind of conditions conducive for Adolf Hitler to come to power.
b) If the Treaty of Versailles had not been so punitive against Germany, there wouldn't have been the kind of conditions conducive for Adolf Hitler to come to power.
c) If Adolf Hitler had stopped with Czechoslovakia and not invaded Poland.
d) If Japan hadn't decided to create an empire for itself in Asia.
e) If the US hadn't have put Japan under an oil embargo.

Suez Crisis: War was not necessary. The whole conflict was a put-up job between Britain, France and Israel to get the Suez Canal back from Egypt.

Korean War: War was not necessary. Kim Il-Sung needn't have invaded the south of Korea, in theory negotiation for a common government was an option. (The arsehole effect applies though.) Especially as after years of bloody fighting both sides were pretty much back with what they started with.

Vietnam War: War was not necessary. Same as for the Korean War.

Falklands War: War was not necessary (for Argentina). Argentina could have been more patient for negotiating getting the Falklands peacefully, though given the islander's desire to remain British this probably wouldn't have worked out anyway. As it is, there's no way in hell that Britain is going to relinquish the Falklands now after blood has been spilt defending it.

Iran - Iraq War: War was not necessary (for Iraq). Again, this was pure opportunism. Especially as after years of bloody fighting both sides were pretty much back with what they started with.

Gulf War: War was not necessary (for Iraq). Saddam could have resolved the issue with Kuwait diplomatically without an invasion.

Afghan War: War was not necessary. It's quite possible that the Taliban could have handed over bin Laden to the US if the US had been forthcoming about what evidence they had linking bin Laden to 9/11. (If China for example had demanded that someone living in the US be extradited to face criminal charges without actually supplying evidence, would the US have simply handed the person over on China's say-so?)

Iraq War: War was not necessary (for the US). Weapons inspectors were operating effectively, and while no-one disputes Saddam was an arsehole that's not suitable justification for regime change.

Summary: No, it's never necessary to START a war. Only idiots and arseholes see starting a war as a viable option.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 4, 2010)

When you're talking about two (or more) rational parties able to do rational discourse, then no, it is never necessary to start a war.

And yes, I know Grenada was opposed by the UK, but is was the UK consulate who managed to get word to the CIA that the shit was hitting the fan in the first place... and I think they did ask for help.  (No I don't have a reference for that & I'm not going to look for one at nearly 1am.)

[Edit]  Damned insomnia.  2am and nothing better to do, so I looked up the ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Scoon


Anyway, my point wasn't about starting a war.  It was about doing what it takes to finish one.

An example of "PC bullshit" is worrying about waterboarding of prisoners to gain valuable intel when the enemy is flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to children & beheading prisoners.  Yeah, waterboarding is torture and probably violates the Geneva Convention, but so what?  Next to all that other crap, minimally invasive torture is downright tame.  If waterboarding one dude means we get intel that'll save lives, I say waterboard the bastard & deal with the consequences later.

Vietnam was a clusterfuck for a wide variety of reasons, chief among them being that the war was fought for political, not practical, reasons.  If we wanted to win the war, we could have openly invaded other countries, including China and turned the entire region into one giant graveyard (well, more than it already was.)  Absent that, our options for victory were slim.  But negotiating a peace wasn't politically viable for either the Johnson or the Nixon administration, so the war raged on for year after year, costing an absurd number of lives... for no good reason whatsoever.  What was eventually negotiated was little more than a joke, an excuse for us to tuck tail & run.  If we really wanted South Vietnam to survive, we would have held our ground in 1975 when the war re-ignited.  We didn't.  

As for nukes, nuking Korea or Vietnam would have triggered WWIII.  Since the end of the Cold War, there have been no reasons to use nuclear weapons in war, and all of the nuclear nations have adopted a "no first use" policy.  God help the poor bastard who does use one first against any of the established nuclear powers!


----------



## PheonixStar (Jan 4, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> World War 1: War was not necessary. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria need not have started this war if Austriaâ€“Hungary had actually made _reasonable_ demands of Serbia for extraditing the assassins, and hadn't been a bunch of total idiots spoiling for a fight.



