Opinion of "Give War a Chance"

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have strong opinions of the subject, but how about y'all.  This if from '99

[Хahar 🤔]

An excellent point is raised here.

[Scam of God]

I am in complete agreement with this. Nothing more needs to be said, really, except that the Left has to expel those remaining Wilsonians still in its camp.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Easy enough for middle class people in the West to say, isn't it. Ultimately, it's what the ns do, isn't it. Kill and die. Famine is good as well. Deals with surplus population, which in turn brings wealth. Let it.
 

[Scam of God]

Easy enough for middle class people in the West to say, isn't it. Ultimately, it's what the ns do, isn't it. Kill and die. Famine is good as well. Deals with surplus population, which in turn brings wealth. Let it.

I'm not 'middle class' by any means. I live in a trailer. I am poor. And I feel a great deal of empathy with individuals of all races or creeds who dwell in similar conditions, which are miserable. But I don't believe that expending blood for blood makes for a betterment of general conditions for any man.

[Matt Damon™]

Keep in mind alot of overpopulation problems in the third world are caused by the fact that the Euros/US decided to feed the world post-WWII and allow third world nations access to western energy markets. Without cheap food or western nations allowing third world countries into our energy markets combined with trends of urbanization we'd probably have half earth's population today and not be at a looming energy crisis.

[Lunar]

Easy enough for middle class people in the West to say, isn't it. Ultimately, it's what the ns do, isn't it. Kill and die. Famine is good as well. Deals with surplus population, which in turn brings wealth. Let it.
 

You and I would be in complete agreement.  He raises valid points but he reaches the wrong conclusion.  He says that we should just let people slaughter each other because eventually one side will win and it will be peaceful.

This person, whose article was assigned to me in class some months ago, is a complete horrible person.   He also writes about how Obama is an apostate Muslim in the NYT, or something along those lines.

[Хahar 🤔]

The process actually worked in Western Europe, but it took millennia (assuming this isn't just an interlude).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would tend to agree with that.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, what he's saying is true, I guess. Genocide also brings peace. As does nuclear war. Don't mean they're good things. And as Xahar pointed out, it took western Europe over a millennium before they got war "out of their system". Are we to let third world countries kill each for a thousand years while we sit idly by? I think that, as we have the means to do so, we should do what we can to alleviate some small amount of death and suffering in the world, as long as we are able to do so in a successful manner (i.e. not Iraq). Obviously this doesn't mean Wilsonian/Bushian nation-building or whatever, but it doesn't mean that we should ignore genocides and wars that we can prevent.

[dead0man]

You guys actually think Europe has war out of their system?  I think MAD has had a lot more impact in that regaurd than some magical "growing up" by the Euros.  Didn't Georgia and Russia just go at it?  Didn't Clinton have to come to their aid in the Balkans?  Didn't the Soviets crush a couple of attempts at freedom by eastern bloc states?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One other reason why this is madness; the World is nuclear now, baby.

The process actually worked in Western Europe, but it took millennia (assuming this isn't just an interlude).

If you want to make that argument, then, actually, it took two Total Wars, the Holocaust and the near-total economic and (to places where people live) physical devastation of almost the entire continent to do that. I don't think that that is an acceptable level of trauma.

In all case, all the little (in comparsion to the 20th century) wars of the past just created more wars a few years down the line. Generally speaking, war begets war.

[Smid]

Well, what he's saying is true, I guess. Genocide also brings peace. As does nuclear war. Don't mean they're good things. And as Xahar pointed out, it took western Europe over a millennium before they got war "out of their system". Are we to let third world countries kill each for a thousand years while we sit idly by? I think that, as we have the means to do so, we should do what we can to alleviate some small amount of death and suffering in the world, as long as we are able to do so in a successful manner (i.e. not Iraq). Obviously this doesn't mean Wilsonian/Bushian nation-building or whatever, but it doesn't mean that we should ignore genocides and wars that we can prevent.

I agree with what Lief is saying. If your neighbour's house is on fire, you don't pull up a deck chair and watch, you don't suggest that it's a good thing for your neighbour because 'once it's burnt down, it won't burn no more,' you lend a hand, you call the fire brigade. We are all members of a global community and we have a responsibility to one another as civilised nations and we owe a duty of care to those who are less fortunate: the poor, the hungry and the defenceless. Human history is littered with the examples of our inhumanity towards one another. When we see genocide taking place, it shouldn't matter whether it is occurring in Germany or in Rwanda - it is wrong and it should be stopped.

[Platypus]

Well, what he's saying is true, I guess. Genocide also brings peace. As does nuclear war. Don't mean they're good things. And as Xahar pointed out, it took western Europe over a millennium before they got war "out of their system". Are we to let third world countries kill each for a thousand years while we sit idly by? I think that, as we have the means to do so, we should do what we can to alleviate some small amount of death and suffering in the world, as long as we are able to do so in a successful manner (i.e. not Iraq). Obviously this doesn't mean Wilsonian/Bushian nation-building or whatever, but it doesn't mean that we should ignore genocides and wars that we can prevent.

I agree with what Lief is saying. If your neighbour's house is on fire, you don't pull up a deck chair and watch, you don't suggest that it's a good thing for your neighbour because 'once it's burnt down, it won't burn no more,' you lend a hand, you call the fire brigade. We are all members of a global community and we have a responsibility to one another as civilised nations and we owe a duty of care to those who are less fortunate: the poor, the hungry and the defenceless. Human history is littered with the examples of our inhumanity towards one another. When we see genocide taking place, it shouldn't matter whether it is occurring in Germany or in Rwanda - it is wrong and it should be stopped.

I agree 100%. Only thing to add is a dash of lief's comments about genocide bringing peace and a pinch of empathy.

[Matt Damon™]

Global community? That concept doesn't really fly, even in our current age of CHEAP energy and fuel and won't fly in a more energy-poor world with slower transportation.

[Gustaf]

I don't consider all of his points invalid, but it seems to be a pretty cynical view of the world.

One has to recognize that it depends on what kind of conflict it is though. I do believe it is possible for outside intervention to make matters worse and keeping people in refugee camps (like with the Palestinians) seems to be a good way to promote hate. But there are many occassions where the world needs to step up and help those in need.

I'm surprised that people who are vehemently opposed to the Iraq war would find this article atricious though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A horrible opinion from a horrible person, easily.