Cry Havoc', and let slip the dogs of war.

[ragnarok1945]

some people feel war is to serve the means of a political end, simply cutting down the negotiations small talk and go directly to force the other end to a decision to comply with you.

 

But in reality all it does is serve needless bloodshed because such matters take time to resolve. You can't use war to speed the process up

[Monkey]

This is a good one, war is necessary in certain cases. An exception would be the one in which the U.S. is trying to "liberate" Iraq and those countries. I mean yeah we are spending tons of money on wars and battles, but if we didn't, we would have the disadvantage and lose all our battles, causing hundreds or thousands of casualties. When others hear of the time of weakness, they MAY take advantage of that and invade, causing even more casualties.

[ragnarok1945]

With regards to "liberating" Iraq, everyone knows they're going in with good intentions, but their society doesn't work the same way ours do (just like most Middle Eastern countries).

 

We can say all we want on how we're trying to make Iraq a better place, but that's what we said to western Europe over 60 years ago. This "better place" doesn't have to match the definition we gave it.

[Monkey]

Western Europe? West Europe consists of Spain, France, and like GB if I'm not mistaken. These countries seem to be good places if you ask me

[ragnarok1945]

I didn't say they were bad, but after the second world war and we began rebuilding it we pushed our views onto them

[Monkey]

True, but as of today, France, Spain, Great Britain, and Italy are all pretty good places to be. They have a good government, they have clean streets, and they have order in all places.

[ragnarok1945]

I hope you know France had no government whatsoever during the 1920s. After the war was over we had helped to bring order back, but it was what we feel was the right thing to do.

 

Bottom line, no country in this world knows what the "universal" right thing really is.

[Monkey]

Nobody knows what the "universal" right is. U.S.A. doesn't because we are still very young. The other continents don't because order is still being formed there.

[ragnarok1945]

Yeah, especially not for the Middle East, which has a history for over 5000 years, the US's history is barely 232 years, which to that regard we're like children with virtually no education at all trying to understand a book meant an experienced adult

[Monkey]

Exactly, but lets try to get back onto topic

[ragnarok1945]

and that's the reason for the wrong reasons of war. You can't say you're right for fighting the war if you understand nothing about it

[2sick4u]

and that's the reason for the wrong reasons of war. You can't say you're right for fighting the war if you understand nothing about it

 

LolIrony.

 

Seriously though' date=' you're both doing it wrong. This thread is about how what a country spends upon War can easily be taken away and distributed to generate a more positive effect in Society, not about how America is redundant, and Iraq has a more larger history. Also, how you tried to make it sound like both of your off-topic P.O.V's had something to do with War is just laughable.

 

War is never an intelligible choice, morally done so or not. For, as Static quoted,

 

[i']Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud.[/i]

 

We can do better than something so obviously one-sided.

 

You can say War is good for population reduction and blah blah. But consider it yourself, the entire motive of population reduction is saving resource. Being able to distribute more per capita in society and whatnot. Using War, one of the largest wastes' of resource, to achieve such a goal is inane and so obviously contradicting.