Dog tags glorify war (?)

I tried to find where I saw this before. It was about a year ago I read this, and can't remember where I read it from. My resoucrces may have been innnacurate then. I searched last night for a while to find a website that listed those laws, but I couldn't find anything, oddly enough. If you come across those resources though, I would appreciate it if you let me know.

 

Then the Travel Channel has lied to and deceived me. And I thought we were friends... Oh well, I still have the History and Discovery Channel. Oh, and M*A*S*H. I mean, you can't go wrong with Alan Alda.

 

I think its flat out disrespectfull to the brave men and women who fight for the freedoms we have to live in this great nation and post things like this

 

Hey man, there were other ways to handle ww2...talking, trying to be diplomatic and not just rushing of to war. There is never a reason for fighting, there are always alternatives. The same can be applied to vietnam, iraq...any conflict. If the governments would have just talked and been peacefull then the whole situation would have been avoided. It's because of people who get fooled by our government into thinking a war is just that wars contiune to happen. As long as they can get people to beleive thier stories they will still continue to send our troops to war so they can make money (the corperations/politicians). Maybe instead of teaching about wars in school they should start teaching others ways they could have approached the situation, that could hopefully start to change the direction of thinking of todays youth. Also tell the new marine to be thank you from me aswell. He is doing a job so I don't have to, and one that is sadly required by our government. Please tell him I appriciate what he is doing and that I hope he returns home safe.

Peace,
Al

 

hmmm...i wonder how the hitler machine took to talking...not very well, i'm assuming. i don't believe for one minute there's nothing worth fighting for. some people are just fucking crazy and have to be stopped.

 

How can you disagree with the war mind yet respect it?It's either wrong or it isn't?

 

Our involvement in Vietnam could have been prevented, but the war would have continued. Iraq invasion didn't have to happen, I didn't support it at the time, but now theres little recourse. We can't topple their tyranical government and leave them with no government and sectarian violence.

But talking in the midst of a genocide which killed 10 million people? 6 million of them Jewish, which was about 1/3 of the planets Jewish population.

Do you really think that talking that over with the Nazi's would have helped?

You know what kind of concessions we could have made to the Nazi's? Go to war with the Allies, and kill our Jewish population. Hitler wasn't a man who negotiated. Other then that, the Axis would have attacked the US like it did. How do you negotiate after being attacked? Concede?

Please give some context to your thesis that World War 2 could have been avoided or else you're coming off as extremely naive.

Just because theres dubious intention behind the justification for many wars, doesn't have any impact on whether it's right or wrong.

What about the genocide now in Sudan? How would you handle that with talking? We've been talking since 2001, the US, the EU, and the UN. They finally have a peace accord. The cost of 5 years? about 400,000 Sudanese. If we had sent a military peacekeeping mission in when the tensions began? It's hard to be certain, You'd want a force of about 30,000 people, you're probably looking at 10,000 Janjaweed casualties, and about a hundred or so US or EU casulties.

Is the problem over. The UN don't think it's over in the Sudan, and their the ones who sponsered the peace accord. Not to mention most of the Janjaweed have spilled over into Chad, which the UN plan doesn't even bring to the table.

The African's are of course, begging for help, but since they don't have cameras, it's hard for people in rich countries to give a damn.

Of course diplomacy should be the first option, but if negotiations mean 400,000 civilians being slewn most of them by forced starvation, and 2 million more sitting in the desert being forcibly starved.

Is it better to be assertive or diplomatic if the former will save 3/4 of those lives. It's Morally justifiable to be rash if it alliviates suffering of 2 million people. It's hard to justify being diplomatic if it means accentuates the suffering of 2 million people.

You know why? Because ignoring genocide isn't diplomatic, it's lethergic, cruel, and makes us just as guilty as the Janjaweed bastards and the Sudanese and Chad governments.

If peace can only be obtained at the barrel of a rifle, it's still much better then the alternative of 400,000 forced starvations and head choppings. Let's not forget the countless number of women who've been systematically gang raped by Janjaweed to try to make the countrys less black.

There should be no timeline or diplomacy for genocide. It's not acceptable for an instant, and cannot be reasoned with. It's a scourge brining out the worst in humanity. The US and EU have the power to make sure in no dark corner of the earth do people have to live in fear, and die because of racial hatred.

Of course I'm being dramatic, there are plenty of situations in the world which can be handled in other means such as sanctions and negotiations.

But Chad and the Sudan aren't those situations. The poor people are desperate for help. We have the power to help, and the situation calls for military, then the US has a duty to help.

