War

[Perseus]

So, what are y'all's view on war. Do you think that war is all right; do you think that war is an essential part of the human race; do you think it is neccesary for improvements in technology? Those are just a few questions, but you don't have to answer all of them. Add your views about war.

[theOperaGhost]

Conflict is an essential part of life, whether it be human or anything else, really. There will always be conflict. Peace is really impossible if you think about it. People can get along, but is peace ever achievable? I really don't think so.

Since conflict can lead to war, I see wars as being inevitable.

I'm not really sure what you mean by war being necessary for the advancement of technology. I guess I really can't comment on that.

I can't say that I'm pro-war, but I can certainly say that I am NOT anti-war. I see war as necessary and inevitable in nature.

[Perseus]

Conflict is an essential part of life, whether it be human or anything else, really. There will always be conflict. Peace is really impossible if you think about it. People can get along, but is peace ever achievable? I really don't think so.

Since conflict can lead to war, I see wars as being inevitable.

I'm not really sure what you mean by war being necessary for the advancement of technology. I guess I really can't comment on that.

I can't say that I'm pro-war, but I can certainly say that I am NOT anti-war. I see war as necessary and inevitable in nature.

What I mean about the technology bit is that new inventions spark whether it is beneficial to just the war, or it could benefit citizens of the country because the innovation or invention is innovated that popped up because of a war.

Anyway, I agree with you that full scale peace just won't happen.

[nick]

So, what are y'all's view on war. Do you think that war is all right; do you think that war is an essential part of the human race; do you think it is neccesary for improvements in technology? Those are just a few questions, but you don't have to answer all of them. Add your views about war.
I think that there are circumstances under which war is right and unavoidable, hopefully those are very rare

I dont believe its an essential and unavoidable side effect of the human condition. If every country had the same ideals and attitudes as the western european countries have now there would be no more wars.

I absolutely do not believe that war can be justified on the grounds of scientific breakthrough. Those breakthroughs would occur anyway, perhaps at a slower speed. How many hundred thousand deaths would justify the development of the jet engine ? People were managing perfectly well with turbo props.

[theOperaGhost]

I dont believe its an essential and unavoidable side effect of the human condition. If every country had the same ideals and attitudes as the western european countries have now there would be no more wars.


Nick, you can't force the western European lifestyle on everyone in the world. Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? The rest of the world is not like western Europe. The same thing happened when the Europeans first came to America. They forced their way of life on the Natives...look how well that turned out (sarcasm). The act of simply forcing your western European ideals and attitudes on the world would cause an enormous conflict and lead to war (WWII).

[nick]

Jared, sorry but that is a really offensive answer.

Where did I say I wanted to enforce a Western European lifestyle on the rest of the world ? I said if every country had the same attitudes and ideals things would be different, I didnt talk about imposing those attitudes upon them. I'm not proud of Britain's colonial past.

The idea that Hitler was trying to impose modern western european ideals on the world and that is what caused WWII is completey absurd.

[theOperaGhost]

You said every country should be like western Europe. That's simply unfeasible.

[Perseus]

If every country had the same ideals and attitudes as the western european countries have now there would be no more wars.

I absolutely do not believe that war can be justified on the grounds of scientific breakthrough. Those breakthroughs would occur anyway, perhaps at a slower speed. How many hundred thousand deaths would justify the development of the jet engine ? People were managing perfectly well with turbo props.

You said every country should be like western Europe. That's simply unfeasible.

He said "if", not that they should.

And even if every country had western ideals, there would still be war. Dictators could come to power, maybe a coup would happen, leading to a civil war or something.(not meant to be same event, even though it looks like it)

[theOperaGhost]

He said "if", not that they should.

And even if every country had western ideals, there would still be war. Dictators could come to power, maybe a coup would happen, leading to a civil war or something.(not meant to be same event, even though it looks like it)

He said war isn't essential and unavoidable if other countries would be like western Europe. The fact is, not every country is like western Europe, which i.e. means that war is unavoidable. It is unfeasible for every country in the world to be like western Europe...every country is extremely hesitant to give up their cultural traditions. Diverse cultures lead to conflict, conflict leads to war. War is unavoidable in this world of diversity.

[Perseus]

He said war isn't essential and unavoidable if other countries would be like western Europe. The fact is, not every country is like western Europe, which i.e. means that war is unavoidable. It is unfeasible for every country in the world to be like western Europe...every country is extremely hesitant to give up their cultural traditions. Diverse cultures lead to conflict, conflict leads to war. War is unavoidable in this world of diversity.

Of course, and every country shouldn't be like western ones because, then there would be not diversity, really.
War has happened lots in the past, and I don't think it will stop anytime, soon, to be honest.

[INFERNO]

Fights, conflicts, wars, battles, whatever you want to call them have gone on since before humans first came on the earth. It's something that's evolutionarily built into us and isn't going to stop. We also have such diversity in beliefs, physical forms, economies and whatever else you can name that it's inevitable wars will occur. With that said, all-out peace won't occur either.

As for whether wars are essential or not, I think it truly depends on the circumstances. If it's a war because two sides for whatever reason hate each other and go at it, then I don't think that's essential. It's not going to resolve the issue because suppose the war ends, the fact that the war occurred will be brought up by both sides yet again and it allows for the sides to blame each other, attack each other through physical and non-physical modalities, and we end up back where we were before. This ties in with the fact that war is inevitable because once the war has ended, neither side is all smiles and chuckles with the other side, they're still pissed off. The fact that the war occurred before gives them a reason to go at it again to show that they're right, better, etc.. .

Ancestrally it may have been essential for survival as a society, however, although we still can regress to such behaviors, we don't really need to because we aren't threatened for survival and resources anywhere near as much.

The time I think wars are essential are when one force is so dominating that the only hope for the other groups is to group up together and as a whole, face that dominating force.

Regarding the technology, it's not necessary as a means to advance technology. It certainly puts added pressure to advance technology even further but technology will advance regardless if a war is present or not. You can argue that there is an ever-lasting war going on now in all developed countries but it's not a war involving guns and shooting. It's a war regarding capitalism and up-grading technology, and the war occur when one technology tries to out-do another technology. It's not the common-sense definition of war, but it's a form of war. But even so, I don't think this technological war is necessary to advance technology because people want more and more advanced stuff as a whole since we have the science and resources to research and develop it. For that reason, I say wars aren't necessary, they only add pressure to produce more technological advances at a faster rate.

Do I think war is alright? I think technological war as I mentioned above is alright because it serves to better society without doing much damage overall. As for real wars involving shooting, biowarfare and other sorts, I only think it's alright if it's in the situation when it is necessary as I mentioned above. If it's because two sides are in disagreement, then no, I don't think it's alright since it's going to drag people in from both sides who aren't as willing. It will also drag in other groups and countries to help simmer down the issue. The result is a small clusterfuck turning into a colossal circle-jerk and cluserfuck.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

war is inevatable, there are too many people for there not to be war. it is also evolutionary. as well as this, when diplomacy fails, war is usually the only option.

as for the technologies of war, the germans developed jet engines and rockets capable or reaching space so that they could attack without getting killed. war accelerated this by decades.

this may sound extremist, but war is sometimes the best way.

[quartermaster]

I'm anti-war, as I believe the use of coercion is wrong. I believe war is inevitable because of human nature, however, such a reality does not make war any more acceptable. I believe that if the world was entirely made up of liberal democracies with a free-association of trade, war would be limited significantly, as war hurts free market affairs.

I tend to hold the Schumpeteran view, that in a free association of liberal democracies, with entangling trade and a free-market, war would be discouraged, as war disrupts commerce. Due to less interventionist economic policies, history would show that liberal democracies tend to be much more wealthy than autocracies, and as such, the need to expand territory is not necessary, as prosperity is acquired through trade and production, and not through taxes, like most autocracies. Of course, when we have liberal democracies that detour from that free-trade or free-market view, we see massive protectionism, and thus war fueled from the pretense of needing to open markets. This, of course, would not happen, if all countries were liberal democracies that followed the free association model.

Of course, my view is by no means possible, but gives a real reason beyond simple coercion, as to why I am anti-war.

[Whisper]

You'll never get rid of war
Standing up for what you believe in is part of being human
Even as a society in peacetime or relative peace (yes I realize were fighting 2 right now but lets face it excluding 2 attacks they are both being fought a world away) games like MW2 are hugely successful
as a kid who here didn't play cowboy's and indian's, capture the flag, who hasn't roughhoused allot etc...
I realize its different, what i'm saying is even as kids we're practicing engagement, war is just a fight on a large scale. These ones are taking longer than usual because were doing this humanitarian rebuilding/stabilization crap.

To be honest without the threat of WMD's I bet we'd be having allot more
like if you took nukes, chem and biological weapons out of the mix, just regular explosives and firepower
the world would be very different

We maintain a sense of peace through 2 means; M.A.D and peace through superior firepower, period.

[quartermaster]

We maintain a sense of peace through 2 means; M.A.D and peace through superior firepower, period.

I'm afraid it is not "period," as there are many esteemed scholars who believe that M.A.D. is only a piece of the puzzle, while others argue that M.A.D. is of no particular significance to world stability or peace; Stoessinger, Van Evera and Steven E Miller, just to name a few.

[Kahn]

Adolf Hitler was a complete monster. Fighting in The Great War (WWI) made hi hate his European counterparts (The Allies) and honestly that is what drove him. Many people believe his hate for the Jewish religion drove him. No. He simply used them to blame the loss of The Great War and Germany's economic decline.

As he rose to power he continuously and freely broke away from the Treaty of Versailles. This caused the two main European powers at the time, France and England, to begin to worry. As Hitlers reich grew they began to go into economic decline.

Although they were worried the French believed that they were safe thanks to the Magniot line. The Magniot line was a defense between Germany, and France. Well when the Blitzkrieg invaded it swiftly took it down. In a matter of weeks Nazi forces had reached Paris. It devastated them. As France fell England was bombed in London by the Luftwaffe (The German Air Force). Not only hitting Big Ben but in the process of daily bombing Neville Chamberlin resigned from Prime Ministry and gave the position to Winston Churchill.

This was all pre-war. Nothing significant to the discussion. But when he was brought up this just all came out of me. I love World War II...

[theOperaGhost]

Hitler may have been a complete monster, but he was one of the, if not THEE best leader of the 20th century.

[Kahn]

Joseph Stalin and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt were the best in my opinion. Yes Joseph Stalin killed many Russians but in the process brought a weak country, feeble from Economic decline, almost completely out dated in Military technology, and huge but empty.

Franklin Delanor Roosevelt pulled the United States out of an Economic depression and not only conquered the Pacific Theatre but also turn around the War in Europe. He did this in a matter of a year after joining the war. This shows how much motivation he gave the country.

[daveywavey]

War does that to people Adam.. you know that better then anybody lol, a War will always bring a country together in the beginning, but in the end , it will tear it apart... Thats how its always worked..

dave

[CaptainObvious]

I don't see how anyone can be anything but anti-war. Anyone with a brain and a conscience knows that war is regrettable and that we should avoid it if possible; the problem is that avoiding it is sometimes not easily - or morally - possible.

[theOperaGhost]

I don't see how anyone can be anything but anti-war. Anyone with a brain and a conscience knows that war is regrettable and that we should avoid it if possible; the problem is that avoiding it is sometimes not easily - or morally - possible.

I can't see how anyone can't see the last point in your statement. I don't mind it if people are anti-war, I just hate it when people think that war is avoidable. Peace is impossible. I like your post.

