Can I ask you anti-Iraq-war people a question?

This thread had 3 pages; 1 page was never captured by the Wayback Machine — some replies are missing.

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 13:47

This is completely unrelated to the Iraq war and our reasons for being in it, etc, etc.

I simply want your opinion on the following question:

1) What are good reasons for going to war?

If you'd like to elaborate on that, you may answer the two sub-questions:
a) How do you think a war should be started when necessary due to the above reasons?

b) Are there limits to the number of casualties that you find acceptable? If so, do they vary based on the reason for going to war?

c) Are there other limits to which you would find it necessary to end the war? If so, what are they?

I know and understand all of your oppositions to this Iraq-war, but I don't know your feelings on war in general, so I wanted to use this thread to understand your opinions which, for some crazy reason, interest me.

Thanks and please, leave the Iraq war out of this thread.

[-NM-] -SS-

Banned until 7/12TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:14

Pill, then I would say you need a different title to something like anti-war so that you minimize confusion. YOu have said anti-iraq war and then ask to leave iraq out of it.

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:16

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Pill, then I would say you need a different title to something like anti-war so that you minimize confusion. YOu have said anti-iraq war and then ask to leave iraq out of it.

Actually, I don't care about anti-war people because their answer to #1 would be "none" and then the rest of the questions would not apply.

I specifically asked the anti-Iraq-war crowd because I want to know if they are just anti-war in general, or if they aren't anti-war, in general, what are good reasons to them, for going to war.

Make sense?

[-NM-] -SS-

Banned until 7/12TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:22

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
Pill, then I would say you need a different title to something like anti-war so that you minimize confusion. YOu have said anti-iraq war and then ask to leave iraq out of it.

Actually, I don't care about anti-war people because their answer to #1 would be "none" and then the rest of the questions would not apply.

I specifically asked the anti-Iraq-war crowd because I want to know if they are just anti-war in general, or if they aren't anti-war, in general, what are good reasons to them, for going to war.

Make sense?

Sure does, but given the way things are taken out of context around here, I figured I would try to help ya out.

But wait until you see some of the replies. If someone is honest about it, get ready to duct tape your head. There is ALOT of emotion tied to this movement -and it isnt only just one. Anger over killing, contempt for troops [the killers], and overall disgust for something beneath them are the most common.

That said, I think it's time to kick back and see what ya get for answers. IMO, the most honest answer you will get will be from Yeats.

[-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd

Really prefers JelloTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:35

WWII - good reasons

i'll throw that out for starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Coba|t

is BlueTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:38

"The good war" - WW2 was initiated when we were attacked by Japan, they declared war on us, then Germany declared war on us. It was fought in defense of our nation against an enemy who attacked us on our home soil, and against a nation which openly declared war on us.

A good reason to go to war is in retaliation for acts of war committed upon our nation's soil. Behaving as the "arsenal of democracy" isn't necessarily a virtuous cause for war - however, as victors WW2 (a "good" war) we were able to throw our full resources behind forming democracies - thats not the reason we entered the war, but a positive outcome determined by the victors as the 'spoils of war'.

A dumb reason to go to war - Double-U Em Dees

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:45

Originally posted by: Coba|t
"The good war" - WW2 was initiated when we were attacked by Japan, they declared war on us, then Germany declared war on us. It was fought in defense of our nation against an enemy who attacked us on our home soil, and against a nation which openly declared war on us.

A good reason to go to war is in retaliation for acts of war committed upon our nation's soil. Behaving as the "arsenal of democracy" isn't necessarily a virtuous cause for war - however, as victors WW2 (a "good" war) we were able to throw our full resources behind forming democracies - thats not the reason we entered the war, but a positive outcome determined by the victors as the 'spoils of war'.

A dumb reason to go to war - Double-U Em Dees

But we continued to fight in Europe and neither Germany or Italy attacked us.

Am I to assume then that in your opinion, it is okay to enter a war or go to war on behalf of your allies?

T. Wrecks

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:50

Originally posted by: Pillbug
1) What are good reasons for going to war?

Matters that are essential to state security and the protection of the people, i.e defense of citizens, their property, and their rights.

Originally posted by: Pillbug
a) How do you think a war should be started when necessary due to the above reasons?

