- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- When is war acceptable?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| When is war acceptable? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 10 2014, 02:14 PM (1,150 Views) | |
| + Pelador | Mar 10 2014, 02:14 PM Post #1 |
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
These days it seems nobody likes a war. Which is fair enough. They often cause more problems than they solve. But is there ever a situation where one country has the right to attack another? Seeing that your neigbouring country is committing atrocities, do you go in then? Or do you use the argument that you cannot act as the world police. If you intervene then, should you by principle intervene everywhere else where there are atrocities? How about if a country is issuing threats all the time? Being aggressive and hostile towards you. Do you attack them first for fear of them attacking you or carrying out their threats? Would that be a fair reason for war? My personal view is that in this day and age, we shouldn't even have armies. At least not of soldiers. The days of seizing land for glory and riches are long gone. Empire building is a thing of the past. Instead of soldiers we should have aid workers. Helping out in poverty areas and disaster zones. Of course because of aggressive nations such as North Korea and Russia, that probably won't happen anytime soon. I don't agree with intervening when there is genocide, chemical weapons or civil wars. Genocide is terrible yes. I wish there was a way to stop it for good. But even in such an extreme and awful situation, I still don't believe it's right for nations to interfere with each other. I actually think intervention can make places worse in the long term. Invading a country because they have been using chemical weapons is hypocritical. Why are chemical weapons so much more unacceptable than bullets? They all kill people. "Oh well we were fine with you lining up men and women and shooting them but now you've used a gas that's just wrong" My issue with civil wars is that it's very hard not to pick a side. Plus the chances are that both sides are awful. If you look back at the problems created in Africa and the middle east when several European nations were hand picking leaders after some bloody civil wars, you might be able to see why interfering is generally a bad idea. The only time I've seen intervention do good was in the Kosovo conflict. Seveal European nations banded together to oust president Slobodan Miloševic who was committing mass murder. Apart from that, it always seems to be counter productive. Edited by Pelador, Mar 10 2014, 02:26 PM.
|
 http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
 |
 
|
| Goddess Ultimecia | Mar 10 2014, 03:30 PM Post #2 |
 
|
To quote from a song I listened to as a kid. "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin'" The only time War is appropriate in my opinion is when opposition attacks you or threatens to do so. I don't believe in policing the globe so I follow a "Make sure your own backyard is clean before going for another" kind of mentality. |
 NinjaSushi Colouring
| |
|
|
| Master Gohan | Mar 10 2014, 03:40 PM Post #3 |
 
|
Pearl Harbor was definitely a more than acceptable reason for the US to go to war. They had to defeat the Japanese and Germans right then and there or else everyone would have had hell to pay. So basically my views: If a country is attacked out of the blue by another country or attacked in general, war is acceptable. If there were to be another dictator like Hitler causing major problems and invading countries, I think it is acceptable too. So WWII I think war was acceptable. |
| |
|
|
|
| + Yusuke | Mar 10 2014, 04:29 PM Post #4 |
 
