Flashback XXIII
2005.03.14 22:49

#Tragedy of War

I am just trying to save the greatest number of people possible, and I am perfectly willing to accept whatever consequences come with that. - pudge

This is a real story. -It was 18 years ago still I was a college student that I traveled to Hiroshima where the atomic bomb was dropped at the end of WWII.

I came across a prostitute who was then begging me a stay for one night. It was a very cold night in February. She was middle-aged and dragging one leg, after sometime of hesitation, I decided to let her stay in my hotel one night without having her serve me, I was supposed to because of a humanitarian viewpoint. I asked her in my room, 'Why you are dragging one leg?' She replied, 'It was some 30 years ago when I was hit by an atomic bomb, that caused me amputated.'

The tragedy of war lasts just that long, given that the war is inevitable, we want to avoid the unnecessary war at any cost.

If you thought war was necessary to overturn the evil regime, I would have nothing left to say. It seems to me that the U.S. has been playing a role of ultimate being like God since it posseses the third fire- nuclear weapons. I just pray U.S. uses its superior power for the prevailing of good will anyway, anyone -including UN cannot stop U.S. use of force at any rate. I just pray.

We all cannot blame for his appeasement policy, since it made us realise the war was the last resort to prevent the further expansion of Nazis. Do you really think the situations right now they all are facing are comparable to those of the eve of the WWII? I don't believe you are not that silly. They all are at the mercy of U.S. decision. They are waiting to see what U.S. is going to say on the situations in the Middle East without making even a noise of breathing.

How about Iran and Syria? They are just waiting and see how the U.S. is going to act. I think Mr Squiggleslash, I and others who have conscience have been worrying about what U.S. government is trying to say to start another theatre probably eastward and perhaps westward?

We suspect that U.S.government is planning to enter into war with neighbouring countries, stating an excuse something like to prevent terrorist's entering Iraq, to ensure peace in the region, etc.

Do you justify the use of force for them? Sometime after, OK?

So people who disagree with you have no conscience? - pudge

I only used the word in my convenience, of course those who ponder all these current world affairs have conscience, too.

Sigh. You act like the US wanted war. That's silly. - pudge

There's someone who plays the devil's advocate, for my part, you are more hawkish than I and Mr Squiggleslash is more dove than I, so in order to understand deeper the situation well, I dared to play a fool to utter like the possible consequences would be as above I mentioned, of course I'm not that silly.

The situations with Iran and Syria are almost entirely different. -pudge

Agreed.

But since when has that not been the case? Show me a time in the last 30 years when we have not had tense relations with Iran that could easily, within days, result in the use of military action. - pudge

Don't you think this statement is a little bit cynical?In the era of Carter Administration, America faced one of the toughest situation- Embasy members hostagetaking. Carter didn't take a military action. Even after he solved the problem without force, he didn't resort to force in that country. The attitude toward that country depends on the policy of the administration then, generally Democrats like peaceful solution while the Republican is more hawkish.

Trying to say "hey, we invaded Iraq, so why not Iran or Syria or North Korea?" shows either you have an intensely oversimplified view of the situation over there, or you think I do. Either way, it's uninteresting. -pudge

