HRZ here

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.


    • quote:
      Originally posted by the nam
      They do try but more oftern then not it does not work no matter how hard they try they listen to what the other side has to say they try to change what they would like changed but some times this does not work. It is only the last resort every single time. People only go to war when every single option has been used.


      It's not about letting one "side" getting what they want, that kind of misses the whole issue. And after reading some of the comments people have posted on the discussionboard I'd say that even though I find it admirable, not everyone seems to think of war as a "last resort".

      quote:
      Originally posted by irish
      you dont get me, how would you stop them b4 they get there?

      just get some special forces together and assassinate anyone in the world that shows any sign of aggression towards other nations? i mean come on some leaders are democratically elected, should we remove them too?


      There is no universal way of how to fix things. If there was then the world would probably be a much happier place. Each situation is different, requiering different solutions. But looking at history one can tell that wars have been avoided before.

      And I i reiterate my point point about not derailing the thread further. I'd be happy to continue the discussion, but not here.


      violence is going to always be the last thing to use. Once political ways have all been used there is only 2 options give in to the demands or stand back and watch it happen or "Remove" certain people.
    • I agree, diplomacy doesn't always work, simply for the reason that there are some people that you can't reason with. And if you can't reason with someone who is threatening to invade your homeland, what choice do you have besides taking up arms or fleeing?

      I think it's easy for people to sit around and discuss how diplomacy could have worked, but during that time, the longer you wait, the worse things can be, example being WWII, diplomacy cost several million jews their lives, because no one wanted to act against Hitler.
    • Yes, but there is a double edge sword to it. Not enough force soon enough its a waste of time. Too much force you will be seen as the bad guy and the other side amps up there forces and the conflict turns to be alot worse then its first off. There is a thin line you have to balance on. No matter what if the talks fail force is the only option left.
    • Originally posted by the nam
      violence is going to always be the last thing to use.


      Again, a lot of people seem to dissagree with you.

      Once political ways have all been used there is only 2 options give in to the demands or stand back and watch it happen or "Remove" certain people.


      And I'm saying that why should you let things escalate to that point? Do you really believe that nothing could have been done beforehand to prevent the coming hostilities?

      Originally posted by Treize Khushrenada
      What do you do in the case of someone taking power by force? The only way to stop them would be an equal and opposite response, yet that defies what you say about non violence, yet no matter how much "talking" you want to do with the oppressor, the only thing that will take him down is a bullet.


      Yet again, somone completely misses the entire point. I adressed this in the very first post I made in the other thread:

      When it's all over you look back and say to yourself "Oh we did the right thing. If we hadn't done it things would have been horrible." All you did was take the last damn option availible to try and fix the mess you helped create. And when the conflict is global, the so is the responsibility. From that point of view it's oh so easy to absolve yourself of all resposibility and place all the blame on those who didn't want it to come to that. It's also so much easier to point at it and then use it as some sort of morbid justification for other wars. "We have to invade these people over here and here, oh an over here to! It's the only way we can really be safe!".
    • And you missed my point old man ;)


      What exactly could have been done in that situation? It's easy to criticize violence when you're not offering any solutions of your own. You've done this enough to know that it isn't enough to say "you're wrong, more could have been done and the position you're in now allows you to say we had to use violence." when the other side of the coin isn't being explored by those that support non-violence. There are many historical documents that show the world tried it's best to appease Hitler in order to stop the violence and advance. When these failed, what other options were there? You've yet to provide one.


      As far as saying it's the world's fault for letting things get that bad, that does nothing to show how the situation could be resolved without violence, nor who has the responsibility for the problem.


      A timeline if you will:

      WWI ends and Germany is subjugated by harsh punishments for it's involvement in WWI.

      World Economy begins to slump.

      German Economy collapses

      World Economy collapses (interchangable with the above as they happend close together)

      Hitler gains support by inspiring hope and a sense of nationalism.

      Hitler wins election

      Hitler takes complete control and shifts Germany to Nazi Germany

      Hitler begins invading neighboring countries in bid to restore old Empire.

      Allies offer appeasment package

      Hitler spreads conflict

      Allies defend themselves beginning WWII.



      Who do we blame? Other European nations? The German people? The US? Capitalism? The Allies victory in WWI? The league of Nations? Who?
    • Originally posted by Treize Khushrenada
      What exactly could have been done in that situation? It's easy to criticize violence when you're not offering any solutions of your own. You've done this enough to know that it isn't enough to say "you're wrong, more could have been done and the position you're in now allows you to say we had to use violence." when the other side of the coin isn't being explored by those that support non-violence. There are many historical documents that show the world tried it's best to appease Hitler in order to stop the violence and advance. When these failed, what other options were there? You've yet to provide one.


      I'm not a historian and I don't tend to read all that much about pasts conflicts (I tend to focus more on current ones). Are you really expecting me to come up with solutions to something that some of the greates minds at the time couldn't figure out?

      The problem with arguing what could have been done, especially when so much time has passed since to original conflict, is that since we're arguing about the factor of human reaction there is a near infinite nuber of effects which could have transpired, all which in turn could have rippled out and caused other re-actions and there is no way to really figure out what could/would have happened (which might be one of the reasons I generally don't debate history all that much).

      As far as saying it's the world's fault for letting things get that bad, that does nothing to show how the situation could be resolved without violence, nor who has the responsibility for the problem.


      Some are naturally more to blame then others, though they don't call it a "world war" for nothing.

      A timeline if you will:

      WWI ends and Germany is subjugated by harsh punishments for it's involvement in WWI.

      World Economy begins to slump.

