Any aspies have trouble understanding concept of war?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree, and I would like to point out that Switzerland proves that concept better than any other country.

Just because a place has arabs/muslims doesn't mean that it is dangerous. At the time when suicide bombing attacks were common in Israel, most of the suicide bombers were not perpetrated by arabs/muslims living in Israel but a lot of them were from the West Bank, where life was getting miserable for various reasons.

All murder is immoral.
All people who kill should go to jail.
The intention does not matter.
The circumstances do not matter.

Yeah.....and just because a place has Americans doesn't mean it's dangerous either.

Though many in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indoneisa, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicuragua, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, The Phillpines, Iraq, Okinawa, etc....might disagree with that

So American soldiers who killed Nazi soldiers who were responsible for running the concentration camps whould go to jail?

Couldn't be assed reading this whole thread but I hope somebody mentioned the most obvious thing about war:

War is when old men decide to send their young men off to another land to kill other young men.

Don't blame the soldiers for that. Blame the brass and the politicians and royalty or whatever else got them into that war in the first place. You are referencing WW1 with th poppy thing correct? Applies ESPECIALLY to WWI. Give the international bankers' role in funding and prolonging the war. And arms industries, erc



What the ruling class of said country considers 'right'. Not to mention 'what is a country' - e.g. French Quebecois fighting for the English forces in WWI - even if France was an ally of the UK then. Also see black USA soldiers.



foreign policy of great powers [USA] to access central asian oil and bypass russian controlled pipes.



They were brave. They had to in order to get slaughtered in such numbers by ignorant and backwards-ass generals who didn't factor in what machine guns do to charging soldiers and other new-fangled technology. The common soldiers did the fighting and dying and the generals did their pomp-and-circumstance BS. No wonder the Russian empire fell apart and Germany and France had revolutions and mutinies. Too bad they didn't succeed



Propaganda. Nationalism. And damn ignorance. Also whitewashing. Oh, and they died in a lot higher numbers so people want to cover it or BS that they died for a worthy cause.....instead of admitting they wasted a lot of peoples' lives needlessly and heaped the blame on the surviving central power.

EDIT: in occupied parts of France the Germans basically conscripted people for labor and did jack all the peoples' s**t.....basically draftin and lootin...so arguably that's a "good thing". But German treatment of occupied lowland countries in WWI did not be an exceptionally 'bad' thing - even with the incidents that took place



Not a lot......a lot of wars are about colonialism and imperialism and opening markets to foreign powers.....hey they're doing that TODAY. They did that 200 years ago and simply changed the BS reason.

War can be explained through animal behaviour. Observe chimps in the wild.

Also see "the blunt end of politics" -e.g. "War is a means of an end" (at least) when nothing else works (well supposedly). A very blunt means of settling disputes and a last measure [lol]

[quote="irishwhistle" But how it stands to reason that the question of correct choices can be settled through the sacrifice of the time and very lives of your own citizens, I'm sure I don't understand. They do what they're supposed to do, but who decided it was what they were supposed to do?[/quote]

Ideally the people should decide that. But the ruling class - bankers, corporations, etc tend to use national armies as private thugs to expand upon and build their empires - or HELP with it. And unless aliens are invading and hell bent on human domination.....not needed too badly

[quote="Ambivalence"]
NATO is a defensive alliance; member states are required to act (as far as I understand it) if any of their fellow member states are attacked on home soil in Europe or North America; the Taliban aided and abetted such attacks and are therefore a legitimate target for NATO.

Though by the same token, so are Riyadh and Islamabad. [/quote]

Not to mention Florida and factions of the US Federal Government...



Nagorny-Kabarakh

War - Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

I'm pretty sure most people who are NOT autistic have a hard time understanding the concept of war too.

Essentially it's when greed uses fear to allow murder to redistribute wealth, the plan is for the original greed to benefit from the redistribution but not seldom some other greed steps up and takes over. Everyone loses, but because greed is blind, it keeps happening.

War is easy to define. Haven´t you read General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) the military theoretician from the Prussian Army? War is the continuation of policy by other means or "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. ..." ( On War).

Does anyone grasp the concept of war? As an American, I fully support our troops and our leadership as they fight those who want to kill us. But why do they want to kill us in the first place? Isn't there a more civilized way to air their grievances? There certainly are ways that wouldn't make them inflame the cycle of violence.

The Taliban was harboring some of the terrorists who plotted the September 11 attacks, and they refused to hand them over. The United States considered this an act of aggression, and treaties establishing NATO allowed them to join in as well.

The Taliban was SAID TO BE harboring some of the terrorists who plotted 911.

The people who SAID this ordered the attack on Afghanistan.

Seventeen of the nineteen 911 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, so in retaliation they targeted...who?