Which Wars Did You Support?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Which wars that the US participated in, did you all support? Should we have invaded Iraq? Should we have invaded Afghanistan? Should we have been involved in Kosovo? Did you support the first Persian Gulf War? Should we have sent troops to Vietnam? Should we have sent troops to Europe in World War II?

Please give your reasoning also. This should be an interesting discussion.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Which wars that the US participated in, did you all support? Should we have invaded Iraq? Should we have invaded Afghanistan? Should we have been involved in Kosovo? Did you support the first Persian Gulf War? Should we have sent troops to Vietnam? Should we have sent troops to Europe in World War II?

Please give your reasoning also. This should be an interesting discussion.

Rupert,
Although very many of my ancestors fought valliantly in many, going back to the "revolutionary" one, and the "civil" one (as if there's ever a civil kind of war), I'll just have to say that my answers to all of yours are NO.
I am a pacifist. I believe in the "Prince of Peace".
I "turn the other cheek", talk, and attempt to resolve differences in a peaceful and agreeable way BEFORE, not after.
Seems to me, unless humans begin to start thinking in alternative ways, and given the technologies of destruction of our own creation, those that we've devoted our most "educated minds" to invent, the only hope for humans is to not look back on which were "good ones" and which ones weren't, but to see a better approach to resolve differences.
If not, no amount of "evaluation" will decide those that are justified.
Many more will die in the process.
If you and others wish to "stay the course", we all are indeed doomed.
http://www.antiwar.com/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Although very many of my ancestors fought valliantly in many, going back to the "revolutionary" one, and the "civil" one (as if there's ever a civil kind of war), I'll just have to say that my answers to all of yours are NO.
I am a pacifist. I believe in the "Prince of Peace".
I "turn the other cheek", talk, and attempt to resolve differences in a peaceful and agreeable way BEFORE, not after.
Seems to me, unless humans begin to start thinking in alternative ways, and given the technologies of destruction of our own creation, those that we've devoted our most "educated minds" to invent, the only hope for humans is to not look back on which were "good ones" and which ones weren't, but to see a better approach to resolve differences.
If not, no amount of "evaluation" will decide those that are justified.
Many more will die in the process.
If you and others wish to "stay the course", we all are indeed doomed.
http://www.antiwar.com/

I respect what you are saying but it does seem that there are times when there is no choice. Let's take World War II for example. Hitler was gobbling up Europe. If we didn't get involved, Germany would have taken over the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I respect what you are saying but it does seem that there are times when there is no choice. Let's take World War II for example. Hitler was gobbling up Europe. If we didn't get involved, Germany would have taken over the world.

should just turn the other cheek, i guess that would be the one with blinders on. then it'll all be all better.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

...all of them and im on one side ...ours..
vietnam was before my time..but i remember many hippys getting beat down on the news..68 chi town ..ive served with a few guys that were in nam....it seemed that it was it micro managed war with no real intent to win..for that im not supportive..but i do support the troups that went..
granada..needed to be done yes
kosevo ..yes
bombing of kadafi yes
desert wars 1 and 2 yes

[paisjpq]

all of them...and none of them.

It's kind of the way I feel about this board...I would be content to sit back and let people fight it out amongst themselves...but inevitably it disrupts the whole board so someone has to step in on occasion and straighten things out...

it's a simplistic view I know...but that's why I'm not running this country...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I respect what you are saying but it does seem that there are times when there is no choice. Let's take World War II for example. Hitler was gobbling up Europe. If we didn't get involved, Germany would have taken over the world.

Rupert,
WW II was a continuation of WW I. The conditions imposed in its aftermath brought on the desperation for the German people. Like them, those that reside in our own country have a deep sense of "nationalism". It's a very good play...something that many have been willing to give their lives for.
Yes, Hitler was a very bad, fanatical despot. No arguement.
Just realize that he played the market that invested their hopes in his strategy. Read back through the threads and see how many that post here feel the same way about their own nation.
Speaking of "taking over the world", if you've read Gwen Dyer's book, "WAR",
the motivations for participation are well stated, as are the tactics.
His work puts the intent in a historical context. He also documents many conflicts. You'll just have to read it to see the commonality of the present.
Speaking of which (the present), have you had a chance to read Frank Rich's book, "The Best Story Ever Sold"? It might be worth your time, since you asked the question.
Here's a link to a book review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Downthestretch55]

