WAR: What is it good for?

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Nah, we just don't agree. I have always believed that the our invasion of Afghanistan was, in essence, a defensive action, but it was carried out through offensive tactics.

Seth can i ask you where you stand on the second invasion of Iraq?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth can i ask you where you stand on the second invasion of Iraq?
We were also wrong to go to war against Libya, and we were wrong to arm, train, and support the proxy war against the government of Syria.

Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all terrible wars carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
No, I said the Civil freed the slaves. I doubt even Lincoln was thinking of abolishing slavery at the time of his election.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I'm so glad you feel that way. I fully agree. Even my parents got out and marched against that one and they're very conservative Catholics.
The Iraq war was a part of my personal evolution, Mothra. At the time, I wanted to believe this was a necessary action for good reasons. I would eventually come around to the realization that it was unnecessary for our national defense and that the fear of Iraqi WMD's was unfounded.

Now, Saddam Hussein was, in fact, an evil and sadistic dictator. He did make an attempt on George H. W. Bush's life when he was a former President on a visit to Kuwait. He did, in fact, interfere with U.N. inspectors as they did their work in trying to verify the presence or non-presence of Iraq's WMD's. And he did express his jubilance in the 9/11 attacks, even suggesting that Iraq could have had a hand in the attacks, although indirectly.

As condolences poured in from everywhere - even from Libya and Iran - Iraq rejoiced ... "Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these attacks" - Official Iraqi statement, Nov 12th, 2001, as reported by the BBC.

And, in truth, the book on Iraq hasn't come to an end. In all sincerity, I wish for the best for Iraq. But it is a multi-ethnic country, and for it to thrive, the Iraqis must be accommodating and respectful of one another, and only time will tell if they can ever bring themselves to do that, or if they will devolve into a failed state. It is quite possible that I will not know the answer to that question in my lifetime. Things change slowly in the middle east.

We learned some things from that war:

- Not every country is ready for democracy. Just because we love it doesn't mean other societies are ready for it.
- In middle eastern countries, tribal loyalty and religious loyalty outweigh nationalism. To have a country functioning positively, loyalty to the country must outweigh other loyalties.
- Intelligence used to justify war must be proven. And related to that ...
- To justify war an imminent threat must be proven. Not alleged, not suspected ... proven.
- The loss of American sons and daughters was not worth whatever objectives the war had.

And that's only a partial list.

I nearly lost my son in Iraq. That war has changed my views on wars, forever.





 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, I said the Civil freed the slaves. I doubt even Lincoln was thinking of abolishing slavery at the time of his election.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I agree. Also, Lincoln was not thinking about abolishing slavery, before or after his election. The Civil War was essentially a war about Central Power. It was a war between the government of the United States of America, and the government of a foreign power of 11 Confederate states seceding from the union(Confederate States of America). The abolition of slavery was only a coincidental byproduct.

In fact, in Lincoln's inaugural address, he promised that his government would NOT interfere in the institution of slavery. He never saw Black people as an intrinsic part of American society. He even stated, "Send them back to Africa.". It was the Emancipation Proclamation that changed Lincoln's views.

https://www.npr.org/2010/10/11/130489804/lincolns-evolving-thoughts-on-slavery-and-freedom
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
The Iraq war was a part of my personal evolution, Mothra. At the time, I wanted to believe this was a necessary action for good reasons. I would eventually come around to the realization that it was unnecessary for our national defense and that the fear of Iraqi WMD's was unfounded.

Now, Saddam Hussein was, in fact, an evil and sadistic dictator. He did make an attempt on George H. W. Bush's life when he was a former President on a visit to Kuwait. He did, in fact, interfere with U.N. inspectors as they did their work in trying to verify the presence or non-presence of Iraq's WMD's. And he did express his jubilance in the 9/11 attacks, even suggesting that Iraq could have had a hand in the attacks, although indirectly.

As condolences poured in from everywhere - even from Libya and Iran - Iraq rejoiced ... "Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these attacks" - Official Iraqi statement, Nov 12th, 2001, as reported by the BBC.

