Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
What about the ideas outside of war? Wars usually end eventually. There are many more paragraphs to be written after your bold "period" there.
I'm sure they're out there. I know of no country, thankfully, that would prefer a global scorched-earth victory to a conditional surrender. I think you're speaking from the point-of-view of the military apparatus. I would be more inclined to agree with you if I saw it purely from that perspective, but I don't. I see it from the perspective of the nation and its society. I would like to think my own nation would sooner prolong suffering and struggle in a conventional war than opt for the wholesale slaughter of "enemy" civilians on a grand scale.
An atrocity is an atrocity, and this one is a dark shadow over U.S. history. And now there is this industrial military complex that is capable of much more than that.
If winning were the only object, where are the American nukes in Iraq?
|
Baraka, interesting points. I have always believed that war is simply politics prosecuted by other means. One does not enter into war lightly, in my opinion (the Bush administration notwithstanding), but should a country make the decision to go to war they must do so with the intention to win. If they do not, then there is no point. Please note that I did not say "win but keep their morals intact". People die in war - it is a truism. Sometimes innocent people die in war - again another truism. It is unavoidable since they do not happen in a vacuum.
Wars end and then people must deal with what had to be done to win or deal with the fact that they lost. War is a very scary proposition for governments since a defeat can topple them or end in occupation. A government not willing to compromise on moral integrity at a time of war is a government that faces being voted out at best or being removed by force.
This caught me, though:
Quote:
|
I would like to think my own nation would sooner prolong suffering and struggle in a conventional war than opt for the wholesale slaughter of "enemy" civilians on a grand scale.
|
Realizing that no Western nation is currently "suffering" because of the Iraq or Afganistan Wars - there are no shortages or battles being fought there - I think that you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. If you asked anyone with family members getting ready to invade Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was preferable, I will bet that the response would be in the high 90's for the atomic option. If dropping firebombs on Kabul, for instance, would bring Canadian troops home sooner and with a lower casualty rate, do you really think that Canadians would chose to keep troops in the field over the opportunity to bring them home?