War Is Sometime The Only Answer There Is.

[cali]

This post has nothing to do with Israel's attack on Lebanon. Let's just get that right out of the way first.

Sorry I can't subscribe to the sentiment that war in never the answer. All I have to do is cast my mind back a few years, and remember Rwanda and General Romeo Dallaire. You can call it military intervention or whatever you want, but sometimes in this world you need armed forces. I would support it in the Sudan, and it still grieves and horrifies me that the world allowed the slaughter in Rwanda. If you can think of anything short of armed force that would have stopped the genocide there, please tell me.


"After a 100-day reign of terror, some 800,000 Rwandan civilians were dead, most killed by their machete-wielding neighbors. Dallaire had sounded the alarm. He'd begged. He'd bellowed. He'd even disobeyed orders. "l was ordered to withdraw...by Boutros Ghali about seven, eight days into it. .. and I said to him, 'I can't, I've got thousands' -by then we had over 20,000 people-'in areas under our control,"' Dallaire said in a recent interview with Amnesty Now. The general's hands, always moving, rose beside his face as if to block the memories. "The situation was going to shit....And, I said, 'No, I can't leave."'


Had he had enough troops he would have engaged in warfare to save those hundreds of thousands of lives.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/Gen_Romeo_Dall...

[K8-EEE]

1. I Agree But This Time It Is Just Stupid.

"Never Have A War" is not a thoughtful viewpoint, however, this is particularly ill-conceived and ridiculous.

I can't see much good coming from it. I see blowback coming from it.

Most wars are stupid, or some kind of a hoax to benefit the economic interests of a few....

However, not ALL wars.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Yet we only answer when their is oil under the ground

Hence the inaction in Rwanda and now the inaction in Darfur.
The people that the make the decisions in our country cannot justify an action that would only benefit people and not render tangible gains to the coffers of the rich.

[guinivere]

12. Exactly. If there is money to be gained in any way,

you can bet they'll have a war.

Silly stuff like genocide and people's rights doesn't make the armed troops cut. :cry:

[Lerkfish]

3. But war should never the FIRST answer, or the second, or the

third...seventy times seven.

Then, if all other methods have failed, then war is an answer.
We have bred our species to think conflict is the ONLY resolution.

[treestar]

42. Exactly. There are some for whom it is the first answer, and the

preferred method when there are others. The PNAC comes to mind.

This is another attempt to change the discussion. You can't talk about how you think this particular war is not the only possible answer without being accused of some sort of dreamy-hippie-there will never be war idealism.

It's a straw man. Just because I may think the US did not have to attack Iraq does not mean I think no war is ever needed. It just means this on is not needed. In the event I should argue that the Israelis are going too far this time, it does not follow that I always think that in every instance. Yet one is instantly accused of that as a way of distracting everyone from the point.

[DanCa]

4. I don't like those who 'start" war

but I see the need for self defense.

[cali]

6. How about

the situation in Rwanda? Do you agree with the U.S. policy and the U.N. that let so many die?

[benburch]

14. Even there, war was not the only answer.

We just were unwilling to choose any other answer.

[cali]

26. At a certain point

and it came very swiftly, armed force was the only answer to stop genocide.

[benburch]

30. Because we allowed that to happen.

It didn't have to happen.

Wars never have to happen.

[cali]

33. In theory perhaps that's true

but not in reality.

[Boojatta]

34. Would you have opposed sending special forces to kidnap people in

Rwanda radio stations that were inciting murder?

[gratuitous]

43. And who would you have made war against?

Who would you have shot? Can you tell Hutu from Tutsi at 50 meters? 25 meters? 10 meters? Do you know when you're following good intelligence, and when someone's just trying to settle a very old score? Do your armaments kill only the combatants and spare the civilians? And when do you know when you've won? When all the combatants are dead, or when they're merely sick of killing and death? Will you fight to the last man's death, and when will you know you've dispatched the last one?

[DanCa]

39. I don't know about rwanda

to tell you the truth i don't know that much about foreign policy.

[jollyreaper2112]

41. nation-building

the situation in Rwanda? Do you agree with the U.S. policy and the U.N. that let so many die?

The liberal in me says we should have jumped in there with a full-on invasion force and stopped the violence. The pragmatist in me says that we would have simply gotten into an ugly mess and would have accomplished little of value. I think the best that could have been done would be to beef up UN safe havens in places like that and try to mediate between the sides. Both there and in the Balkans, the UN peacekeepers were ineffective in protecting civilians from the stronger enemy.

The problem with the idea of "fighting for peace" is that it only tends to work in the movies. Clint Eastwood can walk into a town with two hostile factions and kick so much ass that neither side dreams picking up another weapon and everyone lives happily everafter. The real world doesn't want to work that way.

