Is war a necessary evil?

Sometimes.

Yeah, I think it's a natural phenomenon. It will probably happen on some level even when humankind has left the Earth behind and is harvesting entire stars for resources.

I think defense is necessary, but starting wars isn't.

In todays society I suppose it is. But it is only that way because that is how we have made it.

At times, yes.

Yes, unfortunately it is. Just like the survey about social classes... humans are just that way, and it will be at least a hundred more generations before a concept like war starts to become obsolete... at least, among ourselves. There are the other races on other planets to consider, and I'm sure that once we are able to travel that far, we will probably end up in some sort of conflict 'out there'.

Apparently so.

No.

No, it's not. It's a desired one.

> There are the other races on other planets to consider,
> and I'm sure that once we are able to travel that far, we will probably
> end up in some sort of conflict 'out there'.

Yeah, and hopefully we'll get our @$$e$ beat down.

Ahh, Solo, ever the optimist. Ever think that by then, we'll be the 'enlightened' race, and the war will be their fault? It is possible...

Bush says longhaul says

Setting aside the quick and technically correct answer that nothing is necessary on its own, things are only necessary in relation to something else, it's tempting to just say 'yes' to this. Obviously it's sometimes necessary to fight against an attack in order to remain free, to survive, to keep your country from being destroyed, or to help someone else in dire straights. Still, war implies a lot of things that I'm not so sure are requirements to achieve those outcomes.

No, war is not necessary.

Negotiation and open dialogue are more efficient and effective means to achieve any goal. War is driven by those who are too intellectually weak to present their position or are too insecure to accept other peoples' views or without feeling threatened. Another possibility is that war is driven by those who stand to make a profit from the sale of weapons or the reconstruction after a war.

George W. Bush is an intellectual lightweight; he is a great ambassador for America's insecurities and he is surrounded by Defence industry cronies. Given this mix, is it any wonder that America is fighting two wars?

But political leaders will find a function for it.

It's not evil. It is noble.

At least it used to be.

Nowadays it's just stupid.

War is not supposed to be battled through some butt-holes with physics degrees calculating where the bomb should go but rather by people like Lord Nelson thinking up and refining battle tactics.

And yes, it is necessary.

Unfortunately wars are a fact of life at this point and time. I think we should send convicted murderers and child molesters and gang bangers who get off on shooting people to the front lines, right into the middle of the action, may as well put there sick desires to good use.

Stop it.

Oh, sorry.... was I amusing you again, Solo?

Yeah! They can be the decoys that get shot at while our good soldiers flank the enemy.... I like that!

Yes decoys, good idea !

I sometimes think so......... the British going to war against Argentina seemed justified (I read Margaret Thatcher's autobiography)

Is evil a necessary war?

Yes, sometimes.

Is war evil?
I think it's all relative.
Some wars are necessary, and promote future peace.
The unrealistic future hope of the this current American/Arab war
is a democratic foothold in the Middle East that would uproot
the cultural foundation of war in that area of the world.
Unfortunately what has worked in other nations will not work in that area of the world.
The blood feuds are too old and too thick.

War is only necessary when it's used to defend life, liberty, the puruit of happiness, our lands, and most importantly our families. As long as there are people in this world who wish to take those things away from us, there will always be a need for this "necessary evil".

evil? yes. necessary? no.

No.

Is religion?

> No.
>
> Is religion?

Some folks will have you think it is.

It's better than letting a Muslim nutcase trample you over stupid cartoons.

It's better than taking the chance that someone else will attack you & kill thousands more people.
It's better than allowing a Holocaust to continue unabated.

> No, war is not necessary.
>
> Negotiation and open dialogue are more efficient and effective means
> to achieve any goal. War is driven by those who are too intellectually
> weak to present their position or are too insecure to accept other
> peoples' views or without feeling threatened. Another possibility
> is that war is driven by those who stand to make a profit from the
> sale of weapons or the reconstruction after a war.
>
> George W. Bush is an intellectual lightweight; he is a great ambassador
> for America's insecurities and he is surrounded by Defence industry
> cronies. Given this mix, is it any wonder that America is fighting
> two wars?

Do you really think we can negotiate with insane loons like the Muslims who riot over stupid cartoons? I don't think it's possible to talk to people like that. Hell, they won't even stop rioting to talk!

I'm glad you think Bush is an intellectual lightweight. It's good to know you think so highly of yourself. Do you feel this way only because he doesn't subscribe to your political beliefs? If so, doesn't that make you closed-minded?

Who says war is an "evil"? War is good for the economy.

Who is closed-minded here?

I think there is a way to reach anybody if you take the time to know them, and that includes Muslims, most of whom didn't go into the streets to demonstrate against cartoons.

Unfortunately, with the short-term political cycles in both our countries (4 years between elections in the US, up to 5 in Canada), expediency is what drives our leaders, not the search for permanent solutions.

For President Bush, who has deep ties to the Defence industry, it is more convenient to wage a war (without a real cause--no links to 9/11, no WMDs, remember?) and score short-term points on the homefront than to take the time to analyse things and find permanent solutions to long-standing issues abroad. But that strategy is backfiring on the Bush Administration. With 2,000+ dead American troops dead (and counting), and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis (and counting), the short-term strategy is turning into a long-term nightmare for the US.

President Carter achieved peace between Egypt and Israel, there's your proof that taking the time to understand the issues can lead to lasting peace. Though he only lasted one term, President Carter will be viewed as a great president, Bush Jr. will be viewed, I think, as a lightweight. But hey, I could be wrong.

And no, I don't think that highly of myself.

How about a beer?

I do think Bush is an intellectual lightweight. Just listen to his speeches. He has no grammar skills, can't pronounce words properly and has a very limited number of answers for all kinds of questions people ask him. You can see the pain in his head when he gives a speech or interview because he pauses and stumbles over what the answer could possibly be. I'm not dissing Christians, but I don't want to live in a theocracy. He can't think of a decent argument so he throws Christianity at us. If Bush were to make a survey at the SC it would never get out of qualification due to the number of 'hopelessly flawed' votes.
I hope I don't spark anger in others over this.

Yes. I think it is.

Bring back rations, I could do with losing a few pounds...

"expediency is what drives our leaders, not the search for permanent solutions."

I agree with you there. No solutions, but anything to get votes.

"For President Bush, who has deep ties to the Defence industry, it is more convenient to wage a war (without a real cause--no links to 9/11, no WMDs, remember?) and score short-term points on the homefront than to take the time to analyse things and find permanent solutions to long-standing issues abroad. But that strategy is backfiring on the Bush Administration. "

I beg to differ. Please see www.theotheriraq.com For one thing, I think many in our country are lying to themselves about the reasons for going to Iraq. Yes, WMD was one reason given. But the proper term should be "banned weapons" since that was what the UN had been looking for for 12 years. I think the UN has better things to do than tell someone to get rid of something they know he doesn't have. Besides, Clinton was worried about WMD/banned weapons himself back in 1998.
I also believe there was more than one reason for going into Iraq. For one thing, we now have a very convenient strategic area to use if we ever have to deal with Iran. That's another person I'm not sure we can reason with. I mean, really, the leader doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened.
I'm open-minded enough to believe there may have been more reasons for going to Iraq (not for oil, that's silly, human rights I could see though), but, for reasons of national security, they are unable to tell us why for now (just as they probably couldn't tell us if they found Osama).
BTW, I'm not so sure war is ever convenient for anyone.

Sorry for assuming you were closed-minded. The usual reason for most liberals to believe Bush/Reagen etc are intellectual lightweights is because they don't subscribe to the same beliefs of the elite snobs. Personally, I think Bush uses the "intellectual lightweight" label against his political enemies. Why not let everyone think you're stupid & use it to your advantage? It's great "strategery." LOL

That being said, he has made some dumb mistakes. One in particular is letting the UAE buy our ports. That's just shocking!

BTW, I prefer wine.

>
> I beg to differ. Please see www.theotheriraq.com For one thing,
> I think many in our country are lying to themselves about the reasons
> for going to Iraq. Yes, WMD was one reason given. But the proper
> term should be "banned weapons" since that was what the UN had been
> looking for for 12 years. I think the UN has better things to do
> than tell someone to get rid of something they know he doesn't have.
> Besides, Clinton was worried about WMD/banned weapons himself back
> in 1998.
One reason? Try THE ONLY REASON we were given. They used the threat of WMD to betray us and that is how I feel. If the UN has been looking for WMD aka 'banned weapons' for 12 years, do you know if they ever found any? If they were doing this for that long and never found anything that means Bushes push with the threat of WMD was a plain old lie, because by then after all that looking they would have finally said, 'Nothing there.' before he used it to mislead people.

> I also believe there was more than one reason for going into Iraq.
> For one thing, we now have a very convenient strategic area to use
> if we ever have to deal with Iran. That's another person I'm not
> sure we can reason with. I mean, really, the leader doesn't believe
> the Holocaust ever happened.
How are we going to need to deal with them? The people can have whatever beliefs they like. It's not our business to judge and jump in to convert. That is what ticks me off the most. We are trying to convert other countries into OUR government and OUR religion. No better than a cult.