Me either. Let's get down to business.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Flashback XXIII Preferences Top 4 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 4 comments 0: 4 comments 1: 4 comments 2: 2 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hm(Score:2)
by pudge (3605) * <pudge@NoSPaM.slashdot.org> on 2005.03.15 4:04 (#11935025) (http://pudge.net/ Last Journal: 2005.09.25 1:56)
If you thought war was necessary to overturn the evil regime, I would have nothing left to say Then I guess you have nothing left to say. :-)I just pray U.S. uses its superior power for the prevailing of good will anyway, anyone -including UN cannot stop U.S. use of force at any rate. First: good, you should pray for our world leaders. They need it.Second: yes, no government SHOULD be able to stop the U.S. That's the idea, that we can do what is in our own best interests. That's the point. When we get to the point where we are not the most powerful, it will be to our collective national misfortune.That doesn't mean we should use that power willy-nilly. The more we use it, the less effective it is in the long run, because not only do we deplete our resources, but we encourage others to challenge us. It's better to carry a big stick than to swing it. But if you don't swing it when it is necessary to do so, then it is useless to carry it.You think Iraq was unnecessary. I disagree.We suspect that U.S.government is planning to enter into war with neighbouring countries ... Do you justify the use of force for them? No. As there is currently absolutely no reason to think we are on the verge of such a thing, I have no reason to think about how it might be justified.Don't you think this statement is a little bit cynical? No.In the era of Carter Administration, America faced one of the toughest situation- Embasy members hostagetaking. Carter didn't take a military action. To all our misfortune, in my opinion. We showed ourselves to be weak, which has hurt us for decades. Worse, we allowed the regime to gain far too much power and threaten Iraq, which caused us to take Iraq's side, and we all know how that ended up. We should have smacked them down when we had the chance.
Re:Hm(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.03.16 21:58 (#11952187) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Welcome to my article -Flashback...
Let me back by far more... back in 589 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar II, King of Babylonia, sieged Jerusalem, conquered Jewish people, captured King of Judah, Zedekiah, following Jewish people's Babylonian Captivity, one of the severest plight in their history.
Why this happened? - At that time, Jewish state was a tributary of Babylonia, and King Zedekiah was appointted by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylonia, he was a figurehead, and expected to act as Nebuchadnezzar want, however he misunderstood, because he was financially militarily tremendously helped by Nebuchadnezzar, he got rich, rich enough to think of the possibility of independent Jewish country, so he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar in alliance with Egypy.
Nebuchadnezzar got very angry at hearing the news, sending almost all troops he could collect, then conquered again.
He along with many country men were sent to Babylon, where they ended up staying captivity. City of Jerusalem along with its splended temple were completely destroyed. Jerusalem never refurbished till King Cyrus of Persia allowed Jewish people to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple again.
That was a rough summary of what's happened in that area, now back to now....history repeats. So you have already cleary noticed the Iraq case is entirely different from Iran case (I'm not sure about North Korea though..). America's involvement with Iraq started in relation to Iran, at Iran-Iraq War, from the necessity of striking a balance against Iran, America took sides with Iraq, helped Iraq to proceed to military build-up which unfortunately ended up Iraq's invasion to Kuwait, which garnered America's wrath, it took two time war and ten years though finally conquered Iraq. Now Saddam was in captivity as was Zedekiah at that time. When we talked about the war with Iraq we never fail to discuss without referring to the background - from Iran-Iraq War.
However war with Iran's not likely to occur - why? I tell you the reasons. Historically Jewish people never fought with Persians, and far from it, after King Cyrus era in Persia and their occupyed land, Jewish people were treated very heartwarmingly. Jewish people never forget their favour. Of course King Syrus's the one who released Jewish people from Babylonian Captivity.
In Iraq, many troops were stationed -US, Britain, along with Japanese forces. I think we have already reached the point of no return. Things already reached this point, I only pray how soon peace in Iraq will come to being.
We are indeed at war with North Korea, we imposed economic sanctions against that country and they have already declared economic sanctions as good as declaration of war against that country. Phoney war continues...--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Heh(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.03.17 4:32 (#11956517) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.27 0:58)
Don't you think this statement is a little bit cynical?In the era of Carter Administration, America faced one of the toughest situation- Embasy members hostagetaking. Carter didn't take a military action. Even after he solved the problem without force, he didn't resort to force in that country. The attitude toward that country depends on the policy of the administration then, generally Democrats like peaceful solution while the Republican is more hawkish.
Carter invaded Iran with a small group of special forces. [wikipedia.org] The whole thing was a giant FUBAR. Several US soldiers died, and the hostages were moved from the place they were held, and taken to a secure facility.
They remained there until Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Reagan's administration to be had been negotiating with the Iranians. Yes, it was very illegal, and yes, it was what Reagan did.
Re:Heh(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.03.17 23:14 (#11964449) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
I didn't know that. This is unbelievable. I understand there were many covert operations taken place at that time, only after many years have passed those events come to light. Interesting.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters