|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2001 : 02:57:37 [Permalink]
|
It's an excellent movie; at least I thought so when I saw it years ago. Mel really is capable of some high caliber acting.
I also agree with Gallipoli as a pointless op. There is no end to them, it seems.
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Tel
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:42:53 [Permalink]
|
Hi
Found your site today, and it feels good to be amongst friends :-)
I wondered what the argument was that `all wars are pointless`.
Many wars/conflicts/battles in the past have been fought for good reasons and the right point.
A good example of this is the Second World War. The Allies made every effort to accommodate the fascists before war became inevitable, but once it did it, there was nothing pointless about it.
The war was just and ultimately led to the defeat of a number of Fascist Dictators who would have happily subjected the free world to their warped sense of rule.
I`m a Brit living in the States and whilst I lost a good friend during the Falklands Conflict and two more to the IRA, I would still be willing to put my life on the line to protect my family, freedom and democracy.
That is not pointless.
The current military campaign in Afghanistan is not pointless. It is being fought for all the right reasons.
The US did not request the conflict, will gain almost nothing from it militarily, will spend billions of dollars that could be put to other uses and will be almost certainly suffer a political backlash once sympathy levels for 9/11 fade.
But the defeat of the Taliban and Al Queda is the right thing to do if you believe in freedom and democracy.
So bring on those arguments that `war is pointless`, I`d really like to hear them.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 15:03:50 [Permalink]
|
Welcome, Tel. I think you'll find this board more comfortable than most, at least from a skeptic's viewpoint.
Re: your objection to the "all wars are pointless" argument. I'm not sure what andysnape had in mind when he posted it, but if I were charged with defending that statement, I'd say all wars are fundamentally pointless, but not necessarily practically pointless. That is, I don't feel that Hitler's rabid anti-semitism, paranoia and megalomania are fundamentally correct or useful, and therefore the war by extension. I do, however, feel that the Allies' actions were entirely practically necessary and justified. Maybe I'm being overly complicated but I think the explication works. Andysnapes mileage may vary, of course.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 15:24:24 [Permalink]
|
Hi neighbor. How do you like your new county thing? (I'm about 8 blocks from your southern borders. And heading that way to go grocery shopping.  )
War has a purpose. But during both WWI and WWII the US was trying to practice a policy of isolation. We kinda got slapped pretty hard by the Japanese in WWII, so we said - fine we'll kick some ass - and the sent the Marines across the Pacific and got damned lucky in some of their campaigns. Right now, our reason for involvement in WWI fails me miserably.
We have some Chomskyites on board - who think war has no purpose period and Andysnape I'm not sure about. Ah well, welcome to the fray.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/28/2001 15:24:54 |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 15:31:08 [Permalink]
|
I agree Ph, wars are fundamentally pointless.....I suppose part of it is a natural obsession to fight over territory or ownership (of a pride, a female etc). Males of most species do this, it's just with the advent of the tools of war we are a lot better at acheiving our goal. You have to take the good with the bad, advances in medicine and science may not have been prolific if it wasn't for war....It is six of one, half a dozen of the other.
My Dad is German and fought in the 2nd World War, and once after a few drinks he told me some of the horrific scenes he saw before he was even 18 years old. We young ones just cannot comprehend some of the thing victims of war have seen.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
Edited by - gezzam on 11/28/2001 15:33:14 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 21:37:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My Dad is German and fought in the 2nd World War, and once after a few drinks he told me some of the horrific scenes he saw before he was even 18 years old. We young ones just cannot comprehend some of the thing victims of war have seen.
Interesting times, those. My late grandfather was an advance scout on Iwo Jima, immediately before the invasion. He never talked about it. I recall in 6th grade, I was doing a history report on the invasion of Iwo Jima; I had the diorama/model-thing and my dad and I were building it one evening. He told me then about his dad's 'adventures' on the island, even indicating the caves and tunnels that he knew about. For whatever reason, I used to destroy all my models some time after I built them. That diorama still sits in my parents' attic, next to the unfinished USS Constitution.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 03:18:16 [Permalink]
|
Welcome, Tel.
I think PhD has said it very well; wish I'd said it that way myself.
Not all military actions are worthless, criminal, nor dishonorable. Some military actions, the Allies in WWII as an example, are in fact FAR more defensible than non-action. Hmmmm...said that poorly, but I'm too tired to rewrite.
Regarding our involvement in WWI, here's an admittedly simplistic opinion. First, whether it had validity or not, I think Wilson had the honest opinion that letting the Germans and Austrians win would be the beginning of very bad things vis-a-vis American interests and influence abroad. Second, and this is what I think is more to the point, there came into play the schoolyard creed of backing your buddy. Rightly or wrongly, the Brits and French were our buddies and needed help.
Did that myself once in junior high school when a friend very stupidly decided to sucker punch the leader of a group of bullies rather than accept an insult; we could have walked away from the insult. Instead, the bullies jumped on him, and I could have walked away (should have, too; my friend had been stupid). But stupid or not, he was my friend, so I jumped in. Fortunately, a teacher came outside before we got too badly trounced.
Simplistic and chock full of deficiencies, but I think that feeling comes into play a lot more than is admitted. We still have that sort of relationship with the UK. I think it extends to Canada now, too.
