WARS; can we stop them?

[John Smith]

I don't believe we've had good reason to send young people into wars since WWII.

I'm not sure that, as a country, we give our veterans the respect and help they need, and they need more, IMO, that a day which honors them.

I respect those who go to war, but I have a problem with those who send them into wars that, again in my opinion, make no sense.

I'm old enough to remember Korea was a 'police action' and those who fought in it had to fight for benefits. Vietnam cost many lives, and many injuries, and our government lied to them about Agent Orange, and, likely, other things.

Was there any valid reason to invade Afghanistan or Iraq in pursuit of a terrorist organization that was not a country?

Maybe I'm trying to say the best thing we can do for future war vets is have fewer wars.

[Paul Pless]

I don't believe we've had good reason to send young people into wars since WWII.

haiti intervention of 1993?
iraqi no fly zone to protect the kurds?
prevention of ethnic cleansing in kosovo?
libya in 2011?


i can think of plenty of places we might should have 'gone to war' for humanitarian reasons but didn't. . . darfur, sudan, ethiopia

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I’m with Paul, on this.

Add numerous French interventions in Francophone Africa.

Add the Falklands, for the UK only.

[JayInOz]

We'll have wars as long as we have people. Would be better if it was like the old days, when the fellers in charge- the ones who want war- led the troops into battle. Might make a few of them ponder the wisdom of their endeavours I wonder what governments could achieve if the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the military worldwide could be used for the public good instead. We shall never know. JayInOz

[Joe (SoCal)]

Actually in the history of mankind we are currently enjoying the greatest period of global peace.

[Osborne Russell]

You mean stop, as in, by force?

[Gerarddm]

" it's always the old to lead us to the wars, always the young to fall " - Phil Ochs

No, we cannot stop them. John Keegan, in his great book A History of Warfare, pointed out that systemic warfare as we know may in fact now be too unaffordable to continue. He then notes: " Politics must continue; war cannot. That is not to say the role of the warrior is over. The world community needs, more than it has ever done, skillful and disciplined warriors who are ready to put themselves at the service of its authority. Such warriors must properly be seen as the protectors of civilization, not its enemies. The style for which they fight for civilization - against ethnic bigots, regional warlords, ideological intransigents, common pillagers and organized international criminals - cannot derive from the Western model of warmaking alone...there is an even greater wisdom in the denial that politics and war belong within the same continuum. Unless we insist on denying it, our future, like that of the last Easter Islanders, may belong to the men with bloodied hands".

As long as people like Putin exist, as long as there are resources that must be exploited or protected, there will be armed conflicts. The trick will be to keep them at a slow simmer, rather than a raging boil lest we be drowned in poverty and blood.

[Paul Pless]

[epoxyboy]

haiti intervention of 1993?
iraqi no fly zone to protect the kurds?
prevention of ethnic cleansing in kosovo?
libya in 2011?


i can think of plenty of places we might should have 'gone to war' for humanitarian reasons but didn't. . . darfur, sudan, ethiopia

They are all still powderkegs for various reasons though, and I imagine the appetite for further military intervention in most of those places is low - from both the local and US perspective.
The short term goal might be well intended, but the follow up always seems to badly executed. It would be interesting to look at why post WWII Japan and Germany turned out so well, compared with pretty much every other place on that list.

Pete

[skuthorp]

Not as long as there are humans. It's what we do.

[sandtown]

Not as long as there are humans. It's what we do.

We also used to hold other folks as chattel slaves, think women were totally inferior, and pound the snot out of our kids whenever the mood struck us . . .

Sorry, but your thinking is old fashioned . .

The reality we face is that either we abolish war, or it will most assuredly abolish us.

[skuthorp]

Climate change will catch us up before that. Then we might see whether we have the time any longer. But humas will fight each other on some scale as long as there are 'the other' to fight.

[Dave Hadfield]

It doesn't take two to have a conflict. Just one who wants your stuff.

[Paul Pless]

The reality we face is that either we abolish war, or it will most assuredly abolish us.

how do we do that?
nukes?

[John Smith]

It's too easy, IMO, for a person in office to send other people into danger. It's also too easy to distort the facts to get support.

That Iraq resolution, which I've posted, was an attempt to AVOID invading Iraq. When that resolution passed, Saddam caved, and the UN weapons inspectors had total, unfettered, access and could have found and destroyed any WMDs Saddam had.

Our president pulled the inspectors and invaded. That resolution has been widely accepted, inaccurately, as a vote to go to war.

Al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11, was not a country, but a terrorist organization that knew no borders. Why we chose to invade two countries as our response, baffles me.

My suggestion then, which fell on deaf ears, was to try to establish an international anti-terrorism force that would not be bound by borders.

[Decourcy]

It doesn't take two to have a conflict. Just one who wants your stuff.

This

[sandtown]

My suggestion then, which fell on deaf ears, was to try to establish an international anti-terrorism force that would not be bound by borders.

Vietnam was even worse that the more modern Forever Wars. Why limit yourself ?? Look at the big picture.

The US has a dark history of attacking and trashing other countries . . .

Please read this book . .

[sandtown]

how do we do that?

Not by sitting on your keister. You owe it to your kids/grandkids to at least try.

Globally, the movement against war is now bigger than it has ever been - support it.

This is one I support . .

[sandtown]

It doesn't take two to have a conflict. Just one who wants your stuff.

You mean like the way that our oil somehow wound up under their sand ??

[sandtown]

I'm not sure that, as a country, we give our veterans the respect and help they need, and they need more, IMO, that a day which honors them..

Compared to teachers many of us vets get showered with bennies.

Did you know that Day used to be called Armistice Day, a day of peace, before it was highjacked by Cold War militarists ??

https://otherwords.org/redefining-heroism/

[sandtown]

Kids, don't let this happen to you !!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/great...b0ca9acf253784

[AndyG]

John Keegan, in his great book A History of Warfare, pointed out that systemic warfare as we know may in fact now be too unaffordable to continue...

He's not wrong.

1 B2 Bomber ~ $1,000,000,000
1 USS Zumwalt ~ $8,000,000,000
1 F22 Raptor ~ $330,000,000

1 Bloke with a drone, a servo and a grenade ~ $2000
1 Employee at a Russian troll farm ~ $100/day

Andy

[John Smith]

Remember the Alamo? Santa Anna could have simply waited until all those inside starved to death. There was no need to charge and have his men lose their lives.

Seems people lose their common sense when there's a conflict, a battle, or such.

[sandtown]

Seems people lose their common sense when there's a conflict, a battle, or such.

Agree, and I also remember the USMC "shake and bake" at the second battle of Falluja.

Completely unnecessary, like the rest of that war

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ov/15/usa.iraq

[skuthorp]

#23 & #24
Propaganda opportunities. Who cares about killing the 'other'.

[Too Little Time]

I don't believe we've had good reason to send young people into wars since WWII.

A good number of people refused to attend those wars. I don't see much support for them.

[David G]

We also used to hold other folks as chattel slaves, think women were totally inferior, and pound the snot out of our kids whenever the mood struck us . . .

Sorry, but your thinking is old fashioned . .

The reality we face is that either we abolish war, or it will most assuredly abolish us.

His thinking IS old-fashioned. But it's not outmoded. While it may be true that the ruling elites are coming to the conclusion - for now - that wars are more costly to their interests than had been previously realized... it doesn't mean we've outgrown war.

Economic conditions can change quickly. Power politics can change fairly quickly also. But human emotions & psychology - the tendency toward the knee-jerk reaction and Type1 thinking - will change slowly. If it changes t all.

[sandtown]

His thinking IS old-fashioned. But it's not outmoded. While it may be true that the ruling elites are coming to the conclusion - for now - that wars are more costly to their interests than had been previously realized... it doesn't mean we've outgrown war. l.

Agree my friend - the arc of the universe seems to be bending toward sanity, but perhaps not fast enough.

Actually, our species has had a pretty good run, and if it ends . . . so it goes

[sandtown]

A good number of people refused to attend those wars. I don't see much support for them.

I support them, as do many in VFP . . .

Those Mennonite, Quaker, and other refuseniks did great work on building infrastructure during WWII as alternative service,

and many were incredibly brave unarmed combat medics, smoke jumpers and psych hospital aides.

They should have received full bennies, but did not.

Very good summary here from the National WWII Museum . . .

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/wa...public-service

[John Smith]

A good number of people refused to attend those wars. I don't see much support for them.

Once we had a draft. Then we didn't. Those who volunteer do so of their own free will. During Vietnam there was a draft. I knew young men who went because they felt it their duty, who went because they were afraid not to, who went to Canada, and those who stayed to protest.

I got my pre-induction physical and soon after got my 1A card. Immediately went to the local recruiter, took a bunch of aptitude tests, and was promised a journalist type of position in the Navy, but had to go back to the army docs for another physical; 10 days after the first one. Though my health had not changed, I failed this physical. Then I got my induction notice, and filed a simple appeal. I argued that if I'm not fit enough to enlist I'm not fit enough to be drafted. I won.

[John Smith]

It's noteworthy, I think, to recognize that somewhere along the line, I believe with Poppa Bush, "supporting the war' changed to 'supporting the troops'. This was a subtle, but meaningful, distinction.

[sandtown]

Once we had a draft. Then we didn't. Those who volunteer do so of their own free will. .

Now it is a poverty draft

https://www.afsc.org/sites/default/f...ty%20Draft.pdf

I was one of those dummie enlistees - did so to avoid the draft.

[Too Little Time]

Now it is a poverty draft.

And there are a lot of the poor.

[Boatbum]

By stopping a war I assume you mean "can war be eliminated". If that is the real question, I do not believe it can be eliminated. You have countries fighting over 100+ year old disputes about who owns what. Taiwan has been a separate free standing state for nearly 80 years now and China is on the brink of invading. As someone else already pointed out, it doesn't even take two to start a war. Chamberlain engaged in accommodation to the extremes but could not prevent WW2. It would obviously be nice to spend money on humanitarian projects over defense spending, but historically this has left people vulnerable to attack/invasion. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - T. Jefferson. Sad but true

[Osborne Russell]

You can't stop something that hasn't started. The word for that is "prevent".

When it comes to war, a big piece of prevention is deterrence. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

There is not, has never been, and likely will never be a nation that doesn't do it.