The Good War? [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

hm0504

03-24-2006, 03:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Is there such a thing?

If we look back in history, could any war be described as a good war? Is there a behaviour of a govt or country that would necessitate another country going to war with it? How about a country's civil war?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great question Bob S.

Part of the "good war" conundrum is that there is hardly anyone "who has not sinned and is thus right to cast the first stone". WW II comes to my mind as a just war but one can also argue that if one follows its roots back far enough there no players who can claim pure righteousness.

I think what we need to do is actively work to avoid future wars. We do not do that nearly enough; rather we plod along with our bad habits that sow the seeds for future wars then react like they were unavoidable and we are completely innocent.

I suppose we have to live with the reality that as no country is fully righteous, we have to support those that are less unrighteous than others. Hence, while I am aware of the West's role in making the Taleban and Al Qaeda who they are today, I nonetheless support the invasion of Afghanistan.

Qikdraw

03-24-2006, 05:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
There may not be any GOOD wars...but sometimes there are necessary wars... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree with this.

Afganistan I agreed with, although I thinkwe should have stayed and finished the job, cause its slipping back again... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

I think the "war on terror" is a good idea, although I disagree with the current methods.

I think the 'war on drugs' should stop cause its a waste of money.

Qikdraw

nacktman

03-24-2006, 05:05 PM

Got to go with usmc on this one. Been in and around a couple of the "good wars" he cited plus a few more.

*******

While WWII was a war that had to be fought, it could have been prevented if foresight was as perfect as hindsight ...

I can not think of the first time I heard this quote or who the original speaker was but it is the most concise and honest answer to the original premise: The Good War? Is there such a thing?

"The only good war is a war never fought!"

Jay473

03-24-2006, 06:45 PM

Good War.....the first one that came to my head was the Civil War.

QiKdeaw wrote "I think the 'war on drugs' should stop cause its a waste of money."

I think its a good war because of all the drugs that they stoped from coming into USA. Coasts a lot of money but if there wasnt this "War on Drugs" I think there might be more kids that would die from overdose and nobody really wants drugs over floodig their communities. Just my opinion.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 07:41 PM

The Civil War was instigated by southern hotheads firing on Fort Sumter, but the Yankees would probably have picked a fight with us anyway. They just couldn't leave the South alone.

It is clear that the wrong side won the American Civil War. A war that I admit should never have been started. We may someday find a peaceable way to restore all America to the high ideals of the Confederate States of America.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 07:46 PM

Qikdraw,

I agree that we had to root out those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. They had a lot more bloodshed planned for American civilians had they not been interrupted. The job is not over. Even the Afghan government leaves a lot to be desired. They recently tried to execute a man for converting from Islam to another religion.

namedun

03-24-2006, 08:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even the Afghan government leaves a lot to be desired. They recently tried to execute a man for converting from Islam to another religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to detract from the main topic, but this mindset has always bugged me. Basically, it sounds like "people should be able to live whatever way they want to, as long as they live like us".

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 08:33 PM

Shouldn't we celebrate their right to kill a man for desecrating Islam by converting to the faith of the Infidels?

nacktman

03-24-2006, 08:37 PM

TS the man to which you refer ... he's a Methodist BTW ... and has been for over a decade since working with a group of christians (mostly Methodists) in Pakistan.

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 08:44 PM

Nachtman,
Hope you caught the bitter sarcasm in my post. My heart grieves for that man.

I am of the opinion that another man's freedom to make a fist ends at my nose.

Of course I figure my freedom to make a fist ends after I get in three good punches.

Conor B

03-24-2006, 08:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
The Civil War was instigated by southern hotheads firing on Fort Sumter, but the Yankees would probably have picked a fight with us anyway. They just couldn't leave the South alone.

It is clear that the wrong side won the American Civil War. A war that I admit should never have been started. We may someday find a peaceable way to restore all America to the high ideals of the Confederate States of America. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is as joke, right?

nacktman

03-24-2006, 08:58 PM

Well, yes and no, Conor. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Trailscout

03-24-2006, 09:12 PM

Nachtman,

I am of the opinion that the Confederate philosophy had some ideals that are actually the purest form of the ideals of the Revolution. The principle ideal is that rights are conferred by the Creator upon the individual and conveyed to the state at the consent of the governed.

Even the Confederate government had trouble restraining the impulse for federal power to overreach itself, but at least they made an effort to temper the power grab.

The typical yeoman farmer who enlisted in the Confederate army had no interest in giving his live for the Confederacy so that his wealthy neighbors could keep their slaves. National loyalty was superceded by regional and local affection. And some of the more well-read Confederates fought to restore a sense of lost liberty.

If we are not careful, the ever-encroaching federal government will make slaves of all Americans regardless of color or creed.

