Pointless Wars
- Status
You know what? Nevermind RnderSafe. I'm not arguing with you over what someone else meant, that's a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.... 
So let's stop the off-topic chit chat and get back on topic;
I think every country is allowed to defend itself if necessary, that side of a war is never pointless, and no country should start a war for other reasons than defending themselves or others, because nothing would justify the death of soldiers on the side of the agressor.
So let's stop the off-topic chit chat and get back on topic;
I think every country is allowed to defend itself if necessary, that side of a war is never pointless, and no country should start a war for other reasons than defending themselves or others, because nothing would justify the death of soldiers on the side of the agressor.
goaliedude66630
Active member
hey
do u mean that the country must be invade for it to have a reason to go to war and can it just be attacked by another country and not invaded ethier way i think that these are both good reasons to go to war
do u mean that the country must be invade for it to have a reason to go to war and can it just be attacked by another country and not invaded ethier way i think that these are both good reasons to go to war
Re: hey
I said defend, that applies wether a country is invaded, or 'just' attacked. So they are both valid reasons to go to war.
The harder question is: Can you attack someone becouse you think he's going to attack you? Or even if you think he might attack you?
goaliedude66630 said:
I said defend, that applies wether a country is invaded, or 'just' attacked. So they are both valid reasons to go to war.
The harder question is: Can you attack someone becouse you think he's going to attack you? Or even if you think he might attack you?
goaliedude66630
Active member
yes
yes i think you can attack because if lets say your the United States then politics doesnt mean shit because there is no country in the world that would risk war by saying hey you you cant attack that country
yes i think you can attack because if lets say your the United States then politics doesnt mean shit because there is no country in the world that would risk war by saying hey you you cant attack that country
Re: yes
But let me rephrase the question: Is it morally acceptable to attack someone because you think he's going to attack you? Or even if you think he might attack you?
The point is; what if you're wrong? Then you went to war over a mistake, a misunderstanding. I don't think that's what soldiers (or marines, or pilots, or whoever I left out) sign up for.....
I wasn't talking about the US specifically, but if you put it that way, you're right.goaliedude66630 said:
But let me rephrase the question: Is it morally acceptable to attack someone because you think he's going to attack you? Or even if you think he might attack you?
The point is; what if you're wrong? Then you went to war over a mistake, a misunderstanding. I don't think that's what soldiers (or marines, or pilots, or whoever I left out) sign up for.....
Mark Conley
Active member
one thing i think we are missing the mark on here is..what definition of war? World war II was a Total War..one where ever bit of resources, manpower, and effort was poured into the conflict to win it.
Now we have limited wars or conflicts...where all resources are not poured int the conflict, but just enough to achieve a reasonable objective.
Or surgical conflicts...just enough resources to change a countrys leadership, or relieve a human right pressure.
Its all war...but somehow the level of involvment just seems to fluctuate.
so as kim possible says...whats the sitch?
Now we have limited wars or conflicts...where all resources are not poured int the conflict, but just enough to achieve a reasonable objective.
Or surgical conflicts...just enough resources to change a countrys leadership, or relieve a human right pressure.
Its all war...but somehow the level of involvment just seems to fluctuate.
so as kim possible says...whats the sitch?
Redneck
Active member
Re: hey
I most definitely am. Of course it would have to be more than just a "think" situation, if you had evidence (a sufficient amount would vary depending on any specific situation and one's own vulnerability) that led you to believe that your own nation was in imminent danger from another power, then I believe it is your duty to defend your own people in the best and most effective way possible (which doesn't involve giving a foreign power the chance to invade while you sit on your hands ).
1217 said:hope you're not serious....
I most definitely am. Of course it would have to be more than just a "think" situation, if you had evidence (a sufficient amount would vary depending on any specific situation and one's own vulnerability) that led you to believe that your own nation was in imminent danger from another power, then I believe it is your duty to defend your own people in the best and most effective way possible (which doesn't involve giving a foreign power the chance to invade while you sit on your hands
).Re: hey
Well I meant "just think", so that's a different question.Redneck said:1217 said:hope you're not serious....
I most definitely am. Of course it would have to be more than just a "think" situation, if you had evidence (a sufficient amount would vary depending on any specific situation and one's own vulnerability) that led you to believe that your own nation was in imminent danger from another power, then I believe it is your duty to defend your own people in the best and most effective way possible (which doesn't involve giving a foreign power the chance to invade while you sit on your hands
AFSteliga
Token Canadian Moder'eh'tor
Vietnam was fairly pointless, but in my own opinion, I think that WWI was the most pointless of all of the wars fought in the 20th Century.
The whole reason the war started was because someone shot Arch-duke Ferdinand. After that, all hell broke loose. During the war, it was trench warfare. Killing and entire enemy company just for what? To gain a few meters of mud after losing half of your company? Had better tactics (or any at all for that matter) been employed in WWI, I think the war wouldn't have lasted as long, or there wouldn't have been as many casualties.
The whole reason the war started was because someone shot Arch-duke Ferdinand. After that, all hell broke loose. During the war, it was trench warfare. Killing and entire enemy company just for what? To gain a few meters of mud after losing half of your company? Had better tactics (or any at all for that matter) been employed in WWI, I think the war wouldn't have lasted as long, or there wouldn't have been as many casualties.
FutureRANGER
Active member
Right before WWI, the whole of Europe was wound up tight as a drum, just watching for a spark to ignite the tinderbox. If it wasn't Arch-Duke Ferdinand, it would have been something else. You've seen the videos of the German people rejoicing when war was declared. WWI was an inevitability.
Vietnam was not a pointless war. The US and many other countries felt it neccesary to stop the spread of Communism. Ultimately, that was accomplished. Communism was unable to spread anymore because of all the resources and manpower the commies spent. The US felt N. Vietnam to be a direct threat to them and we acted.
I say again, all wars have a point. Even the Opium War had a point. The point was to reinstitute the opium trade. The question is wars without a valid point.
Vietnam was not a pointless war. The US and many other countries felt it neccesary to stop the spread of Communism. Ultimately, that was accomplished. Communism was unable to spread anymore because of all the resources and manpower the commies spent. The US felt N. Vietnam to be a direct threat to them and we acted.
I say again, all wars have a point. Even the Opium War had a point. The point was to reinstitute the opium trade. The question is wars without a valid point.
silent driller
Active member
1217 said:
Is that even relavent? If there were wars before the US existed, the US would have no use for getting into it now would it?
AFSteliga
Token Canadian Moder'eh'tor
That is true. Modern warfare is more 'humane' that the wars fought hundreds of years ago. Technology has played a major part in warfare. Back in the day, swords and bows were used to fight all out battles in the middle of a field. Hundreds of men would line up on either side and then run at each other after the volleys of arrows were done.
Now, we have long range weapons to, say, take out a command center from miles away. Since the mentality of some militaries (maybe even less that I know of) is 'Take out the commander, and the army will fall', a precision hit on a CP will do a number on an Armies morale, possibly making them surrender.
Now, we have long range weapons to, say, take out a command center from miles away. Since the mentality of some militaries (maybe even less that I know of) is 'Take out the commander, and the army will fall', a precision hit on a CP will do a number on an Armies morale, possibly making them surrender.
- Status