Originally Posted by goaliedude66630

yes i think you can attack because if lets say your the United States then politics doesnt mean shit because there is no country in the world that would risk war by saying hey you you cant attack that country

I wasn't talking about the US specifically, but if you put it that way, you're right.

But let me rephrase the question: Is it morally acceptable to attack someone because you think he's going to attack you? Or even if you think he might attack you?

The point is; what if you're wrong? Then you went to war over a mistake, a misunderstanding. I don't think that's what soldiers (or marines, or pilots, or whoever I left out) sign up for.....

one thing i think we are missing the mark on here is..what definition of war? World war II was a Total War..one where ever bit of resources, manpower, and effort was poured into the conflict to win it.

Now we have limited wars or conflicts...where all resources are not poured int the conflict, but just enough to achieve a reasonable objective.

Or surgical conflicts...just enough resources to change a countrys leadership, or relieve a human right pressure.

Its all war...but somehow the level of involvment just seems to fluctuate.

so as kim possible says...whats the sitch?

Originally Posted by 1217

hope you're not serious....

I most definitely am. Of course it would have to be more than just a "think" situation, if you had evidence (a sufficient amount would vary depending on any specific situation and one's own vulnerability) that led you to believe that your own nation was in imminent danger from another power, then I believe it is your duty to defend your own people in the best and most effective way possible (which doesn't involve giving a foreign power the chance to invade while you sit on your hands ).

Originally Posted by Redneck

I most definitely am. Of course it would have to be more than just a "think" situation, if you had evidence (a sufficient amount would vary depending on any specific situation and one's own vulnerability) that led you to believe that your own nation was in imminent danger from another power, then I believe it is your duty to defend your own people in the best and most effective way possible (which doesn't involve giving a foreign power the chance to invade while you sit on your hands ).

Well I meant "just think", so that's a different question.

Vietnam was fairly pointless, but in my own opinion, I think that WWI was the most pointless of all of the wars fought in the 20th Century.

The whole reason the war started was because someone shot Arch-duke Ferdinand. After that, all hell broke loose. During the war, it was trench warfare. Killing and entire enemy company just for what? To gain a few meters of mud after losing half of your company? Had better tactics (or any at all for that matter) been employed in WWI, I think the war wouldn't have lasted as long, or there wouldn't have been as many casualties.

Right before WWI, the whole of Europe was wound up tight as a drum, just watching for a spark to ignite the tinderbox. If it wasn't Arch-Duke Ferdinand, it would have been something else. You've seen the videos of the German people rejoicing when war was declared. WWI was an inevitability.

Vietnam was not a pointless war. The US and many other countries felt it neccesary to stop the spread of Communism. Ultimately, that was accomplished. Communism was unable to spread anymore because of all the resources and manpower the commies spent. The US felt N. Vietnam to be a direct threat to them and we acted.

I say again, all wars have a point. Even the Opium War had a point. The point was to reinstitute the opium trade. The question is wars without a valid point.

WWI wasnt piontless, it was just poorly played out, plus alot was learned about medicine, weapons and industry.

Originally Posted by 1217

One more thing, there were wars before the US ever existed. They couldn't have been about US interests, now could they? Does that mean that they were all pointless?

Is that even relavent? If there were wars before the US existed, the US would have no use for getting into it now would it?

hey a little off topic, but werent the wars of the anciants far more bloody than modern warfare? i mean in bible times hundreds of thousands of people would be sluaghtered in a single day of fighting

That is true. Modern warfare is more 'humane' that the wars fought hundreds of years ago. Technology has played a major part in warfare. Back in the day, swords and bows were used to fight all out battles in the middle of a field. Hundreds of men would line up on either side and then run at each other after the volleys of arrows were done.

Now, we have long range weapons to, say, take out a command center from miles away. Since the mentality of some militaries (maybe even less that I know of) is 'Take out the commander, and the army will fall', a precision hit on a CP will do a number on an Armies morale, possibly making them surrender.