Same thing with WWII. Had Germany not been under such a crushing treaty, they wouldn't have been so susceptible to promises of glory and getting their sovereignty back. They were easy prey for a regime that promised them freedom, because they were crippled and oppressed by a treaty that was inhumane.


----------



## PheonixStar (Jan 4, 2010)

Telnac said:


> An example of "PC bullshit" is worrying about waterboarding of prisoners to gain valuable intel when the enemy is flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to children & beheading prisoners.  Yeah, waterboarding is torture and probably violates the Geneva Convention, but so what?  Next to all that other crap, minimally invasive torture is downright tame.  If waterboarding one dude means we get intel that'll save lives, I say waterboard the bastard & deal with the consequences later.



What? Please tell me that you said this for shock value, and don't really believe that torturing people is okay. Notwithstanding the fact that torture has only ever led to false confessions anyway, do you truly not understand how this makes you into the very thing you hate?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 4, 2010)

Telnac said:


> An example of "PC bullshit" is worrying about waterboarding of prisoners to gain valuable intel when the enemy is flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to children & beheading prisoners.  Yeah, waterboarding is torture and probably violates the Geneva Convention, but so what?  Next to all that other crap, minimally invasive torture is downright tame.  If waterboarding one dude means we get intel that'll save lives, I say waterboard the bastard & deal with the consequences later.



*facepalm* I don't believe this... "So what" if you violate the Geneva Conventions? "So what" if you perform exactly the same kinds of atrocities as the terrorists? Because the other lot are arseholes, that somehow makes it "all right" to be an arsehole in return?

All that makes you is a bigger and nastier THUG than the other lot - what's distinguishing YOU from TERRORISTS apart from your flag and your weapons? All this means is that your high-flying principles mean NOTHING when it comes to the crunch.

Not to mention TORTURE DOESN'T WORK, even your so-called "minimally invasive torture"  - the poor bastard will tell you _anything_ you want to hear to make the pain stop. Even your own damn military says is doesn't work! The "waterboarding to save lives" idea is a complete and utter FICTION.

And how do you draw the line at "minimally invasive torture" anyway? It's not invasive if you stick nails an inch into someone's feet, but it's invasive if it's an inch and a half? 500 volts across the balls is OK, but 600 is not? 



Telnac said:


> Vietnam was a clusterfuck for a wide variety of reasons, chief among them being that the war was fought for political, not practical, reasons.



War is ALWAYS fought for political reasons. The very act of going to war in the FIRST place is a *political decision.* In the North Vietnamese case, it was a desire to unite the country as an independent state under their own form of government. For the US, it was to stop the ideology of Communism by force.



Telnac said:


> If we wanted to win the war, we could have openly invaded other countries, including China and turned the entire region into one giant graveyard (well, more than it already was.)



Which would have triggered World War 3 - and would have turned the USA into the equivalent of Nazi Germany. 

You mean to say *not starting WW3 was "PC bullshit"?*



Telnac said:


> Absent that, our options for victory were slim.



Then what was the frigging POINT in fighting in a war where there was no clear path to victory, and no way to even _tell when you would have won_? All that wasted money, equipment and LIVES on *both* sides _when you had bugger-all practical options for winning???_ The US should have pulled out sooner once it realised that the war was hopeless.

The only good thing to come out of Vietnam was the Powell Doctrine, which included setting _"a clear attainable objective" _and most importantly, _"Have all other *non-violent* policy means been fully exhausted?"_



Telnac said:


> Since the end of the Cold War, there have been no reasons to use nuclear weapons in war, and *all of the nuclear nations have adopted a "no first use" policy. *



Wrong. Only China, India and (ironically) North Korea have declared "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Pakistan, the UK, France and Russia say they "will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies" - in other words, it doesn't take a _nuclear _attack on them to release their nuclear weapons. And that includes NATO as well.

The United States nuclear doctrine actually envisages first use of nuclear weapons _"to *preempt *an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction."_ In other words, if the US even _thinks_ that someone is going to attack it with WMD (even non-nuclear weapons), it claims the right to nuke 'em in advance. Doesn't sound like "no first use" to me!



Telnac said:


> God help the poor bastard who does use one first against any of the established nuclear powers!



God help ANYONE - including the nuclear powers - who next uses nuclear weapons in anger... for the rest of the world won't!


