Why do people argue about the brutality of this war?

[Kennylz]

I was just reading the other threads, having been gone a little bit, and noticed alot of people against torture, mass murder, and other terrible things (as they should be) but I was reminded of the phrase.

"The cruelty of war, makes for peace."

The more savage, heartless, brutal, apalling a war is, the sooner it is over, and it leaves everyone with a terrible pain over it, which keeps it from happening again a few months after it just ended. Im against death, destruction, pain, and all those bad, bad things- even for 'terrorists' but it seems the problem wasn't in 'how' we went to war, but that we even went to WAR.

Iraq wasn't a huge blunder because we didn't have to means of destroying an Army. it was a huge blunder, because we brought an army to kill an idea. If the 'Terrorists' were an enemy Army, I say, bring on the wanton slaughter. Torture them for information, and occupy their assorted lands, but since Terrorist isn't the same title as, say, Bungarian, maybe we want to take another route, other then declaring War?

The cruelty of war makes for peace, but in this case it only throws more wood on the fire. Cruelty is effective in war, because disheartens the enemy, breaks their effectiveness in an army. Makes leaders re-evaluate whether the cruelty is worth what they actually want to acheive. Here, there is no head of the snake to cut off. There is no benevolent leader who would give up his arms for the sake of his people.

The War on Terror might as well be The War on Anarchy, and even someone who disagrees with me, could realize that a War on Anarchy not only is un-winnable, but doesn't even have a point.

Then again, I could have it all wrong.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

The cruelty of the Iraq war will not make for peace.
Furthermore, by the time this ends, more than 3-4 times as many people will die as died under Saddam.

[RusskiSoldat]

The Nazis were cruel to the residents of the Soviet territories they occupied and managed to raise 1 million partisans against them as a result.

[Trey]

The cruelty of the Iraq war will not make for peace.
Furthermore, by the time this ends, more than 3-4 times as many people will die as died under Saddam.

But now they're freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[jankren]

But now they're freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Except those in the hundreds of thousands who are dead of course. And those who are still living currently I dont think they feel that free.

By the way, until 1998 I lived under military dictatorship in Indonesia. Massacres occurred here and there every now and then. But guess what? Life moved on and it was not that bad. I was as free as the bird and nothing would happen to me so long as I did not politically challenge the ruling dynasty. It was just like living in a kingdom during Medieval era. We did not need any foreign army to invade our country to liberate us because when the majority of the people got pissed at the ruler, they would topple him as we Indonesians did in 1998. And now we are in theory the second most democratic country in the world after India.

[DadioDog]

The Iraq war is a very complex thing.

The Americans liberated the supressed 'Shi'ite' majority and have now allowed them to take power and rape the sunni and marsh arabs and kurds (even though they are shia) all they like.

So Americans have just caused things to switch places and caused anarchy through civil war which wasn't there before.

Americans are the last people on Earth who should be travelling the world bringing 'justice' and 'peace' to people. They don't understand a thing about the social structures in other countries and just create massive problems.

E.g. Vietnam (you just don't **** with the chinese)

[MathiasOfAthens]

Remember its not every american who supported the unpopular war in Iraq.
History repeats itself, which basically refutes the cruety of war brings on peace. Europe could be an example of thousands of years of warfare that finally brought peace.
This war is f*king crap, our intelligences knew this would happen but the president was so damn confident in all the iraqis welcoming us as heroes and immeditally going about living in peace with each other then make babies and become a democratic highly industrialize state in the ME. ********!

Saddam was better than this *****. At least there was Peace and stability, and there wasn't genocide in the traditional sense despite what people say.

[Lykaor]

The more savage, heartless, brutal, apalling a war is, the sooner it is over, and it leaves everyone with a terrible pain over it, which keeps it from happening again a few months after it just ended.

Yeah, dead Iraqis won't rebel, that's the solution!

[Erik]

I don't think the cruelty of war makes for peace.

In fact: I think the cruelty of war makes for more wars, because many people seek revenge.

[Erik]

(double post, please delete)

[Goudvinger]

If you act cruel enough, they won't get the chance to attempt revenge

[Lykaor]

If you act cruel enough, they won't get the chance to attempt revenge

Because they're dead. Killerargument.

[pannonian]

I was just reading the other threads, having been gone a little bit, and noticed alot of people against torture, mass murder, and other terrible things (as they should be) but I was reminded of the phrase.

"The cruelty of war, makes for peace."

The more savage, heartless, brutal, apalling a war is, the sooner it is over, and it leaves everyone with a terrible pain over it, which keeps it from happening again a few months after it just ended. Im against death, destruction, pain, and all those bad, bad things- even for 'terrorists' but it seems the problem wasn't in 'how' we went to war, but that we even went to WAR.

I'm less bothered about the cruelty of the Iraq war than I am about its pointlessness.

Iraq wasn't a huge blunder because we didn't have to means of destroying an Army. it was a huge blunder, because we brought an army to kill an idea.

The Iraq war wasn't a huge blunder because there was no means of destroying the enemy, however one defined enemy. The Iraq war was a huge blunder because there was no reason to fight it. Sun Zi cites the war that needs to be fought over and over again as the worst of all, but perhaps he never envisaged the war that never needed to be fought in the first place. Nonetheless he got it right when he advised wannabe conquerors to look for any means other than war to pursue their aims, for war is inevitably destructive and ruinous to both sides.

but since Terrorist isn't the same title as, say, Bungarian, maybe we want to take another route, other then declaring War?

Bingo.

[RZZZA]

The American army is known for its humaness to those it captures in combat, so much so, that soldiers of opposing armies are known to willingly defect to our side in mass droves because often, the treatement theyd recieve as prisoners under the americans is better than the treatement theyre recieving in their own armed services, as a soldier.


Thats a good thing, its worth preserving. As soon as word of torture or mistreatment gets out, you tend to start to kinda lose that moral highground. In WW2, the russians massacred any German prisoners they captured and the Germans likewise massacred any Russians they captured. But on the western front, the germans later on became all too willing to surrender to the americans and brits, and in return treated captured american pilots and soldiers relatively respectfully and humanely.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

^ I remember hearing about the occupation of Berlin where Germans were running towards the Americans and British to surrender, because the Russians were approaching from the eastern side of the city. Many American and British troops were shocked that they were begging to be taken as POW by the Americans and British.

[Mangalore]

The American army is known for its humaness to those it captures in combat, so much so, that soldiers of opposing armies are known to willingly defect to our side in mass droves because often, the treatement theyd recieve as prisoners under the americans is better than the treatement theyre recieving in their own armed services, as a soldier.

^ I remember hearing about the occupation of Berlin where Germans were running towards the Americans and British to surrender, because the Russians were approaching from the eastern side of the city. Many American and British troops were shocked that they were begging to be taken as POW by the Americans and British.

I'm afraid that had more to do with how pissed the Russians were rather than how human the Allies were perceived. Surrendering is no fun but if you got a choice you certainly try to get captured by the guys you could be certain not to have killed family from. That'd be in order: USA, Britain, (even France), Russia.

Cannot remember that people were overeager to surrender to the US in any other war, at least not in an unusual way.



Oh, and I think people argue against the war because it is predominately civilians that are the victims (they either get blown up by nsurgents or maltreated by coalition forces wary of getting blown up themselves).

[RZZZA]

Cannot remember that people were overeager to surrender to the US in any other war, at least not in an unusual way.

the iraq war, gulf war 1 and 2 really.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n11384393


"The bulk of the prisoners came from the Iraqi 51st Infantry Division, which apparently surrendered en masse to allied forces Friday. The division was estimated to have 8,000 soldiers and 200 tanks."


Win the battle without ever fighting, very Sun Tzu.

[jankren]

I'm afraid that had more to do with how pissed the Russians were rather than how human the Allies were perceived. Surrendering is no fun but if you got a choice you certainly try to get captured by the guys you could be certain not to have killed family from. That'd be in order: USA, Britain, (even France), Russia.

Thats right. There were 20 million dead Russians for God's sake. Without them at least Western Europe today might only be made up of people who belong to the 'master race' and they would say 'Danke' instead 'Thank you', 'Gracias' or 'Grazie'.

[RusskiSoldat]

Thats a good thing, its worth preserving. As soon as word of torture or mistreatment gets out, you tend to start to kinda lose that moral highground. In WW2, the russians massacred any German prisoners they captured and the Germans likewise massacred any Russians they captured. But on the western front, the germans later on became all too willing to surrender to the americans and brits, and in return treated captured american pilots and soldiers relatively respectfully and humanely.

Russians and Germans didn't massacre POWs for the most part, they sent them to hard labor camps.
It was the civilians who were massacred.

I'm afraid that had more to do with how pissed the Russians were rather than how human the Allies were perceived. Surrendering is no fun but if you got a choice you certainly try to get captured by the guys you could be certain not to have killed family from. That'd be in order: USA, Britain, (even France), Russia.

Considering that virtually every Russian soldier lost a family member (or often his entire family and home) to the Germans, I'd say the wrath was understandable.

[Black Hawk]

The American army is known for its humaness to those it captures in combat, so much so, that soldiers of opposing armies are known to willingly defect to our side in mass droves because often, the treatement theyd recieve as prisoners under the americans is better than the treatement theyre recieving in their own armed services, as a soldier.