yeah, but what do you really think!!

Violence has never, ever solved a conflict in a good way. We've been fighting for 10.000 years, and not once has a war had a good outcome. Not once. Often they seem justified at the moment, and may even seem like they achieve something, but as time passes the true consequences become clear.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Violence has never, ever solved a conflict in a good way. We've been fighting for 10.000 years, and not once has a war had a good outcome. Not once. Often they seem justified at the moment, and may even seem like they achieve something, but as time passes the true consequences become clear.

American Revolution?
French Revolution?
American Civil War?
WW II?

as much as i agree with Maylander in my heart and soul, Mike's comment is hard to refute. i would argue that sometimes violence is the only way in which to deal with a situation. granted i believe that over 90% of the time that it is used it is not necessary or at least at the scale to which it is implemented. war however i completely agree with Maylander in that because of its scope/scale it is not necessary and it is the product of bad diplomacy, weak tacticians, and an overall failure to understand and be prepared for reasons for the conflict.

Originally Posted by curious
i completely agree with Maylander in that because of its scope/scale it is not necessary

Absolutely agree - when you see conflict as 'part of the package' rather than something to be avoided at all costs you end up with … um … Iraq …

September 11 was worse in my opinion, as it could have been avoided if airlines had decent security checks and the pilot areas were completely separate as security experts have been advising for the last 20-30 years.

Iraq is going to be a problem for the next 10 years at least, because in my opinion the war was never actually won. The US military is constrained by a too tight a code of conduct to actually do what has to be done. They need the full army in there and set up a secure border and then perform house to house sweeps and completely destroy every last piece of resistance, of course this would never happen as it would offend peoples sensibilities back home.

As I've said several times, it's always easier to sit and second-guess someone than it is to be the one to take action.

Originally Posted by dteowner
As I've said several times, it's always easier to sit and second-guess someone than it is to be the one to take action.

Agreed, I am interested in who you think is the one taking action though, the soldiers? their commanding officers? or the white house?

Yes to all 3. The commanding officers are doing a decent job considering they're constrained by modern day "gentleman's war". Dubya stepped up and did something about Saddam. While Europe wrung its hands and the UN rattled its swords, Dubya made the decision to take action against a murdering tyrant who had consistently thumbed his nose at the "savior-of-mankind UN" (see Kuwait, see weapons inspections, see food-fer-oil disception). I'm not so blind to believe all of Dubya's motivations were righteous, but I think the result was a good one, and the ultimate result of a democracy in the Middle East will be stellar assuming the Democrats don't shove thru a cut-n-run before the Iraqi government can stand on its own.

Still I think if Saddam reigned another 100 years he wouldn't have the body-count that the americans have caust with their invasion.

Originally Posted by txa1265
American Revolution?
French Revolution?
American Civil War?
WW II?

The French Revolution was a massacre that only enabled Napoleon to rise and to start another great war. At the end of Napoleons Wars everything was like it was before the Revolution - with the exception that a lot of people were killed… (oh… and my homeland franconia was swallowed by bavaria )

I think WW II could have been avoided if the victors would have been wiser at the end of WW I. The victorious nations have basically doomed the new german democracy with their conditions for peace. Their only Intention was to punish Germany for their losses and IMO this was the Seed that Hitler has reaped. Not that WW II could be avoided when Hitler was in power… if the americans wouldn't have come to us, we would have attacked America as soon as possible, that is if we wouldn't be beaten by the Sowjets alone and the Result would have been a communistic Europe…

The American Wars seem to have good outcomes though…

Originally Posted by Fenris
Still I think if Saddam reigned another 100 years he wouldn't have the body-count that the americans have caust with their invasion.

I would say his slaughter of the Kurds might already outnumber all the deaths which you lay at the feet of the US, even though the VAST majority of violence is now Iraqi vs. Iraqi.

Originally Posted by Fenris
The American Wars seem to have good outcomes though…

"Good outcomes" sounds cynical in this context. I admit that for Germany, and on a greater scale the outcome of WWII was decent, but as soon as you look at other countries, later wars or a more individual level, the term "good outcome" seems to be utterly strange and inappropriate.

If you think about the wars that were fought during the cold war in peripheral countries of the world (sucks if your own country is destroyed, therfore you fight your war in poor countries, preferably far away) than I'd think all these wars had negative consequences for the directly involved parties. Think about Vietnam, think about Afghanistan, think about Iraq. Especially Afghanistan and Iraq are interesting in this context since both regimes that the US fought so vehemently lately were indirectly established or directly backed up by the US.

I have to admit that I find it disgusting to discuss war on such an abstract level, sitting comfortably in a safe and rich country behind my laptop. Nonetheless I'll give it a try.
I have the feeling that wars like the recent Iraq war are very problematic because politically impossible. The main problem is not to invade Iraq, the problem is to establish another political system. To do such a thing you need a tremendous amount of money and a political stability in your own country that is hardly given in any modern democracy. Just imagine what will happen if the US withdraws the US forces now… I fear that in the forseeable future the political pressure will become so strong that the US government will have to exactely that - in my opinion with absolutely devastating long-time consequences for Iraq. I hope I'm wrong…

What makes wars like the ones named above especially scandalous is the fact that every expert on the middle east or arab world with half a respectable reputation foretold the things that are happening right now.

I was only talking about the 4 Wars txa 1265 mentioned… no doubt Americas recent military Adventures are a disaster and some actions taken against smaller nations in the cold war were outright evil - but hey, it was a war, even if it was only a cold war. Evil things are necessary in any war.. you can't fight a clean war, not even a cold one… on the other side IMO the war in Afghanistan was necessary.

Originally Posted by Fenris
I think WW II could have been avoided if the victors would have been wiser at the end of WW I.

Absolutely agree - one of the lessons learned early in history class … we need to send more world leaders to history class.

We'd need to teach most of them to READ first!!

Yes, as we say here in Oklahoma—"Buy em books and buy 'em books, and they just eat the covers.""

September 11 was worse in my opinion, as it could have been avoided if airlines had decent security checks and the pilot areas were completely separate as security experts have been advising for the last 20-30 years.

While it is true that security measures were somewhat lacking… No matter what measures are taken, terrorists will always find a way. You can put all the passengers in narcotic sleep and even then you can't be 100% sure that everthing goes like planned. At the moment travelling via airplane isn't very comfortable… All those security checks only cause huge delays at the airports and these latest regulations are plain rediculous. They make us passengers take off our shoes, disallow carrying drinks to airplane etc..whats next?

I don't know how to prevent future terrorist acts, but I do know this security show at the airports won't stop it.

HLS are bunch of bloodsuckers don't do sh*t, are as effective as cops preventing crimes in a rundown neighborhood. What needed is common sense… how can those f*ckers who accepted big cash to train future-hijacker-to-be got so numb? Why would someone want to fly without learning how to land? External threat only strengthens oneself, but how to deal with something is rotten within?

Originally Posted by Dez
While it is true that security measures were somewhat lacking… No matter what measures are taken, terrorists will always find a way.

It is actually possible to prevent planes from being able to be hijacked, all that is required is a completely separate compartment for the pilots with only one-way communication available.

Yes, the potential hijackers can still shoot out the windows and kill everybody on-board and probably even cause the plane to crash, but they cannot gain control of the plane and crash it into a building or take the plane to a hostile airstrip.

Security experts have been saying this for DECADES, hijackings used to happen once a week in africa, and I recall a particular case where a pilot who had to ditch his plane after it was hijacked (killing about 90% of the passengers) a few years back had been hijacked 3 times(!!!!!) before that incident.