264Views36Replies

Author Options:

Why I'm oppose to war Answered

Follow the money. War profiteers have no morality , This weekend take the time to listen to a vet. Just listen, let them tell what war was like and the discussing how they have been treated when they returned. The art of listening with your ears listen to their voices. Eyes what are you seeing in the faces? look real close to their eyes.What are you feeling in your heart ?

36 Replies

user
vroom...vroom... (author)2012-06-02

Not really sure. I've been a christian since I was 5, and I've read the KJV bible through once. So I guess that's pretty sad I don't know. He has said to us if someone hurts you seven times, forgive them seventy times seven times. He has also said to turn the other cheek. My question is, why is this relavant?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)vroom...vroom...2012-06-03

OK, here's a bit of Sunday School for you:
Jesus's father had a fella called Moses write down the top most important rules / fundamental laws. In your KJV it's here: Exodus 20 The one to note is "Thou shalt not kill." Since Jesus does as his father says, he implicitly agrees with not killing people. You've also got this anti-killing classic: John 8

The other cheek thing is something to understand rather than learn. If you imagine someone hits you - that's wrong, hitting them is also wrong (that's fighting / war and people get hurt & unhappy). If you effectively invite someone to hit you again that looks wierd, so whether they do or not, the person and anyone watching should end up realising that they were wrong and that you are right.

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
vroom...vroom... (author)lemonie2012-06-03

Those where the ten commandments. I have them memorized. They were the moral law of the Jewish people. Later on they made a new set to go along with the ten; Moral, civil, and ceremonial law were the three groups that they separated them into. Point is, I fully understand the law of Moses.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
vroom...vroom... (author)2012-06-02

We have no Idea of what kind of conditions we might be living in if it wasn't for war. War kept the U.S from spliting.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
thematthatter (author)2012-06-01

listen to a vet..
That's what Veterns day is all about. If you want to talk to one they will probably be at the Golden Coral getting their free meal (drink not included)

Memorial day is for those who were unable to come home due to making the ultimate sacrifice, both two legged and four.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2012-05-29

Again, I don't understand why it's okay for the conversation to get spirited when the topic being defended (fought over if you like, although I don't) is evolution or tobacco's dangers, but not history. Historically (ha) on this forum, this type of exchange has not been against the rules, and anyone who complains has been told they have no right to do so. So I feel like the rules are changing. :\

Was there a private CT announcement, perhaps?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-29

There have been no policy changes that I am aware of. I'm posting entirely on my own behalf here.

The tone of your exchange was not "off topic", it was contrary to the whole spirit and timing of the author's original posting.

Memorial Day, like Armistice Day, is not about which country fought the most, which country killed the most, or which country spent the most. It's not about international politics or jingoistic pride. It is about remembering the sacrifice of individuals who paid the ultimate price.

I think that's all I want to say now.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2012-05-30

It seems I inadvertantly caused offence when I asked that the arguing stop.

I am sorry, that was not my intention.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
canucksgirl (author)Kiteman2012-05-30

No offense was taken (at least, not on my part). You had a valid point, (much like I was stumbling to make), which was that no single country should be honored more for their sacrifice than the other. And being a topic about peace, our dialogue should have stayed in that theme.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
caitlinsdad (author)Kiteman2012-05-30

(Yellow card issued. Players restart arguing at last pointless point.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)2012-05-28

I don't really understand why you are opposed to war, because you haven't explained it very well.
Neither do I understand why you posted this - can you explain what you got out of listening, ears, voices, eyes, faces etc?
I assume something screwed with your head, but it's hard for you to explain it?

L

(Vet is also short for veterinary)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)Kiteman2012-05-30

Why I'm oppose to war - because war results in Memorial days?
I've not seen anyone say "killing people is wrong" yet, you would think that a good answer to "why"?

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2012-05-29

That's fine, but I seriously do not understand this sudden rule (~6 months) that people must stay on-topic on the forums.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-29

You two are fighting - you may pretend otherwise, but you are fighting.
This is the sort of "us & them" behaviour that the TimNolan1941 is opposed to (I think).