|
Rarely. If a country attacks another country, then it's up to the UN to solve that problem. Like you said in your OP, if all the countries just get rid of their military forces, their wouldn't be any conflict in the world. And conscription as well. That thing needs to be obliterated from existence. Being forced to go to war is a major violation. |
 Ask Yusuke | |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10 2014, 05:27 PM Post #5 |
|
Without armies, greedy countries would be overthrowing each other left and right. We have to maintain armies and the military for protection, if anything else. Like everyone else said, I only agree with war when a country is being attacked or a dictator is causing a heck of a lot of problems for everyone. |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 10 2014, 06:00 PM Post #6 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
How would they be overthrowing anyone without an army? |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| * Yu Narukami | Mar 10 2014, 07:51 PM Post #7 |
|
Izanagi!
|
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/jus_ad_bellum,_jus_in_bello_and_non-international_armed_conflictsang.pdf A seemingly interesting read, if you're willing to go through it. In my opinion, the only justifiable reasons to take up arms are in the cases of self-defense and humanitarian intervention. In regards to the latter, it has to be genuine, it can't simply be used as an excuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10 2014, 08:48 PM Post #8 |
|
Surely you get what I mean. Not every country would go along with something like that. And armies aren't the only things to worry about. 
|
|
|
|
| * Sousen Ichimonji | Mar 10 2014, 09:06 PM Post #9 |
You are calm and reposed, let your beauty unfold
|
Arguably, the Second World War is one of the few just wars in modern history, certainly in the 20th century. When you can look back at a conflict and believe that not only was it a necessary war, but that it didn't happen soon enough (with modern arguments against European appeasement of the fascist states), that's pretty acceptable. The issue is that in that case it requires hindsight. War is acceptable when the aggressor is doing so to prevent the other country from committing crimes that it would not tolerate from its citizens: when a regime authorises the use of chemical weapons and other actions that are condemned by international law and by most domestic laws as acts of terror on citizens of their own nation or others, it is acceptable to dispute that that regime is holding itself above common law, and should be stopped if possible. |
 Call me a safe bet, I'm betting I'm not I'm glad that you can forgive, only hoping as time goes, you can forget | |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Mar 11 2014, 12:58 AM Post #10 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
So there's nothing immoral about letting a countries army commit genocide, killing children, even babies when it could be stopped? Just for something like their religious belief or race. I don't see why everyone should just sit around and let that happen, the situation would never resolve itself the country in question would just go mad with power like North Korea and what happens if it's a country that's a genuine threat to the world? People with no talent or intelligence are often elected to be the head of a nation, it's as dumb as they are to let their rule go on, unless you have reason to believe that they have and would use nuclear weapons if opposed. I think it's acceptable for various reasons but only to end the conflict not to go over and claim the country and/or it's resources, other than nukes. I don't really care about other people to be very honest but how can people who preach that they do not try to help stop these things? Also an army is necessary humans are violent by nature, sometimes they're needed to back the police up and if you made every soldier a police officer that would just make everyone anxious and more prone to rebelling. They're also an important resource in times of tragedy like natural disasters, evacuating people, putting out forest fires whatever. It would be a waste of time to just have thousands of firefighters ready on the off chance that there's a forest fire somewhere for example where an army is suited on some level to most all situations. |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| * Sousen Ichimonji | Mar 11 2014, 01:00 AM Post #11 |
|
You are calm and reposed, let your beauty unfold
|
I would be delighted to know the basis behind this statement. |
|
Call me a safe bet, I'm betting I'm not I'm glad that you can forgive, only hoping as time goes, you can forget | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 11 2014, 01:30 AM Post #12 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
It is immoral because whilst in the short term it appears as though you are helping people, in the long term you are creating a whole bunch of problems to make life even worse for them. Lets use Iraq as an example. No one will deny that Saddam was a genocidal maniac who committed many crimes against humanity. A bunch of countries intervene and removed him from power. What happened over the next few years? Another example we can look at is Vietnam. Many leaders at the time believed that they were helping the country by intervening. We all know how that turned out. You think Africa would be as messed up as it is if we had left it alone instead of trying to control the politics of various African nations? History is littered with countries who believed what they were doing was for the greater good, only to have it bite them in the a*** a few years later. I believe that if you leave them alone, they will eventually overthrow the tyrants themselves and make a heck of a lot better decisions about how the new leadership should be brought in than we ever could. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| * Sousen Ichimonji | Mar 11 2014, 02:08 AM Post #13 |
|
You are calm and reposed, let your beauty unfold
|
And on the opposite side of the scale of Vietnam, Bill Clinton said that not intervening in Rwanda during the genocides that took place there was his biggest regret as former president. As I said before, it's only with the benefit of hindsight that we can entirely see how righteous any conflict (or absense of conflict) is acceptable. But I stick with the definition I set above as a general principle. |
|
Call me a safe bet, I'm betting I'm not I'm glad that you can forgive, only hoping as time goes, you can forget | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Mar 11 2014, 02:40 AM Post #14 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
Who's to say how Rwanda would have turned out had he intervened. I could run across a motorway and not be hit by a car, doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do. In fact I reckon military intervention is exactly like that in terms of risk. Nine times out of ten, it is going to go wrong. Kosovo seems to be the only case where it hasn't backfired. Unless Libya is all fine now? Last I checked that wasn't so. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Copy_Ninja | Mar 11 2014, 03:18 AM Post #15 |
Novacane for the pain
|
Libya is in a better state than it was before intervention, and there isn't some kind of Iraq situation of foreign troops being stationed there. No one is saying intervention would magically fix everything, nothing can do that. But it can help bring an end to hostilities and remove a government that's suppressing its own people. Libya is only a couple of years out from a civil war, of course it's still going to be struggling. The motorway analogy doesn't really work, there would be no tangible reason to run across the motorway. If there had been intervention in Rwanda, they wouldn't have been able to routinely round people up and slaughter them, preventing a vast majority of the one million deaths. Whatever would have happened afterwards, it'd be a hell of a lot better than allowing a million people to be killed. |
 We'll never be those kids again
| |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:42 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy