So ... IMHO, iPods with good translation software and in the hands of troops who have at least some language skills is a great idea and a good use of money! whew.
As a former combat infantry soldier that was stationed outside of my native country and in hostile territory - I agree 100%.
Lack of communication is a seriously common cause for trouble.
So US attacking the middle east because of resources (oil) makes it a "neccessary war" for both parties (as Afghanistan/Iraq can claim #1 and US can claim #2)?
IMHO. There are no "neccessary wars" (and there have never been one). They are all started for the wrong reasons (usually greed). To defend oneself is of course OK - but the initial attack wasn't "neccessary".
I thought of a nice example for a necessary war scenario from recent history.
As you know, water is not exactly abundant in the middle east. In the 1960's Syria began working on diverting essential water resources from rivers that start off in lebanon/syria and go through Israel. Their claim was that they needed the water for their own needs (whatever these might be). Israel relies on these rivers to fill the Kineret sea (a big lake of fresh water) in the northern part of Israel. When they started working, the Israelis alerted them to the fact that it will seriously hinder the fresh water supply of Israel. The Syrians being the jerks that they are disregarded the warnings claiming that as the rivers originate in Syria/Lebanon they own them. After repeated calls to stop the project has been left unanswered, Israel attacked Syria and their project of diverting water from Israel was promptly stopped. If they had continued working, a full fledged war would have erupted. Here is a necessary war scenario for you.
It's true that if the Syrians have been considerate, no military action would be required. But the reality is that the Syrians weren't. Israel had no option but to attack = necessary war.
Last but not least, I do agree that no war is necessary between Israel and Sweden
I have a felling this will be split into Apple Outsider, but here it goes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano_tube
I thought of a nice example for a necessary war scenario from recent history.
As you know, water is not exactly abundant in the middle east. In the 1960's Syria began working on diverting essential water resources from rivers that start off in lebanon/syria and go through Israel. (snip).
As I understand it, much of the blame for the tension between Israel and its neighbors can be laid on both sides of the rift. There is no truly innocent party, it's a long running feud that run along nationalist, ethnic and religious lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano_tube
3. To take the fight with Al Qaeda to a territory outside the US - this is classic military tactics -take the battle to the enemy territory. though Al Qaeda is global, the US rightfully assessed that Al Qaeda will through in it's resources into a Iraq and thus have less resources to launch attack on US soil. It worked.
The only good proof of an Al Qaeda link with Iraq that I have heard of was a document that turned out to be fabricated.
Quote:
4. OIL. Iraq has a lot of it and the US are happy to put it's hand on it. Another aspect of Iraqi oil is that it weakens the Saudi position to pressure the US. If you have Oil from a friendly regime in Iraq, the Saudis can go screw themselves.
Personally, I would rather spend the half trillion dollars on developing other forms of fuel. Not that I don't want Iraqis to be free of their dictator, there were significant Iraqi losses on that path. Those that have oil now have a considerably stronger sabre to disrupt the global economy. Maybe the world can deal with Iran and Iraq, but Russia is a growing oil power, as I understand, with more oil than the Saudis have.
Maybe some of that can be spent on water technologies, as the wars of the 21st century will be over water. Your example in the middle east is one, the nasty business in Darfur started because a minority ethnic group was being denied access to water by their government.
As a former combat infantry soldier that was stationed outside of my native country and in hostile territory - I agree 100%.
Lack of communication is a seriously common cause for trouble.
Hi Nano_Tube, thanks for your agreement and your service. I do have to take exception to some of your reasons above for the war in Iraq being necessary. I don't agree that al Qaeda was Iraq prior to the war; Hussein was not a threat to neighbors (but significantly he was paying suicide bombers to go to Israel), and personal revenge should never even be mentioned as a reason to kill 100,000 people.
That said, I come from the Catholic tradition of "just war" which maybe different from this discussion on "necessary war." You can wiki "just war" and it actually gives a good analysis on the tradition in the Catholic Church for determining whether the initiation and conduct of a war is just or not. It is specifically philosophical in nature and so doesn't usually make it into sound bites on TV or in forum discussions. There have also been plenty of times in history when Christian nations haven't observed them, but I find that they sum up a few thousand years worth of wisdom regarding issues that have been around since civilizations began.
