PDA

View Full Version : History/War Philosophy.



Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 05:14 PM
Are there:

wrong sides in war?

I am not sure I wish to put myself into a position of disagreeing with this.

So instead by way of challenging this statement can you, tell me of a case (a war) in which the WINNER (who would control and shape the subsequent writing of history ) was judged by history to be the morally bankrupt side?

I have been thinking about 'historical facts' lately.

These historical facts are only in existance because the winners write the history and determine what is and what is not important.

For example: (and God forbid) the Japanese had won, as complete a victory as the Allies did I am sure that if we were still living would be here agreeing that it was a FACT that the White race was squeezing the Asiatic peoples and it would be a FACT that the "Greater Japanese co prosperity Sphere" undoubtedly saved the Asiatic peoples from slavery. These, thankfully fictitios, victorious Japanese hitorians would have ensured that the history books would be written that way.

Anyway all speculation.. but I hope you see what I mean.

I am still looking for a case where the WINNER was judged by history to be morally backrupt. (I can maybe think of one in all of history... but there may be more.)

Thanks in advance for keeping it civil.

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 05:14 PM
Are there:

wrong sides in war?

I am not sure I wish to put myself into a position of disagreeing with this.

So instead by way of challenging this statement can you, tell me of a case (a war) in which the WINNER (who would control and shape the subsequent writing of history ) was judged by history to be the morally bankrupt side?

I have been thinking about 'historical facts' lately.

These historical facts are only in existance because the winners write the history and determine what is and what is not important.

For example: (and God forbid) the Japanese had won, as complete a victory as the Allies did I am sure that if we were still living would be here agreeing that it was a FACT that the White race was squeezing the Asiatic peoples and it would be a FACT that the "Greater Japanese co prosperity Sphere" undoubtedly saved the Asiatic peoples from slavery. These, thankfully fictitios, victorious Japanese hitorians would have ensured that the history books would be written that way.

Anyway all speculation.. but I hope you see what I mean.

I am still looking for a case where the WINNER was judged by history to be morally backrupt. (I can maybe think of one in all of history... but there may be more.)

Thanks in advance for keeping it civil.

stathem
06-15-2005, 05:27 PM
Hmm tricky, i'll think more tomorrow.

For starters, Gengis Khan and the Mongol dynasties? but they didn't really do writing history much.

A real tease, what about the Roman empire? good or bad?

Tater-SW-
06-15-2005, 05:30 PM
Easy, the Soviet Union and WW2.

The world's most murdrous repressive society won the war (along with the Allies), and got a pass for their own brutal democide. Winner, WW2, yet morally bankrupt (62 million democides makes you morally bankrupt in my book)

Maoists vs Nationalist Chinese is harder to peg. The Communists have since killed off far more of their own, but the Nationalists still managed to bump off about 10 million people. Regardless, the PRC won on the mainland, and they are morally bankrupt (35 million + dead).

Actually, the Nationalists got a pass. They were on the winning side vs the japanese, and no one hold them accountable for thei mass slaughters mentioned above.

By comparison, there are virually no democides caused by free countries that are significant in comaprison. Even if you count civilian deaths from bombing, it's not significant compared to the abuses of the countries that were bombed.

Luckily for the people of the world, freedom has a tendancy to win out.

He has a good book, but here's his webpage about democide:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

tater

stathem
06-15-2005, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Easy, the Soviet Union and WW2.

The world's most murdrous repressive society won the war (along with the Allies), and got a pass for their own brutal democide. Winner, WW2, yet morally bankrupt (62 million democides makes you morally bankrupt in my book)

Maoists vs Nationalist Chinese is harder to peg. The Communists have since killed off far more of their own, but the Nationalists still managed to bump off about 10 million people. Regardless, the PRC won on the mainland, and they are morally bankrupt (35 million + dead).

Actually, the Nationalists got a pass. They were on the winning side vs the japanese, and no one hold them accountable for thei mass slaughters mentioned above.

By comparison, there are virually no democides caused by free countries that are significant in comaprison. Even if you count civilian deaths from bombing, it's not significant compared to the abuses of the countries that were bombed.

Luckily for the people of the world, freedom has a tendancy to win out.

He has a good book, but here's his webpage about democide:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, you can't really qualify the Soviet Union issue (tragic as it was) because effectivley the democracies of the west (ie mainly the US) won the mainly financial "Cold" war between 48-90.

To an extent ditto the issue of the communism in China because the west is still in an adversereal position, even if there's no actual shooting.

I cry foul on those two, with respect to what was originally being asked.

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 05:52 PM
Winners never judge themselves to be morally bankrupt. (Is maybe what I am getting at! ? Maybe...)

The West judged the Stalin era as morally bankrupt that's for sure but only I think BECAUSE of the needs of the cold war. If the Cold War had never 'started' and the Stalin regime remained 'allied' through the 50's 60's etc then I bet Stalin would be judged more favourably. In that regard I'm not sure that you can still call the Stalin regime a winner.

The one example that I was thinking of was the Roman Empire, and their effort against Masada.

I think that maybe this is not such a good example either because modern day Israel has adopted Masada. There are no more Romans to write their favorable histories for them. What I mean by that is that no one has adopted their cause like Israel has their ancestors at Masada.

FoolTrottel
06-15-2005, 05:54 PM
Analyzing this properly, using yer conditions, and yer statements ... no one could ever tell you of such a case ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

As to yer original question:
Yes, there are Wrong sides in war.

To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war.

What war comes down to (and life itself does as a matter of fact), is survival.
As in any average soldier does not want to kill any other human being.
An average soldier will only kill if another human being is threatening his life.
It's me killing him, or him killing me ...

Just wait and see ... todays LOSERS could very well be tomorrows WINNERS, rewriting history to their liking. What makes you think history is past tense?

Have Fun!

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 05:59 PM
I just thought of a bunch.

I think ANY war of couquest I.E. Cortez vs. the NAtive peoples of Central America.

Europeans vs. Native North American's

etc etc etc.

HIstory written by the Winners, in which the winnners are judged as morally bankrupt.

Thanks! I feel better! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truer words were never spoken.

Maybe if that realization takes hold and the worlds historians propgandize this new 'fact' we will find a better way to settle disputes.

EnGaurde
06-15-2005, 06:39 PM
maybe not direct aka conventional war, but a government that waged war and issued propaganda about how it was a Great Victory?

My slant on this is communist china and tibet.

all you hear is how wonderful china has been for the tibetans. At least the ones that are left alive after the Red Army went after buddhism in the way that they did.

arcadeace
06-15-2005, 06:55 PM
I've never understood the claim war being wrong with every side involved. In other words there should be no defense: no attempt to defeat a foe who's intent is to conquer and subjugate you. Because if you do (i.e. wage war) you're 'wrong'?

There has been greater right, and greater wrong with one nation or people vs another. We're involved with a WWII sim, does anyone seriously question Britain's right to have waged the efforts of war vs Germany, or Russia vs Germany, or the US vs Japan?

Why isn't this a matter of just being real? The repression, injustice, and tyranny over the masses according to those with power would amount to unchallenged, unending slavery and horror. We should be thankful we can even discuss this, people fought for our freedom and right.

LEBillfish
06-15-2005, 07:33 PM
Naturally....manifest destiny plays a big part into it as justification for actions. So everyone will always have a "reason" for what they do......However, societies DO judge themselves as morally bankrupt and wrong in subsequent generations...

A prime example virtually EVERY "new world" societies decimation and wholesale slaughter of the native/aboriginal peoples....All in the name of expansion and the divine right based upon the power and drive God had given them over the native peoples.

As time progresses and the people as a whole grow further away from the participating generations....They begin to judge their forefathers more honestly........However, there becomes a split normally between the "classes" if you will.

Those who's life is good and have prospered tend to judge and be shameful of their ancestors actions....However, a select few "not all" of those who must struggle grasp at pride of self and race/culture as their benchmark...So tend to retain the attitude of "our kind can do no wrong" so as not to have every aspect of their life "feel" less.

In contrast you will have a select few, perhaps even pressing toward significantly more then a select few...That are doing extremely well normally "old money", and justify their success via being superior and can do no wrong as well.

Unfortunately in times of crisis or IMLTHO boredom...."National Pride" or extreme patriotism tends to once more gel that culture once more into a us vs. them mindset....To justify that you then need to take on an attitude of "better".

Cultures/Nationality citizens have commonly been known to re-evaluate the nations actions even when winners negatively......Naturally though...Only, and I do mean only when a new and different party/group/regime comes into power.....Sadly though only to promote self, or justify self's own indiscretions...


Oh...and as a p.s. as to what I posted..."Personally" I find both the unfounded pride, and new found self negative judgement equally shameful.......As it is not in how you judge your forefathers, nor in what you "state" is right and wrong....But how you yourself act and live by what you preach.

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2005, 07:54 PM
Tater would you please check you PM please?

VF-3Thunderboy
06-15-2005, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A prime example virtually EVERY "new world" societies decimation and wholesale slaughter of the native/aboriginal peoples....All in the name of expansion and the divine right based upon the power and drive God had given them over the native peoples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good lord almighty...- Ask the Cherokee Indians if they are going to give the land they "stole"(killed for) from the CROW indians back to the CROW, when we give it back to them..."Native" people fought eachother for land, women etc.....Its called "Nature"...

Thats the whole point...at least in a rational male world... I kill the dumba** third world stone age idiots, and take his land...because he wont just "give" it to me.........

White man is not above nature, something most if not all people really dont realize....
This territorry is now the property of a modern forward looking Western Civilization, at least until the now invading armies of illegals and third worlders take it over, becaue we did not have any respect for said male dominated forward looking Western European culture......

F*** the stone age monky men..........

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hendley
06-15-2005, 08:36 PM
Truer words rarely spoken, LEBillfish. No matter who we are, we should always be on lookout for our own biologically inbuilt tendency to cast others into the "them" group, because making people different means making them less human. Once that happens, it becomes easy even for the best of us to do bad things. Over the long term, no single group has any claim on moral superiority.

Anyway, back to flight simming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Takata_
06-15-2005, 08:48 PM
'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure...'
J. de Lafontaine (1621-1695)

Tater-SW-
06-15-2005, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is plainly false. Faced with Nazi aggression, the ONLY response is war, or putting your head in the sand and hoping they don't want your fillings next.

The same is true of slavery in the US. Slavery had been standard human behavior long before the US, and quite a bit afterwards (wasn't banned by the Sauudis until the 1960s, for example). The underpinnings of the US Civil War were all about slavery, had there been no slavery, there never would have been friction, and a succession attempt, period. Slavery might have ended at some point in the south, but how many people have to have their lives ruined before you decide to do something about it, or is it better to spout platitudes about peace, while watching a brother human being chained, and lynched?

Then fatc is, for some disputes, there is just no other way. Non-violence actually works---if aimed at an enlightend democracy. It worked during the civil rights movement, it worked in India against the UK (nevermind that the result of their freedom was massive sectarian violence). It would NOT work vs the PRC, or the CCCP. The latter required decades of on and off proxy wars, and an expensive arms race to undo. It might have been "cold" but it was war, none the less. The PRC gets to sell us stuff instead, meanwhile if I need a liver transplant, I can book myself into a state-run hospital in Shanghai, and as long as I pay hard currency, they'll go shoot some disident with my bloodtype in the back of the head, and I get my transplant. People don;t like doing the calculus of how many lives must be spent in war to save more in the peace that follows, but sometimes it needs to be done.

tater

tater

LEBillfish
06-15-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, a select few "not all" of those who must struggle grasp at pride of self and race/culture as their benchmark...So tend to retain the attitude of "our kind can do no wrong" so as not to have every aspect of their life "feel" less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thunderboy....you miss that part or just trolling?...Please tell me it's the latter...

Treetop64
06-15-2005, 10:29 PM
War doen't decide who's right, it only decides who's left...

arcadeace
06-15-2005, 10:44 PM
Well put Tater, you're a man of history and I have enjoyed your posts. My problem also is with the sentiment of the statement you quoted. To me its the epitome of self-centeredness: wanting to feel so far above it all, one condemns it in simplistic enlightenment painting it all gray and not making proper distinction, which in itself can become inhumane as a consequence. Too many who hold such a view are presumptive, knee-jerk like in condemning those of us who understand, unfortunately, there are times one has to hold up a fist ready to hit evil, tyrannical pride... however its to be defined, square in its fire-breathing face. Or no more freedom, justice, and possibly... life.

Wseivelod
06-16-2005, 01:28 AM
No, not well put, Tater.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Are there:

wrong sides in war?

So instead by way of challenging this statement can you, tell me of a case (a war) in which the WINNER (who would control and shape the subsequent writing of history ) was judged by history to be the morally bankrupt side? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the War On Drugs ever since those horrid Reagan years here in the US?

Why can't I just get high in peace and enjoyment?

just kidding - it's still easy just to wait for a cop to turn it's back then throw a rock at him and proceed to get high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
As to yer original question:
Yes, there are Wrong sides in war.

To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

absolutely! War is for the weak, and the undiplomatic, uncompromising, insecure, disrespectful, uneducated and immature ***holes.
War starts with thoughts of greed or hatred that are perpetuated into a montster. WAR IS A CAN OF WORMS THAT ARE OPENED BY ONLY ONE PERSON.
When that disrespectful as$hole opens that can of worms, no one wins.

There are always those who want to clean up the mess, and that puts the whole world on hold until we all die.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
As to yer original question:
As in any average soldier does not want to kill any other human being.
An average soldier will only kill if another human being is threatening his life.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. It's not your fault though.

My friends are soldiers, and they want to kill. They want to see that bloody action because it gets them away from home, and they don't want to miss their oppurtunity to be in the fray, and part of the expirience is killing someone else.

They want to kill people, and when they get deployed, it will be perfectly fine for them to do it. Do you see what I mean by insecure, insensative, amd immature?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arcadeace:
As to yer original question:
I've never understood the claim war being wrong with every side involved. In other words there should be no defense: no attempt to defeat a foe who's intent is to conquer and subjugate you. Because if you do (i.e. wage war) you're 'wrong'?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. He the comment implies that any side can claim to be right and claim the others are wrong, but whoever makes the step towards war is truely wrong. Whoever starts a war is going to face opposition, and it's just a can of worms.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ATater-SW-:
This is plainly false. Faced with Nazi aggression, the ONLY response is war, or putting your head in the sand and hoping they don't want your fillings next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote implies that any side that starts a war is wrong, and it is, because it means that you're going to have to fight, and any fight like that is always a losing fight for every person.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The same is true of slavery in the US. Slavery had been standard human behavior long before the US, and quite a bit afterwards (wasn't banned by the Sauudis until the 1960s, for example). The underpinnings of the US Civil War were all about slavery, had there been no slavery, there never would have been friction, and a succession attempt, period. Slavery might have ended at some point in the south, but how many people have to have their lives ruined before you decide to do something about it, or is it better to spout platitudes about peace, while watching a brother human being chained, and lynched?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been a long going claim that The American Civil War was fought over slavery, but that is just an ongoing joke.

Tater-SW-
06-16-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wseivelod:

How about the War On Drugs ever since those horrid Reagan years here in the US?

Why can't I just get high in peace and enjoyment?

just kidding - it's still easy just to wait for a cop to turn it's back then throw a rock at him and proceed to get high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a "war," rhetoric notwithstanding.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
As to yer original question:
Yes, there are Wrong sides in war.

To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

absolutely! War is for the weak, and the undiplomatic, uncompromising, insecure, disrespectful, uneducated and immature ***holes.
War starts with thoughts of greed or hatred that are perpetuated into a montster. WAR IS A CAN OF WORMS THAT ARE OPENED BY ONLY ONE PERSON.
When that disrespectful as$hole opens that can of worms, no one wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tripe. On group might start it, but there are two alternatives, the other side either fights, or doesn't. You seem to be suggesting that the other side must never fight. There are certainly "wrong sides" in wars. The poles didn;t deserve invasion from both sides, and losing to either meant death to many (concentration camps in one direction, gulags in the other).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arcadeace:
As to yer original question:
I've never understood the claim war being wrong with every side involved. In other words there should be no defense: no attempt to defeat a foe who's intent is to conquer and subjugate you. Because if you do (i.e. wage war) you're 'wrong'?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. He the comment implies that any side can claim to be right and claim the others are wrong, but whoever makes the step towards war is truely wrong. Whoever starts a war is going to face opposition, and it's just a can of worms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question was are there wrong sides in war. If the nation that starts it is in the wrong, they they are the "wrong side." Pretty simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ATater-SW-:
This is plainly false. Faced with Nazi aggression, the ONLY response is war, or putting your head in the sand and hoping they don't want your fillings next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote implies that any side that starts a war is wrong, and it is, because it means that you're going to have to fight, and any fight like that is always a losing fight for every person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One, it doesn't imply that at all. It would be possible for some allies to send troops into someplace like Rwanda (effectively invading them) to prevent a genocide---starting a conflict, and still being in the right. Two, every fight is not a losing fight for every person.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The same is true of slavery in the US. Slavery had been standard human behavior long before the US, and quite a bit afterwards (wasn't banned by the Sauudis until the 1960s, for example). The underpinnings of the US Civil War were all about slavery, had there been no slavery, there never would have been friction, and a succession attempt, period. Slavery might have ended at some point in the south, but how many people have to have their lives ruined before you decide to do something about it, or is it better to spout platitudes about peace, while watching a brother human being chained, and lynched?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been a long going claim that The American Civil War was fought over slavery, but that is just an ongoing joke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not a joke at all.Your claim is frequently toss around in a vacuum. It was a war of secession, right? That gonna be your claim? It was about State's rights?

The underlying issues between the north and south were entirely based upon slavery. Had there been no slavery, there would have been no civil war, period. If you have some information about the real underlying politics of the Civil War that don't involve slavery at all, please tell. The next claim people will make is that Lincoln even stated he'd keep the Union even if it meant keeping slavery---but he didn't include new states in that statement, only existing slave states. The south wanted to increase the number of slave states to improve their voting block on the issue. Lincoln's choices regarding what to do about slavery, and when, were all about political tactics. There were a number of Union states along the border that could have gone either way, he played politics to keep them in until he didn't need to bother any more at which point he emancipated the slaves.

tater

Wseivelod
06-16-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
As to yer original question:
Yes, there are Wrong sides in war.

To me all sides are wrong. As there should be no war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

absolutely! War is for the weak, and the undiplomatic, uncompromising, insecure, disrespectful, uneducated and immature ***holes.
War starts with thoughts of greed or hatred that are perpetuated into a montster. WAR IS A CAN OF WORMS THAT ARE OPENED BY ONLY ONE PERSON.
When that disrespectful as$hole opens that can of worms, no one wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tripe. On group might start it, but there are two alternatives, the other side either fights, or doesn't. You seem to be suggesting that the other side must never fight. There are certainly "wrong sides" in wars. The poles didn;t deserve invasion from both sides, and losing to either meant death to many (concentration camps in one direction, gulags in the other).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


'Seems' isn't the truth. I said that if someone chooses to start a war, then someone is going to have to fight back, and everyone loses. True, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arcadeace:
As to yer original question:
I've never understood the claim war being wrong with every side involved. In other words there should be no defense: no attempt to defeat a foe who's intent is to conquer and subjugate you. Because if you do (i.e. wage war) you're 'wrong'?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. He the comment implies that any side can claim to be right and claim the others are wrong, but whoever makes the step towards war is truely wrong. Whoever starts a war is going to face opposition, and it's just a can of worms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question was are there wrong sides in war. If the nation that starts it is in the wrong, they they are the "wrong side." Pretty simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ATater-SW-:
This is plainly false. Faced with Nazi aggression, the ONLY response is war, or putting your head in the sand and hoping they don't want your fillings next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote implies that any side that starts a war is wrong, and it is, because it means that you're going to have to fight, and any fight like that is always a losing fight for every person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One, it doesn't imply that at all. It would be possible for some allies to send troops into someplace like Rwanda (effectively invading them) to prevent a genocide---starting a conflict, and still being in the right. Two, every fight is not a losing fight for every person.


Troops in Rwanda probably would have been a good thing. Troops should have been there in higher strength to prevent the massacre from snowballing into what it did. And it wouldn't have to be a 'conflict'. It could be a "Angel of Mercy" mission for those who are being persecuted and slaughtered for no good reason(like there is a good reason). By that, I mean that troops should have been there for the time of the genocide, stabilized the situation, and then left it to the UN. 'Conflicts' have a sticky reputation for resulting in occupation, that's why it should never start to unfold into one.

and two,

WAR GOOD GOD
YEAH
WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR......

duh duhduhduh duh duh duh duh duh duh it's won only by the uuuuuuuhhuuhhnnda-takaaaaa


[/quote]

Tater-SW-
06-16-2005, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wseivelod:
'Seems' isn't the truth. I said that if someone chooses to start a war, then someone is going to have to fight back, and everyone loses. True, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the point completely. The argument wasn't whether or not war is horrible, that goes without saying, you merely state and restate the obvious.

Overall, your statement is also wrong. Some epople lose, but others "win." How? Well, if the enemy is Stalin or Hitler, losing is so much worse than what it takes to win, that winning is a net positive. Hitler only managed to kill 25 million or so, unchecked, that number would have been larger. If the cost of fighting the war is lower than the total who would have been lost by not fighting, the result is a net positive, horrific though it might be.

The question was are there good and bad sides in a war, the answer is clearly YES, though many times how much better one side is than another is pretty debatable.

tater

Viking-S
06-16-2005, 03:41 PM
Strange that no one so far has mentioned the Spanish civil war when the fascists in Europe put a stain on our history that would last long after WW2. Introduced by the fascists and kept alive, as many other fascist states, by the west as a result of the post war politics in the doctrine that €œanyone that is an enemy of communism is a friend of ours€. This €œism€ thing leads to the BIG question of who should have won the armed conflict that was believed to put an end to all wars, namely the Great War or as we all know it today the First World War.

Winston Churchill is known as the firs one who dared to venture the idea that the outcome of WW1 caused more problems that it resolved and that the root of this problem was the intervention of the Americans. And that this intervention gave birth to all €œisms€ in the world. Daring as it seams this idea claim that the stalemate between the German and French forces before the American involvement eventually should have resulted in a peace negotiation that should have saved the face all parties and thus bereft the revengenists of all sides of their arguments. Then we would have no Nazism, no Communism and probably no Fascism. Almost all the isms of the world are gone! Interesting thought isn€t it?

Of course the Imperialism would still be there and would sooner or later show its ugly head and cause unrest and uprisings in the third world. We must not forget that the happenings and result of WW2 inspired many countries to break free, or at least try to, from colonial powers.

Viking

shinden1974
06-16-2005, 04:23 PM
I couldn't avoid this one if I tried and I should...

Is there a wrong or right side in war? You've got to be kidding, this has got to be the result of generations of living in relative comfort and freedom compared to the rest of the planet.

In ancient times, depending on which side you were on 'your' side was always the right one, the price of losing was everything, your culture, your family, your history, all wiped out of existence if you lose along with your life.

Things are a little more complicated now, with the whole world watching and indignation from the global community headed your way if you do anything wrong...well I should say indignation pointed at one country in particular while we ignore/try to understand the other.

In the context of the modern age, you better believe there's a right and wrong side. the right side is the side that at least has a hair of respect for basic human dignity and freedom. The wrong side is pretty familiar...a so-called utopia state that kills it's own when it's convenient, seeks out civilians for mass murder, and seeks freedom by locking up anyone who wants to be free.
What's amazing is that by some mental disease the free world has, it has millions of apologists for the wrong side, eager to understand slavery and death and call it 'agrarian reform' or some other nonsense. The spectacle for vietnamese and chinese who manage to escape their countries...of watching '60's footage of american students holding up portraits and flags of those that murdered their parents and children is unbelievable. The loudest voices against war are always the farthest away from the consequences of losing/winning that same war. If you can't understand how those who fight feel, drop everything you have and move to a place where no freedom exists...enjoy.

I won't even respond to peace at all costs criticisms of my post, or BS statements about people like myself who 'like to kill', spare me your ignorance, bravado from soldiers who think this way ends with the first shot coming their way.

My message to you is sleep well, knowing you do so because others decide to risk everything to ensure their families and loved ones do so as well.

Tailgator
06-16-2005, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shinden1974:

Is there a wrong or right side in war? You've got to be kidding, this has got to be the result of generations of living in relative comfort and freedom compared to the rest of the planet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

id say its more the result of living in relative comfort and freeloading on the freedoms they have.

VF-3Thunderboy
06-16-2005, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A prime example virtually EVERY "new world" societies decimation and wholesale slaughter of the native/aboriginal peoples....All in the name of expansion and the divine right based upon the power and drive God had given them over the native peoples.

As time progresses and the people as a whole grow further away from the participating generations....They begin to judge their forefathers more honestly........However, there becomes a split normally between the "classes" if you will.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not trolling Lebillfish, just trying to educate the ignorant.....


"They begin to judge their forfathers more honestly?"- from a LiBERAL perspective???? Is this a joke????...Sorry, its pretty funny. I cant tell sometimes when people say really silly things but they are joking... Words are soooo inadequete...
Ok time for some cool male LOGIC! :

If said forfathers didnt "do the nasty thing", (in this case-WAR of some type against some stone age neolithic culture...take land, breed like first world rabbits...) said "enlightened" offspring would NOT BE AROUND TO CONTIMPLATE the "immorality" of said "moraly bankrupt" stone age warrier wackers....etc...
Wow, isnt that cool? Male brain, go figure..!!!


So your saying only stone age men can do war against stone age men, that more Pychologicaly /technologicaly advanced cultures/peoples cant do war against stone age cultures, because stone age cultures have some here as to unspoken privelege to not be engauged in war by more advanced modern evolved first world culture, because....why????

So 17th 18th 19th 20th century French and Germans, etc.. can kill each other, but not neolithic third world morons..Because the neoliths are ******ed?? (IE: live in a neolithic third world existance.)

really Lebillfish.......please, please, I beg you to explain your incredibley enlightened line of thought....

educate me...My knees are bloody.

huggy87
06-16-2005, 10:12 PM
Right wars... It all seems to be from the point of reference. I'll use my own country as an example.

Korea: Most of the western world saw the war as riteous, an effort to stop the expansion of communism and keep an ally in an increasingly unfriendly East Asia. Most north koreans saw the war as an attempt to reunite their ancient country that was wrongfully divided by foreigners.

Vietnam: In simplistic terms, about the same reasoning as Korea. However this time, people in the western world became disenchanted with the idea of stopping the spread of communism. Let them govern themselves, what do we care about their choice of government. This war occured about the same time the world was ripping itself free from the last vestiges of imperialims. To the vietnamese, it was simply a war of independence and reunification. Despite the average american's feelings about communism, it was hard to disagree with their motives. Again, good intentions on both sides.

Iraq one: Widely supported and justified worldwide. Pretty black and white on this one. If they didn't have oil would it still have happened?

Bosnia/Kosovo: Stop genocide, preserve the peace in the balkans. Notable goals on our part, but not worth risking our own troops, just our aviators. Raises the question of why we choose to stop genocide in some parts of the world and not others.

Afghanistan: Their leadership just sponsored the murder of three thousand of our citizens. Pretty justifiable case of revenge and stopping further attacks. Worldwide support. Again, pretty black and white.

Iraq 2: Don't quite have a handle on this one yet. I think good intentions on the part of americans and their allies, but tough to justify the cost. We are quickly approaching 10,000 casualties, the country doesn't seem much better off than before, and for those who love to claim some american oil conspiracy, well, we are paying more at the pump than ever before.

Its funny how point of reference works. We see ourselves as the land of freedom, democracy, disneyland and hollywood. Others in the world view us as imperialist and evil.

Most of us view Ghengis Khan as a conquering tyrant. In Mongolia he is viewed as their greatest hero.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2005, 11:01 AM
1. "There should be no more wars."

2. "A properly indoctrinated mankind can live together in peace without government oversight (the stated goal of Communism)."


What do the above two statements have in common?


They are both wishful expressions of an unachievable utopianism. The recorded history of mankind is a litany of war and bloodshed, waged with motives ranging from the most noble to the most base. IMO, mankind is not monolithic, nor can it ever be (despite what the utopians like to argue). We are divided into different races, tribes, religions, nations, even philosophies, all with conflicting interests and beliefs.

EVERY war is a moral war, because the moral code of the winner endures and, in a sense, is validated by its very victory. I do not wish to enter a debate about the relative worth of different moral codes, religions, or economic theories. I simply outline the mechanics by which I believe such concepts are evolved, promoted, governed, and ultimately morphed or extinguished.

And Tater - one of MY pet beefs is the notion that the American Civil War was fought for a single reason only. It was not simply a question of slavery alone. 4/5ths of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy had never owned a slave. And racial prejudice was commonplace in the North. A great deal of ink has already been spilled over this already, but IMO there were three factors which ignited the war:

1. The preservation of the Union versus states' rights - The record shows that the question of where the center of political gravity would be situated, with the states or with the central government, was a paramount issue. All other North/South issues were debated and ultimately compromised in one manner or another. Armed warfare only broke out upon the formal announcements of secession.

2. Economics - There was a fundamental economic conflict between the North and the South. The manufacture of textiles was a huge component of the 19th century world economy. By 1850, the South was producing something like 80 pct of all the cotton in the world. The South preferred to sell its production on the open world market to the highest bidder. England and France were prime paying customers. The North had its own great textile industry (the huge abandoned mill complexes remain ubiquitous in New England to this day) and fought bitterly for the imposition of cotton export tariffs in order to control Southern cotton production for their own domestic industry. In that respect, the issue of "slave states" versus "free states" was simply a political calculus to determine the balance of power in Washington DC between Northern and Southern interests.

3. Slavery as a moral issue - There is no doubt that an active and vocal segment of American bitterly opposed slavery on simple moral grounds and welcomed the war with the South as a means of eradicating the institution. Twenty years after the end of the war, slavery was simply replaced by share-cropping.

As an aside, much was made of the rrenoucning of slavery by Great Britain earlier in the 19th century. This cause was ardently pursued by a number of notable British public figures. But the renouncing of slavery by Great Britain also had a great deal to do with the fact that a cheap means of producing sugar from beets had been developed in Europe. This had the effect of crashing the sugar cane business which had for a century or more made the West Indies the most valuable real estate on earth. Once the sugar cane plantations were no longer commercially viable, the reason for maintaining large numbers of plantation slaves ceased to exist and an end to slavery became politically feasible.


My 2 cents .....

Blackdog5555
06-17-2005, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
Strange that no one so far has mentioned the Spanish civil war when the fascists in Europe put a stain on our history that would last long after WW2. Introduced by the fascists and kept alive, as many other fascist states, by the west as a result of the post war politics in the doctrine that €œanyone that is an enemy of communism is a friend of ours€. This €œism€ thing leads to the BIG question of who should have won the armed conflict that was believed to put an end to all wars, namely the Great War or as we all know it today the First World War.

Winston Churchill is known as the firs one who dared to venture the idea that the outcome of WW1 caused more problems that it resolved and that the root of this problem was the intervention of the Americans. And that this intervention gave birth to all €œisms€ in the world. Daring as it seams this idea claim that the stalemate between the German and French forces before the American involvement eventually should have resulted in a peace negotiation that should have saved the face all parties and thus bereft the revengenists of all sides of their arguments. Then we would have no Nazism, no Communism and probably no Fascism. Almost all the isms of the world are gone! Interesting thought isn€t it?

Of course the Imperialism would still be there and would sooner or later show its ugly head and cause unrest and uprisings in the third world. We must not forget that the happenings and result of WW2 inspired many countries to break free, or at least try to, from colonial powers.

Viking </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What utter giberish: Classic European trash talking. New high is historical revisionism..one more ism for you. To actually blame the start of WWII on the west because we entered WWI. The treaty of Versaille was pure European folly. You are most high. US colonialism had long been abandoned prior to WWII. It was Japanese, German and Russian Colonialism that sarted WWII. Open up a book you moron.

Spanish Fascism started in 1923 with your beautiful Franco who was despised in the West. Half of Spain like Stalin the other half like Hitler. What a great place. It was sick enogh having to kick the effing Spanish out of the Southwest US, then the Philipines and Carribean but then have you suggest that the US should have intervened in your pathetic civil war...Who side do you think the US should have intervened on. the side that wanted Stalinism or the side that wanted Fascism. Maybe we should intervene on the Basques side and bomb Madrid. Blaming the US for the backward provincial tribalism that is the Europe is moronic. The persons of European decent living in the west came here to escape that oppressive culture. If i wasnt laughing so hard I would be sick. Yuck

sincerely

BD

stathem
06-17-2005, 02:51 PM
BD, the Spanish civil war is far, far , far nore complicated than you suggest there. And the western democracies bore a huge responsibilty for allowing it to continue (prior to WW2). Indeed intervention, which didn't neccessrily even have to be militarily, could have helped resolve it, and even possibly prevent WW2.

My own country is one of the one's which bears that responsibilty most heavily.

horseback
06-17-2005, 03:37 PM
Little harsh there, BD. Spain left a dog's dinner behind them in their former colonies, just like most of the European powers, but modern Spain is nothing at all like most Americans imagine it to be.

We picked a fight with Spain in 1890-something just because we could, not because it was 'just,' and the majority of people at that time figured it out after the war was over. Events simply moved faster than the news back then; they only knew what the press or the government would tell them.

As for America screwing things up by entering the First World War, maybe Viking ought to consider two things: the highhandedness of the Germans in their conduct of submarine warfare, and the result of German troops moving West after the Soviet revolution relieved them of having to maintain the Eastern Front without fresh American troops to oppose them.

I think a <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">peace negotiation that should have saved the face all parties </div></BLOCKQUOTE> was about as likely as snow in downtown San Diego. The economic exhaustion of all sides had as much to do with WWII as accumulated humiliation in Germany and Austria. I'm not entirely convinced that the Soviets weren't trying to provoke something in order to bring about a general collapse of capitalist western society during the twenties and thirties in any case. The major players simply would have used different excuses to start something.

Someone once said that most wars are robbery writ large; once a country has built up a few years of history, territorial conflicts with its neighbors can make both sides think that they have a 'right' to a piece of land. Whether it escalates into armed conflict usually has more to do with perceived strength than right or wrong.

cheers

horseback

stathem
06-17-2005, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I'm not entirely convinced that the Soviets weren't trying to provoke something in order to bring about a general collapse of capitalist western society during the twenties and thirties in any case.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can confirm that Horseback, currently reading about that very subject. Ironically, the succesion of Stalin to power, saw the end of this policy of trying to covertly create and promote internal divisions in other european nations in the '20's.

Fliegeroffizier
06-17-2005, 06:26 PM
The original question was:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Are there:

wrong sides in war?

....I am still looking for a case where the WINNER was judged by history to be morally bankrupt..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "war" by U.S. government/military against the various Indian tribes (now called native americans) in the 19th Century is your sought after case.

Americans, both revisionist liberals in Academia and leftist politicos in government thrive upon self-flagellation over those 19th century 'wars'. Beginning about 40 years ago, Americans have thus been told to judge themselves as having been Totally morally bankrupt in executing and winning the 'war' upon the American Indian tribes. [Side note: in yesterday's paper there was an article noting that the Native American Gambling Casinos rake in a profit, in Billions of Dollars, EQUAL to the total profit of all the MANY huge casinos in Las Vegas, combined!!!TAX-FREE] The American government (remember, it was 'victorious' in the war on the Indians), in its guilt complex over its alleged moral bankruptcy, opted to recognize Every Native American (Indian) Tribe as a distinct individual Free "State/Nation", able to build gambling casinos on its property and build totally Tax-Free profit therefrom.

Of course, these same people today preach, within America's academia especially, that the US in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute the morally corrupt 'Victor' in those two conflicts/wars. [PLEASE let's not, however, get off on the anti-American tangent that usually rears its ugly head in threads such as this one]

VF-3Thunderboy
06-17-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Korea: Most of the western world saw the war as riteous, an effort to stop the expansion of communism and keep an ally in an increasingly unfriendly East Asia. Most north koreans saw the war as an attempt to reunite their ancient country that was wrongfully divided by foreigners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh -sweet mother of god,Im not seeing this... This isnt real... This isnt really a debate, its weird a&& dream/nightmare of somekind...

South Korea has a somewhat burgening Democracy, (IE: Anglo-Saxon influenced, as ALL world Democracies ARE!)

Pull your head out and see the G&&&&& light for gods sake....

Discusing North Korea as a legitemate state is not even RATIONAL, in comparison to the South...
Call 911 and have them pull your head out before you sufficate...quick.... hurry, SPEED IS OF THE ESSENCE HERE...!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Most if not all animal if not plant/fish...etc... life forms COMPETE for territory, breeding rights, etc... Man is NOT above nature...
End of discussion....

god help us...they dont teach anything in SCHOOL nowadaze???


TAke away the Gasoline engine, Electricity and Plastic....No more feminism, liberalism,,,,


god help us all... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-17-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Right wars... It all seems to be from the point of reference. I'll use my own country as an example.

Korea: Most of the western world saw the war as riteous, an effort to stop the expansion of communism and keep an ally in an increasingly unfriendly East Asia. Most north koreans saw the war as an attempt to reunite their ancient country that was wrongfully divided by foreigners.

Vietnam: In simplistic terms, about the same reasoning as Korea. However this time, people in the western world became disenchanted with the idea of stopping the spread of communism. Let them govern themselves, what do we care about their choice of government. This war occured about the same time the world was ripping itself free from the last vestiges of imperialims. To the vietnamese, it was simply a war of independence and reunification. Despite the average american's feelings about communism, it was hard to disagree with their motives. Again, good intentions on both sides.

Iraq one: Widely supported and justified worldwide. Pretty black and white on this one. If they didn't have oil would it still have happened?

Bosnia/Kosovo: Stop genocide, preserve the peace in the balkans. Notable goals on our part, but not worth risking our own troops, just our aviators. Raises the question of why we choose to stop genocide in some parts of the world and not others.

Afghanistan: Their leadership just sponsored the murder of three thousand of our citizens. Pretty justifiable case of revenge and stopping further attacks. Worldwide support. Again, pretty black and white.

Iraq 2: Don't quite have a handle on this one yet. I think good intentions on the part of americans and their allies, but tough to justify the cost. We are quickly approaching 10,000 casualties, the country doesn't seem much better off than before, and for those who love to claim some american oil conspiracy, well, we are paying more at the pump than ever before.

Its funny how point of reference works. We see ourselves as the land of freedom, democracy, disneyland and hollywood. Others in the world view us as imperialist and evil.

Most of us view Ghengis Khan as a conquering tyrant. In Mongolia he is viewed as their greatest hero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with quite a lot of what you say huggy, but differ almost as markedly with other aspects. Prominently, the view that the bombing, invasion and regieme change in Afghanistan had world wide support is completely erroneous. In a December 2001 Gallup poll European support for US military action ranged from 8 percent in Greece to 29 percent in France. In Central and Southern America support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 11% in Venezuela and Colombia. Panama was the largest supporter of US military action in 2001 where just 16% of the population supported US military action. Still 80% of it population prefered international jucicial or extradition processes, something which the Taliban actually offered the US but was very quickly rebuffed.

