War - Are there any circumstances in which...

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by GhostEcho, May 14, 2019.

  1. Captain Conspiracy

    Captain Conspiracy Making Frogs Gay Again

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    23,345
    Location:
    An Underground Bunker in an Undisclosed Location
    Ratings:
    +17,320
    I agree, but people at the time wouldn’t have known that. I’m sure the CIA knew what kind of man Saddam when they struck deals with him.

    We’re like that dumb chick that everyone knows, her boyfriend is an asshole that treats her like shit, but she stays with him because he’s a “good person “ deep down inside and she thinks she can save him.

    I agree, going forward we should be more cautious, but the European powers didn’t think like that back then and Wilson wasn’t strong enough to do anything about it.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    81,400
    Ratings:
    +47,339
    It's why we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.
    When what you do is wrong, the opposite must be right.
    We did the opposite of our usual revenge and greed ridden foreign policy, and it worked.
    Germany and Japan are good guys now.
    We didn't rebuild Russia after pushing them into collapse, and now we have Putin.
    The science experiment is complete, the data is in.
    Grizzled old Cold Warriors need to be douched out of our politics forever, and sent to rest homes to die alone and forgotten.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  3. Captain Conspiracy

    Captain Conspiracy Making Frogs Gay Again

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    23,345
    Location:
    An Underground Bunker in an Undisclosed Location
    Ratings:
    +17,320
    Their system was collapsing already and I think Putin was inevitable. That being said, maybe we should have traded with them more, make them like China where it would be stupid to attack us or our allies. Maybe Obama should have been tougher when they invaded Crimea. We definitely could have used capitalism to our advantage.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,922
    Ratings:
    +4,230
    That's one point we'll agree on about capitalism, it can definitely be a strategic tool.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,095
    Ratings:
    +5,781
    WW2 . America was totally justified after pearl harbor. Since then......not so much. Getting Saddam out of Kuwait I can understand, but the second Iraq war was bullshit.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,197
    Ratings:
    +25,550
    But that isn't war. War is beating up his innocent little brother and the kids next door who have never heard of him and that one kid in class who sat next to him once and hates him, until eventually the bully perhaps possibly caves.
  7. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 light & lethal

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68,367
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Ratings:
    +25,346
    to answer the thread question: YES
    that situation being if somebody doesn't "leggo my Eggo!":shakefist:

    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,922
    Ratings:
    +4,230
    Also burning his house down and nuking the next street where his friends live.

    Don't forget the random variables which make it all such good fun.
  9. Marso

    Marso High speed, low drag.

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,432
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +13,019
    War is an extension of politics. It's a tool in the tool bag used by politicians to achieve their aims.

    There are many types of warfare: kinetic (shooting war), information, cyber, symmetric, asymmetric, and so on.

    War can be total or as personalized as a punch in the face. It can be declared or undeclared. The United States, China, and Russia are arguably engaged in an undeclared cyber war against one another right now, and have been for some time. The stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was a surgical, undeclared act of cyber warfare by the U.S. against Iran. The list goes on and on.

    The question in the OP is there ever a time when it's better to go to war then not? Sure, but it's all circumstantial. Negotiations with Iran are, currently, a dead end. Yet we feel we can't tolerate their nuclear program, and at the same time we are incapable of waging a full blown, declared, kinetic war in the Arabian Gulf with the expectation of a fruitful result. Ergo, a directed, undeclared cyber strike against Iranian facilities was the answer.

    In the broader sense, if the OP is asking about traditional, kinetic warfare waged symmetrically between peer nations, the standard answer is that it is usually so destructive to even the victor, and costly, that as a matter of common sense and principle it should ALWAYS be the last resort.
  10. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,922
    Ratings:
    +4,230
    Key word: should

    In practise I just don't see that is what actually happens.

    As for Irans' nuclear program, that doesn't frankly concern me any more than any other nation having one (ie, I understand the concept of MAD but rue the fact that such a strategy is actually required). Iran' track record in international affairs is frankly no worse than any of the other major nuclear players and whilst I dislike nuclear re armament Irans' disturbs me no more than anyone elses'. Where Iran concerns me is in terms of its' internal affairs and nuclear power will be of little relevance there, nor would the conflict be intended or likely to actually improve matters, especially once the impact on the civilian population is taken into account.

    The idea of the US not being able to tolerate their nuclear program is therefore, to my mind, about US interests and the balance of power between competing nations, not an ethical or moral one and frankly nothing like sufficient justification for a conventional war and all that entails.

    I do, however, get what you are saying about cyber warfare but Stuxnet being "surgical" is pretty debatable and acts of aggression (even in cyberspace) have a habit of leading to escalation in short order, escalation which involves more widespread damage.
    Last edited: May 16, 2019 at 2:59 AM
  11. garamet

    garamet "The whole world is watching."

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    52,022
    Ratings:
    +34,908
    ^This. Vietnam was my generation's burden to bear. Iraq just added to the pile. My grandkids are preteens now; I wonder what grief they'll have to carry because the People in Charge have no concept of guilt or responsiiblity, and their kids (q.v. Donnie Jr. and Eric) can just go off killing giraffes in Africa without so much as a twitch.
    • Agree Agree x 2