In deciding on a just war, there is no room for "the end justifies the means." You can't kill 100,000 people just in case the country becomes a democracy. My brother and I talked about this a lot. He and I would risk our lives defending peoples freedom and even helping a people roll the dice on their own future, BUT that is different from forcing a war on them for OUR political reasons. There are causes worth dying for, but fewer worth killing for.
Even your own hypothetical scenario of the US having no oil and Iraq had all of the oil in the world. Do you think we would be justified in invading Iraq? You may call it "necessary," but it would be immoral. All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence. Morality is hard to maintain.
The only good proof of an Al Qaeda link with Iraq that I have heard of was a document that turned out to be fabricated.
Al Qaeda considers Iraq a part of their world, or Islamic kingdom - invade Iraq and they will concentrate their resources to fight you there - hence "the enemy territory".
Hi Nano_Tube, thanks for your agreement and your service. I do have to take exception to some of your reasons above for the war in Iraq being necessary. I don't agree that al Qaeda was Iraq prior to the war; Hussein was not a threat to neighbors (but significantly he was paying suicide bombers to go to Israel), and personal revenge should never even be mentioned as a reason to kill 100,000 people.
That said, I come from the Catholic tradition of "just war" which maybe different from this discussion on "necessary war." You can wiki "just war" and it actually gives a good analysis on the tradition in the Catholic Church for determining whether the initiation and conduct of a war is just or not. It is specifically philosophical in nature and so doesn't usually make it into sound bites on TV or in forum discussions. There have also been plenty of times in history when Christian nations haven't observed them, but I find that they sum up a few thousand years worth of wisdom regarding issues that have been around since civilizations began.
In deciding on a just war, there is no room for "the end justifies the means." You can't kill 100,000 people just in case the country becomes a democracy. My brother and I talked about this a lot. He and I would risk our lives defending peoples freedom and even helping a people roll the dice on their own future, BUT that is different from forcing a war on them for OUR political reasons. There are causes worth dying for, but fewer worth killing for.
Even your own hypothetical scenario of the US having no oil and Iraq had all of the oil in the world. Do you think we would be justified in invading Iraq? You may call it "necessary," but it would be immoral. All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence. Morality is hard to maintain.
I agree with every word. But I never said that the war in Iraq was necessary
Furthermore, I believe that none of the reasons I mentioned complies with either necessary or justified. But these are still the true reasons the US government went to war against Iraq.
The WMD thing was just a good excuse. By the way, Israel secretly warned the US that they believe Iraq has NO WMDs and that toppling saddam will strengthen Iran (the real bad guys in the middle east)- which is exactly what happened.
Spoken like the only person on earth with a fleet of coal-powered vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence.
Of course it wouldn't be "moral" to invade another country unwilling to share its resources in a time of crisis, but... (hypothetically) when tens of millions of Americans run out of fuel for whatever they drive, and can't go to work, and factories stop, and trucks don't bring food, and basic services crumble because every flipping thing we eat, use and do in the USA starts with, ends with, and is done by people who burn petroleum, war against those who control this resource will seem like the answer. And even the most wild-eyed peace activists (like those who torch cars and smash store-fronts in St. Paul, MN to protest the war in Iraq) will reach for a rifle when there's no gas to go to the store, and nothing in it even if they could.
Just like Maslow wrote in '43, and was proven in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath: looting a grocery store or an abandoned house or apartment for food and supplies was a criminal (and therefore immoral) act, but when you haven't had any food for 24 hours, and you're not gonna get any for the next week, and your kids are hungry, what's immoral will end up further down the list of hierarchies.
Agreed and even the EU and India and China and maybe Russia (because of Chechnya) would agree.
It would not surprise me but for a different reason, the reason that the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's was because of the religious militants. And history repeated again due to short sighted foreign policies the first time around.
Comments
So ... IMHO, iPods with good translation software and in the hands of troops who have at least some language skills is a great idea and a good use of money! whew.
