War is wrong.

[stevedeshazer]

There, I said it.

I don't care which president starts it.

War is wrong.

Now we're in three wars?

And that's military wars.

Not to mention the War On Drugs, the War On Workers and the War On The Economy.

How about some peace for a change?

WAR IS WRONG.

[patrick t. cakes]

1. yeah, it is getting old...nt

[knowbody0]

2. why didn't the UN intervene when we

took to the streets against Bush? we were caged, peppered, arrested, abused.

[stevedeshazer]

4. +1

EXACTLY.

[seabeyond]

20. ah. you really are not putting that up against what was happening to libya protesters

are you?

come on

[sarcasmo]

3. Even worse when they don't flat out admit it's about oil.

[Xenotime]

8. And all of Bush's old cronies are still running the show.

[Ikonoklast]

28. If it was truly about oil, we would be supporting Qaddafi.

The rebels are de-stabilizing the country, and energy delivery; under Qaddafi, things were quiet.

The current world price of oil reflects that instability.

And who says that Western oil companies will get any contracts handed out by a new Libyan government?

They might tell them all to get lost, as they helped support Qaddafi.

[sarcasmo]

38. self delete.

[Unvanguard]

57. Out of curiosity, what would convince you that something the US did in the Middle East

was NOT about oil?

Is this assumption of yours falsifiable?

[here_is_to_hope]

5. Sometimes, these things just need to work themselves

out without Whiteknights trying to fix everything.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Great. Now that we've cleared that up...

...violence, and coercion, and such, within and between states will now all stop.

It's so simple, why didn't we think of it before?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

9. Some wars are not only Right, but are necessary.

No tyrant in history has stopped himself. I would be interested in what DU posts would be like had a forum like this existed as Hitler was marching across Europe, killing Jewish people and Gypsies.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

18. WW2 would have never happened if not for WW1.

The extreme conditions placed on Germany after they lost World War 1 directly led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Of course, capitalism run amuck in the 1920's played a role as well.

[Critters2]

40. Precisely! I point this out all the time--to people trying to talk me out of my pacifism.

WWII was a DIRECT result of WWI and the vengeance of Versailles. Add the Great Depression (even worse in Germany--because of reparations) to the mix, and voila! Fertile ground for Fascism!

[Jamastiene]

27. Lol, America had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to enter

World War 2. Half of our corporations were funding the Nazis. Just in case you haven't noticed, DU, overall, isn't exactly overjoyed with the actions of corporations and their pillaging.

[Ikonoklast]

29. They would be Isolationists, decrying involvement in foreign domestic

affairs that were none of our business.



Like the Republican Party did, pre-WWII.

[patrick t. cakes]

33. love that godwin........nt

[paulk]

50. we put up with Gadaffi for over 40 years

he hasn't gone marching across the Middle East in that time...

Your post is hyperbole

[deaniac21]

10. Good God ya'll, what is it good for?

[Catherina]

11. Only too happy to recommend n/t

[jefferson_dem]

12. False.

War is not (necessarily always) wrong.

Surely, we can all think back in world history and locate examples that prove this statement to be true.

[stevedeshazer]

35. So, in other words, you support killing some Libyans to save some Libyans.

And the United States should make this decision.

Yeah. That makes perfect sense.

[Codeine]

13. Not as simple as all that, I'm afraid.

There have been just wars and unjust wars, wars that were right and many more that were wrong.

[MikeW]

14. true ... sometimes its necessary ... WWII for example

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apples and oranges]

17. Was it WRONG to stop the NAZIs?

This ought to be good. :eyes:

[LAGC]

19. Would have the Nazis ever come to power if not for our involvement in World War 1?

And the extreme punitive conditions placed on Germany there-after?

I seriously doubt it.

[HEyHEY]

22. So now that Nazis are our fault too

whatever.... there's a certain amount of responsibility

[Ikonoklast]

32. There is an argument to be made that may have been the case.

Before the U.S. intervened in WWI, both sides had been essentially stalemated, and all combatant nations were flirting on the edge of collapse either militarily, economically, or politically; in Russia's case, actual collapse.

We intervened with men and materiel, tipping the scales, defeating Germany and her allies, setting up the draconian economic sanctions that dropped Germany to her knees.

