war, is it necessary??

If there was never a war, I wouldn't be able to call America a home. To say war is pointless is like telling every American soldier, sailor, and Marine that died, they died for no cause. War is sometimes needed although no one will say it is ever a good thing. When oppression and genocide occur, someone must be there to defend the innocent. People like Saddam and Hitler were bad people and the only way to deal with a bad person who hates you more than death itself, is to put them where they are no longer a threat. Many lives saved by the loss of the proud far outweight many lives lost by the walking cowards.

 

Logical fallacy.
Your appealing to emotion.

Whether or not making soldiers and other involved in war feel as if they died for no cause (lol, they're dead anyway) is a bad thing, it has nothing to do with whether or not war is actually pointless.

Example:

Telling Muslims that jihad is wrong is like telling every one of those martyrs who died for Allah that they died for nothing.

My view on the OP's subject:


You're asking whether war is necessary, but it needs qualification.

Necessary for life?
No. Animals (excluding humans) do not wage any sort of war on their competitors. They compete for resources, but do not wipe out their competitors completely in an attempt to 'get rid of them for good'.
Humans lived in the same way before the agricultural revolution (civilization wasn't not sustainable in one area before this occurred).

Necessary for democratic nations?
If it's necessary for their existence, it's only necessary as a defensive measure.
A preemptive strike is not a viable option as it quickly discards all other options when a possible non-aggressive resolution could occur.
Democracy must be defended where it is supported, but not thrust upon unwilling nations (especially not violently like the with the Iraq war, where 60,000 civilians were killed as a result of 3,000 American deaths and several years of {until recently} continued propaganda from the Bush administration.)

 

elk1007,
So what you are saying is that you would rather stand by and try for diplomacy even if the outcome means your death? I'm not being sarcastic, and if that is your point, I would say it is a valid opinion. My opinion is we waged war on terrorism. Terrorists who killed our people and nations who harbored them such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad enough person without helping out terrorists so I don't shed a tear over taking down a madman. The ironic part of this whole story is, I belong to the Marine Corps League and am a veteran. I have many Marine friends who served in both countries, died in both countries, and still fight there today. The majority of service members, not all but all of my comrades, all believe the armed forces are doing a good thing. Iraq is a success and the people of Iraq, majority, are glad we did we what did. The majority of the people in both Iraq and America are also ready for us to be gone. I agree with the majority once again.
My question to you is about the war in Afghanistan. Do you think we are right in trying to hunt and kill Osama or should we just let him go?

 

war, cant live with it can tlive without it. humans were made with anger, for what reason? if that question can be answered then im pretty sure that it will be the same answer for your war question.

i dont really like the topic because its so controversial, and then theres a war about why were having a war and it goes on and on and ....

 

Your propositioning a false dilemma. "Either we try diplomacy and die, or kill others and live."
We are almost never in black and white situations like this.
The Iraq war was started unconstitutionally, and on false pretenses.

You stated "My opinion is we waged war on terrorism. Terrorists who killed our people and nations who harbored them such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad enough person without helping out terrorists so I don't shed a tear over taking down a madman."
However, the Bush administration produced a lot of propaganda which played on the fears of citizens, the anger over what happened on 9/11/01, and created a fake connection between Osama Bin Laden and the Iraqi government. Many people (including politicians) and trying to bring Bush up on charges.

When one says "We're winning in Iraq" or "We're losing in Iraq" it is often misleading because we didn't have a clear goal going into the war and we don't really have one now. Spreading democracy is not a valid reason to kill 60,000 innocent civilians, especially if their region of the world isn't ready or supportive of democracy. What this administration (and the constituency that was responsible through gullibility) did is an act of empirialism. Our stakes in Iraq are not for any 'great purpose' but rather in the interest of business. If we really cared so much about taken dictators out of power, we'd have our plate full.
This is, of course, just my opinion (based on evidence of course). However, in your comment you used the phrase "He was a bad enough person," as if there is a level of dislike that justifies killing. Sadam did kill a lot of his own citizens, but that by no means justifies killing them ourselves to reach Sadam.

In response to your question:

I don't believe it really matters. Terrorism will never be stopped. You cannot stop an idea. Even if the US became a world empire, there would still be those who felt violence was necessary to reach their goals. What would killing Osama Bin Laden accomplish? Absolutely nothing. It might make some people 'feel better,' but it's not really productive in any way. There is actually a rumor that he is already dead. A leading female politician in Afganistan remarked on the subject 2 months before she was assassinated.

 

elk1007
You said "However, the Bush administration produced a lot of propaganda which played on the fears of citizens, the anger over what happened on 9/11/01, and created a fake connection between Osama Bin Laden and the Iraqi government."

Much of the Intel came from CIA and DIA, which is why I can't see why everyone blames Bush all the time. The guy is more of a figurehead than anything. His cabinet helps a ton sure, but should he be solely blamed for outside agency advice that he trusts? The kicker is, everone sided with him and America was behind him in both war fronts. Do you believe he knew all along and it was a consiparcy? I just don't buy into that I guess. Why would someone try so hard to be the president of the United States and then just plot against it?

This will probably end in an agreement to disagree I suppose but I do agree with you that Iraq was the wrong place to be. I also believe now that we are there, it needs to be finished.

 

I mean he obviously and intentionally makes a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 in order to drum-up support. I'm not talking about the bad intelligence about WMDs.

If you listen to his speeches from his terms in office, you notice he never actually SAYS there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but uses a lot of inference and sometimes equivocation in order to create a false impression.

 

Why is America always held up by Americans as the sining example of democracy. I mean, it was a proven dictatorship for at least George Bush's first term in office. Maybe Britan should've invaded America to "liberate" its people.

 

We're not even a true democracy. We're a representative democracy (which fails the game).

 

Elk,
The one great thing about America is that you have the choice to move if you hate America so bad. Reading your other posts about culture and religion, you don't have the tolerance to embrace other people's beliefs unless they agree with yours.

 

"If you dun't lyke America, then get ouuut!"

Token response to dissent.

 

You can only move until they decide that where you moved has something they want, then you're back in America again.

 

That is just a ridiculous statement. Unless of course you have some evidence to back it up I suppose.

 

So what you are saying is that Iraq is now......America? That's an interesting concept. Maybe we can get in on some of them oil profits cause lord knows we are getting screwed now. They have a surplus of what, 80 billion? It would kick ass if we could get some of that back. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

I think it's safe to consider Iraq part of the U.S empire.

 

Well if that's true then they can start paying Britain back now... not just for the war but for the money they've borrowed...

 

...And the British troops they shot. Friendly fire!

 

Your right, how can anybody be stupid enough to fire at their own time but miss loads at the enemy?