As a former combat infantry soldier that was stationed outside of my native country and in hostile territory - I agree 100%.
Lack of communication is a seriously common cause for trouble.
So US attacking the middle east because of resources (oil) makes it a "neccessary war" for both parties (as Afghanistan/Iraq can claim #1 and US can claim #2)?
IMHO. There are no "neccessary wars" (and there have never been one). They are all started for the wrong reasons (usually greed). To defend oneself is of course OK - but the initial attack wasn't "neccessary".
I thought of a nice example for a necessary war scenario from recent history.
As you know, water is not exactly abundant in the middle east. In the 1960's Syria began working on diverting essential water resources from rivers that start off in lebanon/syria and go through Israel. Their claim was that they needed the water for their own needs (whatever these might be). Israel relies on these rivers to fill the Kineret sea (a big lake of fresh water) in the northern part of Israel. When they started working, the Israelis alerted them to the fact that it will seriously hinder the fresh water supply of Israel. The Syrians being the jerks that they are disregarded the warnings claiming that as the rivers originate in Syria/Lebanon they own them. After repeated calls to stop the project has been left unanswered, Israel attacked Syria and their project of diverting water from Israel was promptly stopped. If they had continued working, a full fledged war would have erupted. Here is a necessary war scenario for you.
It's true that if the Syrians have been considerate, no military action would be required. But the reality is that the Syrians weren't. Israel had no option but to attack = necessary war.
Last but not least, I do agree that no war is necessary between Israel and Sweden
I thought of a nice example for a necessary war scenario from recent history.
As you know, water is not exactly abundant in the middle east. In the 1960's Syria began working on diverting essential water resources from rivers that start off in lebanon/syria and go through Israel. (snip).
As I understand it, much of the blame for the tension between Israel and its neighbors can be laid on both sides of the rift. There is no truly innocent party, it's a long running feud that run along nationalist, ethnic and religious lines.
3. To take the fight with Al Qaeda to a territory outside the US - this is classic military tactics -take the battle to the enemy territory. though Al Qaeda is global, the US rightfully assessed that Al Qaeda will through in it's resources into a Iraq and thus have less resources to launch attack on US soil. It worked.
The only good proof of an Al Qaeda link with Iraq that I have heard of was a document that turned out to be fabricated.
4. OIL. Iraq has a lot of it and the US are happy to put it's hand on it. Another aspect of Iraqi oil is that it weakens the Saudi position to pressure the US. If you have Oil from a friendly regime in Iraq, the Saudis can go screw themselves.
Personally, I would rather spend the half trillion dollars on developing other forms of fuel. Not that I don't want Iraqis to be free of their dictator, there were significant Iraqi losses on that path. Those that have oil now have a considerably stronger sabre to disrupt the global economy. Maybe the world can deal with Iran and Iraq, but Russia is a growing oil power, as I understand, with more oil than the Saudis have.
Maybe some of that can be spent on water technologies, as the wars of the 21st century will be over water. Your example in the middle east is one, the nasty business in Darfur started because a minority ethnic group was being denied access to water by their government.
As a former combat infantry soldier that was stationed outside of my native country and in hostile territory - I agree 100%.
Lack of communication is a seriously common cause for trouble.
Hi Nano_Tube, thanks for your agreement and your service. I do have to take exception to some of your reasons above for the war in Iraq being necessary. I don't agree that al Qaeda was Iraq prior to the war; Hussein was not a threat to neighbors (but significantly he was paying suicide bombers to go to Israel), and personal revenge should never even be mentioned as a reason to kill 100,000 people.
That said, I come from the Catholic tradition of "just war" which maybe different from this discussion on "necessary war." You can wiki "just war" and it actually gives a good analysis on the tradition in the Catholic Church for determining whether the initiation and conduct of a war is just or not. It is specifically philosophical in nature and so doesn't usually make it into sound bites on TV or in forum discussions. There have also been plenty of times in history when Christian nations haven't observed them, but I find that they sum up a few thousand years worth of wisdom regarding issues that have been around since civilizations began.
