Terrorism Discuss the War on Terrorism |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
I don't want to sound like a smart ass, but we haven't been in a war since WW2, only "conflicts". What do you think is the significance, if any, of our country acting like we are in a war, but never officially decreeing it so? |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
I can assure you that what your military did to those peoples definely felt like war for them. Just because your military hadn't had any significant loses doesn't mean that the other side wasn't obliterated. Here we are still calling all these conflicts "wars" when the fact is they were not. Why do you think that is? I personally have no idea, and that is why I am asking. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
You completely missed my point. I said that the military and the citizens of the USA have acted like we were in a war in all these conflicts mentioned, but the fact remains our Congress never officially declared a war. Do you think that is significant? To me, conflict means that it's not about nations or peoples as a whole but about a region, a treaty or a resource. War on the other hand means to me that the well-being of a nation / people as a whole is at stake. To give specific examples, I consider the thing between India and Pakistan to be a conflict because it's about Kashmere, and the thing between Palestine and Israel as a war, because the existance of both of the parties is threatened. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
For qualifying/disqualifying a war it should have 2 qualities
1.) It should be justifiable as being legitimately in the interests of the United States 2.) It should be morally justifiable e.g. Afghanistan, from a realist perspective the Taliban and Al Qaeda had effectively cooperated in an attack against the united states, giving cause for retaliation, at the same time Afghanistan itself would likely continue to be a source of instability unless it was brought into the modern world. Satistifying condition 1 for both the initial invasion and the follow up. From a liberal perspective, the Taliban was a vicious and brutal regime which was slowly killing its people, denying them rights and freedoms further they were an illegitimate regime having never attained the consent of the people they governed. Whats more the development and aide significantly improves the lives of those living in Afghanistan. further their was no possibility of an alternative situation coming about. Satisfying condition 2. By contrast Iraq had an evil leader, however, it was not in the United States interests to engage in two wars and to ignore Afghanistan, nor did Iraq pose a significant threat, further any moral justification offered was tenuous at best when one considered the cost/benefit. they are one. Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire so we just resumed. |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|