[quartermaster]

You seem like a nice guy Adam, but I would just like to address a few things...

Joseph Stalin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were the best in my opinion. Yes Joseph Stalin killed many Russians but in the process brought a weak country, feeble from Economic decline, almost completely out dated in Military technology, and huge but empty.

Stalin nearly destroyed his own country through his madness, he was inept and dangerous. By destroying his officer corps and purging many great minds in the military, Stalin nearly defeated his own country before Germany even invaded. On the eve of Barbarossa, the Soviet army lacked skilled officers and much of its general staff, but not out of the "design of fate," but because of Stalin's paranoia in his attempts to consolidate power; as such, many skilled officers were either killed or sent to the gulags. Stalin would go through fits and times of rage; these fits would make his generals fear him, and thus they would withhold bad news from him. Sometimes, Stalin would disregard bad news and berate his generals for even suggesting it was true.

Upon Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin, in horror, locked himself in his quarters for days, giving no orders during such a precarious time. Stalin was not a great leader; he was, without a doubt, one of the worst leaders of World War II, who nearly cost his country the war. To be sure, the only three factors that allowed the Soviet Union to win the war was Hitler's madness, the feared Russian winter and the Reich's lack of winter clothing therein, and, above all else, General Georgy Zhukov, who turned Stalin's mess, into something that could be handled.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt pulled the United States out of an Economic depression and not only conquered the Pacific Theatre but also turn around the War in Europe. He did this in a matter of a year after joining the war. This shows how much motivation he gave the country.

Roosevelt did not bring the US out of a depression, in fact, if you look at the trends, his New Deal made the depression worse. World War II was the single event that pulled the United States out of the Great Depression, Roosevelt only gets credit for it because he was president during this time. Even then, it is a bit egregious to suggest that if FDR was not president, the United States wouldn't have conquered the Pacific or helped in the push to regain Europe and North Africa.

[Kahn]

Once Hitler came to power, war was inevitable. He drove himself insane trying to devise the perfect plan, the perfect Reich.

Neville Chamberlin and the League of Nations could have stopped him. In 1932 once he broke the first rule of the Treaty of Versailles they should have drawn the line there. His Blitzkrieg was one of the greatest military strategies that the world has seen (To me) and we could have stopped it if we played it smart.

[Kahn]

Mods please delete. Double posted.

[Norton]

War is in it self is part of human nature. Some conflicts can be avoided, but others not. I for one am joining the US Army at the start of next year to train to be an Infantry(or similar front-line, boots on the ground, based ground troops like scout Calvary) officer.
I have volunteered to go to war and i would be lying if i told you i didn't want to fight. But I will say I know war is ugly, hellish and unforgiving. It is an evil that we must realize is part of our own nature.

Should war be avoided it it can be?-Yes

Should we avoid war at the expense of our freedom, safety, right, or way of life?-No, and i will be the first to fight for my freedom. Killing is a dirty business, but if it means we protect the people and nation we love, then it is a necessary evil.

[Kahn]

You seem like a nice guy Adam, but I would just like to address a few things...



Stalin nearly destroyed his own country through his madness, he was inept and dangerous. By destroying his officer corps and purging many great minds in the military, Stalin nearly defeated his own country before Germany even invaded. On the eve of Barbarossa, the Soviet army lacked skilled officers and much of its general staff, but not out of the "design of fate," but because of Stalin's paranoia in his attempts to consolidate power; as such, many skilled officers were either killed or sent to the gulags. Stalin would go through fits and times of rage; these fits would make his generals fear him, and thus they would withhold bad news from him. Sometimes, Stalin would disregard bad news and berate his generals for even suggesting it was true.