This is where I tend to agree with the old-school conservative line about nation-building being a risky and difficult prospect. It's like AA, you can't help someone until they want to be helped. You can't make them change, they have to want to change. If an entire nation wants civil war, there's not much you can do until they've bled the fight out of themselves.

As for why the US didn't get involved in Rwanda, the official attitude was "the niggers don't have oil, why should we care?" I strongly feel the only reason why we got involved in Somalia was to give Clinton a nasty mess to inherit. As I recall, that kicked off during the last weeks of Bush's presidency.

[Rex]

5. At our current level of evolution that is true.

Maybe someday we will evolve past the need to kill each other.

[LWolf]

37. The evolution begins

when we make a conscious choice to delete killing other people from our list of possible human activities. It begins now, "someday," or never, according to the courage, integrity, and strength of those making choices at this moment in time.

[sueragingroz]

7. On the 10th Anniversary

The General went back, heavily medicated, to witness the scene of the carnage.

It was all captured in a brilliant documentary entitled "Shake Hands with the Devil".

[TahitiNut]

8. When one waits that long before answering, it may seem so.

Perhaps the world didn't listen to the "question" until that was the only "answer" they had left? How many opportunities to give a better "answer" were squandered??? :eyes:

[Pepper32]

9. Exactly! n/t

[cali]

16. Not a whole hell of a lot

There were things that might have helped a bit once they were right on the verge, but really force was the only way to have saved a substantial number of people, and many, many could have been saved.

[KoKo]

44. That's why "Diplomacy" must be given the FIRST CHANCE....and if that

fails...and all options are gone then some kind of "war" is then the only option.

Many of us feel ALL should be exhausted before WAR is undertaken. The Bushies do not seem to feel the same way...thereby giving great weight to your option of WAR is the "only answer" in some situations.

Only situation for War in my long memory having been here for awhile was the Nazi's in Germany where they invaded and invaded and then Japan saw an opening.

The recent "excuses" for American Wars fall short of my stringent criteria. But then there's a new generation who is much more "war mongering" in attitude than some of us are. Don't worry ...we won't be around much longer to keep fighting for NO MORE WARS. Then you all can "Have at IT...for as long as you think it's necessary."

[theanarch]

10. there is a distinction to make...

...between offensive/pre-emptive wars, which are wars of choice, and defensive wars, in which the only choice is between resistance or enslavement.

[cali]

17. no kidding.

That was heavily implied in my first sentence, and subsequent words in my OP.

[Cleita]

11. I agree with you that every tribe needs warriors for defense

or to help our neighbors who are being invaded and so that the rest of us are safe to go about our business and raise our families. This is the purpose of a standing militia. If our militia is effective in being prepared for defense, it will never go to war. However, wars of aggression like those we are fighting now are never acceptable IMHO.

As a matter-of-fact, I wish NATO would invade Washington D. C. Arrest the chief executives of the White House and spirit them off to the Hague for trial as war criminals. I would greet them with flowers and chocolate.

[The Stranger]

13. If this post has nothing to do with Israel's obliteration of Lebanon,

it sure has funny timing.

[Pepper32]

18. Come on now...

...you know it's just a coincidence. :silly:

[Ms. Clio]

19. surely just a coinky-dink

for the second or third time.

[cali]

25. It does?

Oh, and that must mean that a post I wrote last night on war being a hard drive part of human nature had a 'hidden agenda' too.

Wrong.

I wrote both posts in response to the many comments i've seen here lately never being appropriate, and the lack of understanding of human agression.

[The Stranger]

47. Netanyahu is running through media outlets talking about JFK and Cuba,

which is a similar and extremely opaque attempt to pervert history to justify what cannot be justified.

No, war is not necessary. Wasn't in the past. Won't be in the future.

And it most certainly is not necessary in Israel's obliteration of Lebanon.

[Spazito]

15. War is chosen as the answer because to do that which would

forestall war would mean taking the hard road, the rich giving concessions to the poor, those with land sharing with those without, those with food sharing with those without. Sharing the territory and the resources instead of wanting control over it all.

Helping those who need help to have the resources to help themselves.

War is ALWAYS about territory/resources.

[hfojvt]

23. those who do not have

are always willing to share.

Just a saying of my, but I certainly support more cooperation and consideration. Often there are those who exploit the generosity of others too.

[hfojvt]

20. what was the question again?

Your example is flawed. In that example a military force is being used as a police force. Force is often needed, war almost never is. Slaughter and destroy in order to prevent slaughter?

Sure, the only thing that can stop an invading army is another army (although sometimes plagues will do it too), but the invading army is either "just following orders" or has the erroneous belief that "sometimes war is the only answer there is".

[G2099]

21. BULLSHIT!! Your post is about Israel's attack on Lebanon

Israel's attack on Lebanon is the only WAR going on, on the front page it has pusshed Iraq almost to the back.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Little Star]

22. War should ALWAYS be the last resort.

And SOMETIMES the USA should stay the hell out of it except in a diplomatic way.

