Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: 4getmenot on 01/08/2006 02:13:28
-
In your opinion is war good or bad? Is it worth it or not and do you really think that Bush lied as far as using terrorism as an excuse for it?
k
-
There is an ole cliche'...in order to have peace one must have war...but in my opinion...if the war is not for a good reason...then no! Which president has not lied...that is not a question...War was really inevidable...it was a matter of borrowed time...
"Lo" Loretta
-
Are you asking whether all war is good or bad, or the current ongoing war?
I think one can never say that war is good, but in certain cases one may say it is both necessary and effective. To be regarded as necessary, one has to show that the intended objectives of the war are sufficient to justify the war, and that no other means of achieving those objectives exist, and that the adverse effects of the war can be managed. In order to be effective, one needs a very clear vision of what it is that one wishes to achieve, and can show that the means exist to achieve that objective, and to extricate oneself from the war once the objectives have been reached.
With regard to the current ongoing war – I think there can be no doubt that it has created far more problems that it solved. It failed to meet most of its objectives (apart from unseating Saddam Hussain, it really has not achieved much besides a total loss of credibility and public confidence in the US foreign policy both from within the USA and without). It has created enormous problems in terms of the feeling by most (both ally and foe alike) that the very notion of international law is now irrelevant, and international might is all that matters.
With regard to the issue of the relationship between terrorism and Iraq, what is clear now, and has always been clear to me (although others at one time believed otherwise) was that the statements Bush and Blair were putting in the public domain regarding both the relationship between Saddam Hussain and terrorism, and the issue of WMD's, was incorrect. Whether you wish to be generous to the two men, and merely regard them as grossly incompetent, or whether you wish to regard them a cynical liars, will be something we may never know, and certainly not know for another few decades, until a great many secret papers come into the public domain.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by moonfire
There is an ole cliche'...in order to have peace one must have war...but in my opinion...if the war is not for a good reason...then no! Which president has not lied...that is not a question...War was really inevidable...it was a matter of borrowed time...
"Lo" Loretta
ya treu, but none of them lied so blatenly to us toware everyone knew he lied and rigged things to go his way and did not even try to impeach him...i think it was as low as any president has gone as to use such a tragedy as 9/11 to his own advantage to attain control over some oil....and then jack up the prices on US to boot.....
k
-
Not true...there are many who have and we see proof of policy changes up to 2 terms later when another president is in office...we can go back to Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, etc..many ignore the issues...we, the people. In the late 70's another pres was in office gas skyrocketted...what did the American people do? They went on strikes, truckers parked their trucks and would not transport petroleum..oh, excuse me I am so sorry, there really is not shortage in fuel, energy in general...remember??? Now we have no backbone to stand up against the government which is weaker now...
"Lo" Loretta
-
quote:
Originally posted by moonfire
Not true...there are many who have and we see proof of policy changes up to 2 terms later when another president is in office...we can go back to Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, etc..many ignore the issues...we, the people. In the late 70's another pres was in office gas skyrocketted...what did the American people do? They went on strikes, truckers parked their trucks and would not transport petroleum..oh, excuse me I am so sorry, there really is not shortage in fuel, energy in general...remember??? Now we have no backbone to stand up against the government which is weaker now...
"Lo" Loretta
I completely agree and wish we would all stand together...there r more of us than them and if we all stood together we might be able to make changes or something happen...but nobody does..at least not enough of us......errrrr frustrating.
k
-
I know...I know...it is!
"Lo" Loretta
-
quote:
Originally posted by moonfire
Now we have no backbone to stand up against the government which is weaker now...
Is the government really weaker?
You might say that a particular political party is weaker, but the process of government (which is wider than merely the authority of a single President or Prime Minister) is every bit as strong and authoritarian as it ever was.
The problem we have is not with the people who govern, but with the process. The fact that pretty much everyone who takes on the role of head of government behaves pretty much the same as everyone before them (with only slight variations) indicates that the problems are not with the people, but with the process that they are a part of.
George
-
I would say that "government" represents all from the House of Representatives/Senate/Congress...they are the real controlling power...so they are yet weaker as the standards have lessened in great senses! We allow to "many freedoms" people do not take a stand on issues being voted on...or as many...so if we the people govern ourselves, we allow them to be stronger over us even though it weakens us as a government in a whole.
I know if I have an issue with a law about to be passed, I call, email or write...not everyone does that...
"Lo" Loretta
-
I do not recall any time in the history of democracy (after Athens) when there was much approaching the rule of the people. Democracy is an ideal, as is pantisocracy, and neither has ever worked well. Neither Great Britain or American were originally intended to have universal suffrage and neither has had it until relatively recently. Government has been, and probably will be in the future, rule by the few in one sham or another.
War is deplorable and wasteful of life and property, inherently unfair and rarely justifiable. WW I & II and the opposition to Napoleon are three of only a handful of conflicts that might be called justifiable. What is going on now is absolutely unjustifiable, either in Iraq or Lebanon.