Immediately, and without remorse. Move swiftly and with overwhelming force. Deny your enemy that which they rely upon to fight- manpower, arms, food, shelter, and support.

Originally posted by: Pillbug
b) Are there limits to the number of casualties that you find acceptable? If so, do they vary based on the reason for going to war?

No. If you kill enough of them, they will stop fighting.

Originally posted by: Pillbug
c) Are there other limits to which you would find it necessary to end the war? If so, what are they?

Yes.
When it becomes apparent that continuing the endeavor will not produce the effects that you are looking for.

Post edited by T. Wrecks at 7/2/2008 2:52:08 PM

Coba|t

is BlueTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:51

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: Coba|t
"The good war" - WW2 was initiated when we were attacked by Japan, they declared war on us, then Germany declared war on us. It was fought in defense of our nation against an enemy who attacked us on our home soil, and against a nation which openly declared war on us.

A good reason to go to war is in retaliation for acts of war committed upon our nation's soil. Behaving as the "arsenal of democracy" isn't necessarily a virtuous cause for war - however, as victors WW2 (a "good" war) we were able to throw our full resources behind forming democracies - thats not the reason we entered the war, but a positive outcome determined by the victors as the 'spoils of war'.

A dumb reason to go to war - Double-U Em Dees

But we continued to fight in Europe and neither Germany or Italy attacked us.

Am I to assume then that in your opinion, it is okay to enter a war or go to war on behalf of your allies?

Quite the opposite, Germany and Italy entered the war on Japan's behalf. The Tripartite Agreement Germany made with Italy to defend Japan bound them to enter the war against us on behalf of their ally.

Germany and Italy declared war on us after Japan declared war on us.
Post edited by Coba|t at 7/2/2008 2:57:52 PM

questionmark

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:51

Good reasons to go to war include defending our citizens, resources, infrastructure, or economy from an immediate and imminent threat. Or in retaliation to a recent attack on the aforementioned.

a. When going to war, actions should be swift and immediate.

b. There's no limit to casualties; however, the goal should be to reduce deaths on all sides involved in the conflict. Given the world we live in today, it is sometimes possible to wage war without sending in troops to violence.

c. Just human rights stuff. No torture or targeting civilians, etc.

That is my view on things.

Post edited by questionmark at 7/2/2008 3:04:44 PM

TotalCarnage

CommissionerTWL Contributor

2008-07-02 14:55

I didn't necessarily have a problem with taking Saddamn out. What I had a problem with is how it was done.

There was no real plan of attack. When we we not allowed the Turkish route from the north the plan of rushed attack from the south was no well thought out in my opinion.

There was no plan of what to do to secure the country once we took control.

There was no real exit strategy.

In realilty we should ahve focused more on what we taking place in Afganistan.
|HiFi|TotalCarnage
TeamWarfare Commissioner
RadioHiFi

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:58

Originally posted by: Coba|t
Germany and Italy declared war on us after Japan declared war on us.

So a reason for going to war is when another entity declares war on your country?

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 14:59

Good answers so far. TW's were the best and he followed the format and answered all the questions.
Post edited by Pillbug at 7/2/2008 3:27:11 PM

Gortok

News ManagerTeamWarfare News

2008-07-02 15:00

I cite the Just War Theory.

[SMS]Gortok
News Manager, TeamWarfare News Staff
Email: gortok@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare #sms

T. Wrecks

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:05

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Good answers so far. TC's were the best and he followed the format and answered all the questions.

I think you should a "TW" in there Spanky as I quoted you directly

MolimOrion

Don't EVER poke the bear!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:06

A good reason for going to war would be if your country is threatened.

Vietnam and Iraq were never a threat to the US. Ever.

If there is a threat to your country, the war should be started by focusing on destroying the threats to your country, quickly, and swiftly, with as minimum civilian casualties as possible.

The war should be ended once the threats to your country have been eliminated.

IMO, the above should be common-sense. It's similar to many other things in life, such as self-defense. Compare when you are allowed to kill someone, in self-defense, compared to when you can start a war. Imagine if you were allowed to kill people because they were a threat to you in the same way Iraq and Vietnam were a threat to the US.

"I thought this guy had a bomb in his house, and was going to use it to bomb my house, so I went into his house and killed him, his wife, and his children. No, there weren't any bombs, but you can't say my family isn't safer now. We are SAFER NOW!"