[porphyrian]

24. There are always options we don't realize are there. - n/t

[NNN0LHI]

28. Those who live by the sword die by the sword

Always a silver lining.

Don

[cali]

31. I don't mean to pick on you

but I very specifically picked the narrow category of war that I think is acceptable: Halting genocide. I gave an example. It seems that people prefer not to address the gist of my post.

[thethinker]

29. Yes, sometimes war is the only answer

When one country gets "full of itself" and over impressed with it's military superiority, and starts invading other countries to steal their resources, war is justified.

The other civilized countries start watching the situation and knowing it has to do something about it, sooner or later.

America got by with invading other countries and over throwing any government, elected or not, for almost all of last century. But those countries were mostly in South America. Now we have started this policy in the middle east. We are stealing oil that the whole world also needs.

Any fool can start a war. But wars have a way of ending very differently than the greedy fools who started them envision. Look at the civil war. If the little punks who started it had known that 618,000 Americans would die, that much of the South would be burned to the ground, and brother would fight brother, would they have started it? I would like to believe that they would have found another way to solve their differences had they been able to see the damage they were doing.

War was justified when the rest of the civilized world had to stop Germany who was invading their neighbors.

[TahitiNut]

45. The Likuddites figure they have a "window of opportunity"

... that might be starting to close in 6 months and almost closed in 42 months. :shrug:

[leesa]

32. Extremely rare situation where war is the answer and it's usually because

a situation has been allowed to fester without diplomatic intervention. So it's NOT the only answer, it's just the last resort in an out-of-control situation. Is it the answer? Doubtful, because it will always generate blow-back unless you kill every man, woman and child.

[Justitia]

35. What you describe (Rwanda) was not a war, it was a massacre against civili

civilians, not armed combat between military adversaries (soldiers).

And yes, a military intervention is what was needed to stop it when no civilian law enforcement agency could / would.

[Redstone]

36. But we never get involved in the right ones. And always in the wrong ones.

That's the problem.

Redstone

[China_cat]

38. In this case, though,

to paraphrase Asimov, "violence is the FIRST refuge of the incompetent"

[jollyreaper2112]

40. analogy time, war and medicine

It's been said that war is politics by other means. That's pretty much on the money. Diplomacy is the carrot, war is the stick. For all parties involved, carrot is much better than stick. To draw an analogy...

Let's talk medicine. Now there's preventitive medicine. It's eating proper, exercising, taking care of yourself. Everything goes right, that's like diplomacy. But sometimes shit hits the fan and you need invasive procedures like surgery or, god forbid, amputation. In medicine, sometimes this sort of thing happens and it's nobody's fault -- you get in a car accident, you need serious doctoring and no amount of eating right would have prevented it. But if you're talking about a heart attack from rich living or amputations due to diabetes, that's the patient's fault. Not fun, but necessary.

Ok, I'm kind of stretching the metaphor a bit but that's about where things lie. Diplomacy is your exercising and eating right. Sometimes that's all that's needed to defuse the crisis. Sometimes you have a nutjob that's intend on bringing war and there's no way to get around it. In that case, you have to fight. And when a fight is coming it's better to do it sooner than later. Hitler could have been stopped in the 30's when he started breaking the treaties he was supposed to abide by. Nobody wanted to take the risk and so things went to hell and required a far bigger war later. War should not be the first solution, it is the least optimal of all the "good" solutions, but if you have to fight a war, better to fight it sooner than later.

The problem with the whole "justifiable use of force" deal is that lying liars can twist the situations and use sound examples to justify shoddy thinking. Hitler should have been taken out early, true. So therefore we had to go in and take out Saddam in '91...huh? Saddam didn't have anything like the military might of Nazi Germany. He lacked the means of serious power projection. But those who wanted war twisted the facts and made it seem like not going after Saddam was like giving Hitler a sloppy french kiss.

There was a diplomat before WWI who said "There is no such thing as inevitable war. If war comes, it is because of a failure of human wisdom." I mostly subscribe to that. If both sides are reasonable and rational, a just solution can be found without bloodshed. But if the other side is run by a madman, there's no way to negotiate. You cannot negotiate with Ghengis Khan, you cannot negotiate with Hitler, and you cannot negotiate with George Bush.

To my point of view, the only just war is a defensive war. Fight to secure your borders against an invader, that's fair. Protect an ally against an invader, that's fair. But the shit Bush is pulling, that's out and out offensive warfare. "Preemptive" my ass. It's empire-building.

[Truthiness Inspector]

46. Sadly, I agree

War should never, ever, ever be the first option, but fighting fire with fire at times is necessary. It's a depressing thought, but it doesn't make it any less true. Sometimes you have to kill the killers.