Do Wars Accomplish Anything?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Dec 6, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Yep, oftentimes they do, sometimes not. I like this comparison though with the onset reasons for the Civil War of the US:

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051205&s=stuntz120605
     
  2. rcajun90
    Offline

    rcajun90 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    415
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +40
    Yes wars do accomplish many things. The first Civil War ended the practice of slavery in the United States. The second one will win back states rights.
    :firing:

    MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I don't disagree with the return of state's rights, too bad that the first Civil War had to be fought over an institution that was so totally against the Declaration of Independence. Where the argument holds, I'm for it. Slavery wasn't it.
     
  4. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    No doubt, though interesting to note how much blood has been spilled over the racial issue in our nation. (Sometimes I wonder if all those black radicals ever stopped to think how many white Union soldiers died to liberate them... where's the gratitude? Oh, right: it would be racist to ask. D'ya think blacks would die fighting other blacks in some attempt to secure better treatment for whites? Think hard on that one for a second.)

    Wars are funny things. But I think they're just one manifestation of power, and not necessarily the ultimate. In the spirit of Stalin, I'd rather have a TV station than a missile at my disposal.

    After WW2, Europe was made safe for communism: the Soviet Union achieved power and steamrollered half the continent. In Asia, China became a power, instead of Japan, and today threatens to be a world communist power. Millions have suffered and died under godless communism, and the U.S. was locked in a cold war for decades. So how did the U.S. "win" WW2, anyway?
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Not like you'd care, but the Jews in Europe were quite grateful, since Stalin, while a ruthless bastard, didn't specifically target them. I'd also have to say fascism was a worse threat than communism, and as for China, the regime change actually made the country more free, in addition to the fact that eliminating Japan ensured that they wouldn't genocide the Chinese.

    Patton said we should've attacked Russia while we had the chance, and he was probably right, but since when did the U.S. government ever listen to a general?
     
  6. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Im speaking completely from opinion here but the way i see it, the Cold War was a result of a war-weary nation refusing to face a larger evil after having just removed one. It took 10 years, the loss of thousands of men and the sheer will of a nation to win WW2. The People were exhausted mentally and physically. Those that recognized the evil of communism were shoved aside as warmongers and just told to let it go. Men like Patton knew what the score was with the Soviets. But too many wanted an end to bloodshed not a start of more. Unfortunately, this led to the deaths of millions of soviet citizens over the next 50 years. Had we only stood and fought the battle that needed to be fought then, history might be different. With that said, i dont think this country could have waged a large scale war against an opponent twice our size as far as sheer man power went.
     
  7. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Hooo boy, a neocon columnist praising The Great Centralizer, I didn't see that one coming! Start a war for oh...whatever reason...as long as you can give a speech and say that it's about something more noble, well by god it just is. Slavery was one of the reasons for the secession of the original deep south states, but it didn't have much to do with Lincoln's manuvering the nation into war. And the reason he needed the south to stay in the union is because they were providing the bulk of the tax revenues, and he was determined to implement Henry Clay's corrupt "american system" of anti-free trade, subsidized railroads, and inflated currency. (The Whigs had already nearly bankrupted Illinois with this set of ideas--that's why the confederate constitution bans government funds for railroads and canals) He didn't care anything about slavery from a moralistic point of view, but rather he promised to keep slavery legal in order to keep the northern states white, and protect northern labor unions.

    For further reading, try some of Thomas DiLorenzo's columns:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html
     

Share This Page