Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Well, really, I have to get this off my chest....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders. Oh, and of course, it's not cannons and rapiers anymore, but machine guns, gas, roadside bombs, etc. Nice.
Don't get me wrong, I think we should go in if you have a Hitler-type situation happening, if there's a chance the free world might be totally swept away in a wave of manaical tyranny, but really, anyone who tries to pretend Iran is that much of a threat is just misguided....
Anyway, aggression can usually be traced to economic repression, anyway, which is a favourite activity of the West, i.e. in the staggering reparations Germany was forced to pay to France following WWI, or the fact that the fundamentalist revolution only occurred in Iran following the instability that ensued after the West had their elected leader overthrown in 1953 because he nationalized their oil.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the starving, whether the bombs were dropped in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
-Gandhi
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Well, really, I have to get this off my chest....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders. Oh, and of course, it's not cannons and rapiers anymore, but machine guns, gas, roadside bombs, etc. Nice.
Don't get me wrong, I think we should go in if you have a Hitler-type situation happening, if there's a chance the free world might be totally swept away in a wave of manaical tyranny, but really, anyone who tries to pretend Iran is that much of a threat is just misguided....
Anyway, aggression can usually be traced to economic repression, anyway, which is a favourite activity of the West, i.e. in the staggering reparations Germany was forced to pay to France following WWI, or the fact that the fundamentalist revolution only occurred in Iran following the instability that ensued after the West had their elected leader overthrown in 1953 because he nationalized their oil.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the starving, whether the bombs were dropped in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
-Gandhi
I find this to be true to an extent. War is the worst option to solve any problem. However, sometimes its the ONLY option (i.e. WW2). The difference between now and then is that Hitler invaded Poland, then Belgium, then France etc (cant remember the exact order of countries) whereas Iran has done......nothing, yet. I believe conflict must be reactionary, not preemptive, because a preemptive strike is just war sped up, starting a war before it's technically begun. That said, people usually rush into war out of fear; fear is the most powerful tool we have as humans.
"Humans are no strangers to war. After all, we've been fighting for as long as we can remember. War is all we know. In the past, we fought for Immulsion, we fought for country, we fought for freedom. But all that changed after E-Day. For 15 years, we've been fighting for our very survival, against inhuman, genocidal monsters. But it is a fight we cannot continue. Humanity faces extinction, unless we end this war now. We had hoped the Lightmass bombing would decimate the Locust Horde. But they survived, and they have returned stronger than ever. They've brought with them a force that can sink entire cities. Even Jacinto, our last bastion through these dark days, is now at risk. Soon, we'll have nothing left to defend. And that means we have only one option. Attack. Gears, what I ask of you now is not an easy thing, but it is necessary. If we are to survive, if we are to live long enough to see the seasons pass, our children grow, experience a time of peace that we have never known, we must now take this fight to the Locust. We will go to where they live and where they breed and we will destroy them. This is the day we take the battle to the heart of the enemy. This is the day we correct the course of human history. This is the day we ensure our survival as a species. Soldiers of the COG, my fellow Gears, go forth, and bring back the hope of humanity!"
-Chairman Prescott, leader of the COG, Gears of War 2.
THAT is what we would be justified in doing as humans.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
I find this to be true to an extent. War is the worst option to solve any problem. However, sometimes its the ONLY option (i.e. WW2). The difference between now and then is that Hitler invaded Poland, then Belgium, then France etc (cant remember the exact order of countries) whereas Iran has done......nothing, yet. I believe conflict must be reactionary, not preemptive, because a preemptive strike is just war sped up, starting a war before it's technically begun. That said, people usually rush into war out of fear; fear is the most powerful tool we have as humans.