And, in truth, the book on Iraq hasn't come to an end. In all sincerity, I wish for the best for Iraq. But it is a multi-ethnic country, and for it to thrive, the Iraqis must be accommodating and respectful of one another, and only time will tell if they can ever bring themselves to do that, or if they will devolve into a failed state. It is quite possible that I will not know the answer to that question in my lifetime. Things change slowly in the middle east.

We learned some things from that war:

- Not every country is ready for democracy. Just because we love it doesn't mean other societies are ready for it.
- In middle eastern countries, tribal loyalty and religious loyalty outweigh nationalism. To have a country functioning positively, loyalty to the country must outweigh other loyalties.
- Intelligence used to justify war must be proven. And related to that ...
- To justify war an imminent threat must be proven. Not alleged, not suspected ... proven.
- The loss of American sons and daughters was not worth whatever objectives the war had.

And that's only a partial list.

I nearly lost my son in Iraq. That war has changed my views on wars, forever.
Surely you can understand why Iraqis may have been less moved to sympathy for the US than other countries?

How much sympathy is there in the US for all the innocents killed over there? For the use of depleted uranium shells on children?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
To justify war an imminent threat must be proven. Not alleged, not suspected ... proven.
So, was the murder of General Soleimani enough to justify a war with Iran? Was it based on a proven imminent threat to US lives? Or, was the threat only a fabricated version of the truth? No one fabricated Pearl Harbor(WWII), or the sinking of the merchant ships by German subs(WWI). The evidence was overwhelming and objective. But to risk a war, by murdering 10 people, because of what they had done in the past, or might do in the future, is just criminal.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
As requested by Pink:

Thank YOU Mothra. That's a version I haven't even heard before.

The original is worth a look.

Can't remember.. was it Eric Burden and The Animals..?

Tho I could have sworn the Band was called WAR.
Oh well OLD OLD .. now.. only ever saw it in B+W
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
So, was the murder of General Soleimani enough to justify a war with Iran? Was it based on a proven imminent threat to US lives? Or, was the threat only a fabricated version of the truth? No one fabricated Pearl Harbor(WWII), or the sinking of the merchant ships by German subs(WWI). The evidence was overwhelming and objective. But to risk a war, by murdering 10 people, because of what they had done in the past, or might do in the future, is just criminal.
I’m not going to rehash Soleimani again.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
War is good for nothing.

Imagine just what research may have occurred if the cost s of the preparations for War, and the costs of WAR ITSELF was no longer a part of our economic policy.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I’m not going to rehash Soleimani again.

And you would still be wrong, even if you did. It just struck me as odd that you would use the term "proven", when talking about a nation risking a war, by acting in "self-defense". But, would ignore WHY any nation would avoid providing this "proof" to the UN, the UN Security Council, the European Union, the International Courts, or their own Congress? Before, or after taking the lives of 10 foreign citizens on foreign soil? There IS no justification for this cowardly atrocity by a sociopath with power. Other than to start a war with Iran. I guess that dropping out of the Iran deal for no good reason didn't work(an agreement we signed and agreed to). Increasing crippling sanctions against Iran didn't work. Increasing shipping blockades, and surrounding Iran with military bases didn't work. Increasing arms shipments to Saudi Arabia and Israel(both enemies of Iran) didn't work. Freezing all Iranian banking and other fiscal assets, didn't work. Trying to provoke them with name-calling, falsely blaming them, shaming them, and threatening them didn't work. So, maybe assassinating one of Iran's most popular leaders just might work, and give us the war that we want?

Now it's Israel's turn to provoke Iran, by killing its top nuclear scientist. This might draw the Iranians into a war with them. And, in turn will drag its American bitch into its war as well. Even though no formal defense treaty exists between the two countries. I'm just waiting for the Saudis to get involved. It is starting to become clear to me, that war is the inevitable and unavoidable outcome of the human condition over time. Especially in a country that puts guns above human lives, and believes that the good guy will always win. Just like in the B movies.