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-29

I was being specific to this context - this topic was supposed to an expression of a desire for peace, not a row over my country did more in the war than your country.

Most times, I'm as happy as the next rambling fool to ...

Oh, shiny!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ilpug (author)2012-05-29

I dislike war in concept, but due to the cultural and social tendency towards glorified violence that I have been raised in, I have a rather hypocritical obsession with guns and other weapons of war. I view war as a horrible thing, but it also seems an inevitable part of having a bunch of humans crammed together on a planet. I wish it wouldn't happen, but it does, so I must tolerate it. Those who profit from war and the death and destruction it causes are only doing what they think they must do to get ahead in this world, although I personally hate them for it.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2012-05-28

Wars of self-defense are still wars. So unless you are cool with any and all actual invasions taking over your country, you can't really condemn "war."

(Note that I am speaking of wars of *genuine* self-defense, not invasions onto foreign soil that are often, as I pointed out, painted as such but aren't.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-29

I didn't really argue about wars per se` in a wholesale manner , my argument is based on aggression and starting a war. My apologies if "declared" war as an aggressive act was not clear.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
canucksgirl (author)2012-05-29

Seriously, you "fail to see how" your comments weren't demeaning when you implied that without the U.S. we would have fought WWII with "hockey pucks"? As I already said, Canada supplied 100 billion dollars worth of munitions but you call that "negligible"? Then you suggested that I somehow implied that the U.S. "single-handedly arm[ed] the allies"? and now you say, "on the whole, the United States supplied the goods"??? What have you been smoking?

Since I already mentioned D-Day, an educated person could reason that I've "heard of it before"… Canadian soldiers were there, as well as British, but you seem to talk about the event as if it were a solo-American mission. And your numbers are grossly over-inflated and factually wrong at 1.5 million. There were approximately 160,000 Allied troops that stormed the beaches on D-Day, and less than half of those were American. Where the heck were the rest of them?

"Arsenal of democracy"? - You're OWN former president said that… Who cares?

"Canada was not in Europe while the U.S. was in the Pacific"?? Then where exactly was the U.S. military during the majority of WWII? You clearly don't know what Canada's involvement was, and simply think that the U.S. bailed out the British, but the fact is, while many soldiers were fighting in Europe and Russia, the U.S. was taking photo-op's of your flag at Iwo Jima. A lot of good that did fighting the Germans…

You can argue all you want about The Pacific War, but the fact is, it had no significance to fighting the German offensive in WWII. The U.S. fought Japan because of Pearl Harbor. It had nothing to do with the Germans, and Japan saw it as an opportunity because the U.S. was not involved in WWII, and the fact that a good number of your naval fleet was docked in the same place made for a strategic attacking point while everyone else was busy fighting the world war.

The U.S. Military doesn't deserve any special recognition in WWII, anymore than any other country does. That was my point! WWII was fought among many nations, and yes, you may have had more troops to send, but that's only because you have the larger population, but the U.S. was not active for the majority of WWII. If your military is so mighty and powerful, then why would they leave the allies to fight alone for so long? Showing up for the last year and taking more credit than is due is the "insult" I mentioned.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)canucksgirl2012-05-29

@Lithium Rain & Canucksgirl - I wasn't trying to start an argument, and I don't think that this topic is the right place to have this argument.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)canucksgirl2012-05-29

You are not at all well informed on this topic, and it continues to show. I am going to walk away from this conversation now as further conversation seems to be pointless amid the ever-changing goalposts and your repeated missing (and failure to address) my point.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
canucksgirl (author)Kiteman2012-05-29

Point taken. ;-)

(I think this has gone far enough anyways)...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2012-05-28

Oh, yeah. Churchill was whitewashing ALL the things. Watching (okay, reading :P) him try to convince FDR to join the war reminded/s me of a desperate courtship in many ways. :D

I don't subscribe to the "just war" view. I'm by no means saying that American participation in WWII (or WWI, for that matter) was the almost-righteous intervention it was painted to be. Don't get me started on the dropping of the atomic bombs, for example.