----------



## Telnac (Jan 5, 2010)

Waterboarding is psychological torture, not physical torture.  Your brain thinks you're drowning even though you're not.  It's damned near impossible to condition yourself against it, but it does no lasting physical harm.  So yes, next to all the other forms of torture you mentioned, it IS minimally invasive.

As for having saved lives, there are plenty of people who claim that is has.  Yes, I know there are also plenty of people who claim that it hasn't.  Unfortunately, any proof supporting either side is still classified.

Vietnam wasn't a war we started.  The region was already boiling over when we took control of the security of the region after the French departed.  So I wasn't talking about the decision to start the war, but the decision to not negotiate an end to the war in the early to mid 1960s, as well as the many other bad decisions that followed.  We didn't fight to win the war (because, as you said, doing do would start WWIII), but with no strategy for victory whatsoever, we fought anyway.  If the best we can hope for is a stalemate, it's far better to try to settle terms for an acceptable peace early than to fight needlessly.  But both Johnson & Nixon wanted to look like they take a tough stance against the Soviets, so...

I wasn't including Vietnam in the list of wars that we fought badly b/c of PC bullshit, just bullshit of a whole different variety.

Hrm.  My bad about the "no first use" nuke thing.  I remember the discussion about it in 1999, and I also remember Russia making noise that they'd adopt a similar policy if we did.  I guess we didn't adopt that policy, and I thought we had.

Oh well, I guess it's back to good old fashioned mutually assured destruction.  Yeehaw.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 5, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Waterboarding is psychological torture, not physical torture.  Your brain thinks you're drowning even though you're not.  It's damned near impossible to condition yourself against it, but it does no lasting physical harm.  So yes, next to all the other forms of torture you mentioned, it IS minimally invasive.



But even you admit waterboarding is STILL *torture*. No matter how you slice it, torture is morally WRONG and can NEVER be justified. The US routinely condemns other states for suspected torture of political dissidents and so forth - but since the whole Abu Ghraib and waterboarding stuff came out, these states can simply give the US the finger and say "Well, _you_ do this stuff, so it's not so bad NOW, is it?"

Tell me, if you believe it's "acceptable" for the US to waterboard non-US persons to extract information, would you shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's war for you" if another country or group decided to waterboard _Americans_ to get information - even if THEY claim it was to prevent an attack on them? Like hell you would - you and every American would be screaming blue bloody murder about atrocities... but somehow, people like you don't seem to think it's an atrocity when it's _Americans_ doing it!

I recall seeing an image of the cover of the UK paper "Daily Mirror" from 2003 (attached - hopefully) which sums this up - it basically says the parading of American PoWs by Iraq was "Sickening", but "But what the hell does America expect when it treats PoWs like this?" (photo of Guantanamo detainees shackled). Now I'll probably get the response "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks", but how the hell do you expect your country to get ANYONE to help it when it acts like the very people you claim to be against? 

And if waterboarding is so benign and so useful, why should the CIA get all the fun? Perhaps the FBI could waterboard a few murder suspects, suspected Mafia types, gang leaders and so forth... heck, more people die as a result of the activities of these buggers every year than from terrorists! Wouldn't want to fight _crime _with "one hand behind your back" or be hindered by "PC bullshit", would you? No?


----------



## Lindu (Jan 5, 2010)

Oh war?

It's a good way to earn money with new territories and kill peoples. It's a good way to keep the society busy with the death problem and putting some new laws about weapons productivity to get better at killing and winning more territory then earning money.

And what better to share an opinion than to argue about how more awesome you are than the other by shooting a missile on his face?


I think I hate war.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> But even you admit waterboarding is STILL *torture*. No matter how you slice it, torture is morally WRONG and can NEVER be justified. The US routinely condemns other states for suspected torture of political dissidents and so forth - but since the whole Abu Ghraib and waterboarding stuff came out, these states can simply give the US the finger and say "Well, _you_ do this stuff, so it's not so bad NOW, is it?"
> 
> Tell me, if you believe it's "acceptable" for the US to waterboard non-US persons to extract information, would you shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's war for you" if another country or group decided to waterboard _Americans_ to get information - even if THEY claim it was to prevent an attack on them? Like hell you would - you and every American would be screaming blue bloody murder about atrocities... but somehow, people like you don't seem to think it's an atrocity when it's _Americans_ doing it!
> 
> ...



