"Why do so many Americans view WAR as the end all solution?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 25 2007, 02:10 AM) [snapback]396090[/snapback]</div>

You're everywhere aren't you? Communists? Accurate sources? You're talking about Fark, and the Seattle Times.

PS - Read a book.

 

You know, I think a better title would have been, why do some Americans think WAR is the FIRST solution.

Like it or not, sometimes WAR, or any violence, is simply....necessary.

WAR is diplomacy to its extreme conclusion.

Example on a very small scale. Policeman sees person trying to pull a child into his car, orders offender to stop verbally, he does not. Tells offender he is under arrest and to stop, he does not. Pulls gun and orders offender to stop, he does not. Offender begins to close door inpreparation to drive away. Let's add that the offender description and car description is exacly the same as previous 10 kids abducted and found raped, mutilated, and killed. Offender has gun held to kid.

NOW, officer can 1) let him go because he cannot bring himself to shoot someone (VIOLENCE), or 2) SHOOT him. Let's throw in that he is too far away to physically wrestle with the offender before the offender would drive away and he is unable to follow for any number of reasons.

Point is, sometimes violence or WAR is the only last resort and IS the only answer.

Again, my point is that the title is flawed. I don't think WAR is the only answer, I say war is AN answer.

 

It isnt fun, when someone questions the validity of your source of the post is it? :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 24 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]396032[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, exactly. Whenever someone kills in the name of god, that's just bizarre. bush and bin laden both go to the pearly gates together, both thinking they're a shoo in for heaven's upper class neighborhood and both are told they're going to hell because of all of the people they killed. The idea of a vengeful god hasn't always led religion and its merits are problematic.

I always hear people say that very few people opposed the war and the only polls that they cite occurred after the invasion, never before. Before the invasion, I remember the numbers being around 50% against and my thinking was 'I hope you know what you're doing, george, I really do because I don't think that you do."

While earlier posts suggest that the a lot of conservatives don't profit from the war directly, their local economies might. While conservatives in the state of Washington may not profit directly, some of Washington's largest industries do such as aerospace and electronics. If they were shipping cars to Iraq instead of war logistics, I wouldn't benefit directly from it but my local economy sure as heck would. It's been known for thousands of years that war is bery bery good for the economy of the warring state.

I see a lot of guys in this area who seem to see war as a hockey game. It happened during bush sr's war and it's happened with "bush II - the empire strikes again", they fly their full-sized flags on the backs of the full-sized pickup trucks and wear their patriotism on their sleeves. They're full of hatred and anger and love the idea of watching in the comfort of their living room rocker/recliners as American kids get blown apart.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb, 09:19 AM) [snapback]396714[/snapback]</div>

I thought that watching the war reports on TV was supposed to be the big sacrifice that America is making in the war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 24 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

You've been watchin 24 one season too long.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 26 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]396638[/snapback]</div>

Well, yeah but you can use that criteria to justify any war. George's invasion of Iraq for example. The only time that war is 'necessary' is when someone invades you first. Preemptive invasions aren't necessary. Bush made no real attempts at diplomacy and was hell bent on starting his little war regardless of what anyone else said so war was not a last resort in this case.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb 26 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]396721[/snapback]</div>

:lol: yeah, that and putting magnets on their pickup trucks and SUVs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 24 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

Well, at least you'll finally get the chance to use your automatic rifle with night scope, eh?

 

why do so many europeans view appeasemenjt as the end all solution?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 26 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]396638[/snapback]</div>

War is not "diplomacy to its extreme condition". War is the opposite of diplomacy. Diplomacy = non-violent attempts to reach solutions. War = violent attempts to force one country to obey another(s) - necessary or not.

I don't think your example is a good one (jmo), if you're using it as an analogy for Iraq. We didn't have the authority (as an officer does) to intervene (invade). We weren't enforcing any laws that were within our jurisdiction. The offender (Hussein) did not match the offender we were looking for (bin Laden); we weren't even in the right country. He wasn't trying to get away, either. Hussein did not have a gun pointed at our head; but bin Laden had already committed all the atrocities you listed and promised to continue.

Just so you know, I consider myself a non-violent person. I have 2 kids. If the example you cited above was real and happening with one of my children, I would vote (2). I also think Hussein was a despicable human beingf or what he did to his people and needed to be removed from power. I think war was not an effective way to do this, especially under the guise of complete lies about why we went to war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 26 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]396666[/snapback]</div>

It is ok. I have issued with lefties because they seem to always take the "Think about the Children" approach and not the "This is how life is" approach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 26 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]396754[/snapback]</div>

I was not trying to compare this to Iraq or anything...I was pointing out that many times a "difference of opinion" comes from how a question is framed or what each person's point of view is. If ALL efforts at diplomacy fail and the threat still exists....then WAR is the only end result. If diplomacy can include "sanctions", it can encompass war as well. JMHO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]396895[/snapback]</div>

My bad, thought it was an analogy for Iraq. I think we have fundamental differences of opinion about what diplomacy is. I'm okay with that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 24 2007, 08:04 PM) [snapback]396020[/snapback]</div>

McVeigh and Kazynski were blowing stuff up well before 9/11.

Look at who has gained and who has lost since 9/11 -

Bin Laden? Still skulking around Afghanistan and Pakistan happy as a clam.
Raytheon and Halliburton? More money than they can shake a stick at.
Average Iraqi and American? Either dead, injured, or related to the dead and injured.

How much terrorism was there in Iraq before we invaded? Saddam was an donkey's donkey, but then I have to wonder why the US kept sending him weapons and intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war. Not smart, and we haven't learned from our mistakes.

We're cultivating terrorism far, far better than Bin Laden could have ever dreamed with our foreign policy. Bush is the best thing that could have ever happened to Bin Laden and other Muslim extremists. People who don't mind being blown up to blow you up aren't deterred by "superior firepower". The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we unify extremists from surrounding countries. Hell, we're paying Pakistan, who in turn helps the extremists attack our own soldiers. Not smart.

It's the perfect non-winnable war, if for no other reason than there is no definable "victory". Does anyone truly believe we'll "kill the last terrorist?" Only if they're on heavy medication. Each time you kill one, two more are recruited. We're asking our soldiers to solve a political, social and religious problem which is not in their training regimen. We're putting good people in an impossible situation. Defense contractors have the best job security in the country now. Strange coincidence, republicans and money...

This whole thing has been a fantastically stupid idea.