But neither was it merely started by "war profiteers with no morality." I personally am convinced that - although there was plenty of unsavory, desperate, sordid, etc motivation on all sides - U.S. involvement in the second World War still led to a much better outcome than non-involvement (likely) would have (maybe particularly for the U.S., but also for the rest of the world).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
canucksgirl (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-28

Let me just say that the U.S. involvement in WWII wasn't as large or as grande as some would like to believe. Even in WWI, the U.S was in the midst of the Depression, and what largely turned that around was the allies need for war related supplies; and their actual involvement was more notably passive.

In WWII, the U.S. also took on a passive approach at the start and didn't begin any involvement until Pearl Harbor, and then eventually deployed some troops on D-Day after their battles with Japan. The only reason (just to clarify), that I wanted to make that distinction, is that being a neighbor, and from Canada, we often get forgotten about for our role in WWII. I've heard plenty of ill-informed Americans who think that the U.S. "bailed out the rest of the world" in WWII; and that had it not been for their involvement we'd all be speaking German... That however, couldn't be further from the truth.

Canada actually declared war on Germany, 7 days after Britain, and our soldiers fought in nearly every major battle; to the tune of over a million soldiers. We took on a massive debt from the war effort and had one of the largest Navy and Air Force fleets in the world at that time. But, even though Canada's involvement was significantly larger than that of the U.S., I will always stop short of suggesting our involvement was any more (or less) important than the other. WWII was a pivotal point in history, that would have been different if not for the "combined" efforts of all those involved.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)canucksgirl2012-05-28

Yes, I'm well versed in the subject (it's what I study). Which is why I say that while I sympathize with your frustration, I can't agree with a lot of your comment.

It's not accurate to say that the U.S. "bailing out the rest of the world [. . . ] couldn't be further from the truth." The truth is much much much more complicated, but it's far from the most untruthful thing one could say about WWII!  As a matter of fact, while it's a gross oversimplification on the order of the kind you hear on Fox News to say that "we bailed ya'll out, hurr durr," there is a nugget of truth to the sentiment. Britain had its back to the wall - was essentially the only thing standing in Germany's way - and was weakening when the U.S. stepped in. Without U.S. troops, money, and supplies, it's extremely doubtful that Britain would have held out against the Axis powers.  So you can say "but that was only munitions, not actual involvement" but, I mean, wtf were all those Canadian men supposed to shoot with? Hockey pucks? Manpower is irrelevant without arms.

And it is particularly untrue that "Canada's involvement was significantly larger than that of the U.S." I'm sorry, but that is frankly kind of a ridiculous statement. It makes my head hurt. I have no idea where you're getting it, other than the accurate statement that Canada was involved before the U.S. However, that is about as far as you can take the argument...

I strongly disagree without how you are using "actual involvement," but even using your own definition you are not correct. It's certainly true that approximately1.1 millionCanadians total served in the military. The American Army alone - not navy, marines, just army - had over 8 times that many at its peak. About 16 million Americans total served in the U.S. military in WWII. In fact, our casualties (killed + wounded) roughly equal the entire total number of the Canadian force!

And the United States had much wider "actual involvement" in WWII than manpower commitments alone. It makes little sense to say that only men on the ground "counts." That is not what historians mean when they say "involvement."