And I suppose WAR is morally correct yes?

Was it morally correct when the germans gassed 1000's of jews? Is there any part of war at all that is "morally" correct?


----------



## Tycho (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> And I suppose WAR is morally correct yes?
> 
> Was it morally correct when the germans gassed 1000's of jews? Is there any part of war at all that is "morally" correct?



The Holocaust wasn't a war, it was a genocide.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The Holocaust wasn't a war, it was a genocide.



It happened during the second world war. which is why I included it.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It happened during the second world war. which is why I included it.



There were more wars and more genocides than this that hand't happened in the same time. You're still wrong.


----------



## Lindu (Jan 5, 2010)

szopaw said:


> There were more wars and more genocides than this that hand't happened in the same time. You're still wrong.




The ones around China (I always forget the name and only know the french names, so...) are war where they simply destroy cities with all its citizen and only a few books talk about it. War outside of our laws...

They know how to have fun for sure!


----------



## Thatch (Jan 5, 2010)

Lindu said:


> The ones around China (I always forget the name and only know the french names, so...) are war where they simply destroy cities with all its citizen and only a few books talk about it. War outside of our laws...



That too is genocide, or an invasion. War is when the other side is actually able to mount a defence.

I find it laughable when people call things which, for example, Russians did in Chechen or Americans in Iraq a "war".


----------



## Lindu (Jan 5, 2010)

szopaw said:


> That too is genocide. War is when the other side is actually able to mount a defence.




Both cities were defending themselves with sticks. One just found how to fix spikes on the stick of wood.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

szopaw said:


> There were more wars and more genocides than this that hand't happened in the same time. You're still wrong.



I wasn't talking about any other genocides was I? No I wasn't, I was actually arguing mayfur's point about torture being "morally wrong" by saying "is war morally correct?" 

Maybe WW2 and the jews was a bad example, but still, I await for someone to answer my question.


----------



## Hir (Jan 5, 2010)

war is bad m'kay


----------



## Thatch (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I wasn't talking about any other genocides was I? No I wasn't, I was actually arguing mayfur's point about torture being "morally wrong" by saying "is war morally correct?"
> 
> Maybe WW2 and the jews was a bad example, but still, I await for someone to answer my question.



...And it's exactly the point, you weren't talking about genocide as a whole, just put an example of one as an example of "war".
And what kind of counter-argument is it? Is there anything against BOTH being morally wrong? Or one being more immoral than the other?



Lindu said:


> Both cities were defending themselves with sticks. One just found how to fix spikes on the stick of wood.



...I'm not talking about symbolical resistance. Even though it's sometimes actually effective. But I edited my post, that's more of an invasion.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

szopaw said:


> ...And it's exactly the point, you weren't talking about genocide as a whole, just put an example of one as an example of "war".
> And what kind of counter-argument is it? Is there anything against BOTH being morally wrong? Or one being more immoral than the other?
> 
> 
> ...



Well if torture during the war is morally incorrect, is war itself morally incorrect? Can war itself be moral, or any aspect of it be moral?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well if torture during the war is morally incorrect, is war itself morally incorrect? Can war itself be moral, or any aspect of it be moral?



Do you actually read what you write? Do you then proceed to read what others wrote? What the hell does it has to do with the topic? It's about hipocrisy, if you haven't noticed yet.


----------



## Lindu (Jan 5, 2010)

It's still funny to see peoples thinking if war is useful/fun or not.

I personally never wanted to be killed. I don't find it fun, some does. But how do you want to go somewhere in a world where when you have some power you automatically want to keep it and tell the others to stay away from your lil' field of power or you kill everyone.

Of course you can't argue about it, I didn't study anything about psychology yet, but it's an evidence that when you give power to someone he'll instinctively become an animal (woops)  and keep it for himself defending it instead of using it with a good aknowledge.

You vote for someone to get powerful. You vote for someone who, sometimes, didn't even study something at school but only because of the charism.

You can go deep in the creation of a society, you'll always find this.
If you want to think if war is useful, you have to think if it's useful to have a human more powerful than the others to make laws and stuff like that.