You can also look at FBI director Rob Meullers comments to the June 2002 Senate comittee on the September 11 attacks. His comments were anything but concrete. He informed the Senate the he "believed that the idea of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon came from al Queda leaders in Afghanistan", although plotting and financing were carried out in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, he noted that "we think that the masterminds were in Afghansitan". 'Believed' and 'think' is not know.

Remember that this is months after the bombing had started, but the head of the US FBI only thought that al Queda planned those terrible attacks, he could not categorically or state it one way the other.

Surely, looking at it from another perspective, we could ask the Sudanese if they felt that they would be justified in retaliation for the US bombing of the al-Shifa pharmecutical plant in 1998. The UN and Human Rights Watch have attributed the missle attacks to several tens of thousands of deaths, becauses it essentailly destroyed up to half of Sudans pharmecutical production. Imagine if someone had deprived the US of 75% of their vertinary pharmecuticals and 40% of their vaccines and antibiotics, what would the reaction be? But i'm stepping dangerously close to mentioning moral equavilence and politics so i'll leave it right here.

huggy87
06-17-2005, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

I agree with quite a lot of what you say huggy, but differ almost as markedly with other aspects. Prominently, the view that the bombing, invasion and regieme change in Afghanistan had world wide support is completely erroneous. In a December 2001 Gallup poll European support for US military action ranged from 8 percent in Greece to 29 percent in France. In Central and Southern America support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 11% in Venezuela and Colombia. Panama was the largest supporter of US military action in 2001 where just 16% of the population supported US military action. Still 80% of it population prefered international jucicial or extradition processes, something which the Taliban actually offered the US but was very quickly rebuffed.

You can also look at FBI director Rob Meullers comments to the June 2002 Senate comittee on the September 11 attacks. His comments were anything but concrete. He informed the Senate the he "believed that the idea of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon came from al Queda leaders in Afghanistan", although plotting and financing were carried out in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, he noted that "we think that the masterminds were in Afghansitan". 'Believed' and 'think' is not know.

Remember that this is months after the bombing had started, but the head of the US FBI only thought that al Queda planned those terrible attacks, he could not categorically or state it one way the other.

Surely, looking at it from another perspective, we could ask the Sudanese if they felt that they would be justified in retaliation for the US bombing of the al-Shifa pharmecutical plant in 1998. The UN and Human Rights Watch have attributed the missle attacks to several tens of thousands of deaths, becauses it essentailly destroyed up to half of Sudans pharmecutical production. Imagine if someone had deprived the US of 75% of their vertinary pharmecuticals and 40% of their vaccines and antibiotics, what would the reaction be? But i'm stepping dangerously close to mentioning moral equavilence and politics so i'll leave it right here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wouldn't blame the sudanese one bit for being peeved. The difference, however, between that and 9/11 is that sudan was a mistake, while the WTC was a malicious planned attack. We've goofed on other instances. We put a Sea Sparrow through a turkish frigate, shot down an Iranian airliner, and bombed a chinese embassy to name a few. Fortunately, in each case, we apologized, provided monetary compensation (for what its worth), and the governments involved, if not the people, were willing to forgive.

As we both knows Gallup polls and what a nations government say are often two different things. If many people around the world were ambivalent to the invasion, their governments at least offered sympathy and support.

Of course there was a lot of uncertainty in the months immediately after 9/11. 'Believed' was the best you were going to get. There was a lot of backdoor international politics going on that the public was unaware of. How did we get overflight of pakistan and field support in the 'stans to the north. We knew with 90% certainty who did it.

I definitely agree with you on your last statement.

huggy87
06-17-2005, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Korea: Most of the western world saw the war as riteous, an effort to stop the expansion of communism and keep an ally in an increasingly unfriendly East Asia. Most north koreans saw the war as an attempt to reunite their ancient country that was wrongfully divided by foreigners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh -sweet mother of god,Im not seeing this... This isnt real... This isnt really a debate, its weird a&& dream/nightmare of somekind...

South Korea has a somewhat burgening Democracy, (IE: Anglo-Saxon influenced, as ALL world Democracies ARE!)

Pull your head out and see the G&&&&& light for gods sake....

Discusing North Korea as a legitemate state is not even RATIONAL, in comparison to the South...
Call 911 and have them pull your head out before you sufficate...quick.... hurry, SPEED IS OF THE ESSENCE HERE...!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Most if not all animal if not plant/fish...etc... life forms COMPETE for territory, breeding rights, etc... Man is NOT above nature...
End of discussion....

god help us...they dont teach anything in SCHOOL nowadaze???


TAke away the Gasoline engine, Electricity and Plastic....No more feminism, liberalism,,,,


god help us all... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmmm....

Insults and arrogance without much meat. I'd like to see a conversation between you and blackdog.

Blackdog5555
06-18-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
BD, the Spanish civil war is far, far , far nore complicated than you suggest there. And the western democracies bore a huge responsibilty for allowing it to continue (prior to WW2). Indeed intervention, which didn't neccessrily even have to be militarily, could have helped resolve it, and even possibly prevent WW2.

My own country is one of the one's which bears that responsibilty most heavily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Germany Italy and France all helped Franco in his (civil) war with The communist party and the socialist (Popular Front). I dont see the USA in that list. Franco Helped Hitler early in the war with his blue troops killing russians.. When it looked like Germany was going to lose (43) he switched sides and kissed up to the allies. During the dead heat of the cold war(1950-53) Franco was a darling of the USA because of his staunch anti communist stance. So what. European politics was very complicated during those years, trying to break the vestages of the ole monarchs and the emerging struggles between the commies and fascist and democrcy. How is that Americas problem.

During 1928-37 the USA was in the grip of horrible depression. We had no military might to speak of. There was a strong sense of isolationism since the WWI fiasco. To suggest that the United States is your daddy and need to come and spank a nuaghty European countries for malfeasance is absurd.

Wilson was dead against the punitive nature of the the Versaille treaty but was near powerless to prevent it. he wound up with the ludicrous weak League of Nation that the US didnt want to join.

You are dead wrong. The Spanish civil war was a non factor as a catalyst for WWII..period. If the Popular Front remained in power and resisted Hitler.he would have bombed Madrid to the stone age.

I will concede that European politics is very complicated, even beyond the comprehension of diplomats and historians. But the assersions made by dingleberry in his blame game go beyond all reason are are offensive. Very offessive. The US entered the WWI because of the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. germany was warned. Germany in the meantime was attempting to goad Mexico into war against the US on the side of Germany for th return of New Mexico and Arizona (1917). LOL. We decoded the offer. How infuriated was Wilson?.. Very..