Upon Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin, in horror, locked himself in his quarters for days, giving no orders during such a precarious time. Stalin was not a great leader; he was, without a doubt, one of the worst leaders of World War II, who nearly cost his country the war. To be sure, the only three factors that allowed the Soviet Union to win the war was Hitler's madness, the feared Russian winter and the Reich's lack of winter clothing therein, and, above all else, General Georgy Zhukov, who turned Stalin's mess, into something that could be handled.



Roosevelt did not bring the US out of a depression, in fact, if you look at the trends, his New Deal made the depression worse. World War II was the single event that pulled the United States out of the Great Depression, Roosevelt only gets credit for it because he was president during this time. Even then, it is a bit egregious to suggest that if FDR was not president, the United States wouldn't have conquered the Pacific or helped in the push to regain Europe and North Africa.

I never did suggest that if he wasn't president we would've not won the Pacific Theatre. in fact, now that you mention it how do you know for a fact that if he hadn't been there we wouldn't have lost?

(Thank you for the compliment ;))

Joseph Stalin locked himself in his own quarters for days because of what Hitler did. He believed that a man would stick to his word. And when Adolf Hitler betrayed they're non- aggression pact he was devastated. The only reason Operation Barbossa failed is due to the fact that Hitler split his force. If he would have kept on course he would have reached Moscow, and utterly destroyed it.

The reason I brought up Joseph Stalin and his massacre was because of the influence he had. I did not say that his unjustified destruction was good. It was one of the most monstrous and disgusting things he did. Although he did this though he fought of the largest military operation that the world has ever seen.

[Hyper]

Joseph Stalin locked himself in his own quarters for days because of what Hitler did. He believed that a man would stick to his word. And when Adolf Hitler betrayed they're non- aggression pact he was devastated. The only reason Operation Barbossa failed is due to the fact that Hitler split his force. If he would have kept on course he would have reached Moscow, and utterly destroyed it.



Kind of funny to think a man, who plotted to do the exact same thing, would be so devastated by it happening to him. I.o he was more rather devastated by having something like that befall on ''his empire'' so he probably closed himself off to drink (something almost all Soviet Union leaders are famous for)

[Kahn]

Your right. VODKA!

Anyways on topic. Joseph Stalin wanted to be an original part of the original Axis, and even sent over his own draft of the Berlin Axis agreement. Hitler never read it though.

[quartermaster]

I never did suggest that if he wasn't president we would've not won the Pacific Theatre. in fact, now that you mention it how do you know for a fact that if he hadn't been there we wouldn't have lost?

I never said I did, but your assertion is that he was responsible for war policy, or at least that was what was implied in your post.

"not only conquered the Pacific Theatre but also turn[ed] around the War in Europe"

Your assertion is that because of FDR, thus happened

Now, let me take some time to analyze your question to me:

First, civilian presidents do not make military policy, the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of War do. After Pearl Harbor, the entire country was fervent about war, even the "America first" isolationists. As such, anything the president did was going to be towards the war effort. The Japanese could have never hoped to win the war in the Pacific through defeat of the American military (total-war was never their motive to begin with), the fervor for war in the United States was simply too high and they (Japanese) did not have the resources nor technological capacity to take on the industrial giant that was the United States. Once the United States put its war-machine in action, it was simply a matter of dates, a matter of numbers and above all, a matter of how far the US would go in defeating the Japanese (would another president have stopped before total defeat?)

The president turns to his advisers for war advice and lets his generals deal with the planning. Once the United States entered war, the respective military leaders took over (Eisenhower and his staff in the East, Nimitz and his staff in the West), Roosevelt simply signed off on plans and operations. Once wartime operations were underway, the president would let the experts do their jobs, as such, the blunders and victories would be up to the respective generals, intelligence and supply allocation, all of which is not directly dictated by the president.

Even then, there are too many underlying factors to know for sure what would have happened if Roosevelt was not president. There is no way of knowing what policies other presidents would have taken, such as the Lend-Lease act that helped Britain and the USSR so much, or the writing off of the Philippines before the war even began (the United States knew the Japanese were going to attack, but they assumed the Philippines was the likely target, yet they did not alert MacArthur or attempt to consolidate their position there). If another president was in power, would he have prepared for an attack in Southeast Asia and put the Pacific fleet on full alert?

Even then, it is hard to say what another, say more isolationist, president would have done as a response to Japanese actions in South Asia. Would he have cut-off the shipment of Japanese fuel and metal-stuffs, intervening in Japanese affairs, thus coaxing them to attack, or would he have turned a blind eye? Thus meaning that the US would not have entered World War II, or at least up to that point.

Would another president have been building up forces in the US prior to Pearl? Reinstituting the draft before we were at war? Again, hard to say, but we first must understand FDR's motives before we can draw such questions. Who is to say that the US would have entered World War II if another, more isolationist, president was in office?

What intel did FDR know that we still do not? What was FDR hoping to achieve? Did FDR hope the Japanese would attack to consolidate US power in the Pacific and Asia, or was he preparing for a war that seemed inevitable? After all, the first US ship sunk by Japanese forces was four years before Pearl Harbor, the USS Panay, and the first German attack on US forces was two months before, with the sinking of the USS Reuben James.

In the end, in any historical case, you cannot ask such questions without asking other questions first. The US entering World War II was cause and effect for US interventionist policies, the US war effort itself, was a result of the military and secretarial internal planning, not necessarily the policies of the president.


Joseph Stalin locked himself in his own quarters for days because of what Hitler did. He believed that a man would stick to his word. And when Adolf Hitler betrayed they're non- aggression pact he was devastated.

Yes, and your point is? I understand you are eager to show everyone how much about World War II you know, and stroke that intellectual “peni,” but please do try to have a point. Stalin locked himself up because he was horrified at the pretense of the Soviet Union being invaded by Germany; he essentially locked himself off from reality and collapsed under the pressure of such an event; that is not an action that is analogous with good leadership.


The only reason Operation Barbossa failed is due to the fact that Hitler split his force. If he would have kept on course he would have reached Moscow, and utterly destroyed it.

That, amongst other things, there are many reasons for its failure, but the larger reason for the failure of the entire operation was because of the delay to launch of the operation. The Wehrmacht launched the attack later than expected, and was slowed many times by stretched supply lines. This led to them being forced to wait out the winter, which cost much needed supplies and manpower. As the winter thawed, the bad roads in Russia caused the German horse-drawn carriages (which carried artillery and supplies) and German tanks to be stuck in the mud, which created a quagmire that the Russians utilized to adequately counter-attack. Hitler's splitting of his forces could have worked if the operation was not delayed as much as it was, but the consequence of spending the winter in Russia wasted much needed German resources, that exhausted the momentum of their advance, which made it easier for the Soviets to encircle the Sixth Army in their counter-offensive.


The reason I brought up Joseph Stalin and his massacre was because of the influence he had. I did not say that his unjustified destruction was good. It was one of the most monstrous and disgusting things he did. Although he did this though he fought of the largest military operation that the world has ever seen.

I never said Stalin was monstrous, barbaric or what have you, because that is beyond the point. What I am saying is that Stalin's actions are not analogous of those of a good leader, but in fact, are more of a crazed person who was inept. Stalin was an inept leader, he could consolidate his power quite well, to his credit, but he was not a good leader, and he nearly cost the Soviets the war.


His Blitzkrieg was one of the greatest military strategies that the world has seen (To me) and we could have stopped it if we played it smart.

I think you are giving Hitler too much credit, he did not devise Blitzkrieg, Heinz Guderian did. Hitler, in this case, like much of the war, simply took General Staff plans and took them on as his own. In other cases, however, he thought he knew better than his General Staff, which caused many a blunder during the war.

[Norton]

You can talk history all you want, but this topic is on war in general, not just WWII. but i will say it serves as a good example to y'all s arguments.

while on the topic of war...
So who hear other than me thinks that the US is totally going to have to invade Iran within the next 5 years? anyone think we should invade Iran?

