War, huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

[Forostar]

@Perun: I am ashamed of not knowing my own Dutch history (we had bad teachers ;--) ), but what do you mean with "the Dutch fight back in 1957". I am trying to find more info on it, in Wikipedia, but can't see much of a fight in the fifties. In the 40's the Dutch did pretty bad things with their "Police Actions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politionele_acties


Anti-war people, what are you guys trying to prove ?

That the creation of the human race was the most evil deed of God, or that something went wrong with evolution ?
How would the world be better with such views on the world ?

What's the best idea to solve these problems and get rid of stupid politicians and brainwashed people? Cleansing ? Prison ? Genocide ?

How to prevent wars ? Let's forbid all weapons ? What about all the weapons which are still on this forsaken world ?
Let's take them ? How ? By violence ? By words ?

If it's possible to judge the past, then why let's not judge things in the future ?

How long will we talk to Iran ?
How long will they listen ?
How long will they continue with things people don't trust ?
How long before some politicians decide to act .... with an invasion ?

I am very curious about this and we'll see if the "world" has gained experience.
Will the world be cynical or will the world be naive ?

Is it naive to let Iran continue with their progress, when the talking has ended ?
Is it naive to think Iran would never use a big weapon (whatever that is) ?

 

[IronDuke]

Forostar, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but not with the example you used to illustrate it. Iran isn't as evil as the media would like us all to believe. Yes, it's a theocracy, but it's also surprizingly diverse and even secular.

The reason Iran is suddenly the new "bad guy" is that they're not cowing to President Bush's rather unreasonable demands (ostensibly re: nuclear development, but in reality for oil)
****
Mav, you're right again by saying that had Rwanda been in posession of oil, the world would've acted sooner to prevent the genocide. That is not the same, however, as them not acting because they did not have oil.
My point is, I guess, this: how do you presume to know what was going on in the minds Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Bush, et al. in the build up to the Gulf War? How do you know that it wasn't both economic necessity (oil) AND moral rightousness (invading a soveriegn country should not be allowed to go unchecked) which prompted them to gather a coalition?

the same can be argued for any conflict - how do we know, for example, that the current President Bush invaded Iraq JUST for oil? Maybe he also thought Saddam Hussein was a evil scumbag (and he was, really), and figured he'd kill two birds with one stone (control Iraq's oil AND oust Saddam).

 

[Anonymous]

And maybe Hitler only invaded France for the massive supply of camembert it could provide... 


Seriously, I have no idea of what those toerags Thatcher, Bush and the rest exactly had in mind -- and nobody here has, I presume. I still have my doubts concerning their humanitarian reasons, though. If they really had wanted Iraq to become a proper democracy, it would most probably be one by now. Or maybe I'm the naive one after all. 






* grabs his gun to go defend Switzerland against France, Britain, Germany, and... Holland! *

Ooops! Wrong thread! 

 

[Forostar]

Forostar, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but not with the example you used to illustrate it. Iran isn't as evil as the media would like us all to believe. Yes, it's a theocracy, but it's also surprizingly diverse and even secular.

The reason Iran is suddenly the new "bad guy" is that they're not cowing to President Bush's rather unreasonable demands (ostensibly re: nuclear development, but in reality for oil)

For me the government in Iran is the old bad, bearded guy. I don't think that there is a country in the world with such a lack of freedom. I know the word freedom might switch our brains to Bush and I also know that we could think "Who cares, I don't live there".

On the other hand: these things are happening out there.:

Gays aged 16 and 18, only executed because they were gay.

Females in Iran have even less rights than milk cows in Switzerland, or Palestines in Isreal.

These things have not much to do with invasions but Iran's theocracy (actually, it's a Mullahcracy) dominate the good things you speak of.

 

[Anonymous]

@Perun: I am ashamed of not knowing my own Dutch history (we had bad teachers ;--) ), but what do you mean with "the Dutch fight back in 1957". I am trying to find more info on it, in Wikipedia, but can't see much of a fight in the fifties. In the 40's the Dutch did pretty bad things with their "Police Actions"

Well, you will know that modern-day Indonesia was a Dutch colony for a while. After it became independent, the Dutch apparently kept possession of West Indonesia (I don't know the details) until Indonesia invaded.

Anti-war people, what are you guys trying to prove ?

So far I didn't want to prove anything in this thread (except Duke wrong- sorry, mate ), but I'll take the challenge when I have time

 

[IronDuke]

And yet students protest on a regular basis in the streets of Tehran...

You're judging Iran by your own cultural standards. Not tolerating homosexuality and keeping women "opressed" seem horrible by our standards, but it's part of their culture. Who is to say that someone else's culture, which has existed and developed for centuries, is wrong? From their perspective, we're the disgusting ones.

 

[Forostar]

Well, you will know that modern-day Indonesia was a Dutch colony for a while. After it became independent, the Dutch apparently kept possession of West Indonesia (I don't know the details) until Indonesia invaded.


So far I didn't want to prove anything in this thread (except Duke wrong- sorry, mate ), but I'll take the challenge when I have time

Alright, I thought the Dutch were simply pressed out (without as much violence as in the forties) but I could be mistaken.

 

[Onhell]

And yet students protest on a regular basis in the streets of Tehran...

You're judging Iran by your own cultural standards. Not tolerating homosexuality and keeping women "opressed" seem horrible by our standards, but it's part of their culture. Who is to say that someone else's culture, which has existed and developed for centuries, is wrong? From their perspective, we're the disgusting ones.

That is BS Duke and you know it. There is a reason the saying "we're not in the Dark Ages anymore" exists. We know better. We know that someone's sexual orientation, sex, physical ability and age is no reason to opress, abuse, restrict or imprison. Are you going to kill a child for merely being a child? prevent someone to read merely because they are women? No. Why? because it doesn't make sense, period. These people ARE stuck in the Dark Ages. And it is opressive. Marx said something the effect that the power full take advantage and abuse the powerless and that man uses man as a means to an end (describing the capitalist-worker relationship). And he said that we will never be free until we treat each other as ends and only ends. So to kill people for being gay is using them as a mean to a religious end (Which is why we have separation of church and state).

 

[Anonymous]

In my opinion, one occasion was not that useless. The Kosovo war against the Serbs.

(some wikipedia):

"Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back"

The positive consequences:
The most immediate problem — the refugees — was largely resolved very quickly: within three weeks, over 500,000 Albanian refugees had returned home. By November 1999, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 808,913 out of 848,100 had returned.

Some critics have accused the coalition of leading a war in Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide. This was, in fact, no pretense at all. President Clinton of the United States, and his administration, were accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbians. Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, giving a speech, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide." On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing...They may have been murdered." Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing". Later, talking about Serbian elections, Clinton said, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milošević ordered in Kosovo...They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed...". Clinton also claimed, in the same press conference, that "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide."  More:  ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war ... se_for_War

Forostar I have a couple of questions for you, what do you actually know about Serbs or Serbia? Do you know that Milosevic lost his first election in 1997 and stayed in power only through fraud and US support, at the time he was regarded as the key to stability in the Balkans? Do you know that at new years eve 1996/97 there were one million people on the streets of Belgrade protesting against his rule? Do you know that since 1991 over 200000 serbian citizens dodged the draft or emigrated? And about the Kosovo war, it didn't stop anything or solve any problems a single bombing campaign can't resolve almost seven centuries of ethnic and religious clashes. You need dialogue for that you need democracy and you need prosperity, something that is not always in the best interest of major powers.

From the point of a man born and living in Serbia I can with some certainty say that the war was the factor that kept Milosevic in power for one more year. Oh by the way I was in Belgrade during the entire campaign and I would not wish it on anyone be him Serb, Albanian, American or even you Forostar. Remember that war is a terrible thing fought between leaders for power and wealth or it is a pure bloodbath staged for their pleasure and paid
with human lives.

 

[Anomica]

That is BS Duke and you know it. There is a reason the saying "we're not in the Dark Ages anymore" exists. We know better. We know that someone's sexual orientation, sex, physical ability and age is no reason to opress, abuse, restrict or imprison. Are you going to kill a child for merely being a child? prevent someone to read merely because they are women? No. Why? because it doesn't make sense, period. These people ARE stuck in the Dark Ages. And it is opressive. Marx said something the effect that the power full take advantage and abuse the powerless and that man uses man as a means to an end (describing the capitalist-worker relationship). And he said that we will never be free until we treat each other as ends and only ends. So to kill people for being gay is using them as a mean to a religious end (Which is why we have separation of church and state).

Onhell, I agree with what you're saying. The problem I'm having is when a modern, democratic country like the USA sentence 16-year olds to death (as has happened in Texas and Florida, I believe?) and also people (read: black men) who are mentally ill. Ask yourselves how many rich white men have been sentenced to death, even when it would have been justified according to the law? Maybe the politicians in the US should start fixing the wrongs in their own country before telling the rest of the world what to do? I am 100% against the death penalty for two reasons: two wrongs don't make a right and there is not any evidence anywhere that the death penalty reduces crime - it's more inducive of a "nothing to loose" mentality. I also believe that it really belongs in the "dark ages" as the only "rational" reasons for capital punishment is to set an example to others and society's revenge on the offender. Modern societies are usually restitutional, not retributional.

As far as I know, USA finds itself in "interesting" company when it comes to the death penalty: China, Iran, North Korea (I think?) and a few other extremely un-democratic contries. Maybe the rest of the world would believe the reasons given for the Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Iraq, Afghanistan etc if the democracy in USA where in fact a true democracy?

 

[Forostar]

And about the Kosovo war, it didn't stop anything or solve any problems a single bombing campaign can't resolve almost seven centuries of ethnic and religious clashes. You need dialogue for that you need democracy and you need prosperity, something that is not always in the best interest of major powers.

Of course this bombing campaign didn't stop the clashes. The main goal was a different one, and we know which one that was. Dialogue is indeed the first option. When it doesn't help, and hundreds of thousands of people are in great need, other things have to be done.

 

[eddiesson]

We have a saying in Turkey: "People are governed the way they deserve".

You can't expect citizens to change the way their state is governed, unless their minds and their lifestyle changes. If there were no support in the wrongdoings of a government, they couldn't happen. And you can't expect the way people is governed, unless the minds and the lifestyle of the people is changed.

If a nation doesn't want to change, it's impossible to change their mind with implications or violence. People can agree what you say when you point them a gun, but act as they please the moment you turn away, and usually try to find a way to kill you, as now he hates you, and doesn't want to be threatened anymore.

As an outsider, the only thing one can do is to be a good exemple for the others, to be jealeous at first, and then to work more, progress more. Be friendly with them, instead of preventing them to progress, to prosper, together.

I know I'm being a little idealistic in writing these. But doing the opposite doesn't do any better. Did USA/UK succeed anything in Iraq? They tried to bring democracy to a people who doesn't feel the necessity for it. Look what happened. (as if USA/UK cared so much for democracy and democracy in Iraq anyway... Such an hypocrisy and selfishness... but it must be discussed separetely)

---

As for nuclear weapons in Iran, the only solution could have been eliminating the reasons that made Iran try to produce them. Because it is now too late  for destroying the hatred they feel towards the israel for their actions in Palestine, for USA to support Iraq against them in an unmeaningful war, and the hypocrisy of the western world. From a neutral perspective, why can't Iran have a nuclear weapon while a tens of countries have an atomic bomb, while UN inspectors can't/don't inspect Israel's nuclear arsenal, and USA/UK can cause so much confusion in middle east, in the world, and insist on their doings?

As a Turkish citizen, and a neighbour of Iran, you can't expect me to support Iran to have nuke, I'm %100 against it. but I can't believe at all, that Iran would stop developping one, unless these conditions start to get better. Still, the world insist on their wrongdoings and expect Iran to step back. Futile.

I wish everyone could take a look at themselves too before blaming and opressing others, I wish they tried to think globally, not solely from their perspective. Give up some of their agressive profits for the benefit of all.

 

[Anonymous]

I can respect your point of view Forostar, although I find it a bit misguided. I was wondering did you ever think about what are men's priorities when they earn less then 30$ per month, as they do in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can't justify ethnic cleansing and other human rights violations but let me ask you have the US\UK ever done anything to improve living conditions in occupied countries, isn't Afghanistan now the biggest heroin exporter on the planet, don't we have a full scale civil war in Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians have died since the cease of hostilities, and where is the bulk of the US forces  to stop this violence, oh yes their guiding oilfields and pipelines.

Wars are bad, there was never such a thing as a good war and there will never be one, if you look close enough you will see interests and politics, never human interest in wars, in Rwanda millions died and no one thought they were important enough to go to war.

I can tell you a story I heard on TV as said by Reuters cameraman Veljko Đurović:

He was in a TV crew covering the Rwanda conflict, so they walked into a small town and it's entire population was massacred, bodies and blood all over the place, and then they saw the strangest thing bunch of white guys in white suits putting up posters in a town where there was no one alive to read them, so they looked at the posters and SAVE THE GORILLAS ONLY A HUNDRED ARE LEFT was written on them in bold red letters. So I guess a hundred gorillas were more of a reason for international humanitarians to come then thousands of  dead people

 

[Onhell]

Onhell, I agree with what you're saying. The problem I'm having is when a modern, democratic country like the USA sentence 16-year olds to death (as has happened in Texas and Florida, I believe?) and also people (read: black men) who are mentally ill.

I know what you mean, Anomica. What I meant as "we" I didn't mean the U.S, I meant the culmination of western philosphy and knowledge as far as rights go. Whether in PRACTICE we are that is a different story. But the ideas of equality, liberty, fraternity (sorority for our feminist friends) are very widespread in the West. Sure it took a long time for women to vote, have jobs, etc, but they do now, there is still room for improvement no doubt, but at least it is LEGAL and more SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, than it is in the middle east. To defend them with "cultural differences" is BS, masoginy is the same here and in China as is oppression and abuse.

 

[Anonymous]

Right, I'm in a bad mood right now, which tends to be the best presupposition for a long rant.

I don't get it. I'm a history student, so whenever I read or hear about a war, I look into the origin of the conflict. I look at the country and try to figure out what makes its people happily wage war. And tell you what: In most cases, it just saddens me to see that people are just plain stupid. Let me break this down to some examples.

Yugoslavia was a country that was raped by nazi Germany in the second World War. And by raped, I mean that it got bombed, its people got massacred, the whole country was devastated. I simply can't believe the people there did not learn that this was the result of extreme nationalism and dogmatic ideology. You should think these people observed this and saw that this is the path that leads to self-termination.
What do they do? Not only do they submit to a dictator, but once he dies, they get all their bloody nationalist feelings and devastate their country ONCE AGAIN. They destroy their OWN cities, they build CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Uh... HELLO? We had that fifty years earlier?? And now I see Serbs running around the world trying to make certain everybody knows what a glorious history Serbia has. Everytime I hear/read things like that, I feel like puking (I can guide you to numerous examples if you feel the desire).

Germany is a country that elected itself a dictator (yes, dear history revisionists/distorters, just accept it) that led it to a war that cost the lives of tens of millions, saw some of the most disgusting examples of what humanity is capable of -in a country that keeps declaring itself one of the most cultivated in human history- and, finally, lay in ashes. Literally. Although it was only one of the many causes that made this happen, extreme nationalism and dogmatic ideology was the driving force. You should think people learned the lesson.
Now I encounter more and more peers who say that we should be more proud of our country and our heritage and that we should wave our flags and that we should simply let go of our past.
Again, I could puke.

Israel is a country founded by, among others, people who survived one of the most famous attempts at genocide in history. These people were in labour and death camps, they were discriminated openly and unashamedly, they were faced with people who only wished their deaths. Now many people of that country support a policy that is about driving people out of their homes and ensuring they never come back.

The Palestinians are a people that have been very aggressive in the past, and saw that they were not ready for the echo. Fifty years later, they keep being aggressive, sending suicide bombers into city centres and want BLOODY SYMPATHY??

The list goes on and on. I just have no understanding for people who simply refuse learning their lessons and rather blow somebody's brain out instead.

 

[SneakySneaky]

That the creation of the human race was the most evil deed of God, or that something went wrong with evolution ?
How would the world be better with such views on the world ?

Indeed that's why I can't accept these theorys.  If God created man to preserve Earth,  then he obviously made a terrible mistake (so much for the all wise and powerful).  Same goes with evolution. Although I believe it to be true somewhat,  I just can't believe that only one species would evolve so much,  and destroy the earth's balance.

Also,  about death penalties.  I do agree that they seem inhumane,  but honestly,  when you have a serial killer who's done the sickest things,  do you really think that jail will do him/her any good?  And let there be chance that he escapes?  No,  iI think such a person deserves to die.

 

[Anonymous]

Also,  about death penalties.  I do agree that they seem inhumane,  but honestly,  when you have a serial killer who's done the sickest things,  do you really think that jail will do him/her any good?  And let there be chance that he escapes?  No,  iI think such a person deserves to die.

I suggest you dig a few pages in this forum. We've had that discussion before. The thread was about Tookie Williams.

 

[Anonymous]

Right, I'm in a bad mood right now, which tends to be the best presupposition for a long rant.

I don't get it. I'm a history student, so whenever I read or hear about a war, I look into the origin of the conflict. I look at the country and try to figure out what makes its people happily wage war. And tell you what: In most cases, it just saddens me to see that people are just plain stupid. Let me break this down to some examples.

Yugoslavia was a country that was raped by nazi Germany in the second World War. And by raped, I mean that it got bombed, its people got massacred, the whole country was devastated. I simply can't believe the people there did not learn that this was the result of extreme nationalism and dogmatic ideology. You should think these people observed this and saw that this is the path that leads to self-termination.
What do they do? Not only do they submit to a dictator, but once he dies, they get all their bloody nationalist feelings and devastate their country ONCE AGAIN. They destroy their OWN cities, they build CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Uh... HELLO? We had that fifty years earlier?? And now I see Serbs running around the world trying to make certain everybody knows what a glorious history Serbia has. Everytime I hear/read things like that, I feel like puking (I can guide you to numerous examples if you feel the desire).

Germany is a country that elected itself a dictator (yes, dear history revisionists/distorters, just accept it) that led it to a war that cost the lives of tens of millions, saw some of the most disgusting examples of what humanity is capable of -in a country that keeps declaring itself one of the most cultivated in human history- and, finally, lay in ashes. Literally. Although it was only one of the many causes that made this happen, extreme nationalism and dogmatic ideology was the driving force. You should think people learned the lesson.
Now I encounter more and more peers who say that we should be more proud of our country and our heritage and that we should wave our flags and that we should simply let go of our past.
Again, I could puke.

Israel is a country founded by, among others, people who survived one of the most famous attempts at genocide in history. These people were in labour and death camps, they were discriminated openly and unashamedly, they were faced with people who only wished their deaths. Now many people of that country support a policy that is about driving people out of their homes and ensuring they never come back.

The Palestinians are a people that have been very aggressive in the past, and saw that they were not ready for the echo. Fifty years later, they keep being aggressive, sending suicide bombers into city centres and want BLOODY SYMPATHY??

The list goes on and on. I just have no understanding for people who simply refuse learning their lessons and rather blow somebody's brain out instead.

"People are stupid" what is that supposed to mean? Should they be looked upon as animals by everyone who deems him self smarter then the average population.  They are grossly misinformed,afraid and manipulated but they are not stupid they are just average people with their average lives trying to make the best of it.
Every nation has the right to be proud of it's heritage especially Germany because people like Goethe, Schiller, Schopenhauer,Weber and many more have contributed significantly to advancement of mankind.
You continue to make  very interesting identifications “Palestinians want sympathy” “Been aggressive in the past” well then name them, tell us their names, who are those aggressive bastards by name or is it every palestinian in the  world is it a six-months old baby who deserves a carpet bombing. Yes I forgot they are all stupid and deserve to die. Yup you're right about Germany too, it was the Germans all the time, they elected Hitler so  it was OK to bomb their civilians. Or the British, an empire until WWII so I guess it was OK for Hitler to bomb urban centers, after all they sold opium to the Chinese and killed millions of Indians in the east. And Yugoslavia, the stupid bastards yup they just went on and started killing each other out of the blue, their people living in harmony just a few years back, started an absolute bloodbath, without any help from their politicians or the West or the East.

Come to think of it you're absolutely right every baby in every country had it coming since before it was born so I say no regrets they are all so stupid that's it and they happily wage wars lose life and limb, lose everything they worked for their entire lives but they're stupid and we are so smart or are we...

 

[Anonymous]

Oh boy...

No, I do not believe in collective guilt. I was generalising because it was the easiest way to write. I'm sorry for that. Still, all of these things I listed could have been avoided by learning from history. That, basically, was what I wanted to say.

 

[Forostar]

I have seen horrendous things on TV, Serbs making me sick. Serbs denying the deeds under Mladic in e.g. Srebrenica.
( To know more about Europe's worst massacre since World War II, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica ... executions )

Authentic films were shown of executions, many mass graves have been found and still people don't believe it.

Screenshot showing the four minors and the two men in their early twenties lined up on the ground before being executed

Those who belong to the "Wir haben es nicht gewusst generation" can forget my sympathy and should not be trusted in dark future events. In case some people might not know what I am talking about:

Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism
Srebrenica genocide denial or Srebrenica genocide revisionism, is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur, or that far fewer than around 8,000 Bosniaks were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army (numbers below 5,000, most often around 2,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Bosnian Serb Army's attempt to exterminate the Bosniaks of Srebrenica; and/or that there were not mass killings at the extermination sites. Those who hold this position often further claim that Bosniaks and/or Western media know that the Srebrenica genocide never occurred, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Srebrenica genocide to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by objective historians.

Srebrenica genocide deniers almost always prefer to be called Srebrenica genocide revisionists [this is not only due to the less negative connotations of the second term, but also because such persons often advocate a reduced number of deaths, and therefore do not wish for a word to be used that implies they are denying the actual occurence of the event.] However, most scholars contend that the latter term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a well-accepted part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The term historical revisionism has a second meaning, the illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes. For example, many scholars allege that Srebrenica genocide deniers willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.