OF COURSE IT IS. But never it'll be useful to you directly. It's just a way to express yourself. Like beating the sh*t out of your sister because she stole your dolly and shown it up to all of your friends.

War is useful and even you MUST have wars because human will never understand a thing when he'll be blinded by power. I'm speaking to ya'll human here.

And if there weren't war, there will be too much people on the earth. You'll always find a reason.

By the way, I find it gorgeous to fight for religions. Personnaly, living in an atheist way and being a scientist, I don't believe in it and it's still my opinion but lawl. If really there is a god, there won't be 400 differents and you kill each others to proove him he's stronger than him. Humans lol.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Do you actually read what you write? Do you then proceed to read what others wrote? What the hell does it has to do with the topic?
> 
> Even though I'd say that "morality" itself is a term that people came up with to make themselves feel better and as such is highly subjective.



Mayfur was the first to bring the word up. I am asking a simple question which you don't seem to be able to comprehend very well. 

If you have been following the thread like me you would know that mayfur and Tyco(?) have recently brought waterboarding into the discussion, a form of torture used in war (not sure if they sue it in the current one) to gain intel from PoW's. Mayfur said that torture was "morally wrong"

So I asked is war morally wrong aswell?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So I asked is war morally wrong aswell?



Your question isn't simple but insightful, it's silly. Torture is an action, war is the state of contacts between two parties. Actions can be categorised as moral or immoral, however subjective it may be, states can be not.
Yes, I fully fail to comprehend as how this is an argument against what he said.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Mayfur was the first to bring the word up. I am asking a simple question which you don't seem to be able to comprehend very well.
> 
> If you have been following the thread like me you would know that mayfur and *Tyco*(?) have recently brought waterboarding into the discussion, a form of torture used in war (not sure if they sue it in the current one) to gain intel from PoW's. Mayfur said that torture was "morally wrong"
> 
> So I asked is war morally wrong aswell?



You mean Telnac, I think.

I don't think the morality of torture tactics for interrogation matter a damn.  What matters is that it's a really spotty and unreliable way to obtain information.


----------



## Zrcalo (Jan 5, 2010)

as said by laibach.....

"WAR! what is it good for? GM, IBM, CNN, universal, Sony, ....etc."


----------



## moonchylde (Jan 5, 2010)

I hate war. It takes forever, everyone gets bored, then you end up losing one of the cards behind the couch... blech. I'd much rather play "Go Fish".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 5, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> I hate war. It takes forever, everyone gets bored, then you end up losing one of the cards behind the couch... blech. I'd much rather play "Go Fish".



lol.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 5, 2010)

War is natures way of pouring Clorox in the human gene pool.  

Some one pass Mom the bottle with the pretty yellow triangles on it.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 5, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> I hate war. It takes forever, everyone gets bored, then you end up losing one of the cards behind the couch... blech. I'd much rather play "Go Fish".


You, sir, have won the thread.  

As for defending my opinions, I've said my piece.  I see no problem whatsoever with torture of militants if it'll save lives. That's especially true if they have actionable intelligence that will prevent a future 9/11 or something along those lines.

I see no problem with using overwhelming force if it'll end a war faster & ultimately cost fewer lives.  Of course, the "ultimately saving lives" part puts a practical limit on how far you go in using overwhelming force.  That wouldn't have worked in Vietnam b/c doing so would have started WWIII, which would have cost FAR more lives!  But that said, I don't see the point in simply bringing a bigger gun to the proverbial gunfight when the fight would be shorter & less bloody if you do whatever it takes to bring the enemy to their knees.

If all that makes me an inhuman monster, so be it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> And I suppose WAR is morally correct yes?
> 
> Was it morally correct when the germans gassed 1000's of jews? Is there any part of war at all that is "morally" correct?





RandyDarkshade said:


> I wasn't talking about any other genocides was I? No I wasn't, I was actually arguing mayfur's point about torture being "morally wrong" by saying "is war morally correct?"



Um, where did I say in stating that torture is morally wrong, that war was morally correct? I never made _any _point regarding the overall morality of war when replying to Telnac's assertion that being blocked from torturing terrorist suspects was "PC bullshit".

