Can you imagine if we had napalmed Baghdad as we did Toyko? We wouldn't have won the war against Japan if we hadn't done that and of course other 'unspeakable' acts. I'm not of course trying to say we should have done any of that just attempting to put it in a context of if that sort of war was still accepted. Extremely conflicting to think of what it takes to really win a war and the horrors you must live with afterward. Watching The American Experience -- Victory in the Pacific on PBS last night was really remarkable. The soldiers’ tales -- the utter and total hatred of the enemy -- the volume of military, weaponry, and destruction. Amazing we were capable of such annihilation on a nationwide scale sixty years ago. _______ There are few modern conflicts that seem to have worked out as designed with a totally controlled battle plan and low casualties ~ the first that comes to mind is the 'Kosovo War'. Things have generally been stable since the end of hostilities, but it seems lately unrest has been rising again.
We bombed Dresden which was a pure civilian attack and meant to demorilize the enemy, there was very little militarily in Dresden, and we used inciniary bombs to really make it burn. I understand the fire afterwards got to like 1000 degrees...... Would not happen today. DD
How do I sound dissappointed? I said it would not happen today because the nature of war has changed. Azadre, the disappointment you hear is just how you are injecting your own thoughts into my post as you read it, you imagine I am dissappointed, therefore you think I am. I would rather have no war at all, EVER ! War dissappoints me, not peace. DD
The Romans declared war on the Carthaginians again after they were getting their ass kicked economically. It wasn't like the Romans wanted Carthage. They razed the city and supposedly salted the land. While the location was perfect to build another city, land wasn't their motive. War is outdated? Well, only you can prevent forest fires.
but the outcome is the same. like dadakota is trying to point out, you can't go in half assed. its either a complete demolition, or it doesn't work.
I use the same example. War creates hate and hate creates war. So in a war like this one where you have Israel trying to just kill a bunch of people, you have two choices, either you do the Roman version where you have a genocide against the people who are there, visa vie, the US taking the land from the Native Americans, or you just go in kill a bunch of people and create even more anomosity, and inturn more fighters for the other side latter. In the end both will fail. Roman had created so many enemies that even they could not hold on to the territory they concured. And in a modern era when weapons are far more leathal the enemy can just rearm with powerful weapon and you are in the same boat in which you started. The only sustainable answer is to treat people fairly, remove the reasons for the hate. When a society has a middle class and people have a chance to advance themselves, and get a better live for their children and grandchildren they are far less likely to be a suicide bomber.
As others have said, you simply can't try to instill another ideology through war without total warfare. There is still too much remaining resentment to fuel the seeds of revolution and resistance. To win a war you must: A) completely wipe out an entire generation of males. sell the women and children into slavery. marry or rape the women so that the pre-existing race is wiped out. plunder the land. with no living males, there is little possibility for revolution. B) trickery as evidenced by the British in India. Create a civil war having one side do the fighting for you. You then experience few casualties in your ranks and still remain strong enough to remain as a hegemon, free to exploit the natives.
so money not war? the problem is when the money runs out, people revert back to their hating ways. human nature.
The Roots of War When one country attacks another, it is out of great fear and a kind of collective ignorance. For instance, the French fought to keep Vietnam as their colony, because they thought that if they possessed Vietnam, they would be happy. So they sent many young men to Vietnam to kill and to be killed. We know, when we look deeply, that happiness does not come from possessing something or someone; it comes from kindness and compassion, from helping to ease suffering. If the American people had sat down and practiced looking deeply, they would have seen that the Vietnam War was entirely unnecessary, that their own lives could not be improved through the suffering of another country or the suffering of their own young men. The United States senselessly wasted many lives in this war when it could have supported both North and South Vietnam in their different models of development, helping the Communists and the non-Communists alike to rebuild their societies. This would have been much wiser than supporting one side and fighting the other. If France and the United States had yielded autonomy to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, helping these countries to develop instead of waging war, all sides would have profited from such a friendly relationship. After a long period of suffering, these countries are finally moving in this direction, but this could have happened much earlier without the terrible loss of life. All violence is injustice. We should not inflict that injustice on ourselves or on other people. Historians and teachers as well as politicians should look deeply at the suffering caused by wars, not just at the justifications that governments give for them. We have to teach our children the truth about war so they learn from our experiences and understand that violence and war are not the right way, that they are not the right actions to take. We have to show our children that people on both sides of war—the French and American soldiers in Vietnam as well as the Vietnamese people—were victims of the ignorance and violence rooted in their societies and governments. Remember, there were no winners. As long as we allow hatred to grow in us, we continue to make ourselves and others suffer. As we look deeply at the wars in our recent history, we have to transform our hatred and misunderstanding into compassion. We have to recognize that those who have made us suffer are also victims. Many who had a father, brother or friend killed in the Vietnam War have been able to transcend their suffering and to reconcile with the other side, Vietnamese and American. They have done this for their own sake and for the sake of their children. How can we as individuals influence the collective consciousness of our nations and move in the direction of peace? We do this by uprooting the roots of violence and war within ourselves. To prevent war, we cultivate nonviolence. We practice mindfulness in our daily life so that we can recognize and transform the poisons within us and our nation. When we practice nonviolence in our daily life, we see the positive effects on our families, society and government. By Thich Nhat Hanh http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1546
Is it just me or does war from a American stand point seem very hypocritical. Everything we teach in society tells us to not kill, fight, etc. So, then we go and kill and fight due to political contrasts and economics. Argue with us and we'll beat you up mentallity. Given there are certain circumstances where we may not have a choice (self defense, Hitleresk type regimes) but being a politician it seems that the simple compromise should be enough... Just goes to show you that some things never change, elementary school throughout life, just on a broader more deadly scale.
In my opinion, you need to be sure and differentiate between "America," and "Americans," and the terrible, stupid government that some elected. A relatively small percentage of Americans vote, and an even smaller percentage of voting age Americans elected Bush in 2004, as well as the Republican Congress we've had the last several years. In 2000, a majority of those who voted, voted against George Bush. Thought I'd point that out. Keep D&D Civil.
Obviously, but that's a rather utopian suggestion. Yes we all know that we could stop war if we stopped hating each other but lets be realistic. Hate, fear, greed, etc.. are all inherent to societies. We compete with each other in every facet of life. Hell break it down, in school, at work, with your siblings, we compete all the time. Our system of economics is based on competition. Our schools teach us to compete to succeed in life. And as long as we are bred to compete, concepts like war will remain. The drive to be superior systematically legitimizes and justifies warfare of all sorts. War doesn't have a single root like economics. It comes from all sorts of rationales, some of which are irrational. But that's the world we live in. Years ago, the federal government started funding "peace research" as a method to find the roots of war. The answer from our researchers was that there was no single answer and that war, for all practical purposes, was inevitable. So we have to deal with it, and hopefully our government will be wise in the future with its power. Iraq has become a disaster and hopefully we can restrain ourselves a little more. American leadership and hegemony still have value in my opinion as long as it is utilized properly.
