In Iraq Grave, Evidence Of Regime's Horrors - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2004, 03:09 PM   #16
War Child
 
Vorsprung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 976
Local Time: 05:03 PM
So yeah, Saddam was a cruel dictator....what's new about that???? That's been know for the past twenty years..... But tell me when was cruelty by a dictator or other leader to his own people ever a real reason to start a war?
NEVER!! not by any nation!!! Now this may be regrettable, but I'm afraid it's the case.
So it may be nice propaganda to say afterwards: "Hey, look at the awful shit your leader did and thank us we got rid off him", but that doesn't make the war legitimate.

Too bad, but no one will ever start a war out of altruism...
__________________

__________________
Vorsprung is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 07:37 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vorsprung
So yeah, Saddam was a cruel dictator....what's new about that???? That's been know for the past twenty years..... But tell me when was cruelty by a dictator or other leader to his own people ever a real reason to start a war?
NEVER!! not by any nation!!! Now this may be regrettable, but I'm afraid it's the case.
So it may be nice propaganda to say afterwards: "Hey, look at the awful shit your leader did and thank us we got rid off him", but that doesn't make the war legitimate.

Too bad, but no one will ever start a war out of altruism...
Even U2 would disagree with you on this point. Case in point, Bosnia and Kosovo.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 11:33 AM   #18
War Child
 
Vorsprung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 976
Local Time: 05:03 PM
First of all....I don't really care if U2 would or would not agree with me or not. They're a great band, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them on everything.

Second. I'm glad NATO did intervene in former Yugoslavia.

Third, it wasn't just because of altruism..

don't forget:

- Yugoslavia is within europe, which means war there may threaten European stability, which is not good for european
economy.

- a war there creates a lot of refugees that will come to other nearby european nations (huge costs)

- there's a great trade potential there which will make the rest of Europe richer

And what's economically good for Europe usually also is good for the US (and vice versa)

What I mean there, a war there pays off. The economics of a war or have to be good. Altruism may play a roll, but if yugoslavia was in central africa, we wouldn't care...

It always has to pay off, nothing's done just out of altruism. Just look at the marshall Plan. An outstanding plan which really helped Europe a lot. But was it just true altruism?? Of course not, eventually also the USA got a lot richer and influential because of it and Marshall knew that.
That doesn't make it a less great plan - I think we need more marshall plans in this world -, just don't believe that it's just about altruism.

Okay, sometimes countries do send minor force to a country where there's nothing to get, but that's mainly good PR.

All I am saying that solely altruism towards other people will never be enough to fight a war for. It may be good propaganda and even the war itself may sometimes be the morally right thing to do, but there should always be more to it than just altruism.
__________________
Vorsprung is offline  
Old 10-20-2004, 05:40 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vorsprung
First of all....I don't really care if U2 would or would not agree with me or not. They're a great band, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them on everything.

Second. I'm glad NATO did intervene in former Yugoslavia.

Third, it wasn't just because of altruism..

don't forget:

- Yugoslavia is within europe, which means war there may threaten European stability, which is not good for european
economy.

- a war there creates a lot of refugees that will come to other nearby european nations (huge costs)

- there's a great trade potential there which will make the rest of Europe richer

And what's economically good for Europe usually also is good for the US (and vice versa)

What I mean there, a war there pays off. The economics of a war or have to be good. Altruism may play a roll, but if yugoslavia was in central africa, we wouldn't care...

It always has to pay off, nothing's done just out of altruism. Just look at the marshall Plan. An outstanding plan which really helped Europe a lot. But was it just true altruism?? Of course not, eventually also the USA got a lot richer and influential because of it and Marshall knew that.
That doesn't make it a less great plan - I think we need more marshall plans in this world -, just don't believe that it's just about altruism.

Okay, sometimes countries do send minor force to a country where there's nothing to get, but that's mainly good PR.

All I am saying that solely altruism towards other people will never be enough to fight a war for. It may be good propaganda and even the war itself may sometimes be the morally right thing to do, but there should always be more to it than just altruism.
Well, I agree that there were strong economic and security reasons to intervene in the former Yugoslavia and that was one of my arguements at the time. But, most people did not accept that. For four long years that saw the slaughter of 250,000 people, very little if any thing was done.

Serb Massacre's, in around Bosnian towns of thousands of unarmed men in the summer of 1995 though is what really bought strong pressure for military action as well as new evidence of attrocities from past years, as well as the death toll which was at over 250,000 and rising.

There were good economic and security arguements for intervention, but it was the clear and unmistakable evidence of the slaughter done by the Bosnia Serb military and the view with strong supporting evidence that Bosnian Serbs were responsible for 90% of the attrocities that finally tipped the scales in favor of military intervention. Had the economic and security arguements been the driving force, military intervention would have happened years earlier.

The US military did 90% of NATO's military involvement in forcing the Serbs to the peace table in 1995.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com