Now in the Philosophy section which may get less attention than the politics section, oh well...
On Time, On Target, On Topic!!
War can neither be defined as right (hooray for the anti-war people) nor can it be defined as wrong (hooray for the war people) and that is the definition put into its simplest terms.
For one if war was always wrong than what would be the point in fighting back at all? If war was always right than how come we are not still in World War 2 or 1 right now?
From Evil comes great good and from Good comes great evil.
People shout that the Iraq war is wrong by stating that the Shia are being killed by US Forces and that 100,000 have died so far (a number that is even contested by the IraqiBodyCount organization). If the war is so wrong than why do the Kurds and Chaldeans are so grateful to the United States and denounce with great zeal anyone who says Saddam was good or not that bad?
The funniest one (and sad at the same time) reason I have heard used so far on JU was that Saddam was not that great but if you kept your mouth shut he would not hurt you? Says who? An American? An Australian? A Brit? A German? A French?
If the situation in Iraq was that GOOD under Saddam, which you only had to keep your mouth shut than why were people dieing regardless of not breaking that rule?
Why were women being raped by the two angels, Saddam's sons?
Why do the Kurds and Chaldeans look at the people who remark with that comment with complete and utter disdain plus hatred?
Could it be because the situation in Iraq was worse than that?
So what if Saddam never harmed Americans if that was the case than we should have never got involved with World War 1 or 2!!
Das Boot!!
I know some will say the Germans did attack us in World War 1 with the sinking of the Luistania but they glaringly forget the DAMN SHIP WAS LOADED TO BARE with supplies (i.e. weapons, ammunition, etc.) bound for England, a direct violation of agreed upon rules by the parties at war.
Were the Germans NOT justified in sinking it even though the US used Innocent people to shield a supply convoy?
Brutal is it not for an ALLY nation to have used innocent people to shield a supply shipment, right?
Than you have World War 2, initially it was Japan that attacked the United States outright but what increased tensions between the US and Germany was not the pact Germany made with Japan but the presence of "Liberty Ships" in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Europe sending supplies to England. Some of them got sank by U-boats but what did anybody suspect would happen in those U-boat patrolled waters during a TIME OF WAR?
FDR is responsible for taking us to war with Germany because he sent the Liberty ships into those waters that he was warned before than that those waters were patrolled by U-boats and that they would sink any ships in that zone. These Liberty Ships were not sunk in US Waters, people!!
So was it wrong to go to war than? Even though we were led into it by leaders of the United States? Was the war justified as right or wrong?
If the war was right than why did the United States firebomb Dresden and created a firestorm?
A war cannot be explained in the simple terms of right and wrong, are we beginning to see that yet?
What makes a war wrong?
Death of people.
I agree!! War is wrong because without war we could have the great leaders like Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the United States could still be apart of England.
What makes a war right?
Death of people.
I agree!! War is right because we need methods of population control and by killing of a few hundred or thousand we can save the planet for the future!!
War what is it good for...
Most people say absolutely nothing and to them I say: What you don't like your telephone, microwave, internet, computer, medicine?
War is good for something if anything it breeds innovation in fields that normally do not progress that fast without it.
Is that a reason to accept war?
No, but we cannot simply dismiss war as something that is completely wrong...
What about it being right?
No, war does cost human lives and whether the cost of lives is justified can only be determined by the number of lives saved by action as opposed to the number of lives that might be lost due to inaction or by the biggest decider of all...TIME.
Diplomacy never fails it always works and if Bush tried a little harder this war could have prevented!!
To that I say where have you been?
Are the concerns of the Kurds and Chaldeans not taken into consideration when you brush the war off as wrong?
If diplomacy never failed the United States would still be an English Colony, Hitler would still be in power, etc.
Diplomacy does fail; in fact it failed several times in a country known as Iraq. One time a President ordered troops to free another country known as Kuwait from the grasp of Iraq. Other times when it failed a President just issued an order to drop bombs to open up negotiations again. Than finally when there was a breakdown of diplomacy (i.e. resolutions passed and ultimatums given with no reply or concern given back from Saddam) an invasion ensued because the implied risk or threat was greater than inaction.
So what do you do when diplomacy fails?
Try again and hope for the best.
Bomb them and try again with Diplomacy.
Go to war and change the people you have to deal with.
There is NO simple right or wrong answer and that is my philosophical point throughout this whole post.
If a person cannot understand that war is neither right nor wrong and that there is no proper guidebook for diplomacy than you have failed humanity!!
How did you fail humanity?
You failed because in your zeal to denounce war as completely wrong you left out the important factor that all should know...what is gained from inaction?
What do Kurds and Chaldeans gain from United States continuing a failed diplomatic relationship with Saddam while we do not take military action?
What did the Jewish people gain if the United States did not take action in World War 2?
What did the South Korean people gain if the United States did not take action in the Korean War?
You failed humanity because in your passion towards war being always right your forget the cost that must be paid for action in that conflict...military soldiers and civilians.
Comment or don't comment I don't care, because if I can't get through into your skull that war is neither right nor wrong and diplomacy does fail and one's inaction is costly, than I have nothing further to even type to you.
One exception though, if you do not respond I will challenge every single blog article or comment than denounces the Iraq War or any war as completely wrong because war cannot be completely wrong.
Another exception though, if you do not respond I will challenge every single blog article or comment than denounces the Iraq War or any war as completely right because war cannot be completely right.
If you make blog articles about Diplomacy could have worked than I will cite the fact that DIPOLAMCY DOES FAIL and costs many human lives to keep it going, sometimes even more lives than lives lost in a conflict.
- Erik Stebbins-Colón
EDIT: This is the final product until I feel the need to add more material.