And given the inevitable mistakes of Realpolitik, I'm not sure the errors of nearly blind friendship are necessarily a bad thing.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 06:54:40 [Permalink]
|
Hi Tel,
It would seem that the only "pointless" military operations are the ones that fail. The ones that succeed have seldom been called pointless. Whether they are good or bad is another issue.
If gezzam is reading this, even Gallipoli would have had strategic value. It's aim, I believe, was to flank the Central Powers and knock Turkey out of the war, the same way the Germans blew the Russians out of it. The fact that the execution of the strategy was a colossal blunder doesn't diminish the fact that the strategy "seemed like a good idea at the time."
(:raig |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 07:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Technically speaking, "pointless" means devoid of meaning, or devoid of effectiveness. While "devoid of meaning" may be arguable as relates to war, I'm sure that no one here will argue that there are numerous wars and battles that were effective.
I would argue that war is not always devoid of meaning, and probably that on at least one side of the war, it is almost never devoid of meaning. I'd say (without much research  ) that most wars involved one side defending themselves against an aggressor.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 11/29/2001 07:42:20 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 07:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd say (without much research ) that most wars involved one side defending themselves against an aggressor.
I'm sure Jenkins would agree. Of "The War of Jenkins' Ear" fame.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 07:52:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If gezzam is reading this, even Gallipoli would have had strategic value. It's aim, I believe, was to flank the Central Powers and knock Turkey out of the war, the same way the Germans blew the Russians out of it. The fact that the execution of the strategy was a colossal blunder doesn't diminish the fact that the strategy "seemed like a good idea at the time."
I agree with the sentiment, but not as it applies to Gallipoli. And since I'm not really a Great War expert, I'm fully prepared to lose this argument. Yet if I recall, even if the Gallipoli beachhead had been sustainable, it would not, in fact, have provided an effective base for further operations, given the terrain the Allies faced. I think, at best, it would have tied some Turk divisions down, but nothing strategically important.
I think it strategically off as well as being badly executed.
Could be wrong, though.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tel
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 14:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Hi Chaps (and Chapesses of course)
Thanks for all the welcomes
I`ve been in the US (Denver) just over a year now and I have to say that if there is one thing that impresses me about Americans it is that they are very welcoming and friendly as a nation. There is almost a naivete about them that I find charming. This is something that I feel has been largely replaced by cynicism in many European countries, which is a shame.
But I digress (and I dont mind if you disagree with me).
I found all of your remarks/opinions very interesting and would love to argue the point with the ones that I disagree with but that would take me all day and bore you all to tears.
I`m not sure if war is fundamentally pointless or not but it does appear to me to be inherent in the human nature.
There is a great article in the last issue of Skeptic by Patrick Frank that seems to illustrate this point well. I found the statistic that the death rate from warfare is lower now than its ever been in history, very surprising given our advancements in weapon technology.
Our ancestors were evil little brutes who didnt respect the sanctity of life any more than some of our middle eastern cousins.
My understanding of the reasons why the US joined WWI were because the Germans sent a telegram to Mexico that said we'll help you get Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona back if you help us in the war. (Mexico said no) And secondly because, the Germans torpedoed a cruise ship with 128 Americans.
Whether these are the real reasons or not is open to debate.
I felt that Garrette`s comments about the friendship between the US and the UK were correct (its called the `special relationship`in the UK) and can be seen in the UK`s involvement both militarily and politically in the Afghan Conflict.
I can think of a couple of military defeats that perhaps were`nt pointless, I believe the battle of Marathon though technically a Greek defeat delayed the Persian expansion into Greece by at least 10 years and removed the Persian warriors aura of invincibility. The battle of Dunkirk, also really a defeat for the British gave them the opportunity to fight another day. Not sure how the Alamo fits in here but it made for a good film if nothing else :-)
I could be wrong but I think Winston Churchill was a major player in the Gallipoli Campaign and was so discredited by its failure that he found himself in the political wilderness for years afterwards. If he felt that there was merit in the campaign then there must have been some reason for it. What was established there though was the fighting reputation of the Aussies and Kiwis.
Got to go, things to do etc
I`m still looking forward to hearing from anyone that can defend pacificism. But if you did I`d probably punch you on the nose for your stupidity (and you can`t hit me back, ha ha)
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2001 : 05:24:30 [Permalink]
|
Welcome, Tel. Glad to have you here. Wish I were in Denver with you and Trish, but Kentucky will have to do for now.
But I must quibble: Marathon a tactical Greek loss? How so, compadre? A tactical and strategic victory. Pushed the Persians off the beach; inflicted more casualties than suffered. Perhaps you mean it was more a psychological defeat than an objective one? It could be argued that the Persians didn't have to leave the beach since their numbers were so superior; they could have advanced and attacked regardless of losses and possibly still won. But they were as shocked as anyone that the Greeks not only didn't sit in the mountains waiting to be attacked but actually managed to collapse their wings and push them back toward the ships.
I've been to Marathon and Thermopylae. The topography has changed so much since the battles that you can't even see the sea from the battle sites anymore. Little battlefield preservation which is somewhat of a shame.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