As the leader of a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, Soleimani was certainly involved in plots against US personnel in the ME. But what evidence directly links him to any imminent/immediate attack on any US personnel in the ME? NONE! And, what evidence directly shows that by killing HIM, would have foiled this plot? NONE! So says the world outside of the US Trump world.

So unless you are going to deposit more than the same convoluted inferences to an unproven truth, I personally don't want to hear it again either. My point was, that if you are going to kill anyone on foreign soil in the name of "self-defense", and risk the lives of thousands in an all-out war, then you had better make damn sure that your evidence is not only provable but is also indisputable(as with WWI and WWII). "Well we knew there was an imminent threat to US lives, and that should be good enough.", just ain't good enough! Or, is this atrocity just another exception to your rule?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Thank YOU Mothra. That's a version I haven't even heard before.

The original is worth a look.

Can't remember.. was it Eric Burden and The Animals..?

Tho I could have sworn the Band was called WAR.
Oh well OLD OLD .. now.. only ever saw it in B+W
The band was called "Eric BurDon and War". The group changed its name to just WAR, after Eric left in 1971. But the group WAR NRVER recorded the song WAR. It was first recorded by the Temptations(1970) as a track on their "Psychedelic' Shack" album.

But the head of Motown Records(Berry Gordy) didn't want the Temptations to be associated with such a controversial song. So he gave the song to Eric Starr to record as a single. He didn't have a large enough fan-base to be offended, if things went south. Starr also put in all the added interjections, "good God y'all" and "absolutely nothings,". Which became some of the most famous ad-libs in music history.

Can't remember.. was it Eric Burden and The Animals..?
That's because He was the lead singer in both bands.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
And you would still be wrong, even if you did. It just struck me as odd that you would use the term "proven", when talking about a nation risking a war, by acting in "self-defense". But, would ignore WHY any nation would avoid providing this "proof" to the UN, the UN Security Council, the European Union, the International Courts, or their own Congress? Before, or after taking the lives of 10 foreign citizens on foreign soil? There IS no justification for this cowardly atrocity by a sociopath with power. Other than to start a war with Iran. I guess that dropping out of the Iran deal for no good reason didn't work(an agreement we signed and agreed to). Increasing crippling sanctions against Iran didn't work. Increasing shipping blockades, and surrounding Iran with military bases didn't work. Increasing arms shipments to Saudi Arabia and Israel(both enemies of Iran) didn't work. Freezing all Iranian banking and other fiscal assets, didn't work. Trying to provoke them with name-calling, falsely blaming them, shaming them, and threatening them didn't work. So, maybe assassinating one of Iran's most popular leaders just might work, and give us the war that we want?

Now it's Israel's turn to provoke Iran, by killing its top nuclear scientist. This might draw the Iranians into a war with them. And, in turn will drag its American bitch into its war as well. Even though no formal defense treaty exists between the two countries. I'm just waiting for the Saudis to get involved. It is starting to become clear to me, that war is the inevitable and unavoidable outcome of the human condition over time. Especially in a country that puts guns above human lives, and believes that the good guy will always win. Just like in the B movies.

As the leader of a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, Soleimani was certainly involved in plots against US personnel in the ME. But what evidence directly links him to any imminent/immediate attack on any US personnel in the ME? NONE! And, what evidence directly shows that by killing HIM, would have foiled this plot? NONE! So says the world outside of the US Trump world.

So unless you are going to deposit more than the same convoluted inferences to an unproven truth, I personally don't want to hear it again either. My point was, that if you are going to kill anyone on foreign soil in the name of "self-defense", and risk the lives of thousands in an all-out war, then you had better make damn sure that your evidence is not only provable but is also indisputable(as with WWI and WWII). "Well we knew there was an imminent threat to US lives, and that should be good enough.", just ain't good enough! Or, is this atrocity just another exception to your rule?
You and I may disagree on the justification for the killing of Soleimani, but I think we can agree that the root problem is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. I think we can agree that they should all be pulled out, with the exception of embassy guards. Rather than having U.S. troops performing the functions that they do in Iraq (SF, training, intelligence, technical experts, etc), we could offer to let Iraq send its best and brightest to the U.S. and go through the training necessary to perform those functions themselves. I vaguely remember that we tried something like that in the 2000's with Afghans, but a large number of them didn't want to go back to Afghanistan and deserted the base. For all I know, they may still be here somewhere. Not sure.

Don't know if it will make any difference, but we have a new president. I'm doubtful of change, but we'll see.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You and I may disagree on the justification for the killing of Soleimani,..
I disagree in the killing of ANYONE, without justification. And, there are only 2 justifiable reasons to kill anyone. To prevent your own imminent/immediate death, or to prevent the imminent/immediate death of someone else. Any other reasons are just spin and politics.

I think we can agree that the root problem is the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. I think we can agree that they should all be pulled out, with the exception of embassy guards. Rather than having U.S. troops performing the functions that they do in Iraq (SF, training, intelligence, technical experts, etc), we could offer to let Iraq send its best and brightest to the U.S. and go through the training necessary to perform those functions themselves.
I certainly agree that the US should stay out of Middle Eastern affairs, and immediately bring our troops home. Under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, it is the host country that must protect the embassy. Even when the host country deems the Ambassador as "persona non grata", and expels him from their country. This is just a symbolic act of protest. But for the rest of the embassy staff, it is still business as usual. And, the host country must still protect the embassy. I have no issues with providing a small contingent of soldiers to provide the internal security for our embassies and its staff.

As far as the US providing training, intelligence, arms, and technical expertise, to become better informed, better skilled, and better trained killers? NO! Haven't we learned anything from our history in this region? Do you really want a list of how many regimes, rebel/terrorist groups, and puppet governments, that we have created, trained, armed and financed since 2001(al Qaeda, YPG, SDF, ISIL, the Taliban, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.)? ALL FAILURES!!! Stop giving arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel. We are just supporting more terrorist attacks in the region. Stop all these covert CIA operations in the ME. They are nothing more than destabilizing failures. Just get out, and let these people work out their own problem. We have nothing in common with these people. We have enough problems to deal with at home.

Maybe you can give me an example of where this training has been successful? Certainly NOT in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would think that almost 2 decades of training would be enough.
 
Last edited:

pinkeye

Wonder woman
The band was called "Eric BurDon and War". The group changed its name to just WAR, after Eric left in 1971. But the group WAR NRVER recorded the song WAR. It was first recorded by the Temptations(1970) as a track on their "Psychedelic' Shack" album.

But the head of Motown Records(Berry Gordy) didn't want the Temptations to be associated with such a controversial song. So he gave the song to Eric Starr to record as a single. He didn't have a large enough fan-base to be offended, if things went south. Starr also put in all the added interjections, "good God y'all" and "absolutely nothings,". Which became some of the most famous ad-libs in music history.



That's because He was the lead singer in both bands.
Ahh I see... old memories from the 60/70's. I couldn't decide between an E and a O for the spelling, and altho I favoured the O spelling I went with E.

I know, however that I watched , hmm probably the Animals .. perform War. An old black and white film of a live performance... and they were definitely Brits.

I had never known there was a Motown connection.

I'd suggest the roots run deeper than Motown, for this song.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Ahh I see... old memories from the 60/70's. I couldn't decide between an E and a O for the spelling, and altho I favoured the O spelling I went with E.

I know, however that I watched , hmm probably the Animals .. perform War. An old black and white film of a live performance... and they were definitely Brits.

I had never known there was a Motown connection.

I'd suggest the roots run deeper than Motown, for this song.

To my knowledge Pink, neither of the groups with Eric Burdon has ever recorded/performed the song "War". It was written in 1969 by 2 of Motown's hitmakers, Barret Strong and Norman Whitfield. It was recorded at Motown first by the Temptations on their album(1969), and later by Edwin Starr(1970) on his single. So its origin is certainly rooted in Motown. But its protest impact, is rooted in the Viet Nam war.

 
Top