The argument that could be made is, if we had let things take their course without our intervention, the cessation of hostilities based on that stalemate would have been far less punitive economically for Germany, as there may not have been reparations, and would not have led to the rise of the National Socialists after a decade of economic and political turmoil.

All conjecture, of course, Hitler may have risen to power no matter the outcome of the war.

[seabeyond]

23. would we have had ww1 i one small country didnt assinate another small countries

prince (i believe)?

the point is, you can always say a war would not happen, if certain behavior didnt happen. that does not move us away from reality of it. and what to do when faced with it.

[Critters2]

73. +1 nt

[isuphighyeah]

47. Lol. n/t

[HEyHEY]

21. So is inaction when a genocide begins.

[Critters2]

42. Tell it to the people of Rwanda.

We were johnny-on-the-spot there, though, weren't we?

Well, we would have been, if Rwanda had had oil. Sucks for them not to have the wisdom to settle over oil reserves!

[Blue-Jay]

45. You're correct, and that's a good example of why the OP is wrong.

Let's go through the steps:

1) War is wrong.
2) Using the military overseas (for any reason other than self-defense constitutes "war")
3) Therefore, intervening with the military in Rwanda would have been wrong.

Personally, I'm still disgusted that we (as a country) ignored the massacres in Rwanda. Shall we stand idly by and let the people of Libya enjoy the same fate?

This is not an either/or situation. I'm infavor of saving Libyan lives, even at the expense of a smaller number of Libyans who are doing the bidding of their dictator. It ain't pretty, and I don't feel great about it, but there it is. Our involvement in Libya is NOT the same as our illegal/unnecessary war in Iraq, and our recent goddamned escalation in Afghanistan.

[stevedeshazer]

61. "Our involvement in Libya is NOT the same as our illegal/unnecessary war in Iraq"

Jay, how are they different?

Rwanda isn't a valid comparison with all due respect. Cruise missiles bombing airports would not have helped in Rwanda.

This could escalate and involve the entire Arab world against us. As if they weren't pissed off already.

The Rwanda massacre was a horrible event. But it's not the same thing by any stretch.

I didn't jump to that conclusion, you did.

Peace, man.

[Jamastiene]

24. You forgot the War on Poverty...

which should really be called War on Poor People. I guess one word was catchier to use after "War On" than two, so they decided to make it sound better and call it the War On Poverty.

Notice there is no money to run this country, and our politicians cut everything in sight, but money magically appears when they want to blast tons of half million dollar missiles? There is always money for more and more war. I'm sick and tired of it.

K&R

[Hosnon]

25. War can be right; that's as undeniable as the fact that

using force to defend innocent civilians against violent criminals is right.

If you don't like war, take it up with people like Ghaddafi.

[Bigmack]

26. I try to keep morality out of it...

I just see war as a really wrong choice.

Let's see... Korea - tie - leaving a mess. Vietnam.. loss. Grenada - laughable clusterfuck. Panama - shameful victory - we removed a guy who Knew Too Much. Desert Storm - victory (sort of) but left a mess. Restore Hope - Somalia - Black Hawk Down time - loss (tail between legs loss). Bosnia - victory - Left a mess of unresolved hatreds. Look for Bosnia II at a theater near you... soon. Afghanistan - unwinnable - Biggest bully on the block stymied by 25,000 tribesmen. Iraq - victory (sorta, kinda) At least until the civil war that puts Iran in charge.

Don't let's forget the drug war in Latin America... Dead loss!

We ain't doing so good.

If we come out of Urgent Shitstorm, or whatever they're calling Lybia, smelling like anything other than shit, I will be stunned and surprised.

[fittosurvive]

30. The right to life right entails the right to self-defense.

Our Constitution provids for the common defence; thus, the retaliatory use of force is a morally justified act.

Regrettably, the legitimate process of declaring war has been disregarded and the United States is charging into a third undeclared war in the Middle East.

Clearly, a majority of people from both parties do not learn anything from the past.

[TheKentuckian]

31. The peace of the grave and of tyranny are sometimes the only alternatives.

I would accept the risks of war over a false peace on my knees.

I am not and do not anticipate becoming a pacifist because peace at any cost means suicide to me. War to me isn't a yes or no but a when and why question to me.

Hell, we have folks in this thread that can't reconcile entering WWII. At some point there is a lack of depth in the thinking and a lack of survival instincts and responsibility of strength. No faith in allegiance and a level of absolutism that cannot jibe with not only human history but billions of years of evolutionary forces.

