any thoughts on Afghanistan?

[Mr Spinkles]

Not as much as you may hope I do.

LOL fair enough.

I'm sympathetic to your view Luis, but I admit I haven't thought about it carefully enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

I realize that it is shocking to see a stance other than "the Axis was all-out evil and that is it". But unfortunately things are just not that simple. One must consider factors such as the economic hardship, the national pride (of both sides) and the often-forgotten lack of desire to think of alternatives to battle engagements.

 

[Aquitaine]

The Afghanistan conflict has been a pointless war, with no defined objective, with no real end in sight. It's been an expensive waste of life, money and equipment. It is essentially Vietnam 2.0.

I'm also getting absolutely fed up with this BS from our Government and Media that it's all to "protect us from Terrorists".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I realize that it is shocking to see a stance other than "the Axis was all-out evil and that is it". But unfortunately things are just not that simple. One must consider factors such as the economic hardship, the national pride (of both sides) and the often-forgotten lack of desire to think of alternatives to battle engagements.

It's not really shocking to me to see the other stance. I'm just legitimately trying to understand how the UK and France lacked the desire to find alternatives to battle engagements. They repeatedly made concessions to avoid violence even as Germany repeatedly used violence. Then Germany invaded Poland and de facto declared war on the UK and France. What should the UK, France, and Poland have done, other than defend themselves?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course, once Germany had embraced Nazism as a legitimate regime, the ship had sailed already.

Ah, now I think I understand your argument better. I agree.

The Treaty of Versailles and its failure to prevent WWII was actually my senior thesis in high school. As you can probably tell, that was a long time ago.

 

[kai]

With all due respect, that is just silly beyond belief.

Anyone with even a halfway passable knowledge of XX Century history knows that WW II, at least as far as Germany was concerned, was a direct result of the warmongering mentality that is being renewed in these days. WW I was the first warning that it was simply not sustainable to keep such a mentality. The between-wars period could have been used to disarm the conditions that would have made further war inevitable, and it turned out that we hadn't learned how to do that yet.

In fact, it seems to me that it was largely the desire to let go of the warmonger mindset that motivated the support for the founding of Israel immediately after WW II. Too bad that we essentially gave up on that. Talk about shooting one's own foot.

Then silly i am luis because i haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. I am not sure how the motivation for the founding of Israel has anything to do with desire for peace in Europe.

WW2 was a direct result of a nazi warmongering mentality i agree with you on that, but that instigated a response. Its the response i said was justifiable ,If you don't think that response was justifiable so be it.

 

[kai]

Still, it is very dangerous indeed to think of Nazism or its Axis allies as particularly evil governments. We have seen far worse since, and failed repeatedly to reject them.

What ever is your definition of worse?

 

[kai]

I realize that it is shocking to see a stance other than "the Axis was all-out evil and that is it". But unfortunately things are just not that simple. One must consider factors such as the economic hardship, the national pride (of both sides) and the often-forgotten lack of desire to think of alternatives to battle engagements.

its hard to to think of alternatives to battle engagements when faced with Blitzkrieg

 

[kai]

Ah, now I think I understand your argument better. I agree.

The Treaty of Versailles and its failure to prevent WWII was actually my senior thesis in high school. As you can probably tell, that was a long time ago.

i also understand where you are coming from luis but the "silly" thing i was referring to was after the ship had sailed not before .

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not really shocking to me to see the other stance. I'm just legitimately trying to understand how the UK and France lacked the desire to find alternatives to battle engagements. They repeatedly made concessions to avoid violence even as Germany repeatedly used violence. Then Germany invaded Poland and de facto declared war on the UK and France. What should the UK, France, and Poland have done, other than defend themselves?

By that point it was too late. However, it took about twenty years for the tensions left unresolved by the first WW to fully eclode into the second. And WW I was the war that ended entire Empires, the war that no one truly wanted but no one bothered to truly avoid. It should have been enough to show how dangerous and artificial are attempts to "protect countries" and how essentially self-defeating it is to "pursue peace" with the armed forces.

War is a race to see which side will be defeated faster and more throughly. For a long enough time, that was almost tolerable due to the weapon limitations and the demographic problems that it ended up relieving. WW I was the pinnacle of war, the moment in History where people actually spent months living in trenches being miserable for essentially no reason if they were lucky. It was the supreme demonstration of the inherent insanity and contradiction of seeing war as some sort of legitimate activity as opposed to the destructive spasm that it really is.

And that is why the UK, France and the rest of Europe failed to defend themselves. All that they could manage to do was survive WW II less defeated than the Axis. To defend themselves they would need to understand enough of the nature and effects of war to manage to avoid its resurgence. Which in Germany's case would mean not letting it dive into economic ruin, social desperation and the resulting vulnerability to degenerated politics and racism.

 

[kai]

the only thing WW1 taught us was how to make war more mobile, people thought WW2 would be the same but it was totally different war evolved after WW1 to be more fluid and mobile, it made war less a deterrent.

even before WW1 we just lined up in front of cannon and marched on. what i mean is the carnage is never a deterrent it just a reason to change styles.

Now we do everything technology allows us to keep infantry involvement to a minimum, technology is bringing remote control into it its making distance between the killer and the killed and it is making war more of an option.


Non violent means like debate and discussion treaties etc are all well and good but only as good as the people involved once a government resorts to aggression you either capitulate or fight. its always been that way and it wont change for a very very long time if it ever does.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, that line of thought is what brings so much ruin and sorrow into being. It is way past time to let go of it already.

 

[kai]

Sorry, that line of thought is what brings so much ruin and sorrow into being. It is way past time to let go of it already.

I agree but it has to be unanimous and the human race as a whole is no where near doing that.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sorry, that line of thought is what brings so much ruin and sorrow into being. It is way past time to let go of it already.

Luis, as nice as that would be, it is not going to happen.

If you let your guard down, your going to get sucker punched.

If you give your gun away, the wolf will prowl at your door.

War will always be with us. The thing is, perhaps these wars could be fewer and farther between and not last so damn long.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not a matter of being nice or even optimistic, guys. It is a matter of choosing to live as opposed to maybe surviving.

 

[kai]

It is not a matter of being nice or even optimistic, guys. It is a matter of choosing to live as opposed to maybe surviving.

You dont get a choice to live luis ,your parents thrust that upon you , the only choice you have is survival.

 

[LuisDantas]

A world where war is a basic, unavoidable necessity is probably not worth living in, Kai. And one where such war becomes the main economic activity and main expense of the sole surviving superpotency is not to be tolerated by any reasonable criteria.

People are not supposed to act like they could not fight their animalistic instincts of conquest and territoriality.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A world where war is a basic, unavoidable necessity is probably not worth living in, Kai. And one where such war becomes the main economic activity and main expense of the sole surviving superpotency is not to be tolerated by any reasonable criteria.

People are not supposed to act like they could not fight their animalistic instincts of conquest and territoriality.

Luis, perhaps your utopia could be achieved if we where to remove all testosterone.

 

[kai]

A world where war is a basic, unavoidable necessity is probably not worth living in, Kai. And one where such war becomes the main economic activity and main expense of the sole surviving superpotency is not to be tolerated by any reasonable criteria.

People are not supposed to act like they could not fight their animalistic instincts of conquest and territoriality.

If if you base peoples actions on precedent then they are supposed to act like that.
I mean no one is doing anything now they weren't doing fifty a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years ago that's just the kind of world you and i live in luis. its a savage garden my friend and there's always someone willing to squash you.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....its a savage garden my friend and there's always someone willing to squash you.

Thus my view on Afghanistan.....cut our losses & get out now.