The evils of war

[Brian_Expat]

This is what war does to people. This is how war ruins lives. This is how war destroys potential. This is why every single one of us should remain furious at Bush for lying to send us into war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/national/30SOLD.html?pagewanted=1

Jeremy Feldbusch joined the Army to travel the world. Now the only place he can go by himself is the 40 steps from his bed to the reclining chair in the living room.

. . . snip. . .

A growing number of young men and women are returning from Iraq and trying to resume lives that were interrupted by war and then minced by injury. Sergeant Feldbusch, a moody 24-year-old, is one of them, back in a little town in western Pennsylvania, in a little house overlooking trees and snow-blanketed hills he cannot see.

"What happened to my plans to become an officer? Gone," Sergeant Feldbusch said. "Can I ever jump in my truck again and just take off? No. Do I always have to be with my mom or dad now? Yep."

. . . snip. . .

Back home, one little piece of metal can turn an entire household upside down. Charlene Feldbusch stopped working to take care of her son. She rubs cream on his face in the morning, helps him pick out his clothes, fixes him meals and gives him pills at night so he does not shake.

[The Mighty Boot]

1. I live 40 miles from Blairsville

so this had been in our papers months ago.
bush's lies cost him his eyes and he
only questions God's motives. Gives new meaning
to the phrase "blind patriotism." I guess I'll
have to hate bush(even saying the name makes me
uneasy) enough for both of us. In the meantime,
keep telling everyone you meet what a draft-
dodging piece of garbage he is.

The dems and greens and everyone in between had
better unite after the primaries. 4 more years of
the Marauding Chimp might just nail the lid shut
on real democracy.

A.B.B.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. What are you saying?

That all wars are wrong or just this stupid ass adventure in Iraq?

[bpilgrim]

3. all wars are TERRORISM

ESPECIALLY the AGGRESSIVE, ILLEGAL, PREVENTIVE war in IRAQ

imho :hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Somehow I am unsurprised

But, as a direct descendent of people freed from slavery by war, I beg to disagree.

Some wars, the Civil War and WWII, are necessary.

[OldEurope]

5. No.

It was necessary to help Europe to get rid of that monstrous Hitler. The war itself was started by Hitler, and the war was NOT necessary.
No starting of any war is necessary. It might be necessary to strike back when attacked, but starting a war is never necessary. The aggressor always is unjust.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. There are two sides to every war

If one starts, the other has little choice.

So then, we get into justifications for war. Do you feel that the U.S. was justified for attacking Japan after Pearl Harbor?

[OldEurope]

7. As written above:

I think, beeing attacked allows to strike back.
And I also think, that helping others, that are not able to defend themselves, could also be a just reason for a war.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. The reason I asked

Is being attacked is kind of vague, especially for a big nation.

U.S. aircraft were repeatedly "attacked" by Iraq since the first Iraq war. Is spying an attack? Is supporting terror?

[OldEurope]

9. supporting terror?

You really believe that war in Iraq is on supporting terror???? I did not see any evidence, that Iraq is supporting AlKaida, or any other terrorists.
When supporting terror is a reason for war, then why didn´t the US attack Saudi Arabia?
Oh,I forgot, Saudi Princes do not only support terrorists, they also support Bushco.

And the attacked aircraft: were a consequence of the first war on Iraq. And please, don´t tell me about the poor murdered babies in Quweit, they were a fake. I´m sure the first war was on Oil as the second one. But Saddam was stupid enough to give the world a reason for the first one. The second one was based on LIES.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not even vaguely what I said

And no I don't believe that Iraq was supporting terror. Iraq did attack American aircraft endlessly, so that meets the definition being discussed. Several nations meet the terror definition, which is sort of the point I was making.

Any definition that allows you to respond to something means that pretty much anybody can go to war with anybody else. Provocation is fairly easy to manage. Right now I think most nations could declare war on the U.S. and vice versa if they thought hard on it.

As for Saudi Arabia, I would have supported that attack. I didn't support Iraq The Sequel.

Yes the attack on the aircraft was a direct consequence of Iraq The First, but that was Saddam's fault. And he kept it up, so pretty much any time the U.S. wanted to attack him, he gave them an excuse.

[G_j]

11. one thing for sure

the mindset of force as a viable option to solving problems has had tragic results. Militarism and flooding the planet with weapons has had terrible results. Weapons proliferated for defense lay the ground work for war. We need of course a new paradigm. The human race needs to grow up and leave the idea that force and violence are acceptable behind. Unfortunately, the present US mindset and the fact that the world is awash with deadly weapons put us even further away from the possibility of that paradigm shift. But without a change in the way we think, things will just get deadlier and uglier. I don't don't see a change happining any time soon, but we, as a global village, better start talking about it, before something like nuclear war forces us to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Sounds good in theory

But in fact all you need is a few people or nations that still stick to the old way of doing things and then there you are, back fighting wars.