In deciding on a just war, there is no room for "the end justifies the means." You can't kill 100,000 people just in case the country becomes a democracy. My brother and I talked about this a lot. He and I would risk our lives defending peoples freedom and even helping a people roll the dice on their own future, BUT that is different from forcing a war on them for OUR political reasons. There are causes worth dying for, but fewer worth killing for.
Even your own hypothetical scenario of the US having no oil and Iraq had all of the oil in the world. Do you think we would be justified in invading Iraq? You may call it "necessary," but it would be immoral. All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence. Morality is hard to maintain.
The only good proof of an Al Qaeda link with Iraq that I have heard of was a document that turned out to be fabricated.
Al Qaeda considers Iraq a part of their world, or Islamic kingdom - invade Iraq and they will concentrate their resources to fight you there - hence "the enemy territory".
Hi Nano_Tube, thanks for your agreement and your service. I do have to take exception to some of your reasons above for the war in Iraq being necessary. I don't agree that al Qaeda was Iraq prior to the war; Hussein was not a threat to neighbors (but significantly he was paying suicide bombers to go to Israel), and personal revenge should never even be mentioned as a reason to kill 100,000 people.
That said, I come from the Catholic tradition of "just war" which maybe different from this discussion on "necessary war." You can wiki "just war" and it actually gives a good analysis on the tradition in the Catholic Church for determining whether the initiation and conduct of a war is just or not. It is specifically philosophical in nature and so doesn't usually make it into sound bites on TV or in forum discussions. There have also been plenty of times in history when Christian nations haven't observed them, but I find that they sum up a few thousand years worth of wisdom regarding issues that have been around since civilizations began.
In deciding on a just war, there is no room for "the end justifies the means." You can't kill 100,000 people just in case the country becomes a democracy. My brother and I talked about this a lot. He and I would risk our lives defending peoples freedom and even helping a people roll the dice on their own future, BUT that is different from forcing a war on them for OUR political reasons. There are causes worth dying for, but fewer worth killing for.
Even your own hypothetical scenario of the US having no oil and Iraq had all of the oil in the world. Do you think we would be justified in invading Iraq? You may call it "necessary," but it would be immoral. All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence. Morality is hard to maintain.
I agree with every word. But I never said that the war in Iraq was necessary
Furthermore, I believe that none of the reasons I mentioned complies with either necessary or justified. But these are still the true reasons the US government went to war against Iraq.
The WMD thing was just a good excuse. By the way, Israel secretly warned the US that they believe Iraq has NO WMDs and that toppling saddam will strengthen Iran (the real bad guys in the middle east)- which is exactly what happened.
All hypotheticals are unrealistic, but our moral obligation in this instance would be to run everything on coal and everything else other than oil so that our nation wouldn't need to act immorally to maintain its existence.
Of course it wouldn't be "moral" to invade another country unwilling to share its resources in a time of crisis, but... (hypothetically) when tens of millions of Americans run out of fuel for whatever they drive, and can't go to work, and factories stop, and trucks don't bring food, and basic services crumble because every flipping thing we eat, use and do in the USA starts with, ends with, and is done by people who burn petroleum, war against those who control this resource will seem like the answer. And even the most wild-eyed peace activists (like those who torch cars and smash store-fronts in St. Paul, MN to protest the war in Iraq) will reach for a rifle when there's no gas to go to the store, and nothing in it even if they could.
Just like Maslow wrote in '43, and was proven in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath: looting a grocery store or an abandoned house or apartment for food and supplies was a criminal (and therefore immoral) act, but when you haven't had any food for 24 hours, and you're not gonna get any for the next week, and your kids are hungry, what's immoral will end up further down the list of hierarchies.
By the way, the war against Al Qaeda is both necessary AND justified.
Agreed and even the EU and India and China and maybe Russia (because of Chechnya) would agree.
Agreed and even the EU and India and China and maybe Russia (because of Chechnya) would agree.
It would not surprise me but for a different reason, the reason that the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's was because of the religious militants. And history repeated again due to short sighted foreign policies the first time around.