Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Wikileaks releases classified US military video showing unlawful killing of Iraqis

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    Makes it sound like it has to be that way.

    It does, the history of the human race proves that. As does nature.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But not in modern warfare, at least.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's the pacifists that they do it for.

    The right to voice opinions comes with a cost that's been paid in blood and will be defended with blood. The military are the ones who pick up that tab.
    As far as human history goes up to the present day, I'd say well less than 5% of all wars and conflicts that have ever taken place on this planet had anything to do with defending freedom of expression, or any other freedom or right concerning the common people. The percentage would be a tad higher if we just looked at the last century- but not by much.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    You are quite correct, it isn't. It is, however, the bottom line.

    What is the bottom line?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    As far as human history goes up to the present day, I'd say well less than 5% of all wars and conflicts that have ever taken place on this planet had anything to do with defending freedom of expression, or any other freedom or right concerning the common people. The percentage would be a tad higher if we just looked at the last century- but not by much.

    I didn't say all the wars won ;)

    Civil War would be a good starting point, plus we could look at some of the English won wars against the celts.

    But yeah, look more recently and it's about self determination or about power over a nation and it's people. Part of that is also the struggle for resources, which in themselves provide the ability of self detemination...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    What is the bottom line?

    The bottom line is, if you aren't willing to use force and your "enemy" is, then you will lose. That simple.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just checking what you meant. Can I add "the bottom line" to the annoying phrases thread? *jokes*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's the pacifists that they do it for.

    The right to voice opinions comes with a cost that's been paid in blood and will be defended with blood. The military are the ones who pick up that tab.

    yeah they would in actual wars of self defence, but not all wars/invasions are like that

    it's an oversimplification, in most cases around the world, a country having a solid standing and reserve army would be comfortably safe
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    The bottom line is, if you aren't willing to use force and your "enemy" is, then you will lose. That simple.
    This is where I fail to see the reasoning for armed forces. If your enemy is anyone else apart from yourself, you're fighting for nothing. If one country has armed forces better than yours, you out reach their killing power, and it just goes on and on to new extremes. So what are they fighting for? It can only be power/resources.

    If there were no armed forces, no one would have any force to invade/affect the rights of humans in other countries... so armed forces and war wouldn't be needed to fight for these rights? So what are the positive of war?

    Saying your country would be safe for having an armed forces is still not a valid reason in my eyes, it comes back down to fighting your own self-made enemy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    So what are they fighting for? It can only be power/resources.

    Greed is usually that cause of war, that doesn't mean it's the reason that both sides fight. However, if you think resources aren't worth fighting for then perhaps you should try living without oil and see how my freedom and power of self determination you have then...
    If there were no armed forces, no one would have any force to invade/affect the rights of humans in other countries... so armed forces and war wouldn't be needed to fight for these rights?

    But there are, have always been and will always be armed forces. To suggest otherwise is naive at best.

    Do you think that there weren't tribal wars back in earliest civilisation?
    So what are the positive of war?

    Well, without that we wouldn't have the lifestyle we have now. But I'm not daft enough to ignore that every war has it's loser. Look at the UK and our former empire. From a UK perspective the wars we fought back then brought us to the power and lifestyle we all take for granted now. For those we ruled, well, it's wasn't so great was it?

    Wouldn't it have been better for them if they'd been able to effectively defend themselves?
    Saying your country would be safe for having an armed forces is still not a valid reason in my eyes, it comes back down to fighting your own self-made enemy.

    Self made suggest that diplomacy would work every time. If you are willing to accept every demand another country makes then it does. If you aren't then what next, what will you do when diplomacy fails?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not saying there weren't fights in tribes and that they weren't for good reasons, of course there were, but what was the reasoning? It must be something of not knowing about the world around you, fighting for what you have because of fear. Most of those tribe wars to this day are over the white man poisoning the world around them. The white man being the devil and destroyer of everything. But we now live in a modern world where we know about all the other countries around us, we don't need to fear our own race - only over those that are man made fears - guns, bombs, terrorists etc.

    If diplomacy was to fail then they don't have anything to attack us with, neither us to attack them. So diplomacy wouldn't fail until something was worked out, even if it was negative for the other country? Diplomacy seems to fail more because one country doesn't like what was negotiated, so they go in with force to make a point.

    Perhaps I am just naive, but it still doesn't answer my questions.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most wars have nothing to do with fear - including Afghanistan and Iraq - but greed. Most wars about about an attempt to grasp what belongs to another nation.

    Diplomacy can have it's place, but when CountryA wants what CountryB has, and CountryB won't give it up...

    Most countries only have a defence force, some see an offensive force as being the best form of defence!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bump, but a US soldier has been charged for the release of this video to the public domain - with 8 charges overall.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10529110.stm
Sign In or Register to comment.