How much is enough?

[EllieTalbot]

All the discussion that's been going on in these last couple months has me wondering: how much should one country take before they have a valid reason to go to war? I'm not speaking of this specific conflict of the U.S. and Iraq, but in general.

Now, ideally speaking, there should be no such thing as a valid reason to go to war. Most people, regardless of political ideology, would like peace. But there are just enough loonies out there to make the rest of us stand on guard and draw lines in the sand.

So, now that ideals have been acknowledged, that leaves us with reality. Every nation relies on a few basic things to maintain relative peace within its own borders and ensure that, as a whole, it's stable, and moving in a progressive direction. By progressive, I mean that it doesn't dissolve into violent political upheaval, bloody ethnic or racial conflicts, instead working through differences within its populace in a peaceful manner, and generally forging ahead.

These basic things that are the measures of a nation's health and well-being include economy, law and defensive capability. Without a healthy economy, reasonable laws, and (of course) a military capability that makes one think twice about attacking, there's a vulnerability of falling victim to factions within and without one's borders.

The question is: How much does it take to present a real threat to a stable nation? At what point should it act?

I'm a bit wary of posting a thread like this. I'd really like this to be a thoughtful discussion, and I want to hear all POVs, but not at the expense of it becoming an excuse for people to insult each other. (hint, hint)

Philosophical in Philly,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

(bump)

No one?

 

[Guest]

My penis is covered in chocolate.

Would you like some?

 

[Linedrive]

The difference in viewpoints and opinions can somewhat be traced to perception. If you percieve that your country is in danger of being attacked, then I would suspect most people wouldn't wait around til it happened, instead opting to take pre-empted action.

Alot of Americans view Iraq as a threat...either directly or indirectly (aiding terrorist, holding the middle east hostage with WMD's). Alot of Europeans and other groups don't view Iraq as a threat and so they see no need for war.

While it's pretty easy for them to sit back a label the United States as a nation of war mongers, I present that they might not be as threatened living in a different country.

I doubt a sheep farmer in Switzerland considers Iraq a threat, while you or me might.

 

[Carp]

How can you tell? There are so many variables. Lets start with an easier question- how do I know when I should pop someone in a bar? Well, for sure if they have popped me, my date/friend. What if they were just mouthing off? I wouldn;t. SOmeone else would. What if they stole from me? Probably not, but then, I might. Depends on what they had stolen. What if they were pounding on someone I didnt know? Again, that would depend. On what? Why were they fighting. Was someone getting thrashed, or the fight was grossly unequal. Another question in the whole thing is, what are the cops up to? Have they been called? Are they likely to respond in this neoghborhood, etc.Even for a personal interaction, the issues are hard to define. For a country, I would say that they are next to impossible, as the consequences are potentially huge- many dead, huge expense, lost production, damage to infrastructure and environemnt. I don;t think that you can define a condition, beyond that you, or an ally were attacked.

 

[EllieTalbot]

CV: Which are you offering- the chocolate or some of your penis? You wouldn't be offering if you knew how much I've fantasized about biting off some jerk's goodies in the middle of a... oh, never mind. Peaceful thread and all that

Gunner: Perception is everything, and yet nothing. Someone who is paranoid (and this is not necessarily relegated to just individuals, but to nations- history had taught us that paranoia can exist en masse) sees a threat where there is none.

So let's leave perception out of it and deal with hard, cold, real threat. What constitutes real threat?

And is there such a thing as pre-emptive action? When it comes to personal health, people like "pre-emptive" things. They take vitamins, exercise, quit smoking (or never take it up), carry pepper-spray or take martial arts classes, cut fat from their diet, wear seatbelts, get mammograms and go through physicals; they meditate. All of this is action in response to something... something percieved. Heart attack. Stroke. Breast cancer. Rapists. It may not have come to pass in their own personal lives, but they'll do what they can to prevent a percived threat from becoming problematic. Is it just percieved, however? What if they had a parent or other loved one who died of a a disease they're responding to? It their action pre-emptive or aggressive?

But many people, when dealing with the possbility of national crisis, prefer to leave it to chance. They're more willing to push the limits of what might be a potential threat, and less willing to take action. The obvious reason is because most of us are a peaceful, empathetic lot who would much rather not see others harmed (the inevitable outcome of war).

Why is it easy for people to see the need for defensive action in their daily lives, but not on a larger scale?

Is it lack of imagination? Is it so hard for people who reside in stable, cozy nations to recognize the fragility of that status? Or is it a deeper ideology, nurtured in that sheltered haven, that makes them unwilling to face conflict and the burden of causing pain in the name of self-preservation?

Carp- You boiled it down to daily existence, and that's a good thing. Just about every situation that exists between people in a bar and people in an international community is comparable.

And perhaps you're right- the question is too vague, and can't be answered absolutely. Too many variables.

It's just philosophical...

how much should any nation take before it goes to war? How much of a threat is enough? Use the U.S. if you like. With all the opinionated folk around here, I'm surprised there aren't more willing to tackle this subject.

Puzzled in Paris,
Ellie

 

[JazzManJim]

how much should any nation take before it goes to war? How much of a threat is enough? Use the U.S. if you like. With all the opinionated folk around here, I'm surprised there aren't more willing to tackle this subject.

As far as national security goes, if a nation identifies a country which has threatened them (and that threat need not be overt. It can be something like a massing of troops on their border) and that country has the means to carry out that threat, then the threatened country may be justified in dealing with that threat.

But war is not necessarily about merely defending your own people. Countries have ested interest in other countries and when that interest is materially threatened, it can justify military action. The NATO Alliance has held that as a principle for 50 years or so.

Also, use of force can be a valuable means to protect or further humanitarian efforts. For instance, when the US initially began to ship food to relieve the famine in Somalia, before the UN effort, those shipments came under regular attack. The US then sent military troops to ride escort on those shipments to keep them safe and to make sure that they got where they were supposed to go.

And lastly, a country may use force to help protect a weaker people. This is used a lot when there is mass slaughter in a country where the group being slaughtered doesn't have the means to adequately protect themselves. An example here would be in Bosnia, where the ruling government was wholly slaughtering people who had no real way to stop it. This last reason is also one of my more important reasons we need to use force of arms in Iraq.

 

[Linedrive]

But many people, when dealing with the possbility of national crisis, prefer to leave it to chance. They're more willing to push the limits of what might be a potential threat, and less willing to take action. The obvious reason is because most of us are a peaceful, empathetic lot who would much rather not see others harmed (the inevitable outcome of war).

Perhaps the thinking is too small minded, instead of looking at the bigger picture...? If a thousand Iraqi's perish in a bombing campaign, it's easy for someone to say, "look, the US is killing Iraqi civilians." If they looked at the bigger picture they would realize that far more than that will perish under the current regime. Collateral damage has always been an accepted practice of war.


Why is it easy for people to see the need for defensive action in their daily lives, but not on a larger scale?Is it lack of imagination? Is it so hard for people who reside in stable, cozy nations to recognize the fragility of that status? Or is it a deeper ideology, nurtured in that sheltered haven, that makes them unwilling to face conflict and the burden of causing pain in the name of self-preservation?


For some it's a feel good. If they say, "I am against war," and "I am against the killing of civilians," it makes them feel good. They believe their righteous beliefs keep them on a higher moral ground than those "mongers" that would wage war. The truth of the matter is, most of these people don't really care if someone halfway around the world gets killed, it's a matter of caring by convience. How many of the protesters and peace marchers have sent even a single fucking dime to Iraq to help the starving children there...? Likely none of them, but it makes them feel good to march and slap a "I am against war, so I am a better human" label on themselves.

Look, only someone who is insane would welcome war. Nobody wants a war, nobody wants to see American and British military soldiers get killed, and nobody wants to see Iraqi civilians needlessly perish because they have an idiot for a leader. That being said, there is a point in time when military action must be undertaken and wars must be waged. The path for the right to protest is paved in the blood of those who fought for it.

 

[EllieTalbot]

bump for the night crew