What Is It To Be Anti-war?

[Matt]

There's been a lot of talk recently about the Iraqi war around here. Specifically, the idea of anti-war, and why or why not a country should go to war, perhaps no one remembers what happened many years ago?

 

Personally, I'm somewhat anti-war, but not to an extreme. Some wars cannot be avoided, such as a "little" war called World War II. It's kind have an insult to say all wars are needless to those who lost their lives to ensure freedom. There wasn't a way to stop this war either. Neville Chamberlain tried; he even had Hitler sign a piece of paper that "ensured peace". It meant nothing in the end when Hitler began invading Eastern Europe. I don't believe all wars can be avoided when people will simply take something they want.

 

If a country is going to war, they're going to need a great reason to go. The U.S. has interfered a little too much since the end of W.W. II. Even then in Korea, and the Gulf War, the U.S. helped keep freedom in countries that risked losing that. Perhaps they should have just been ignored while they lost their freedom?

 

Sure some wars could have, and probably should have been avoided. But there have been times in the past when war had to happen. Being anti-war is fine, but it's not always a realistic choice...

Edited November 2, 2004 by Matt

[frustrated inc.]

Awesome points brought up.

 

I'd say I'm anti-thiswar.

 

I believe there were other avenues of resolution that could have been explored that were not.

 

The United Nations was involved with the whole Iraq situation pre-war. From what I recall, when Bush declared his ultimatum to fork over the WMD, the UN said "you can't do that. We're handling things here."

 

Bush then gave the UN the middle finger, dared anyone to stop him, and bombed the shit of Iraq.

 

I'm pretty sure that's how it happened.

[juanpe]

I'm anti-war in all senses

 

Being an anti-war person means to trust human being and trust our peace capacity;

 

being anti-war means to avoid destroying countries, cultures, citizens;

 

being anti-war means to trust human rights and do whatever possible to avoid a war thru international cooperation, peace and talk;

 

being anti-war means to talk before acting;

 

being anti-war means to reject weapons as a way to show superiority over people and a way to destroy other people;

 

being anti-war means to fight against hatred among cultures, countries and peoples;

 

being anti-war means to avoid selfishness to show more power over the others;

 

being anti-war means to fight for international peace and understanding;

 

every war in the world can be avoided if and only if the human being stops being so selfish, so greedy

[Matt]

Did you even read what I said? I pointed out an example of a war that couldn't be avoided. You claimed right there they all could if people weren't so selfish and greedy, and ideally that's a nice idea. But realistically, it's not going to happen. Being Anti-War isn't always the right solution. People will be greedy and selfish in this world and quite frankly people can only control themselves. Communism was meant to give back to the people. In the end it only took from them as well. Even people with the right ideas can be corrupted into being just as bad and worse than those they're trying to stop or change.

Edited November 2, 2004 by Matt

[Lauren]

that was a bit harsh...

[juanpe]

yes, Matt, it was TOO harsh actually...

 

1. i ALWAYS read what other people say before answering/posting my own ideas;

 

2. i didnt even say anything about your own ideas - i didnt even say i agreed or not, i just expressed my OWN ideas... you presuppose that i was answering you "back" for your post...

 

3. it may be utopic, ideal or whatever you wanna call it... but those are my ideas, AS RESPECTFUL as yours may be (no matter i may agree or not), ideas for which i always fight for, ideas which fulfil my whole existence and that I WON'T EVER change

 

4. tolerance, UNDERSTANDING... that's what i was calling for... something that apparently is very "scarce" in today's world

 

I AM STILL AND ANTI-WAR GUY, AN ANTI-ALL-KIND-OF-WAR GUY and I will ALWAYS be like that

[Born to Kill]

Yay for juanpe!

[Matt]

I can't remember who said this but "if you want peace, prepare for war". There will always be someone ready to attack you. But preparing for war is not a bad thing. It meant Europe banded together to avert wars, and it worked. They've built a system of peace now instead because they didn't want to fight each other anymore. It's a very strong system. I believe they recently force "Microsoft" to sell a scaled down version of its operating system. To give an example of how strong of a system the Europeans have built for themselves.

[frustrated inc.]

It's an ancient roman expression.

[juanpe]

the strong european system hasnt been built with wars: it has been built with understanding among countries, it has been built with tolerance, it has been built with cooperation among the different countries (states if talking about the european union)...

 

I feel very proud of being an european guy, very proud of being a member of one of the states who belongs to this european union... and i'm very proud of the understanding, tolerance, cooperation and respect for others which is the base of my country, Spain, and of many countries in europe

[ok_go_570]

i agree with what your bolth saying here. I think that ALL options should be extinguished before you go to war. I think that world war 2 COULD have been avoided. The main casue for world war 2 was the treaty of Versailles (sp?)after World War 1 and if Britain and France hadn't been so harsh on the terms of peace and the reperations then Facism wouldent have been able to rise. Im not saying that it deffinatly WOULDENT rise, as there are other casues as well (such as the great depresstion).

 

A war that could have been avoided was the War in Iraq. (What is the official name of that war?)

 

I dont think people should go to war for selfish reasons but i do think that you should fight if your countrys autonomy is being threatened. This is part of the reason why i simpithise with the palestinians in Isreal right now. Isreal stole the palestinian lands and forced them out...but thats another rant.

 

Anyway my point is that if you can avoid armed conflict then by all means AVOID IT! War isnt something that should be taken lightly.

 

*hint hint Mr. Bush ;) *

Edited November 3, 2004 by eliselover570

[Matt]

the strong european system hasnt been built with wars: it has been built with understanding among countries, it has been built with tolerance, it has been built with cooperation among the different countries (states if talking about the european union)...

 

I feel very proud of being an european guy, very proud of being a member of one of the states who belongs to this european union... and i'm very proud of the understanding, tolerance, cooperation and respect for others which is the base of my country, Spain, and of many countries in europe

It was built to avoid war though. That's the whole basis, tolerance and cooperation happen to come along with that.

[Sparq]

Being an anti-war person means to trust human being and trust our peace capacity;

 

being anti-war means to avoid selfishness to show more power over the others;

 

every war in the world can be avoided if and only if the human being stops being so selfish, so greedy

That's the core issue here. It's easy to say that we should just 'not fight', but there's a critical issue here...we're dealing with humans. Humans kill each other. Always have. As a species, we ARE greedy, we ARE selfish, and we do NOT have some wonderful universal 'capacity for peace'.

 

The issues Matt brought up are the harsh realities of our world, like it or not. Just because you (we, whatever, I'm not pointing fingers) wouldn't go to war for any reason doesn't mean the rest of humanity sees things the same way. The fact is that groups of people WILL try to enslave, evict, or kill other groups of people from time to time. The reasons don't even matter...it can and will happen. War is the product of the potential victims deciding they're not going to let those things happen. When it comes down to it, not many people will allow themselves to be murdered when they have a chance to defend themselves. Not many people have a moral fiber that strong...though alot of people seem to think they do.

 

Is war bad? Certainly. Is genocide better than war? I don't think so, myself...I for one, would fight, kill, and quite possibly die before I allowed some aggressor to massacre everyone I know. Self defence is as human as any other instinct...the moral divider is whether you are the aggressor or the victim.

 

It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will continue to happen in the future. There is no magic formula for world peace other than a war so cataclysmic that no human remains alive at the end.

Edited November 4, 2004 by Sparq

[Moonlight_Graham]

i completely agree with Matt's main point. As much as it sucks, sometimes you can't avoid war, such as in WWII.

 

Juanpe, your intentions and ideals are admirable. Most would agree with you that war is horrible, that talking and co-operation should become before violence. That all efforts of peace should come before violence.

 

But Juanpe, i would like to know what you would do in WWII, when Nazi Germany and its Axis allies were tearing through Europe, conquering countries and killing innocent people, including millions of Jews. And what would you do if Hitler invaded your country and started the slaughter? You could try all efforts to talk to them, but what if they wouldn't listen and just took what they wanted? Would you be pacifist and just let them kill you and your family? Would you let them take you and your family as slaves and lock you in cages for the rest of your lives?

 

Is that what you're saying? That you'd rather have you and your family and countrymen die before ever fighting back as a means of self-defense. I just want to know what you'd do.

[juanpe]

When March 11 happened in Madrid this year, in that terrorist attack, i lost some loved people: I lost 2 neighbors who have been living in my parents neighborhood for all their lifes and mine (we played together when we were lil, were friends when we were lil, and we still talked and have a drink from time to time now in adulthood); I lost a relative (a cousin of mine, Javier, with whom I had a very close relationship) and I lost also a student at the university where I am...

 

Do you really think that my first reaction was not "I wanna kill these people, i want the government to start a ´war` against them, i want the government to do whatever possible to kill these people"? Of course i thought that, of course that was my first reaction and my first feeling... I thought "Am I gonna be like them? Am I gonna ask my government to start a war against them?" I really wanned to ask for revenge, for their memory and I found it something necessary and "obvious"...

 

But then I thought "Why do we have justice in a democracy?" Do you think that the first reaction of my ex-government was not what i said in the previous paragraph? I'm sure it was... but they didn't start a war against them, they didnt even send troops to Morocco (from where most of the islamic terrorists who attacked Madrid were from)...

 

What did my ex-government (and specially, the new government) do? Exactly what you expect from a democratic country as Spain is: looking for cooperation among countries, looking for international cooperation, looking for a solution to the problem talking and trying to get understanding, using justice (national and international) to fight against islamic terrorism... but never started a war, never used violence to "erradicate" that threat in my country...

 

And I agree with that decision... even having lost beloved people around me in that attack... That's the base of a democracy, that's the base of human understanding and cooperation and trust... we are not living in a jungle in which everybody can take revenge on someone by his/her own means... there are laws, there is justice to try to fight against unfair situations

 

And I loved (and I will always love) those people I lost in that attack... but I dont think (and I don't believe in that) that violence, war, weapons are the solution to problems in our societies

 

Sorry for such a long message, I just wanned to make my point clear enough

[Matt]

Understanding and cooperation doesn't always work though. Take World War II once more. As Hitler was gearing up to take over Europe, Britain, and France tried to sit down and work with him. However, he only used that to take what he wanted. Finally when people said he couldn't have anything more he simply used his army to take it. Sometimes cooperation and understanding just doesn't work out as much as people would like it too.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Juanpe, you didn't answer my question about the WWII scenario. I'd like to know what you would do, or how would you handle the scenario(s) i described.

[Matt]

I guess he's not going to answer the question either...

[juanpe]

If i knew how to handle such a situation (fortunately I was not there), i would try to be a politician: I sorta answered my question (and yes, moonlight, i did answer my question with the example i stated) in my previous message: I had family and friends DEAD in that attack and although my first reaction would have been to kill them, i didnt take a gun and look for the terrorists to kill them, i didnt ask my government to start a war against those terrorists...

 

reading a bit of history tells us that the international organizations that we have nowadays didnt always exist (that's why we have them, although Bush didnt even respect them)

 

my grandpa lived during the Spanish civil war... do you know what he did? Instead of taking a gun and going to fight against people of the town nearby, he joined with many more and built up a political party to fight against the civil war and the dictatorship... and they succeeded somehow because they could avoid many many killings in the region where he was born just sitting people together and having them talk... if many more people during the Spanish civil war had done the same, many more deaths would've been avoided for sure...

 

From him I learned my ideas... and that is exactly what i would've tried to do in that scenario you described (and that, again, I already answered with another example, i hope this new one makes it clear)... would i have been successful? I don't know and i guess we will never know...

 

(and by the way, Matt, I'm starting to get a lil bit "tired" of your attitude towards me... it is the second time you are harsh to me and i'm starting to get a bit "sick" of that... if you have any problem with me or something related to me, i'd like u to tell me)

 

(sorry the rest of the people for this last paragraph)

Edited November 6, 2004 by juanpe

[Matt]

The Spanish Civil War ended with a harsh Fascist Dictatorship though.

 

Trying to reason with Hitler was near impossible as I said before. He only backed down once. That was to Benito Musolini when Hitler first tried to take over Austria. Every other time he took what he wanted.

 

Working together isn't always the best solution. In World War I, both side created forms of co-operation. Britain, France, and Russia allied together. Germany and Austria-Hungry did the same. It was created in a way of protection as well. However, that co-operation only led to war more so because each side feared they'd be attacked by the other.

[ok_go_570]

wow...this is a good debate

 

good points on bolth sides...keep it up

[juanpe]

Working together isn't always the best solution.

in your own opinion, of course, because I don't agree with you on that: if working together is not always the best solution, in my opinion, then we are living in the "jungle" and whoever wants to do whatever he/she wants will be able to do it

 

and OF COURSE I know the Spanish Civil War ended in a cruel and terrorific dictatorship... and how do you think that dictatorship ended? with cooperation and understanding and that "working together" that you seem not to like among citizens and political parties (and the b death of Franco) which took society and politicians to finally create a democratic system with the first democratic elections in Spain in a long time...

[Tati]

What would John Lennon say about this? "Give peace a chance." "Peace is the only answer."

What would Einstein say? "One cannot prepare for peace while preparing for war." “It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”

I'm with them, man.

[Bladeso]

My anti-war is a belief that war is not nessisary when it furthers a countries empireship, or there imerialistic goals. For instance when Iraq was invaded I was and still am pro-war for the iraq army. In that if they did not fight they would be killer buy either the US or other Iraqi's (I spelling doesn't count)

 

Still the best way for wars to be avoided which they should always be used is deplomacy first and all out war lastly. Theis doesn't mean just going to the UN which is a VOLLENTARY group, not an alliance, but to accually have ambassitors talk and even heads of the country talk.

[pearanoid]

I think it's very important to be anti-war in today's world.

 

The debate going on here is good, but it's arguing about the past that can't be changed. However, we need to understand what's happened in the past to prevent such things from happening in the future.

 

Unfortunately this is lost on too many people. This war on terror is justified by saying "This people hate us because of our way of life and our freedom." Basically saying that we're jealous, but a lot of people don't understand why they hate Western Civilization.

 

It's not as simple as saying "These are bad people who kill without reason." They have a lot of reasons to be pissed off, and they gave the US one. But what the US is doing now, is just as bad, if not worse than what the terrorists did. It's only going to breed more hate.

 

This is why I think people need to educate themselves about what's happening in the world and why. War is not going to solve anything, it's only going to make it worse and I don't think there's any question to that.

 

Being anti-war is knowing better. We may not be the ones who make the decisions, but if enough people can really know what they're talking about and not be afraid to speak up, them maybe we can influence the ones who do make the decisions because they're supposed to be representing us.

 

Okay, I'm done. And just to clarify, I'm not sympathizing with "terrorists", I'm just trying to point out that there's a reason we have terrorists.