|
|
|
|
|
| What is the right war?
Posted: 10/25/2008 6:35:10 PM |
that money spent on education, medical research, infrastructure-
would bring more peace in the world than any goddamn gun or war ever would~
And all the prosperity that goes with it....right?
All the prosperity that someone else will want to have for themselves.
You really don't get it do you?? | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 5/14/2008
Msg: 124 | |
| What is the right war?
Posted: 10/25/2008 8:48:29 PM | ^^^^^^
And all the prosperity that goes with it....right?
All the prosperity that someone else will want to have for themselves.
You really don't get it do you??
prosperity...
WTF are you talking about ?
let's look at the wars that the US has been involved in recently-
World War I & II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq
what prosperity did any of the countries involved gain exactly-
PLEASE- tell me...
let me share an even more important statistic with you-
American deaths in each war...
In World War I, 53,402 American servicemen were killed in action.
In World War II, the toll was 291,557.
For the Korean War, 33,629.
In Vietnam, 45,940.
Afghanistan so far 500
Iraq so far 4,187
http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/t-z/wars.shtml
and these are only American deaths....
YOU don't "get it" | |
|
| What is the right war?
Posted: 10/25/2008 9:08:48 PM |
You really don't get it do you??
Somebody doesn't.
If you don't think humans are capable of anything more than an eternal struggle to acquire things that others will try to take away, then you're right. We're doomed to eternal warfare.
But with the onset of modern travel and communication, we've effectively shrunk the world. Sure, we're still full of nationalistic pride and there's a huge disparity between the haves and the have nots, and there remain significant ideological differences, but as a species we're far more aware and sensitive to what's happening all over the planet.
When catastrophe strikes one nation, others on the other side of the globe offer assistance. When atrocities occur anywhere, there's often a reaction from far away nations as well. Our economies and technologies are more linked than they've ever been. That's why there's such keen global interest in the U.S. presidential election. As the dominant superpower, U.S. policy has a ripple effect all over the planet.
So IF we started to divert military budgets into not just national but global efforts to improve standards of living EVERYWHERE, we might not eliminate conflicts, but we just might work toward a world where acts of aggression were limited to splinter fanatic groups on a much smaller scale than nations attacking nations.
Idealistic? No question. Unrealistic? That depends on our will. We demonstrated our ability to make unheard of technological advancements during the last century. Imagine if someone in 1900 had predicted we would by 2000 have made all the advancements we actually did accomplish. No one would have taken them seriously. Why can't this century be the one where we advance our philosophies and practices to learn to live harmoniously? Not just with each other but with the environment as well.
Maybe it won't happen, maybe it will. I don't think anyone would disagree that life will be different in 2100 than it is in 2008, and I don't know anyone who LIKES to see their loved ones killed in a war. We've got a long way to go, but we won't get there by saying "we can't". We'll get there by asking "how can we?" and then working diligently to find the answers.
Dave | |
|
| What is the right war?
Posted: 10/26/2008 1:23:28 AM |
let's look at the wars that the US has been involved in recently-
World War I & II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq
what prosperity did any of the countries involved gain exactly-
PLEASE- tell me...
No, really, it's you that doesn't get it. He doesn't mean prosperity from war, that only goes to the military industrial complex in modern times. He meant the prosperity that would come from demilitarizing and putting all that money into education, infrastructure, etc. That prosperity would be nice, until a nation that didn't demilitarize decided that they wanted a piece of that, because there'd be nothing that we could do to stop them. Let's pretend that in the '60s the hippies won and the U.S. completely demilitarized, do you really think we wouldn't be typing in Russian right now? | |
|
imp78
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 127 | |
| What is the right war?
Posted: 10/26/2008 8:27:21 AM |
We've got a long way to go, but we won't get there by saying "we can't". We'll get there by asking "how can we?" and then working diligently to find the answers.[\quote]
Spot on. Saying that just because this is the way it is NOW is a cop out - it doesn't allow for the possibility of change much less actively work for it. Dealing with reality as it is is, of course, vital but that doesn't mean you can't still work to make things better.
The previous facetious example of a man approaching you on the street, one who assaults you or appears to want to assault you - of course you defend yourself if someone attacks you. But before that happens, or after, you can find out the why. If it's because he's psycho, well there are always going to be psychos. If it's a complex series of socioeconomic issues: poverty, unchecked sexism/racism, drug addiction, etc etc then you can work to lessen those things that can contribute to a person choosing to commit crimes. If the home you're coming from isn't all that much better than prison, might even be worse, and prison is the only motivator to not commit crime - then how do you expect someone to not break the law? I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying there are often understandable reasons behind people's actions.
What other posters appear to be saying is that if we spent more TIME and MONEY on fixing the underlying issues to war, then maybe we could prevent them in the first place.
Personally, I don't think war will ever completely go away - unlike the crime example, most of the people starting wars are people who are already plenty rich and powerful. Us invading Iraq was not the case of an occupied people rising up against an unjust, abusive occupying power. Even though Saddam was an horrible man whose death I lose no sleep over, if we were going to remove every abusive leader in the world - then we've got a long road ahead of us and somehow we're managing to ignore a whole lot of bad people (*cough* ahem, Darfur anyone?). | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