It isn't even holding the beliefs but rather the absolute inability to grant reasonable arguments that oppose that in some cases resembles reflexive religious zealotry rather than a thoughtful position.

In this Libya situation, I just cannot justify the use of the Security Council veto. I'm just not that convinced that a no fly zone is an unacceptable and unjustified response. It is certainly within international law. Use of the veto is to my mind pro-actively support Qaddafi's regime. I've seen arguments of why folks don't see use of force (no matter how limited and specific) but zero justifications to exercise a veto. Such arguments certainly exist but strangely they are not the ones being made but rather most attempts are made seemingly from the perspective of a US invasion.

This may be seen as minutia to some but such facts are not insignificant.

[stevedeshazer]

34. What threat is Libya to the United States?

Being against war "resembles reflexive religious zealotry rather than a thoughtful position."

So being pro-war is somehow thoughtful? With all due respect, that's a bullshit position.

[TheKentuckian]

48. I said neither thing you are indicating. I did say that being against any and every war

resembles reflexive religious zealotry rather than a thoughtful position because it is reflexive and automatic rather than circumstantial.

It is idiotic to paint not being a pacifist with being pro-war, the ramblings of child in a temper tantrum.

I also never said anything about Libya being a threat to us. Your reading comprehension and honesty need work.

[cali]

36. so Roosevelt shouldn't have gotten us involved in WWII?

no, not all war is wrong.

[stevedeshazer]

37. No, silly.

There should not have been war in the first place.

What was so great about WWII?

My dad was in it. My great-uncle was a WWII hero.

Millions died. That's the final result.

You miss the point.

[cali]

49. um. well, silly billy, no one said WWII was great. that's a little fiction of yours

aka a straw man. But WWII was necessary. It's all very well (not to mention supremely silly) to say that there should not have been a war in the first place, but there was. Hitler invaded and brutalized country after country, killing millions. What would have happened had the U.S. not entered the war, silly? Millions more would have died. duh.

[stevedeshazer]

65. So saying WWII wasn't great is fiction?

Yes, we must kill so that others won't be killed.

You don't see a problem with that?

[cali]

wow. that was a spectacularly nonsensical and non-responsive

rejoinder.

congrats.

[AsahinaKimi]

39. So if the United States has been in the MOST WARS...

How wrong does that make us? :shrug:

[Critters2]

43. Pretty goddamned wrong! nt

[stevedeshazer]

44. Very wrong.

Imperialism is never good.

[Blue-Jay]

52. huh?

[Taitertots]

41. War is always Wrong

Sometimes the alternative is worse, but that doesn't ever make war good.

[itsrobert]

46. +1

nt

[Initech]

51. Peace isn't profitable.

[Octafish]

53. + Infinity.

So far, all war's done is make a certain class very, very rich.

Other than that, war is no good.



Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

[ProgressIn2008]

54. Well, if you're an aristocrat, war is actually pretty good. Fills the coffers, keeps everyone

in line.

[quaker bill]

55. True, but no US President started this one

The war already existed just fine without us. Lots of people were being killed and would have continued being killed without us. We are now just helping one side of it. This might make it longer, or substantially shorter. It will change the group of specific people who will die in it. It is hard to say whether the number of dead will be larger or smaller, but it will be too many either way.

I would love a world where a DU poll supporting peace would cause people in another country to lay down arms and stop killing each other. Somehow I expect a fleet of F-16s will be more effective, as sad as that is.

[stevedeshazer]

60. You're a Quaker?

I thought you would agree with me and be against war in principle.

[quaker bill]

71. I oppose war

But in this case it is more truthful to admit that the war existed and the President did not start it. Friends are also quite fond of the truth. I am fully opposed to war regardless of circumstance, therefore my opposition to war does not increase because US forces are somehow involved.

The work of peace has been needed for decades at least. The time to work to resolve injustices is well before the shooting and killing starts. Once the killing starts, the question at hand is how to end it.

One could end it by allowing the Dictator with all the modern weapons to kill all those he intends to kill. Alternately, one can end it by removing the dictator and his weapons. Neither choice is moral, but one might be more humane or just than the other.

Yes, I am a Quaker, but one who knows that my personal opposition to war will not cause the Libyans to stop killing each other.

[stevedeshazer]

72. I appreciate your reasoned response.

Thanks.