Why else should we have allowed our military to grow so exponentially? Even if some of the reasons were dubious, we still have power that's never been rivaled.

how do we justify such a bloated run away military budget? There are three reasonable options, largely dismantle it, decide we should stick things out and sit on our hands, or enforce human rights declerations evenly everywhere and protect the people who are desperate for protection.

I see a clear direction. Of course all these situations are complicated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have resolve to do the best to protect people and huam rights everywhere.

Don't think that Chad and The Sudan are alone in their desperation for US and EU help. Somalia is experiencing ethnic strife similar to but distinct from the Sudan.

Kazakhstan and has a deplorable human rights record, with slavery being so prevelant that it affects nearly a quarter of the population. Many break away republics like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have similar problems.

Then theres Myanmar, which imports many of these slaves, and rules with an Iron fisted military Juanta.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict and brutal wahhabi law, including on the spot religious amputations.

Not all of these situations require peace keeping troops, but we should provide them when the situation dictates.

lets not forget the big fish, The Democratic Republic of Congo. Since the mid 90's they've been engaged in civil wars based on genocide from Hutu and Tutsi militants. These ended up with state sponsored militias staling children from there homes at night to fight in wars using proxy militias.

Soon 9 countries in the region were sponsoring militas. Two seperate civil wars occured between 1996 and 2002, and in that 8 years, over 5 million lives were claimed. HIV ran rampant as gang rapes were a tactic of warfare. By the end, this was the deadlist war on earth since World War 2.

End is a funny word for it though considering it's still going on though, just at somewhat reduced levels. The same happened in the lull between the 2 civil wars in 1997 the second being much more devestating.

How many troops would it have taken to halve the casulties if we had put troops in '97? Probably not that much more then the Sudan would take. An adequate presence of about 30,000 international troops would have completly halted the government sponsered militias.

Real peace isn't ignoring genocide while watching who a millionaire marries. It's about working with regional partners to improve the status of life. If a state is ambivelent toward or sponsoring genocide, it should be swiftly disbanded and a democracy installed.

We're not responsible for deciding justice for anyone, but if the welfare of an entire people is at stake, sometimes, justice should be a priority.

Our foreign policy shouldn't be geared to peace or justice. It should be geared to humanity.

There are things that are worth killing for, and worth dying for. These things shouldn't be taken lightly, but the issues facing humanity run so much deeper then greed as you imply.

War is perhaps the most complicated thing people have ever engaged in. It should be avoided, but if our humanity is at stake, We must be willing to fight for it.

It's easy to want peace, especially in a rich nice country. The cost of human suffering might not be as obvious, but our humanity is at stake to if we don't use our role as a world leader to protect the ones who need it.

 

quote: I think its flat out disrespectfull to the brave men and women who fight for the freedoms we have to live in this great nation and post things like this

I think you sound like a walking cliche

quote: Hey man, there were other ways to handle ww2..

excuse me? Let Europe fall into the hands of Hitler, genocide spread across the continent, England fall, I don't think so kid

 

I'm pretty sure that's the longest post I've ever made a couple times over.

Also war seems appropriate if they start wisecraking about your mom.

 

That was quite long, but i agree with most of what you said spence.....its sad we have picked the war we did.

 

I would just start this off with, wow you brought up some interesting points...and a lot of those situations I was not aware of (tribute to your school systems) or had lost track of. I guess looking at it from the point of view that America has a duty to stop those events then yes you are correct. But, and I don't want to come off as not caring about those people...there are so many ways we can help by donating time and effort, money anything, but why is it always Americas responsiblity to handle the situation? Personally I would prefer if the UN would handle situations like that, being that thier charters says they are there to protect human rights. I just don't feel it is fair to always put the pressure on America to handle international situations that is specifically what the UN and EU are for (not too familiar with the EU so don't come down on me too hard if they are not for that purpose). War again I see as a last option, and after considering you side of the argument, may actually be necesarry in certin cases. I would still have to say though that talking and attempting to negotiate should always be a first step. How do we know what would have happened if we were to negotiate with Japan after the bombing....we didn't we took the war path staight out of the gate. I guess I would have to agree that it is nececarry but only after attempting to be diplomatic, and if no improvement has shown, but the problem with that is American citizens (again I don't know too much about others in other countries) are quick to become violent and fight. They are willing to pick up a rifle and shoot before talking, not everyone of course but the majority that I have met. It seems that we have been taught here to fight before discussion. I don't know about you but a perfect example is when my father would always tell me if someone made fun of me slug em in the gut. Thats not me, I always tried to talk through the problems...and yes I have to admit it I got my ass kicked plenty for it (and the funny part is I have a black belt in TKD and I never use it...lol) but anyway I would have to say you brought about many points that I hadn't been aware of. Thanks for the insight, and I guess maybe I should reconsider my thinking a little, but peace is always going to be my first option, and always my goal. It was a very interesting post though, and again thanks for the insight.