Given human nature, I don't think we will stop fighting wars here until we can fight them elsewhere in the galaxy.

[G_j]

16. I do believe that

the concept of "the hundredth monkey" is valid.
Story here: http://www.spiritual-endeavors.org/free/100monk-all.htm

still I hate to say it but I think some sort of nuclear holocaust may lie before us. I hope I'm wrong...

[sweetheart]

13. the US shot down the iran civilian airliner

too.... and overthrew their government in the 1950's. Hmmm... let's see... who is the aggressor...?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Like I said

We can go round and round about this and give everybody a reason to attack everybody.

[sweetheart]

17. no, we started it.

The militarization and use of gunboat diplomacy engenders more of the same. If we live in a weaponless neighborhood together and you start buying lots of guns, i don't care until you use on to kill my dog.... then i buy a gun and kill your dog... escalation... etc... until there is war.

If you don't start, i'll buy musical instruments instead.

America has been up to no good with its arms exporting and military imperialism, and it is not an issue of the arms themselves, but "killing the dog" which we have done way too many times to retain any national honour except ugliness.

Agressive war is wrong, armed conflict is wrong, and even slavery could have been ended using nonviolent means.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Hardin, "Foundation", Asimov

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. "Even slavery could have been ended using nonviolent means"

Actually America didn't start the concept of aggressive war. It was going on for thousands of years before Europeans stepped on these shores.

So if you want to go back to who started it, clearly it wasn't the U.S., but it has been going on a long time.

If you live in a weaponless neighborhood, then there would still be people who are stronger than one another, able to intimidate others. And, if you have a dog, it could well pose a threat. So your nieghbor buys a guy for protection.

Either way, provocation is easy if people don't try to get along.

War is NOT always wrong and neither is armed conflict. And if you want to argue against the Civil War, then you might as well go right ahead. I'll see you and raise you millions of lives who are now free. Maybe they would have been freed eventually, but how long? How many would have beaten, raped or murdered?

War isn't always the worse choice.

[Selwynn]

19. You raise a very good and critical point....

this is a very, very, VERY hard question to answer well.

Nevertheless, I still believe in the basic principle that aggression, i.e. starting a war is never just, however the act of defense against direct, clear and present aggression is understandable...

That's not an answer to your question, the question is one I think smart people should continue to struggle with.

Sel

[rasputin1952]

15. As a vet, I can tell you that we must always be prepared...

to defend ourselves. But this particular military action was devised by greedy cowards that never wore the uniform of any branch of the services with honor.

There are justifications for war. Pearl Harbor was a prime example. Roosevelt brought the power of this nation to bear on the Axis within the directives of "just war".

When Ft. Sumter was shelled, an attack was made on the forces of the Federals, and war erupted. In many ways this war was tragic, but it solidified the nation, it ensured we would survive as a nation, as opposed to small city/states/nations. The most tragic part of the CW, was that Americans were pitted against Americans. Besides the solidification of the nation, the next thing that the CW did was free up an entire segment of Americans, the slaves of the South. But even today, inequalities exist, but we can be thankful that slavery was abolished. No human has the right to own another, the very notion of that is repulsive to the core of my being.

The Revolution was a direct result of one third of the colonials, demanding to be freed from British rule. King George responded by armed suppression of those in revolt. The Colonists that fought against British rule in this hemisphere were justified in rallying against armed attack. We should not forget, the revolution began with a letter to King George, his response was armed conflict. We asked to be removed from British rule, many died in that war, because rather than sit down and discuss the situation, George decided to fight.


War can be justified, but the aggressor is ALWAYS in the wrong. In this conflict in Iraq, the bush admin is the aggressor. We are NOT fighting for Iraqi democracy, we are there because of the greed of those in power. Lives, limbs and eyes are sacrificed on the Altar of War, so that cowards may profit. This is not a noble cause, it is an offense to everything this country stands for. 9-11 was no Pearl Harbor, and rather than blow Afghanistan into oblivion, we should have gone in and gotten Osama and had him tied in International Court as a terrorist. What a different world this would be, if we had people with brains and sense in the WH.

O8)

[spinbaby]

20. Here's the bit that really got to me...

"Charlene Feldbusch remembers one day seeing a young female soldier crawling past her in the corridor with no legs and her 3-year-old son trailing behind."