If we revive the Confederacy, we may yet save our fellow citizens from such an ignominious fate.

walknude

03-24-2006, 11:30 PM

We live in the vision of arguably our greatest founding father, John Adams as well as Alexander Hamilton, not the hypocrisy of the slave owning Washington or Jefferson. Under the Articles of Confederaton the founding fathers realized that protection of the citizenry was not possible without an executive branch that did not need an approval of a governor of a state to raise an army.
Any lamentation of the old South and the Confederacy sould be viewed as unpatriotic of a citizen of the United States.
If one is to look for the purest ideals of the Revolution, historically it has come from Massachusetts.
The American Civil War is one of the greatest examples of a "Good War"

hm0504

03-25-2006, 08:11 AM

The Civil War is a great example of both a "good war" and a "not-so-good war".

I fully agree that being willing to war for the rights of an oppressed minority is highly honourable. However, the roots of the Civil War are quite complex and when one goes into the details of the slavery issue, things are not quite so cut and dried from a political perspective as an idealist would like.

Quoting an earlier post of mine from another topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Slavery, indeed, was only one of many issues though it certainly became a core issue by the end of the war. Further, and I'll bet the vast majority of people don't know this -- the Emancipation Proclamation [1] only required the freedom of the slaves in the South states that had not already been captured by the North! Hence, Missouri, for example was able to be a slave state and be a staunch Union (North) ally. Talk about the devil in the details! Ahh, the art of politics.

[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailscout

03-25-2006, 09:17 AM

I have no loyalty to the United States government, only to the Constitution.

In fact, I support the overthrow of the US government by peaceful means. We must do it one state at a time, one heart at a time until the Confederacy is reborn and is free to return America to what the founders intended.

Bob S.

03-25-2006, 02:42 PM

I knew the three wars that were going to be brought up were WWWII, the Civil War, and the War for Independence.

Those are so nice and neat as "we" won them. As Trail shows, however, is that those who are on teh losing side have a much diferent opinion of what defines a "good war".

It is why I asked how much evil (an admittedly subjective term) a country has to do before they actually deserve to be taken out by the international community.

Looking at WWII, the Holocaust wasn't enough to make us declare war on them, the March through Europe wasn't enough to make us declare war on them, not even the air raids on England. It wasn't until Japan attacked our on soil that we got angry enough to get involved. Now mind you, we probably would have gotten involved in the war eventually, but Japan forced us to act earlier.

We could go back even farther and ask if the Crusades were good wars. Or the Punic Wars.

But coming back to the present, there are so many wars going on, most that are really not getting any airplay. Each side may feel that they are fighting on the side of good in the good war but how many are right?

Bob S.

Qikdraw

03-25-2006, 02:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jay473:
QiKdeaw wrote "I think the 'war on drugs' should stop cause its a waste of money."

I think its a good war because of all the drugs that they stoped from coming into USA. Coasts a lot of money but if there wasnt this "War on Drugs" I think there might be more kids that would die from overdose and nobody really wants drugs over floodig their communities. Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I wrote its a waste of money is because more drugs are coming into the US than before. We've lost the drug war as it is right now, its time to chenge tactics.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

03-25-2006, 03:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Looking at WWII, the Holocaust wasn't enough to make us declare war on them, the March through Europe wasn't enough to make us declare war on them, not even the air raids on England. It wasn't until Japan attacked our on soil that we got angry enough to get involved. Now mind you, we probably would have gotten involved in the war eventually, but Japan forced us to act earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US in fact violated the laws of nuetrality by selling arms & fuel to Britain. Weren't they also selling stuff to Japan?

When did the world know about the holocaust? I thought it was after the US entered the war?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But coming back to the present, there are so many wars going on, most that are really not getting any airplay. Each side may feel that they are fighting on the side of good in the good war but how many are right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what makes Iraq so confusing. To lump the people attacking the US and its allies into one group is completely wrong. There are so many groups each with a different agenda. It makes fixing Iraq so much harder. Which was why, until Bush jr, the main line of thought was to leave it alone.

Qikdraw

MJ_KC

03-25-2006, 03:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Thats what makes Iraq so confusing. To lump the people attacking the US and its allies into one group is completely wrong. There are so many groups each with a different agenda. It makes fixing Iraq so much harder. Which was why, until Bush jr, the main line of thought was to leave it alone.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. We already defeated the central government of Iraq. Now we are not fighting a government force, but rather a bunch of small groups who we really can't negotiate with.

walknude

03-25-2006, 03:21 PM

By no means did the Union Army march on Richmond or Atlanta to free slaves. I would expect that much of the country did not think twice about a man owning as property another man.
The issue was that the treasonous arrogant wealthy white southerners rejected the United States Constitution and ceded.
The United States Constitution was created, signed, and enacted by the founding fathers in the wake of the failures of the Articles of Confederation 1781-1789. The United States Constitution creates the structure of the United States Government. Within the Constitution the founding fathers built in a process that the Government could amend the document. In the wake of the bloodshed of the Civil War the Government by amendment resettled the issue in which the founding fathers had settled some four score earilier.

nacktman

03-25-2006, 04:45 PM

A little lesson on the Constitution is needed:

Any member state may at any time elect to leave the union.