"Humans are no strangers to war. After all, we've been fighting for as long as we can remember. War is all we know. In the past, we fought for Immulsion, we fought for country, we fought for freedom. But all that changed after E-Day. For 15 years, we've been fighting for our very survival, against inhuman, genocidal monsters. But it is a fight we cannot continue. Humanity faces extinction, unless we end this war now. We had hoped the Lightmass bombing would decimate the Locust Horde. But they survived, and they have returned stronger than ever. They've brought with them a force that can sink entire cities. Even Jacinto, our last bastion through these dark days, is now at risk. Soon, we'll have nothing left to defend. And that means we have only one option. Attack. Gears, what I ask of you now is not an easy thing, but it is necessary. If we are to survive, if we are to live long enough to see the seasons pass, our children grow, experience a time of peace that we have never known, we must now take this fight to the Locust. We will go to where they live and where they breed and we will destroy them. This is the day we take the battle to the heart of the enemy. This is the day we correct the course of human history. This is the day we ensure our survival as a species. Soldiers of the COG, my fellow Gears, go forth, and bring back the hope of humanity!"
-Chairman Prescott, leader of the COG, Gears of War 2.
THAT is what we would be justified in doing as humans.
I agree, man...WWII was necessary, but very few are. Pre-emptive war is just an abomination.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
You could have a whole laundry list of wars that were a waste. If somebody had just sit down and had an open discussion a lot of them could have been avoided. But there are a lot of people making a lot of money off of war. Some how we have to remove the money making option of war.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
george bush was forced to crush iraq because saddam was going to nuke the usa...if anyone is to blame for all the death and destruction, it's hussein: he should have confessed to having the WMD george bush said he had so that the invasion would have been legal, and then in the distant future when history was written, the final page would say "george bush was the bestest president EVER!"
"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- President George Bush, October 2002
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Do I detect sarcasm, Maladroit?
I hope so because, as I recall, we didn't find any WMD's.
Anyway, I don't think it's our business to go to war unless the US is being threatened directly (as in soldiers pouring into the US), or if we have a Hitler-scenario going on.
Otherwise, it's really not our business.
And let's not forget that the people who run Iran were people we chose to run it after we overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Shah run the country. Ahmmedenijad or whatever his name is is more like a puppet than a dictator.
Wasn't Hussein appointed by us, too?
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Yeah but America loves a good war.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
The day we stop going to war is the day we stop being humans.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
To JakeMartinez:
Not to offend but I kind of think your wrong about us placing the Shah in power. It was in the 1950's when Britain decided to oust the democratically elected shah out of power with the help of the U.S due to the attempts at nationalizing its oil. Though he modernized Iran he was terrible to his people and in the 1970's there was a revolution which ousted him out of power. This is when Iran became a republic and its been that way up until today. This is also why we are hostile towards Iran. They want nuclear technology which could be used for Weapons technology or for energy but we (the common people) really don't know at this point. I have a hunch the U.S is using yet another scare tactic to get us on board with attacking Iran.
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream of the iris
To JakeMartinez:
Not to offend but I kind of think your wrong about us placing the Shah in power. It was in the 1950's when Britain decided to oust the democratically elected shah out of power with the help of the U.S due to the attempts at nationalizing its oil. Though he modernized Iran he was terrible to his people and in the 1970's there was a revolution which ousted him out of power. This is when Iran became a republic and its been that way up until today. This is also why we are hostile towards Iran. They want nuclear technology which could be used for Weapons technology or for energy but we (the common people) really don't know at this point. I have a hunch the U.S is using yet another scare tactic to get us on board with attacking Iran.
PRIME MINISTER Mosaddeq was not that bad at all, and he was highly popular for the economic progress made nationalizing the oil. It's a fact that Britain and the United States did intrigue to bring him down, and that they then installed a pro-Western dictator who was very unpopular...this led to the 1979 radical fundamentalist revolution: we can think economic imperialism and the greed and Machiavellianism inherent in it for that one.
And personally, the idea of Iran having nukes doesn't scare me any more than the idea of the United States having nukes....of the two nations, I believe the United States has a much longer record for aggression, and of course, Christianity and the demands of Christian right lobbyists play a far-too-significant role in government. The only difference, of course, is that Iran is much more in the camp of the have-nots, and doesn't have nearly so large a monopoly on shaping the world status quo. And don't forget, they're very close to the dangerous tyranny called Israel, where a large population of Muslims live in apartheid. Considering they're located in very close proximity to a HEAVILY-armed nation with a long and ugly track record concerning brutalization of the Islamic peoples, maybe being armed isn't such an unreasonable request. You can draw many parallels between Iran and South Korea.