      German Economy collapses

      World Economy collapses (interchangable with the above as they happend close together)

      Hitler gains support by inspiring hope and a sense of nationalism.

      Hitler wins election

      Hitler takes complete control and shifts Germany to Nazi Germany

      Hitler begins invading neighboring countries in bid to restore old Empire.

      Allies offer appeasment package

      Hitler spreads conflict

      Allies defend themselves beginning WWII.



      Who do we blame? Other European nations? The German people? The US? Capitalism? The Allies victory in WWI? The league of Nations? Who?


      Man, with the broad strokes you're taking I bet you could swim the English Canal in a minute flat o_O. I mean, you covered over two decades of international history with eleven short bullet points, each of which could be fleshed out into nearly an entire semesters worth of history classes, and you expect me to analyze all of it and condense it to a bitesized "This is how things should have been done" post. I don't think that can be done (and that you're seriously overestimating my abilities here).
      I mean, I could write some nondescript analyzation of the Great Depression (and probably even parallel it to present day), an evaluation of the importanse of the Rhineland, the Anschluss of Austria, or the Sudetenland crises and their propsed effect had they happened differently (or I could take the easy way out and win a nobel prize and then say that "Teh internets could have fixed it!!" :)).
      But all you would have to do is say "No, that wouldn't have been so" and there is diddly I can do prove you wrong.

      To baseline it, every war has to have at least two sides. The aggressors and the victims of aggression. So take.. *thinks of most recent "war"* the Iraqi war for instance. Where one to ask the population of both the agressors (The USA) and those subjugated to the agression (Iraq) if they think the war constitutes a failure, what result do you think we would get? Do you think that most people would say that it could have been avoided through various means or would they say that it was a desired and inevitable result of cause and effect?
      And what if you expanded the polling to include allies and surrounding countries, then what kind of replies do you think you would get?
    • Well I do agree, the Iraqi War could have been done without. I never supported the invasion, I merely supported our effort once we had already crossed that line and burned that bridge.


      And yes, I realize my points were broad, but they were to make a point, much like you said you can't ponder on the past and think of a solution, I think that also forfeits your right to criticize the war and say it wasn't necessary. You can't criticize one portion and not the rest, and frankly thats a huge problem with the world today, everyone is a critic, but no one is part of a solution.

      But the fact that even you yourself state:

      Are you really expecting me to come up with solutions to something that some of the greates minds at the time couldn't figure out?


      as a personal vindication for my statement that WWII was unavoidable. The only way that I could even see it as being unavoidable would have been to have prevented the Nazi party from ever having taken power, which would have been impossible as no one had the slightest inkling of what they'd do once they had power. Hindsight is 20/20, but if none of us knew what was going to happen, and we couldn't find a peaceful solution after Hitler's first moves, there would only be TWO options left to the free world; Submit or Fight.
    • Originally posted by Treize Khushrenada
      Well I do agree, the Iraqi War could have been done without. I never supported the invasion, I merely supported our effort once we had already crossed that line and burned that bridge.


      Well, that wasn't really what I was asking <_<


      And yes, I realize my points were broad, but they were to make a point, much like you said you can't ponder on the past and think of a solution, I think that also forfeits your right to criticize the war and say it wasn't necessary. You can't criticize one portion and not the rest, and frankly thats a huge problem with the world today, everyone is a critic, but no one is part of a solution.


      Not "the" war, just war. I object to people labeling war as a fact of life, as an unavoidable necessity that must be allowed to transpire, because I think that a lot of the problems the conflicts in the world can, given time, be fixed without them.

      But the fact that even you yourself state:

      Are you really expecting me to come up with solutions to something that some of the greates minds at the time couldn't figure out?


      as a personal vindication for my statement that WWII was unavoidable. The only way that I could even see it as being unavoidable would have been to have prevented the Nazi party from ever having taken power, which would have been impossible as no one had the slightest inkling of what they'd do once they had power. Hindsight is 20/20, but if none of us knew what was going to happen, and we couldn't find a peaceful solution after Hitler's first moves, there would only be TWO options left to the free world; Submit or Fight.


      Because they let it come to that. That was the failure. Do I think WW2 could have been avoided? Possibly, though I can't point to one simple fact and say why, or which event was most instrumental. Part of the problem is that a lot of people on top are unwilling to admit that there is problem at all, because that means they have to do something about it. Better to just give them the olympics at the hour before the clock strikes and hope everything will turn out okay.
    • Perhaps, but I still think it's naive to think that war can be avoided in EVERY situation.

      But, I've never been one to deal in absolutes.

      [SIZE=3]*laughs at the irony in that statement*[/SIZE]
    • Originally posted by Treize Khushrenada
      Perhaps, but I still think it's naive to think that war can be avoided in EVERY situation.


      Guess it varies depending on what time frame you use ;)
    • You can not solve every issue with just talks, There are some that need other actions. There has to been times in your own life were you have been in talked with someone or a group of people and it has failed in what you were attempting to do. Then you had to use other means to get your point or whatever. Talking does not always work and it will never be this way ever
    • Originally posted by the nam
      You can not solve every issue with just talks, There are some that need other actions. There has to been times in your own life were you have been in talked with someone or a group of people and it has failed in what you were attempting to do. Then you had to use other means to get your point or whatever. Talking does not always work and it will never be this way ever


      Have you completely ignored every post I've made? It seems like it because you never directly respond to anything I say, you just keep repeating the same lines over and over again. I've adressed this comment of yours both here and in the old thread. I suggest that you try and read them and, should you feel like it, perhaps even respond to them (a preferable option to just redresing and repeating your past comments).