How do you think is the most effective way to stop war?

And why would the Lusitania be on waters declared by the Germans to be war zones? Its like you're driving a car to a riot area despite warnings and when you're car or yourself are injured, you blame the rioters, which was clearly a case of stupidity, being stubborn and just crazy.

Couldn't it be a case the US just finding a hole just to join the war legally? We already know of a situation where the US joined a war due to a ship blowing up. For those who dont know history, that is the USS Maine, docked in Havana, Cuba, during the Cuban revolution. which triggered the Spanish-American War.

 

England has been involved in more wars than the US. As for alliances causing worse wars, that's extremely narrow thinking. If no country was willing to step in and help another country, the world would be in an almost constant state of war. What would stop countries with nuclear weapons from invading countries that didn't? Larger countries would be constantly invading smaller countries for resources, then countries would break off and get invaded by another. At the moment, thanks to alliances, countries are reluctant to invade another country because they don't want to get involved in a potentially self-destructive conflict.

 

I would disagree, due to alliances, there was a war on Iraq which the US and Iraq should only be the sole combatants. But because of alliances, the UK, which in my opinion has no need to join, and even the Philippines... we were even branded as cowards due to our evacuation of troops because that stupid guy who was captured and our government was forced to deal with them or else that single Filipino will die. The Philippines, thousands of miles away from Iraq, but due to alliances with the US, we had to send troops/ civic workers to help there.

Also, how did the WWI and II became a global scale war? In my belief, Switzerland has been avoiding alliances since the 1500's and they just recently joined the UN, in 2002. Again, in my opinion, they had been spared from global wars due to their nature to avoid entering alliances, which might end cause of them joining the UN.

Germany was the aggressor against UK, right? Meaning, waters near UK is inside the term "war zone". Also the HMS Lusitania was not a US passenger ship, its was a Scottish passenger ship which was boarded by US citizens. So, being a ship of Scotland, which is part of the UK, then its a target for German torpedoes. And the another question in mind, why would there be US citizens boarding a UK ship despite the warning that any UK ships are targets for destruction?

The US use this situations, which according to some documents like the one i presented earlier, was just an excuse so they can enter international war. Spa-Am war = the USS Maine, WWI = HMS Lusitania, WW II = Pearl Harbor, Korean War and Vietnam War = Cold War, Gulf War = Invasion of Kuwait, War on Terror/ Iraq, Afghanistan = 9/11 attack on WTC.

I believe, based on our group discussion in Grad School, these are conspiracies just to declare war legally, cause the US can't declare war without some sort of "way" to persuade the US Senate/Congress.

 

What about Holland in WW2? Or Poland? Or Norway? None of these were members of an alliance, yet they were still invaded. WW2 was going to be on a global scale, alliances or not.

As for the Iraqi war, the countries that sent troops did it more to curry favour with one of the most opulent, influential and powerful nations in the world. Countries would have sent aid regardless of alliances.

 

The war was in Europe. All those countries you cited were based on Europe. If it was on Europe, it wouldn't be called a global scale war. Lets use those 3 countries you stated, it those 3 were captured by Germany, it wont be a global war. How did it became global? UK and France declared war on Germany due to the invasion of Poland. Why would the UK and France declare war on something they shouldn't be meddling with. Then due to those declaration, Germany use that declaration to call on its ally Italy and Japan.

Then UK and France calls on their ally Russia to declare war. Then America, itching to join but can't due to the interference of the constitution that only the Congress/Senate can declare war, pushed Japan to its limits and provoked them to bomb Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt with that fiery speech use to move the senate to declare war on Japan. But why would the US declare war on Germany when Japan was their primary enemy? Answer: Because have an alliance with the UK.

As to my current understanding of those countries that joined the US, they mostly based their intent to join because of alliance, but i must admit that favors was a part of that. But why did the UK joined the US on the war on Iraq? Favor? maybe by Bush and Blair. When you are in a military conference, favor comes after they win the war. Its like their reward for joining, but at the beginning of the war, its always comes to alliances.

Even during ancient times, wars are fought because of alliances.

 

UK, France and Russia are all in Europe. Russia started off allied with the Nazis. Japan and the US were at war anyway, the alliance just meant that the US entered the war in 1945 instead of 1946/7. Are you trying to say it would have been better if America had stayed out of the war and let Germany win?

Many countries that had/have an alliance with the US (most EU countries do) did not join them in invading Iraq, because their governments weren't as interested in currying favour with the US as England was.

