Warmongers vs. Hippies

Yes I did get this thread idea from that semi-flame war in the spamzone. Now we're going to discuss it properly in here WITHOUT DEGENERATING INTO A FLAME-WAR. :D

Don't take offense and don't be offensive.


Here are my opinions:

War sucks and is unnecessary.
Soldiers are murderers.
One person has the power make a difference.

War =/= peace.


Begin.

 

I will not be participating in this one, I think all that needed to be said was said back there.

 

Sometimes war is good. I don't think its RIGHT but war sometimes does help.

BUT war happens because someone makes it happen.

war =/= peace = war o_O

two ways of seeing it.

 

Without war how are we meant to keep the peace? Are we meant to just stand by and watch our homes and country's taken over by someone else? Sometimes war is all we have to be able to stop ourselves being destroyed.

Soldiers are not murderers, that is a massive generalisation, my cousin is in Iraq (for the 5th time) and hasn't killed a single person, he wokrs on helping the kids whos lives are destroyed and works on making the place better.


Violence without reason is stupid, and some people do see war as a game, but think about, just because there wouldn't be war, doesn't mean there wouldn't be threats. Terrorist attacks, for example, usually precede a war. So if there was no war, then there would stil be violence and IMO the world would be worse.​

 

Yes ma'am.

I disagree on the unnecessary part but I agree on the sucks part. I think Vivi said in the aforementioned thread that plastic surgery came about because soldiers were coming back from war with severe burns and stuff because of injuries they sustained in the war. There's probably a whole slew of things that came about because of war. Different medical and technological achievements but I can't think of them right now.

Not just those but also to make us better human beings after it's all faught and done.

It's a matter of opinion and who you ask. I'm sure the Nazi soldiers didn't think they were murderers but the Allied forces did. Same goes with Iraq today. We think of Al Quidia and Saddam as murderers but they think they're doing it for a greater cause.

Of course they do. A person might feel helpless because they can't do anything but I think just living your life can have an effect on at least one other person. Be it in a positive or negative way, our actions influence the people around us.

That's pretty much a given but the US has been at war with someone or other constantly since...pretty much the times of the Cold War. My life's been pretty peaceful all things considered.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that one person has the power to manipulate or persuade several hundred to think or act together.

And yeah, I generalised all soldiers, not thinking about the ones who haven't killed anyone yet. x3 But imo, as soon as they do kill someone, they're a murderer. :/


On the medical advances that can be made due to war... well, I could say the opposite. If countries didn't spend so much money on weapons and other war-related things, they'd have more money to spend on health services. I know the NHS wants a larger budget.. and the American health care system is kind of in shambles. xD;

 

Yeah i edited my post to remove that :P I realised afterards what you mean :P


Hmmm I still disagree, even when they have killed someone, it doesn't neccessarily make them a murderer. Not in the criminal sense anyway. Think about it, say for example, somepeople has killed your entire family, raped your daughter, destroyed everything you hold dear. You are at war with those people. Would you not kill them then? For everything they have taken? Would you let them destroy other families?

I do agree that more money could be spent on healthcare, but then the government wastes money elsewhere too even worse than on something like defense, which IMO is needed. ​

 

I would have to say that there are extremists on the position of war, and that hippies are the counter extreme and they themselves are not that useful to society either. Let's look at the facts here:
1. Some hippies go to great lengths to try to hold up people's REGULAR lives protesting the war and get in other people's ways of even trying to do such mundane tasks as 'getting to work'. It's one thing to protest stuff, but it should not be in the middle of a street where cars are and they shouldn't be chaining themselves to public places in shows of dramatics while we need to live our normal lives. We have -Lobbies- for a reason. Get their butts to there and fix things the way everyone else must. They are not an exception.
2. Hippies are making signs and doing things as they did back in Vietnam to soldiers coming home. They are calling them 'baby killers' and other such nonsense and just being downright idiots harassing them when they are doing a job and whether you agree with that job or not, there's no reason to attack people for it, ruin their coming home, releasing them from jobs because you protest it so much, and calling them names that are untrue. How would some of these hippies like to be treated? There are times I would not mind going up to a stupid hippy that calls a soldier a baby killer or murderer to their face and punching them a good one. Hippies do not know crap about war and it'd help if many of them would actually go out and get -jobs- before they treat others so badly.

Having said that, the other extreme are those people that are 'war mongers' and toss us into the fray without second thought. It sucks. However, I think this war was needed, especially the one in Afghanistan. We had lost more than 3000 people and they were -civilians-. Had it been a -military- base, well that's the cost of wearing a uniform, and despite it being tragic, it wouldn't have been so outright cowardly. There was no consideration at all for the lives of people who may never have picked up a gun in their lives. The people who did this crime were zealots to the extreme and call us 'The Devil'. THAT is the realism here. Terrorists go after the regular people to get back at a government. These terrorists are whiny little cowards that are taught to hate and are manipulated through a corrupting of a religion and are zealot fanaticals. Any people that target ordinary civilians and attack them instead of the 'problem' they actually have, damned straight others should fight that. In Great Britain, acts were also done against -civilians-. Now, just what is a Hippy peace loving moron, who's rights are protected and those soldiers go to die for, going to do if this country was overran? I consider it ungrateful.

I do not like war anymore than anyone else but I see that it sometimes has to happen as a necessary evil. Soldiers are not murderers. Most soldiers have our best interests at hand, regardless of what country you are in. They put their lives on the line. We may have a lot of problems with 'corruption' in our government (and in any government for that matter) but people obviously look over how bad some of these people we go against are. Saddam wasn't a 'good guy'. He continued trying to do things after Desert Shield and was violating treaty rules. I do think the war should have been 'different' and we could have waited somewhat longer to gain UN support, but in all seriousness, he was a leader that sooner or later had to be taken out. There are also issues with the mercenary group 'Black Water' that I disagree with strongly. There are things of this war I would love to have seen not happen, but calling our soldiers murderers is just crummy.

As some others have said, sometimes war must be fought. What is anyone supposed to do when challenged with the threat of their society being destroyed from under them? Who protects the ordinary people so that we can gripe, complain and say how stupid war is? Soldiers also go on missions to -save- people's lives. There are many natural disasters that soldiers go to in order to help aid other countries and our own. There are hostile acts that happen elsewhere and soldiers have gone to places like Rwanda and helped remove dead bodies from rivers caused by deadly battles of warlords and worked on purifying their water. Soldiers are sent out to remove other people's land mines put in years ago in places like Africa and the ME. Soldiers stop people in South America from stuffing babies with drugs and crossing the border. That is the real scene here that goes unappreciated. Some soldiers do stupid things now and then, but it is definitely on the minority as many take their jobs seriously and lay their lives on the line to -help people-. They are not just instruments of destruction.

War does suck. Those who start it suck. It makes others do possibly over the top things as I think George Bush did. I don't blame him for -starting- this war, but I do think he was too extreme after the fact. However, doing nothing would have simply been more idiotic and left us as prey for worse to happen.

As for your last statement, "One person has the power to make a difference", sure the person does. He or she has a voice and can rally others to the cause of making change and if people agree to it in droves, it happens. This is a common thing that goes on in any society. One person probably initiated the 40 lashings deal for a teacher from the UK in Sudan now over kids voting a teddy bear's name to be Muhammad. One person yelled out he was ticked off when blown off by the French royalty and thus others fell into place and the French Revolution took place. One person started off voicing things about pagans and those weird people who don't see as they do and others fell into place and the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions happened. On that same note, one person and then others jumped in to help try to find ways of making our industries etc more 'green friendly'. Good and bad happens by people voicing things and that's how it is. You want the power to say one person can make a difference but seem to not want to look at the 'ugly' of that power too.

I didn't write this to slam on you personally, but really, the view is one that is cutting out the pure raw facts of life here. I'd love a peaceful world that could set aside differences but the facts are some people HATE others and will attempt every single thing they can at their disposal to make other lives miserable or to end them. When the regular people themselves are attacked, you don't just answer that with 'why can't we all just get along?' It's not going to save you. Sometimes you just have to know when to fight and when to go on and say things are going to be okay and 'I can turn the other cheek'. Please consider that.

 

I think war should be considered as a LAST resort. But without the military and showing that we are willing to fight, we could appear weak to other countries and we would be under a monarch or dictatorship. War is never a good choice, but words can only help people for so long.

 

Agreed. Words only help for so long. And they're only good when the person(s) that the words are being exchanged between are somewhat intelligent. Not to bash Bush, but I see him as an example of a person who words wouldn't help in any way. War IS needed though. the reasons I think so, is the same as stated before. We don't wanna seem weak (stares at Turkey xD) or unwilling to fight. if it was like that, Hitler's great-great-great grandson can take us over xD. I mean, I do know a sociopath who went to war for the sheer rush of killing (who's somehow NOT dead...), which makes soldiers look bad as a whole. Soldiers are "doing their duty as Americans". That's what hippies need to understand. War-fiends need to learn also, rushing into a slaughter of countries and their people (aka war), isn't ALWAYS a good thing.


That's my 2 cents.

Not until the meanings in the dictionary change.

 

I find that war is a terrible thing, but sometimes, it's the only option left, and it must be done. Of course, like Donaut said, it ought to be used only as a last resort. So for the subect of...

Warmongers: They need to learn to calm their violent cravings, since heading straight into battle isn't wise, nor does it leave a good example of the country/nation. Not to mention war can often exhaust some of our sources.
Hippies: It's great how they love peace and civil methods of solving problems, but sometimes, war is needed (like I and several others mentioned above).

So basically, it's better to be in the middle - using war as a last resort, but loving peace mainly.

Although terrible...how is it unnecessary? Sometimes, other states attack or start a war with the country, and you can't just do nothing...basically as Repliku has said...

And soldiers, they may kill others, but they're only trying to defend the country/state/nation. If they don't, the other side most likely will. I'm sure they don't exactly want to eradicate other human beings, but they have to. Think of it almost like a self-defense, or something that must be done to create peace. Not to mention, murder means an unlawful, premeditated killing, and although military tactics are planned, it isn't against the law for soldiers to kill the enemy, nor are they scheming the murder of each individual person. Their tactics can be aimed to kill, and/or to wound, but it's all to defend the country...as well as to survive.

And well, one person does has the power to make the difference, people such as Martin Luther King Jr., etc...so nothing to disagree about there.

 

War is a waste of human life i find that "you can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb the world into peace"

 

The current wars, those are arguable it has been a long time since I a war I agree with. And that is WWII. In that we(as in the world), Nazi germany invading and the holocaust, those were actual reasons for war. And those are the only time war is needed, is invasion, or the country at fault is well being like Nazi Germany.

In the last 50 some years, we have not gone to war for a good reason, be it oil, communism whatever you want to call it I don't believe that a war has been fought in good name since WWII. Because we are currently in Iraq to give them freedom, and fight terrorism, thats bullcrap. The Iraqi people never once asked for us to come in at all, we went in after we were attacked, no that that is over the government is finding new reasons to stay there. Originally to liberate people, which I can respect, but now Saddam is out of power and we need to let them go. Peace will never be achieved over there, because this is a religous war.

We are fighting religon. Muslim vs. Christian and that there will never end, cause the Koran does not accept other religons, that is not in their religon. And Christian have their heads so far up their asses they will never see anything that is not their own point.

As for soliders, I support them and I pray for their well being. But I do not support the purpose. This violence is unneeded, and as of lately i see it as nothing but murdering.

 

I guess its up to me to destroy one of the ideas that Allied forces are murderers.

ROE(RULES OF ENGAGEMENT).

WE(ALLIED FORCES) are not permeted to fire on anyone unless fired on apon first. Which would make it self defence.

Sorry but I could not allow the bashing of my fellow brothers in arms anymore.

 

Yea that part I am aware of, but as of right now. I don't think there is a reason to be in a war. Its is not getting us anywhere, just deeper into a country in debt.

But I am not going to get at it with you, cause there is nothing I can say you will agree to I can tell you are very involved with military, which I can respect. I got friends and fam. in the military, but since I know what they are like, its like a brick wall so I am not going at it with you John.