Said better than I could.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1218-32.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
WW II was a continuation of WW I. The conditions imposed in its aftermath brought on the desperation for the German people. Like them, those that reside in our own country have a deep sense of "nationalism". It's a very good play...something that many have been willing to give their lives for.
Yes, Hitler was a very bad, fanatical despot. No arguement.
Just realize that he played the market that invested their hopes in his strategy. Read back through the threads and see how many that post here feel the same way about their own nation.
Speaking of "taking over the world", if you've read Gwen Dyer's book, "WAR",
the motivations for participation are well stated, as are the tactics.
His work puts the intent in a historical context. He also documents many conflicts. You'll just have to read it to see the commonality of the present.
Speaking of which (the present), have you had a chance to read Frank Rich's book, "The Best Story Ever Sold"? It might be worth your time, since you asked the question.
Here's a link to a book review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...rssnyt&emc=rss

I could write a separate book on practically every war we've ever fought and title each one "The Best Story Ever Sold". In every war, our leaders give us a justification as to why the war is necessary. In other words, they are "selling us" on the war. In every one of these cases, it would be easy to come up with a counter-argument as to why the story we were sold was misleading. I don't think that proves anything. You could say the same thing about anything.

I'll give you an example. I could say that burglar-alarms are the "best story ever sold". Then I could give you all these reasons as to why the arguments in favor of burglar alarms are misleading. I could say that burglar alarms don't really make you safer and that they won't prevent you from being burglarized. I could say that there is less than a 1% chance that your house will get burglarized this year even if you don't have an alarm. Etc, etc, etc.
I could conclude that burglar alarmsa re nothing more than a big scam.

Anyway, you get my point. I could write a book as to why burglar alarms are unnecessary and explain why many of the arguments in favor of them are misleading. Would my book prove anything? Not really. The book would give some good counter-arguments and it would tell you why some of the arguments that the burglar-alarm industry makes are somewhat misleading. But the book would not prove that burglar alarms are unnecessary.

Anyway, the point is that you could write a book called "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" on practically anything that is sold. And if you did your research, I'm sure you could come with some good arguments against the product being sold. But this wouldn't prove anything. It wouldn't prove that the product is not good. And it would not prove that the sellers of the product did anything wrong.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I could write a separate book on practically every war we've ever fought and title each one "The Best Story Ever Sold". In every war, our leaders give us a justification as to why the war is necessary. In other words, they are "selling us" on the war. In every one of these cases, it would be easy to come up with a counter-argument as to why the story we were sold was misleading. I don't think that proves anything. You could say the same thing about anything.

I'll give you an example. I could say that burglar-alarms are the "best story ever sold". Then I could give you all these reasons as to why the arguments in favor of burglar alarms are misleading. I could say that burglar alarms don't really make you safer and that they won't prevent you from being burglarized. I could say that there is less than a 1% chance that your house will get burglarized this year even if you don't have an alarm. Etc, etc, etc.
I could conclude that burglar alarmsa re nothing more than a big scam.

Anyway, you get my point. I could write a book as to why burglar alarms are unnecessary and explain why many of the arguments in favor of them are misleading. Would my book prove anything? Not really. The book would give some good counter-arguments and it would tell you why some of the arguments that the burglar-alarm industry makes are somewhat misleading. But the book would not prove that burglar alarms are unnecessary.

Anyway, the point is that you could write a book called "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" on practically anything that is sold. And if you did your research, I'm sure you could come with some good arguments against the product being sold. But this wouldn't prove anything. It wouldn't prove that the product is not good. And it would not prove that the sellers of the product did anything wrong.

Rupert,
You certainly put thought into this response.
Did you read the links?
I won't get "longwinded". I'll just say that your burglar alarm anology is about like comparing an apple to an orange.
Burglar alarms don't kill people, they protect them.
Wars kill people, no one is secure.
When buying a product that sellers are selling, "Let the buyer beware".
'Nuf said.

[Kasept]

Under-supported War's

1. War of 1812 (I love that war..)
2. The Chocolate War (Robby Gordon's first film.. Great.)
3. Ward Cleaver ("June.. What are we going to do about the Beaver?")
4. Estella Warren ('nuff said)
5. Ward 8 (Old-fashioned ****tail no one appreciates anymore)

[timmgirvan]

Estella Warren was in a war?

[Danzig]

hell, tim, i'm sure more on here want to hear about the Beaver war!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

hell, tim, i'm sure more on here want to hear about the Beaver war!

Sorry....er,musta missed that one!