Andural69

Duke of AndyTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:16

Here's a good reason, if fucktards start bitching about puppies on post cards, bomb their asses!

~~Snake~~

I'm squeaky!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:16

Originally posted by: MolimOrion
A good reason for going to war would be if your country is threatened.

Vietnam and Iraq were never a threat to the US. Ever.

If there is a threat to your country, the war should be started by focusing on destroying the threats to your country, quickly, and swiftly, with as minimum civilian casualties as possible.

The war should be ended once the threats to your country have been eliminated.

IMO, the above should be common-sense. It's similar to many other things in life, such as self-defense. Compare when you are allowed to kill someone, in self-defense, compared to when you can start a war. Imagine if you were allowed to kill people because they were a threat to you in the same way Iraq and Vietnam were a threat to the US.

"I thought this guy had a bomb in his house, and was going to use it to bomb my house, so I went into his house and killed him, his wife, and his children. No, there weren't any bombs, but you can't say my family isn't safer now. We are SAFER NOW!"

That isnt true Molim. Please define threat. I view Saddam having ties with terrorist organizations as a threat.

MolimOrion

Don't EVER poke the bear!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:19

We could argue for 1000 years on whether or not Saddam was a "threat" to the US. But in the year 3008, we would still disagree.

Here's to saving keystrokes

~~Snake~~

I'm squeaky!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:20

Originally posted by: MolimOrion
We could argue for 1000 years on whether or not Saddam was a "threat" to the US. But in the year 3008, we would still disagree.

Here's to saving keystrokes

Cheers!

Miracle-Man

Retired staphTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:23

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: MolimOrion
A good reason for going to war would be if your country is threatened.

Vietnam and Iraq were never a threat to the US. Ever.

If there is a threat to your country, the war should be started by focusing on destroying the threats to your country, quickly, and swiftly, with as minimum civilian casualties as possible.

The war should be ended once the threats to your country have been eliminated.

IMO, the above should be common-sense. It's similar to many other things in life, such as self-defense. Compare when you are allowed to kill someone, in self-defense, compared to when you can start a war. Imagine if you were allowed to kill people because they were a threat to you in the same way Iraq and Vietnam were a threat to the US.

"I thought this guy had a bomb in his house, and was going to use it to bomb my house, so I went into his house and killed him, his wife, and his children. No, there weren't any bombs, but you can't say my family isn't safer now. We are SAFER NOW!"

That isnt true Molim. Please define threat. I view Saddam having ties with terrorist organizations as a threat.

How's it hanging Michael Hayde?

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

~~Snake~~

I'm squeaky!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:25

Originally posted by: Miracle-Man
Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Originally posted by: MolimOrion
A good reason for going to war would be if your country is threatened.

Vietnam and Iraq were never a threat to the US. Ever.

If there is a threat to your country, the war should be started by focusing on destroying the threats to your country, quickly, and swiftly, with as minimum civilian casualties as possible.

The war should be ended once the threats to your country have been eliminated.

IMO, the above should be common-sense. It's similar to many other things in life, such as self-defense. Compare when you are allowed to kill someone, in self-defense, compared to when you can start a war. Imagine if you were allowed to kill people because they were a threat to you in the same way Iraq and Vietnam were a threat to the US.

"I thought this guy had a bomb in his house, and was going to use it to bomb my house, so I went into his house and killed him, his wife, and his children. No, there weren't any bombs, but you can't say my family isn't safer now. We are SAFER NOW!"

That isnt true Molim. Please define threat. I view Saddam having ties with terrorist organizations as a threat.

How's it hanging Michael Hayde?

Blakhart

Where's the tinfoil?TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:28

It was good to get rid of Saddam, but not good to instill jihad in his place, as it appears we have. It is good to train their police and army to take care of their own country, but it's not good for our troops to have to drive around in Iraq untill they get blown up.

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 15:33

Originally posted by: Blakhart
It was good to get rid of Saddam, but not good to instill jihad in his place, as it appears we have. It is good to train their police and army to take care of their own country, but it's not good for our troops to have to drive around in Iraq untill they get blown up.