[Unvanguard]

56. No, it isn't. Not always, not invariably.

Wars of self-defense, or in defense of allies for the sake of collective security, or to protect civilians in legitimate rebellion (especially when done in a multilateral way), are not inherently morally wrong, and can be justified if they are entered into with a morally and pragmatically sound accounting of cost and benefit.

We have to actually do the careful, difficult work of looking at each case on its merits and evaluating whether or not it is justified. Simple, categorical slogans simply won't do.

[JonLP24]

58. The chain reaction makes sense

Wars produce more wars.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. Pacifism is wrong

It amounts to little more than shrugging indifference to suffering on a truly cataclysmic scale cloaked in a faux-noble idealism that serves no purpose other than to bolster the righteous self-assurance of the pacifist in his chosen moral code.

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." - Spinoza

What exactly does your smug self-righteousness do to help bring benevolence and justice to the world?

[stevedeshazer]

63. When war starts bringing 'benevolence and justice to the world' we'll be in agreement.

And if being against war makes me smug and self-righteous, I'll take comfort in that. It makes me a better person than someone who prefers war like you.

What does war bring to the world?

Death. Destruction. Despair.

Give me a fucking break.

on edit: In 11 years on DU, that is the dumbest reply I've ever seen here.

Congratulations.

[WildEyedLiberal]

64. And you reply with a personal attack... I guess your "philosophy" can't stand up to scruntiny

Please quote exactly where in my post I indicate that I "prefer war." Also, I'd like to thank you for proving my point exactly to the letter. You aren't a pacifist because you care about anyone. You're a pacifist because you imagine it makes you a "better person" than "people like me." You aren't just transparent; you're blatant. Well done. At least you have no pretensions about your "ideals."

Having you call my post the dumbest thing you've ever seen is a real honor. Sincerely: thank you. If you hate it that much, I must be doing something right.

[stevedeshazer]

66. If you don't oppose it, you prefer it.

I said nothing about hate, you did.

I didn't say I'm a better person than you. You did.

My ideals are being against war. I'm proud of that.

And yes, I care. That's why I am against war.

It is stupid to support war. I won't back off that point.

Peace to you and everyone. No more war.

Here we are, 2011 on DemocraticUnderground and I'm being attacked for being anti-war.

Wow.

[xenoturkey]

68. Amazing

"If you don't oppose it, you prefer it."

That's a classic Bushism. You admit no grey area in this matter at all? I guess you agree with Bush when he said you "are with us or against us".

Amazing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

69. "It makes me a better person than someone who prefers war like you."

Yes, you absolutely said that you are a better person than me. There is your quote from your previous post. You can't disown it now.

Simplistic, black-and-white, this-or-that, with-us-or-against-us thinking has no place in a discussion among adults. It is playground silliness of the first order and requires absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever. I am not "for war" because I don't believe the world is a neat little dichotomy of two simple choices distilled into first-grade concepts. If you really cared about human suffering, you would endeavor to actually assess each situation individually and choose the option that would lead, in the long run, to the least lives being lost or destroyed. I've not said a single word about supporting any individual war, but then again, I'm not the one telling everyone else that I am better than they are, either. I don't even think I'm "better" than pacifists, though I think their ideology is morally bankrupt in its simplicity. I, unlike you, can separate people from their beliefs - maybe because I recognize humanity over ideology. You might try that sometime instead of proclaiming your moral righteousness from every rooftop.

[dave29]

62. This planet has never known peace

but it's nice that we still try.

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. It's wrong to empower a whole bunch of dictators too, but we already did that.

The least we can do, is when people rise up to free themselves from bondage we helped put them in, is see to it they're not murdered en masse with our weapons.

We're not starting from a clean morality slate you know. If we were, that would be different. It is what it is. And we have to respond to it that way. Ideology doesn't cut it.

JMHO.

(By "we" I mean the West, or the developed countries, or all of the powers if you will. It doesn't matter which country sold weapons to which dictator, or which country helped keep which dictator in power. It was done, that's the point. It's all globalized now and pretty much fungible anyway.)

[AsahinaKimi]

70. agree.

All forms of violence, especially war, are totally unacceptable as means to settle disputes between and among nations, groups and persons.

~Dalai Lama

I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess al such matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not. ~Dalai Lama

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war

[sarcasmo]

74. War is wrong.