13 states did elect do to so in the mid 19th century and were unlawfully invaded by an armed force (just like what was done in Iraq). It was an economic war ... the wealth of the mid 19th century was in the states that elected to leave due to the demand in Europe for the textiles and raw material for textiles produced there and the remaining states would have flounderd and gone under without that wealth so they invaded another nation to prevent that.
Grassroots efforts are gaining steam in 2 other states for opting out of the union even today.
********
It does not give the federal government authority to raise an armed force.

Drafting individual citizens into an armed body was and is not allowed by the Constitution of the United States ... that is why we have a volunteer military. (don't bring up the old draft of the 1940's thru 1960's, it was unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped the government before now has it)
********
It does not create the structure of the government, it outlines and defines the framework already in place from the Articles of Confederation.

The so called failures of the Articles of Confederation were that special interest groups (yes, they had them in the 18th century) were curtailed to the point of non-existence ... Adams, Hamilton and their cadre couldn't handle that and wanted to create a peerage system like England ... to have an American 'Royal and Aristocratic Class'.
The reason we do not suffer more today than we do from special interests in because of Jefferson and Company ... at least until Dumbya.

Qikdraw

03-25-2006, 06:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Thats what makes Iraq so confusing. To lump the people attacking the US and its allies into one group is completely wrong. There are so many groups each with a different agenda. It makes fixing Iraq so much harder. Which was why, until Bush jr, the main line of thought was to leave it alone.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. We already defeated the central government of Iraq. Now we are not fighting a government force, but rather a bunch of small groups who we really can't negotiate with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just made the mistake of lumping them all into the "we can't negotiate" group. Why are they attacking? What are their objectives? What would it take for them to stop attacking? Without this knowledge, and the willingness to listen, nothing is going to get better.

Iraq's "government" is also the problem. You get bet that a good number of them are behind a lot of this fighting going on as well. While publicly saying one thing, they do another behind the scenes. Much like American politics, only more bloody.

Qikdraw

MJ_KC

03-25-2006, 07:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
You just made the mistake of lumping them all into the "we can't negotiate" group. Why are they attacking? What are their objectives? What would it take for them to stop attacking? Without this knowledge, and the willingness to listen, nothing is going to get better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They want us gone so they can take over.

walknude

03-25-2006, 07:42 PM

While the founding fathers did not write in the United States Constitution the exact language that bars a state from ceding it was surely their intent. Please read Article IV.

As a southern born American I reject the notion that President Lincoln used loyal Union troops to invade another country.

If one wants to say that the Constitution is the framework or outline of the law of the land that explains power sharing then that is a good use of the English language. I do realize that the U.S. Constitution did not form in a vacuum. The same men wrote both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Article II section II states the President as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. It is my understanding that the Constitution does not bar a draft nor does it institute such a structure. If this is incorrect please state the Article and Section with the exact language used that bars the President from drafting citizens into the military.

Economics surely was a big factor in the Civil War. The wealth of our nation at that time was based on cotton production. The so called Christian slave holding white plantation owner had a great deal and made a lot of money. May God have mercy on them.

For your information Adams was not an Aristocrate but Jefferson was. Adams had a small farm in Quincy. Adams was a religionous purant type kind of square and not well liked. Jefferson owned one of America's largest homes at the time which is called Monticello and owned many slaves. He married into and by all accounts was part of Virginia's aristocratic class.

Special interests have always played a part in the halls of power. For the good, bad, and otherwise we live in the vision of Adams, Hamilton and Franklin's America.

As far as the Connecticut born, Yale grad, Texas man, and his actions into Iraq today, I must say and have said since before U.S. action into that country that I believe it to not be a good war at this time. There may have come a time but not 2003.

Nude in the North

03-26-2006, 06:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Each side may feel that they are fighting on the side of good in the good war but how many are right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than Half.

Steve

Trailscout

03-26-2006, 08:32 AM

I am reminded that Switzerland is a confederation of very different groups, some Protestant, some Catholic, speaking either French, Italian, Swiss-German or Romansch. The Swiss Germans are numerically dominant, but each ethnic group has its own territory within the country and each has a say in the overall government.

Perhaps the Swiss should be invited to take over the pacification of Iraq. The Swiss model may make more sense than anything tried so far.