[Kahn]

No. We are already expanding over to Pakistan (I think) and if we invade Iran that is 4 countries at once we are dealing with.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

As he rose to power he continuously and freely broke away from the Treaty of Versailles. This caused the two main European powers at the time, France and England, to begin to worry. As Hitlers reich grew they began to go into economic decline.

Although they were worried the French believed that they were safe thanks to the Magniot line. The Magniot line was a defense between Germany, and France. Well when the Blitzkrieg invaded it swiftly took it down. I love World War II...

when hitler was breaking away from the treaty, england supported some of it, like the returning of the rhine industrial area to germany. it was called appeasment.

also, hitler, being smart, decided to go through the ardennes forest, and avoid the line. he did this again in 1944.


stalin was an evil man, he killed all of his generals and mad huge purges on his own people, just because of paranoia. stalin wasnt a fan of the jews either. in reality, he was probably as bad as hitler.

[Kahn]

I knew all of this Jason, but Hitler did attack the line and at one point defeated it.

I knew also that England was trying to appease them. Do you really think if it was the UN instead of League of Nations that they would give land to a country that is obviously rising to power?

[INFERNO]

You can talk history all you want, but this topic is on war in general, not just WWII. but i will say it serves as a good example to y'all s arguments.

while on the topic of war...
So who hear other than me thinks that the US is totally going to have to invade Iran within the next 5 years? anyone think we should invade Iran?

I think before the US begins invading another country, they should try to focus on the economy. I think the current "war" the US is involved in is over at least for the US' purposes. So far they're there from what I can tell to add more soldiers to the wild goose chase of Osama but other than that, the danger seems minimized to a point where it's not necessary to add more troops.

Some of the Middle Eastern countries are still fueding and probably will continue for some time, however, I don't think the US needs to stick its nose into it unless there's a threat to it or possibly to other countries. As it is, the US doesn't need to invade another country now, they should pull back and focus on what's happening at home.

In the next 5 years, I'm not sure and I'd hope we wouldn't need to but maybe my hopes will be dashed. If the countries fight amongst themselves, then so be it. Once massive weapons, such as nukes come into play, then I think that's when the US should pop over there but if something that severe doesn't happen, then no. Maybe helping the political and economical aspects there would be nice, however, the US needs to first get itself straightened out and have the economy more stable.

[Hyper]

I knew all of this Jason, but Hitler did attack the line and at one point defeated it.

I knew also that England was trying to appease them. Do you really think if it was the UN instead of League of Nations that they would give land to a country that is obviously rising to power?

The answer to your hypothetical question is - Yes, yes they would

Anyway I'm sticking my head out of this now.. Somebody has quite eloquently and logically at the same time summed up my view on war

[Norton]

no, we haven't ventured into Pakistan as of yet. We have only made a few air-strikes and minimal special forces raids on Al Queda strongholds there. We ceased those actions too, so now we have no involvement with troops in Pakistan, and most likely wont ever have any major involvement there because it would be unfavorable to do so politically.

but I wonder if we will invade Iran, because if they don't stop their nuclear weapons program, then they will quickly become a clear and present danger to the lively hoods of millions. But i must say that i don't think we should invade until we have just, and undeniable cause to do so.

[Strength]

Nature has wars all the time and so do we.

[TheTruth]

What i hate about War is that it's never the people who start it that get hurt, it's the people under them. Just look at the bombings and how many civillians were killed, it wasn't the political leaders who started it that got bombed Noooo it was the people who just wanted to gete on with their lifes. But i gotta say, I agree with Davey818 if this war ever ends there will be no victors to speak of because it will have tore the country's apart and it will cost a lot more to end it than it did to start it.

[My_Toes_Are_Cold]

The research about the reason for war is incredibly extensive. If you do want to read something exceptional, then read up on the Robber's Cave Experiment