> I'm open-minded enough to believe there may have been more reasons
> for going to Iraq (not for oil, that's silly, human rights I could
> see though), but, for reasons of national security, they are unable
> to tell us why for now (just as they probably couldn't tell us if
> they found Osama).
> BTW, I'm not so sure war is ever convenient for anyone.
If only the real reason we went to war was human rights. But it wasn't. It was used as a ruse. We went because of the oil. The president's greed for more oil=more money.

>
> Sorry for assuming you were closed-minded. The usual reason for most
> liberals to believe Bush/Reagen etc are intellectual lightweights
> is because they don't subscribe to the same beliefs of the elite snobs.
> Personally, I think Bush uses the "intellectual lightweight" label
> against his political enemies. Why not let everyone think you're
> stupid & use it to your advantage? It's great "strategery." LOL
I think Bush is an intellectual lightweight because I think he is an intellectual lightweight. Has nothing to do with my beliefs, well, except for the one that Bush is an intellectual lightweight.

>
> That being said, he has made some dumb mistakes. One in particular
> is letting the UAE buy our ports. That's just shocking!
>
> BTW, I prefer wine.

Oooo, look at this long post I made!

"Try THE ONLY REASON we were given. They used the threat of WMD to betray us and that is how I feel. If the UN has been looking for WMD aka 'banned weapons' for 12 years, do you know if they ever found any? If they were doing this for that long and never found anything that means Bushes push with the threat of WMD was a plain old lie, because by then after all that looking they would have finally said, 'Nothing there.' before he used it to mislead people. "

I should've said instead, I believe there was more than one reason for going. But WMD/banned weapons was the only one given at the time. Well, that's not exactly right though. I remember seeing him on TV with the undercurrent of human rights very obvious (at least to me).

BTW, why is it that liberals only care about human rights when it serves their purpose? They certainly don't care about the human rights of Saddam's victims (evident in the fact that they think we were wrong in getting rid of him & wish to leave NOW).

And, yes, they have found some of the banned weapons. They found nerve gas & yellow cake uranium (which some people dismiss because it doesn't fly with the "Bush lied mantra." )

You might try thinking about something. If someone says something is there, believing it to be true at the time...but someone else took the item, that doesn't mean the original person lied. It means they were wrong, mistaken, made a whoops. Some people are confused about this.

BTW, have you seen the reports from some of his former officers saying that he had moved the weapons to Syria? It was a special on ABC News a week or so ago. But here's several articles you can read...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22move...

Also, from that ABC report was Saddam threatening to attack the US or our Allies.

"How are we going to need to deal with them? The people can have whatever beliefs they like. It's not our business to judge and jump in to convert. That is what ticks me off the most. We are trying to convert other countries into OUR government and OUR religion. No better than a cult."

I guess you haven't been paying attention. This madman is building nuclear weapons & threatening to attack our Allies. Nobody's wanting to convert them to Christianity. They can be Muslims if they want (although, I prefer the peaceful kind). BTW, what is OUR religion anyway? There are several in the United States, including Islam, Buddhism, Taos, atheism, etc. Nobody's forced to be Christian.

"We went because of the oil. The president's greed for more oil=more money."

That's done us a lot of good, hasn't it?

yes

as long as we have computer games, we'll always have ppl thinking up battle tactics.

> He has no grammar skills, .... If Bush were to make a survey at the SC it would never get
> out of qualification due to the number of 'hopelessly flawed' votes.
>
> I hope I don't spark anger in others over this.


Hey, watch it you. Thats beginning to discribe me.

There's a big difference SY---> I like you!

Necessary for what?

Although I do not want war obviously, I feel war is here to stay. War has brought us trade, new religions, oppression and inventions.

Bush isn't Satan people. He's trying to run a country full of people who have the option of being pissed at him and can say something about it, thank God. I believe he did lie about Iraq, but Saddam was a sadistic bastard that killed 5,000 people to test new weapons of war. I don't know about you, but I'm glad he's gone. Plus, 2,000+ deaths in this war isn't that much. I'm not saying death is great but if you look at the 500,000 troops over there 2,000 is 0.4% of all troops. I like those odds.

exactly.. necessary for what? if its plain self-conceited sadism and personla benefit then no. that's pure desire as said before
but if its in self defence or for future peace.. actual acquirable peace that is, then yes it is necessary. because peace is not possible without war.. not anymore at least.. it may have been before the first war existed. but with evident inequality etc.. war is necessary now.. whether we like it or not.. evil yes. but necessary too..