Both of these conflicts were ill advised and very much an over-reaction. Iraq is already turning sour. Just yesterday in a hearing before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and Commander, United States Central Command, General John P. Abizaid, both testified that the situation in Iraq was becoming or already had become, civil war - the two men differed on only the degree to which it presently existed. They think it is happening or will happen soon.
The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open. -- A. Einstein
-
quote:
Originally posted by moonfire
I would say that "government" represents all from the House of Representatives/Senate/Congress...they are the real controlling power...so they are yet weaker as the standards have lessened in great senses! We allow to "many freedoms" people do not take a stand on issues being voted on...or as many...so if we the people govern ourselves, we allow them to be stronger over us even though it weakens us as a government in a whole.
I know if I have an issue with a law about to be passed, I call, email or write...not everyone does that...
"Lo" Loretta
Government includes everything that is a part of the decision making process. This includes, very significantly, the news media. In this country, it also includes the civil service, which can often have more real power than the elected government because it has continuity where government ministers are only in post for a few years, and the ministers rely heavily on the advice given to them by their civil servants. In know this branch of government is quite different between the UK and the USA, since the USA actually tends to bring in a new support structure with each new President.
George
-
So true George. I did forget to mention "media" which is one of the most powerful influences...regardless if the information (which generally it is) skued
"Lo" Loretta
-
Yes...and the media is one i really do not believe most the time...don't they only tell the public what the government "tells" them to tell us when it comes to certain things??? So what is the point of having them if they are not going to tell us the trueth?? although i can understand why they do not let us know some things..like ones that would allow for our enemies to gain information..security type stuff and i do not understand the people who say that the government shuld enlighten us on those topics when we should realise that if WE know were sy a top secret site is then the enemy would KNOW where it is too....i dunno...so many un harmonious things in life.....
k
-
quote:
Originally posted by 4getmenot
Yes...and the media is one i really do not believe most the time...don't they only tell the public what the government "tells" them to tell us when it comes to certain things??? So what is the point of having them if they are not going to tell us the trueth?? although i can understand why they do not let us know some things..like ones that would allow for our enemies to gain information..security type stuff and i do not understand the people who say that the government shuld enlighten us on those topics when we should realise that if WE know were sy a top secret site is then the enemy would KNOW where it is too....i dunno...so many un harmonious things in life.....
It is not always as simple as the media telling us what the Government wants us to hear. The media often have their own agenda, and sometimes it is the Government that ends up following the media.
The trouble is that he who controls the information will control the decision. The people look to the media to tell them about the world, and to make judgements about the best policy they should desire of the Government. The Government looks to the media to understand what the public are thinking, and what policies will placate the public. If the media feed the right information to both groups, it can persuade them both to think in the way it desires.
The issue of national security is always a delicate one, but in a democracy, where the voice of the people is supposed to carry political weight, there must be an imperative that the public are adequately informed that they might make appropriate judgements.
The problem we have with the media in the West is that we are obsessed with 'freedom of the press'. I am not questioning that a good democracy requires a free press, only that if freedom is to have any meaning, it should come with responsibility. There is no responsibility or duty of care placed upon the press to take all reasonable care to accurately inform their consumers of information. If a newspaper decides to print an absolutely lie, or even simply to print something that implies but does not directly state a falsehood, there is absolutely no sanction that can be brought against that newspaper (in the UK, although I believe not in the US, if that lie happens to cause harm to someone's reputation, there is redress through the libel laws, but that is only a duty of care to the subject of the story, not a duty of care to the consumer of information).
George
-
sorry everyone...i have been gone a few days....
k
-
Men who wish the happieness of peace mucst face the hardship of war.
NEVER! underestimate youth
-
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
Men who wish the happieness of peace mucst face the hardship of war.
NEVER! underestimate youth
And the wisdom to know when war does not lead to peace.
Never underestimate the geriatrics [:)]
George
-
quote:
Never underestimate the geriatrics [:)]
George
LOL George![:D]
Carolyn
-
men always talk of dieing for their country...but never of killing
NEVER! underestimate youth
-
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
men always talk of dieing for their country...but never of killing
The irony is that the people who really do choose to die for their cause, the suicide bombers, are considered the more evil for it, because it is much more difficult to stop someone who is genuinely willing to die, and not merely to kill and hope to themselves survive.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
Men who wish the happieness of peace mucst face the hardship of war.
NEVER! underestimate youth
And the wisdom to know when war does not lead to peace.
Never underestimate the geriatrics [:)]
George
lol....[8)]
k
-
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
men always talk of dieing for their country...but never of killing
NEVER! underestimate youth
that is the sensitive part of it all and where the nightmares come from afterwards.....it is something to think about when deciding to enlist..is if you are capable of killing someone else or following orders to kill someone if you do not agree at that time. would you be able to cope with things after having to watch your best friend die? things like that are always a part of war.
k