This thread is NOT about Iraq.
It is about your opinions on what good reasons to go to war are, what limitations in your mind exist to end a war or any other cavaets you might see.

Neechoo Cheeska

KISS fan extraordinaireTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 17:31

My thoughts:

1. To me, the reasons for going to war are if a group of people or a country has already attacked US interests (foreign or domestic) and caused significant damage, injuries, or loss of life, OR is an imminent threat for doing so.

2. How to do it? Intelligence gathering is paramount, plus sending in special forces to neutralize their key installations or people, an air campaign to further cripple them, followed by a ground assault.

3. Limits on number of casualties? If you went in for the right reasons, no. If you went in for the wrong reasons, then one casualty is too much, IMO.

4. Other limits? Again, assuming you went in for the right reasons, no. If you went in for the right reasons, then be prepared for the long fight if that's what it takes.

Note I make a lot of mention of the "right reasons." I'm going to bring the Middle East into it...

To me, going into Afghanistan was the right reason. Kill all those fuckers, hunt them down, follow them to the ends of the earth, and obliterate every one of them.

Going into Iraq was NOT the right reason. I do not believe Iraq nor Saddam was a credible threat to the US, and we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and bin Laden.

anarchist-

Culinary TerroristTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 18:08

good reasons for a war:

1: Oil profits for my friends and former employers.
2: No bid contracts for companies i used to run and still receive compensation from.
3: DoD contracts for weapons companies my dad sits on the board for.
4: I feel all the greatest presidents have had a war to command so i'm gonna make some shit up so i can start one.
Post edited by anarchist- at 7/2/2008 6:08:49 PM

Aria Giovanni.pZ

IntentTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-02 19:27

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: Coba|t
"The good war" - WW2 was initiated when we were attacked by Japan, they declared war on us, then Germany declared war on us. It was fought in defense of our nation against an enemy who attacked us on our home soil, and against a nation which openly declared war on us.

A good reason to go to war is in retaliation for acts of war committed upon our nation's soil. Behaving as the "arsenal of democracy" isn't necessarily a virtuous cause for war - however, as victors WW2 (a "good" war) we were able to throw our full resources behind forming democracies - thats not the reason we entered the war, but a positive outcome determined by the victors as the 'spoils of war'.

A dumb reason to go to war - Double-U Em Dees

But we continued to fight in Europe and neither Germany or Italy attacked us.

Am I to assume then that in your opinion, it is okay to enter a war or go to war on behalf of your allies?

Germany sank many of our trade ships before we declared war on Japan...then Germany declared war on the USA with Italy follwowing suit.

You make such mistakes on your 3 or 4th post? im not reading the rest, sorry. best of luck
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
*cannot bitch*...*cannot moan*....
*cannot bitch*...*cannot moan*....
*cannot bitch*...*cannot moan*....
*cannot bitch*...*cannot moan*....
*cannot bitch*...*cannot moan*....

Zombee

TeamWarfare VetTWL Contributor

2008-07-03 00:18

Originally posted by: TotalCarnage
I didn't necessarily have a problem with taking Saddamn out. What I had a problem with is how it was done.

There was no real plan of attack. When we we not allowed the Turkish route from the north the plan of rushed attack from the south was no well thought out in my opinion.

There was no plan of what to do to secure the country once we took control.

There was no real exit strategy.

In realilty we should ahve focused more on what we taking place in Afganistan.

I'm with stupid^^^^

But to expound a bit, we don't know how to go to war. We go in on information we are given, and if it turns out to be bad information later on down the road, we shrug our shoulder's and say "Well we THOUGHT we were doing the right thing", and make new justifications.

If we go to war, it's already gone too far, so casualty counts are a moot point at that point.

______________________________________________________________

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 09:27

Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
You make such mistakes on your 3 or 4th post? im not reading the rest, sorry. best of luck

Thanks. I've read every bit of your crap through the years and 1/2 of it is nonsense or bullshit.

What I meant by Italy and Germany never attacked us was that they didn't attack us on the scale in which Japan did.

Also, thanks to Zombee & Neecho for responding. Good reading.

-EB- Bluedoctor

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 10:17

Originally posted by: Neechoo Cheeska
My thoughts:

1. To me, the reasons for going to war are if a group of people or a country has already attacked US interests (foreign or domestic) and caused significant damage, injuries, or loss of life, OR is an imminent threat for doing so.

2. How to do it? Intelligence gathering is paramount, plus sending in special forces to neutralize their key installations or people, an air campaign to further cripple them, followed by a ground assault.

3. Limits on number of casualties? If you went in for the right reasons, no. If you went in for the wrong reasons, then one casualty is too much, IMO.

4. Other limits? Again, assuming you went in for the right reasons, no. If you went in for the right reasons, then be prepared for the long fight if that's what it takes.

Note I make a lot of mention of the "right reasons." I'm going to bring the Middle East into it...

To me, going into Afghanistan was the right reason. Kill all those fuckers, hunt them down, follow them to the ends of the earth, and obliterate every one of them.

Going into Iraq was NOT the right reason. I do not believe Iraq nor Saddam was a credible threat to the US, and we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and bin Laden.

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 10:29

Thanks Blue.

questionmark

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:14

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
You make such mistakes on your 3 or 4th post? im not reading the rest, sorry. best of luck
Thanks. I've read every bit of your crap through the years and 1/2 of it is nonsense or bullshit.

What I meant by Italy and Germany never attacked us was that they didn't attack us on the scale in which Japan did.

Also, thanks to Zombee & Neecho for responding. Good reading.

B.S. you had no idea Germany was sinking trade ships. An attack is an attack; it doesn't matter who blew up more of our stuff.

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:18

Originally posted by: questionmark
B.S. you had no idea Germany was sinking trade ships. An attack is an attack; it doesn't matter who blew up more of our stuff.

Jesus Christ. That's about the first thing they teach you about WWII after Perl Harbor.

I don't need you to tell me what I didn't know. Go back to your hole.

Coba|t

is BlueTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:18

Originally posted by: Pillbug

What I meant by Italy and Germany never attacked us was that they didn't attack us on the scale in which Japan did.

They officially declared war on us, which was quite dumb of them to drag us into Europe so fast.

Pillbug

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:20

Originally posted by: Coba|t
They officially declared war on us, which was quite dumb of them to drag us into Europe so fast.

I've never read any historical accounts in such detail as to know, but I'd be willing to guess that their assumption was that they'd declare war on us while we were possibly weakened, and we'd be fighting a multi-front war.

questionmark

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:28

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: questionmark
B.S. you had no idea Germany was sinking trade ships. An attack is an attack; it doesn't matter who blew up more of our stuff.

Jesus Christ. That's about the first thing they teach you about WWII after Perl Harbor.

I don't need you to tell me what I didn't know. Go back to your hole.

Either you didn't know or you were purposefully using an illegitimate argument to make your point. Regardless, you now have no right to claim the U.S. wasn't justified in going to war in Europe as well as in the Pacific. Even if Germany had ignored us, there was ample reason to go to war in Europe; they were an immediate threat to the U.S. solely because of who our allies were.

Coba|t

is BlueTeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 11:37

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Originally posted by: Coba|t
They officially declared war on us, which was quite dumb of them to drag us into Europe so fast.
I've never read any historical accounts in such detail as to know, but I'd be willing to guess that their assumption was that they'd declare war on us while we were possibly weakened, and we'd be fighting a multi-front war.

They made some really STUPID moves, such as the Schlieffen Plan made by German generals in order to subdue the French before the Russians had a chance to mobilize their forces. Like the best laid plans of... you know, they went terribly wrong when the French did something unexpected and fought back, and the Russians did something unexpected and moved their fat ass surprisingly fast.

It was a recipe for trench warfare - although they thought it would be the perfectly orchestrated fascist plan to move this war-train along on time. Take out France first, take our Russia 6 weeks later. The Belgians tripped them up at every bridge, and brought the Brits into it all.

They fucked up equally big in WW1 by forcing the Brits and French into the war as they did in WW2 by forcing the US into the war.

German war plans don't seem to have their desired effect on foreign nations.

Cocytus

TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 14:44

~~Snake~~

I'm squeaky!TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-03 14:45

Me lubs you cocy! That picture rocks!

Blakhart

Where's the tinfoil?TeamWarfare Vet

2008-07-04 01:20

Amazing that something so breathtaking to behold is so vile. And as we're on the subject of nukes and warmaking....

"I say we nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."