This simply is not true. Wars are never fought because of alliances. In every case you've mentioned, the war has started off without alliances, with just one country invading another. That's the way it's been throughout history. Alliances are formed when a country sees opportunity in helping another country win a war.

 

I dont get this statement, can you explain it further? I thought that Pearl Harbor was Attacked on December 7, 1941.... and 3 days later declared war on Germany and Italy? Where did you get the 1945 instead of 1946-1947 years?

Nope, i dont say that Germany should win WW II. What I am saying, the US had no reason to declare war on Germany except for its alliance to UK. That fact that the US finished the war in Europe than in Asia was clearly a biased moved. Germany in World War II didn't attacked any US ships or killed any US citizen. It was Japan that attacked them, why not fight Japan first? So please, answer me this:

Why did the US placed its main fighting force on Europe instead of Asia? Japan was not in Europe. Pearl Harbor was not in Europe. Germans didnt caused the Bombing on pearl harbor.

We had fought 2 World Wars because of alliances. one is central powers versus the Triple Entente ( Allies ) and the other is Axis versus the Allied powers.

Even the UN is the largest alliance in the World. But unfortunately it has failed many countries to stop war from erupting.


Ok, what i'm trying to state in this debate is that deterrents/alliances is just a way to bully a country around. And to counter such act, a bullied country will find friends and create alliance with them, and when someone on those alliances goes to war, then a new World War will erupt.

 

But America was already fighting Japan in the Pacific. America's involvement in the war was inevitable. After all, America pretty much 'forced' Germany to go to war in the first place. If America hadn't attacked the Nazi's, Hitler would have invaded America. 1946-47 was just speculative dates pulled out of the air.

There was also Germany's alliance to Japan and the fact that if Germany succeeded in taking Europe, America would most likely be next.

To capture the German scientists, to prevent Germany gaining a foothold. German scientists were months away from building self-guiding Nuclear missiles. It was the captured German scientists that allowed America and Russia get into space and that paved the way for the Manhatten project.

England and France were not in an alliance with Poland, yet they still declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. Alliances are made and broken during a war, they are not the cause of it.

Yeah, but no one wants to go to war against a country with nuclear capabilities. That's why alliances work, I suppose you could call the Cold War World War 3, since it was fought all over the world, just America and Russia, the 2 main players never actually attacked each other, but rather fought through other countries like Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan (I'm a little hazy about some of these, but I'm fairly certain they're all true). I can see another Cold War in the future, but I don't think there's likely to be a third World War any time soon.

 

What I was making reference to was Russia and America supplying equipment to two different sides in other wars in the hopes of setting up a sympathetic government.

 

in that case don't end up like Indonesia :-\
we got supplied by the Soviet Union in the first half of teh cold war, and the US for the second half, but we still got screwed afterwards...

 

Wow. i'm surprised to find out that most of you actually have a vast amount of history knowledge.
this board finally moved toward intellectual debate. haha.

by the way, for the start, we can teach our kids about the fear of war. how bad it is for the psychology of the people involved. we should made our children to hate war, war is not an option. or we make a mindset that all humans are the same, in every country there are good people and bad people. so there is no reason for us to hate each other for the mistakes we made.

 

Yeah, and thanks to loonylion and gaynorvader for the intellectual exhange instead of just bashing somebody's belief or opinion about a certain topic.

This should be made to all topics in debate. But i just wish that more sources are given so that its not just about stock knowledge and add more for some of us to read and update what we know.

 

over 9000 nukes

 

Thats going to be hard.
when i was young all i wanted to do was join the army, war films potray the allies as heroes saving the world from evil nazi's, what kid didn't want to be a hero?

 

Sorry, most of my knowledge comes from books and DVDs, that's why I haven't been supplying links. I'll grab a few now though.
The Iran-Iraq war. Weapons were supplied by both the USSR and the USA.
The Afghan Civil War. Showing how the US and USSR indirectly fought each other through other countries.
The Ogaden War (Somalia). Again, the US and USSR supplied aid to opposing sides so that they could gain support from those countries.

I can get more sources, but my internet's very slow (it took about half a minute to a minute to load the above pages), so I'll just post these 3 for now. They illustrate what I was referring to in any case.

 

Yeah, USA n USSR always divide other country for their own ego. that's why there are north n south korea, there are China n Taiwan, etc.

 

Bombs.