Dont Blame the "West".. put the blame were it belongs. Barbaric Colonial conquest of Germany Japan and Russia. Its not that complicated. you can Say "European Democracy"....dont say western democracy. Leave the US out..thankyou.

Believe me. in 1975 Franco was a pathetic joke in the US consciousness, and we were all very happy (for us and the Spanish) when he died.

Its both comical and sad to have to listen to European rhetoric about how bad the USA is because we failed to intervene against Franco, an anti communist, and not support his pro Hitler reqime in 1936, and have the same type folks chastise the US for Intervening in Iraq to eliminate an even worse international menace. Hypocric.

Sincerely

BD.

Flanker1985
08-12-2009, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EnGaurde:
maybe not direct aka conventional war, but a government that waged war and issued propaganda about how it was a Great Victory?

My slant on this is communist china and tibet.

all you hear is how wonderful china has been for the tibetans. At least the ones that are left alive after the Red Army went after buddhism in the way that they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tibetan is a sub ethnic of the main Han's blood-line. So what we do in our country with our people is non of your business.

BillSwagger
08-12-2009, 01:29 AM
i get very upset when people steal from me.
If i have to punch a man to keep him from digging in my pockets, then that is just.
If he has a gun and wants to kill me just to rob what little change i have in my pockets, then he is morally bankrupt.
I dont think there is room for reasoning with such a person.
Much like war between nations, sometimes there is no room to reason with its leaders.
War should be swift, precise and have the purpose of achieving lasting peace.
So, the guy pulls his gun, and i'm forced to go super ninja and take his gun and beat him senselessly. He leaves, i chuck the gun in the river, and its a peaceful walk home.

It happens everyday, and probably won't be written in a history book.

It might make the ten o'clock news.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/l/life-12971.jpg

Scolar
08-12-2009, 03:18 AM
The recent Gaza war has shown Israels true colours. They shot pregnant women and even old people for fun!
This is strange because normally every country that is 'friends' with the West never gets told they have done anything wrong. It really is like a holocaust being waged by them in Gaza at the moment.

KG26_Alpha
08-12-2009, 05:02 AM
With reference to the OP's question regarding morally bankrupt winners of war.

I consider Margaret Thatcher morally bankrupt for causing the Falklands War and responsible for the unnecessary deaths of all those in the conflict.

Pulling the ice breaker "spy ship" due to its estimate running cost of 1 million a year and intentionally diverting the attention of the UK public into believing it was a valid war, when the reality is it was an economic war good for both Argentina and Great Britain.

Murder ?

Serving your country ?

A politician killing its employers to save face ?

Scolar
08-12-2009, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
With reference to the OP's question regarding morally bankrupt winners of war.

I consider Margaret Thatcher morally bankrupt for causing the Falklands War and responsible for the unnecessary deaths of all those in the conflict.

Pulling the ice breaker "spy ship" due to its estimate running cost of 1 million a year and intentionally diverting the attention of the UK public into believing it was a valid war, when the reality is it was an economic war good for both Argentina and Great Britain.

Murder ?

Serving your country ?

A politician killing its employers to save face ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't know what you mean about it not being a valid war. The Falkland Islanders all call themselves British, they want to be British and they 100% don't believe Argentina have a right to demand the islands.
When Argentina invaded then it became a valid war, it is like Germany invading France - the occupiers have to be kicked out!

megalopsuche
08-12-2009, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Are there:

wrong sides in war?

I am not sure I wish to put myself into a position of disagreeing with this.

So instead by way of challenging this statement can you, tell me of a case (a war) in which the WINNER (who would control and shape the subsequent writing of history ) was judged by history to be the morally bankrupt side? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very easy to find examples...

Ancient World:

Peloponnesian War (Sparta defeated Athens, which has been compared culturally to modern N. Korea defeating the USA).

Roman sacking of Corinth (and in general the subjugation of the Greek world). Reportedly, the Roman general in charge warned that any works of art being sent to Rome would have to be replaced if damaged or lost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Modern:

Opium Wars, forcing the Chinese to import more opium to an addicted population simply for the sake of reducing a Western trade deficit.

PhilippineAmerican War, when the United States squashed the Philippine right to self-determination; gave us the famous Supreme Court ruling "The Constitution does not follow the flag."

Winter War & Continuation War: Small non-belligerent nation invaded by giant, bellicose neighbor.

1939 Soviet Invasion of Poland: Same as above.

Invasion of Tibet (19501951): Same as above.

-------------------

I'm sure there are many more examples.

Fur_Cough
08-12-2009, 08:12 AM
Very entertaining discussions. A couple of thoughts:

1. Niall Ferguson makes the point in his book about the British Empire that WW2 was a war of ideology; where the Nazi and Japanese nascent empires chose to enslave or murder their conquered peoples for the benefit of the "home" nation, the British (and US when they finally got involved) had recognised that this was indeed a morally bankrupt (and rather poor) way to run an Empire. The British had indeed committed some dreadful atroctities (including inventing the Concentration Camp), but overall the Empire brought order, self rule, democracy and a better standard of living to the nations that formed it (now know as the "Commonwealth").

Britain could have had peace with Nazi Germany in 1940, and very very nearly did. But Churchill's finest hour was in standing up against the majority in his cabinet and committing to sacrifice what remained of the British Empire to ensure against the rise of Nazism.

Don't forget that it was only later that the Nazi "Final Solution" was put in place - which really was incomparably appauling in it's scale and killing efficiency (and so morally bankrupt that it was kept from the German people) - and it was only much later that the Allies found out about it.

Though Japan did not go for industrial killing in the same way, their view of other peoples (starting with the Chinese pre-WW2 and progressing to PoWs) as inferior and thus expendable was from a similar ideology.

Thus, perhaps WW2 is the *only* war in recent memory where the winners could be seen as morally "better" than their enemies; not least because, certainly for the British is was the very antithesis

2. Certainly it's arguable that US motivations were not as pure, especially since it took them 2 years (and a huge attack *and* a declaration of war from Germany) to do anything about it. They also used it to destroy our Empire, (perhaps justified) at the end of the war, and against Churchill allied with Stalin to give him Poland.

3. One need only look at the rising death tolls, and lowered standards of living in Gaza, Iraq, and Afganistan to raise moral questions about US (and UK) involvement in these places. And if you think that's protecting us, you are sorely mistaken. However, it often comes as a surprise to our largely good-hearted US bretheren to find that that not all US intervention is morally justifiable or benevolent so I won't pursue this one any further.

PanzerAce
08-12-2009, 03:03 PM
And we had to bump a four year old thread....why?