Though for the record (and if you'd read my previous post regarding whether starting wars was necessary) I would share your opinion that the act of _starting _a war (i.e. launching an unprovoked attack) is morally wrong.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 6, 2010)

Telnac said:


> As for defending my opinions, I've said my piece.  I see no problem whatsoever with torture of militants if it'll save lives. That's especially true if they have actionable intelligence that will prevent a future 9/11 or something along those lines.



But you _don't know_, do you? How do you know the sap you're torturing isn't simply telling you what you want to hear to make the torture stop? Fuck, if someone tortured ME enough I'd admit to damn near anything just to stop the pain!

How do you KNOW that they have "actionable intelligence" in the first place, and that they're not some low-level functionary or even some random joker handed over because of a bounty paid for suspects? 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Even the US military says TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!



Telnac said:


> If all that makes me an inhuman monster, so be it.



Defending the indefensible... well, yeah. "Inhuman monster" it is then.

(And Americans wonder why their country got such a bad reputation...)


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jan 6, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> War is only necessary when some dumb shit starts one in the first place. Ask yourself this, is it necessary to START a war?



Yes.  But not always the case.  There are times when a simple "slap on the hand" will not do.


----------



## Mojotaian (Jan 6, 2010)

Started by politicians, fought by non-politicians.

A distraction for the masses, a hell for the soldiers.

A way to unite a country against a percieved common enemy.


----------



## voodoo predator (Jan 6, 2010)

War is a terrible thing that helps and stimulates the economy and settles differences. I guess you call it a terrible necessity of man.


----------



## Get-dancing (Feb 11, 2010)

If we never declaired war then Hitler would have never have been stopped.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 11, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> If we never declaired war then Hitler would have never have been stopped.



My name is Get-Dancing and i necro threads to increase my post count.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Feb 11, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> If we never declaired war then Hitler would have never have been stopped.



Godwin's law. 

Thread over.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> My name is Get-Dancing and i necro threads to increase my post count.



Last post was a month ago, it is not that much of a necro, I have seen much worse necro's recently like some tart recently necroing a thread from 2008.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 11, 2010)

war is for old men to masturbate over
and for young men to get their dicks chopped off over

what young man wants his dick chopped off, let alone is enthusiastic about it?

old men are just trying to destroy your genetic line and preserve their own
after all if you aint got a dick, who gunna fukk your woman

word of the lord


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 11, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Last post was a month ago, it is not that much of a necro, I have seen much worse necro's recently like some tart recently necroing a thread from 2008.



it would have been different if he had posted something even remotely important. :V


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 11, 2010)

Wars are awesome, you can be a hero while killing people at the same time 8D


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 11, 2010)

My speciality thread!
I am from the country of freedom that fights the force that wants to convert all the world.
I am from the country that invented the TAR and manufactured the Desert Eagle. 
We are in the danger of war, we are in the race for the nuclear.
If we don't stop Iran before they will have the weapon, everything will be over.
World war three.
Good thing, that we have the most decent army and one of the best armies in the world.
We have outstanding war technology.
We almost don't make mistakes.
All the blames we were getting from Goldston were almost all lies. We weren't too careful but Goldston just tried to mock our country from fake reports from enemy countries.
To all people that support my country - good luck with the people that hate us both.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 11, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> If we never declaired war then Hitler would have never have been stopped.



Fucking necro.


----------



## Thatch (Feb 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> it would have been different if he had posted something even remotely important. :V



It's GD. Be realistic.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 11, 2010)

I used to be totally against the Iraq war, but that was _before_ the economic meltdown started, which no doubt our dear leaders saw coming from miles away. It makes perfect sense now. The war is necessary just to be a sinkhole for young human lives, because you simply can't have that many young unemployed in your backyard before they get _really_ fucking angry with their lot in life, and come after _you_, after they're done tearing the shit out of each other.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 11, 2010)

szopaw said:


> It's GD. Be realistic.



i never really read what he says, so iuno. :V


----------



## Tycho (Feb 11, 2010)

"WE FOUND A NECRO, MAY WE BURN HIM?"


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 11, 2010)

Not much of a necro, but it still has to be closed because it derailed due to someone's use of the Godwin bomb.


----------