Peace,

Al

 

Well I agree, Like I said I didn't support the Iraq War from the beggining.

But there are reasons that the Iraq war could have been a good thing. Hussien did kill over a million Kurds, and the policies of sanctions were innefective aginst them, they hurt Iraqi people, while Hussein still lived in a palace. He did sponsor Bin Ladenist groups.

In 1991, I probably would have supported a regime change. I didn't have really strong feelings cause I was 6, but by the time 2003 rolled around, there were much more pressing matters.

Hussein had mostly been isolated, and despite the debacle that oil for food and the sanctions were, Iraq could have been dealt with in very different ways while we focused on other crises.

Still doesn't seem fair to heave Iraq back at Iraqi's before they have a stable military. They can worry about that Sunni vs Shia thing on their own, but they should at least be able to prevent people from hoping their border with bombs meant for hotels.

I suppose the best metaphor for why Iraq was a bad idea would be a cop walking by you one day, and you're snorting coke, then a month later, you're walking past a crack dealer, and the Cop comes outta no where and decides to frisk you.

It's not the concept of overthrowing saddams regime that seemed pointless. It was having a war, letting him off easy, getting attacked 10 years later, and instead of focusing on terroist cells, we decide to make a sequel.

"What the hell are you laughing at Hussein?" Said Bush 2. And so the decision was made.

 

we need to pull our support before it leads war.All these atrocities are overlooked until it effects us,then we think we have to go to war.There are other ways,war is never the answer.Viet nam didn't suffer when we left. It thrived and so will Iraq.If we quit supporting these tyrants(Hitler included) we wouldn't get to that point to start with.Sorry this isn't long winded but it doesn't have to be.The answer is simple.

 

I grew up in Texas, and I dropped outta high school. Texas has the largest percentage of dropouts. Maybe it was an advantage.

Donating time and effort to less developed nations should be a major goal, much more so then sending in soldiers.

Money is alright to donate in some cases, but there are many cases where it can be more harmful then helpful. This is even more true with food. I could talk about that too, But I'm afriad it would end up as long as the other post.

EU is European Union, which has tried to be helpful in nagotiations, but suffers even more from the lack of direction in foreign policy that we do. And like I said, we have a stronger military then the EU countries.

The UN is good at somethings. It's made a uniform set of laws that all nations agreed to. It's great at advancment of technologies in the devloping world, and it's done a lot to fight diseases.

It's just not great at enforcing it's own laws. Technically the UN can send troops places, but the amount of troops the UN has is insignificant compared to the US or China. It's terms of enforcment, it's kind of an impotent beuracracy. The Republic of Congo is a member of the security council this year. Not the same as the DRC, but still had a civil war 9 years ago where it's leader crushed democracy.

Basically, we should chose to interfere because we have the power to extend our military like no other nation can. With great power comes great blah blah blah.

Dealing with international issues is complicated and I agree, military should be a last resort, but there times when people, especially in the developing world, need assistance, and military shouldn't be excluded.

 

i wouldn't say that. i abhor a senseless battle over material possessions. but i'm more than willing to fight in and support a battle to protect innocent people. not everything is black and white. there's a world of hues and shades between.

 

hell. i shoulda just read lodui's post and left it at that.

 

that's right we're in iraq to protect innocent people.i kept forgetting that as we were dropping bombs on them.

 

we should all stick our head in the sand..

 

Vietnam didn't suffer after we left aside from the Le Duan succeding Ho Chi Minh, who was concerned more with reprisal attacks that didn't quite rival the Khmer Rouge.

Then he waged a war with the Khmer rouge, then Vietnam had a war with China. These wars and reprisals left the countries economy degraded so bad that millions of people had to become 'boat people.'

It wasn't until the 90's that Vietnam arounse from complete squalor.

And comparing what Vietnam was like to what Iraq might be like if a withdrawl happened is laking any perspective. Iraq might be better or worse, I don't know, but it needs a government before we leave it in the middle of brewing ethnic strife.