In addition to, as you mentioned, essentially single-handedly arming the Allies -  while Canada was involved in some important diplomacy (including getting America into the war), U.S. leaders and ambassadors were involved in many more crucial/major diplomatic meetings in which Canada wasn't involved. The PM of Canada was not at Potsdam (or Casablanca, or Tehran, or...). :-\

So while I'm not trying to come off as some sort of American Exceptionalist (indeed, I am usually arguing the other side of this argument re: the relative importance of American involvement! This feels rather strange...), I think this is one of those rare cases where U.S. involvement in WWII is actually being understated.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
canucksgirl (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-28

I find it ridiculous and demeaning that you use a "hockey puck" stereotype when trying to make your point. The FACT is, that Canada did NOT get their munitions from the U.S. because Canadian industries were manufacturing for Canada, Britain, and other Allied countries to an amount in excess of $100,000,000,000 dollars (in todays dollars). My statement that the U.S. produced supplies was in regards to WWI not WWII; but its true that the U.S. did send supplies, but they were not the only ones. The Canadian Merchant Navy completed more than 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic bringing troops and supplies to the Allies.

The fact that the U.S. deployed a huge fleet of Military was not in direct contribution to WWII. The U.S. was engaged with Japan in a battle known as The Pacific War. Meanwhile, the allies were thousands of miles away fighting in WWII, and had been doing so for more than 2 years before the U.S. attacked Japan. The U.S. sent troops to Italy and North Africa between 1942-43, but Italy was forced to surrender to Germany and was taken over (so I fail to see how that contribution was helpful). It wasn't until 1944, nearly 5 years after the war started that the U.S. arrived in France (along side British and Canadian Troops).

Nowhere did I suggest that "involvement" was limited to "ground troops". [It makes little sense to say that only men on the ground "counts." That is not what historians mean when they say "involvement."] Canadians were also very much involved with the air fights taking place over the North Atlantic as well as on the ground and at sea.

To fully appreciate the argument of "my military is bigger than yours" is to remember that Canada didn't even have a military at the start of WWI. All the troops that went to Europe (also fighting in important battles), were volunteers. Although we suffered losses (like all those involved), we managed to form a sizable military (with much less population) in the 30 years between WWI and WWII. So, no, Canada doesn't have (or ever had) a bigger military than the U.S. and that was never my point. We weren't out in the Pacific fighting the Japanese, we were in Europe where the Germans were.

My whole statement to clarify your intention that the U.S. played a major role (in the tail end of WWII) was to politely suggest you have a narrow view of things. I made my points clear to emphasis that NO ONE country outdid the other in respects to WWII. In my opinion its a complete slap in the face to all the veterans to suggest that the U.S. role was understated, and that somehow you all should get crowned prom queen when you arrived late for the prom.

BTW. I'm done. Feel free to put in your last word. I have nothing more to say when your arguments use uneducated and belittling stereotypes.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)canucksgirl2012-05-29

I really suggest you revisit this topic with a good book on the history of WWII, because you frankly have some...knowledge gaps on the subject.

Ibles has 3 times eaten my point by point rebuttal, so to recap with the most important points:

That was not intended to be demeaning (and I fail to see how it is). I'm sorry to have offended.

The United States in WWII became the "arsenal of democracy" as FDR called it, and it really did arm the Allies. This is not seriously (or for that matter, unseriously!) disputed. Other countries contributed in small amounts (or helped ship the supplies) but on the whole, the United States supplied the goods. Canada did some manufacturing, I've no doubt, but comparatively it was simply negligible.

You are not correct that Canada was in Europe ("where the Germans were" - a narrow-minded reductionist statement if ever I heard one) while the U.S. was not.

Actually, American involvement in the European theater in WWII came out to 3,065,505. 3 times the size of your army. So no, Canada was not in Europe while the U.S. was in the Pacific.

Nor is it true that Canadians had more troops in single battles than Americans ever did.

The Battle of the Bulge is the example which first sprang to mind - 610,000 Americans fought in that one engagement against the Germans.

But - and this is what I thought of next...ever hear of D-Day? 1.5 million Americans were on hand for that one invasion in the European theater. More, I will remind you, than Canada's entire force everywhere over the entire course of the war. More, I will remind you, than Canada's entire force everywhere over the entire course of the war.

You are not correct that the Pacific theater was a separate war or not "directly related" to WWII. I can most certainly assure you that modern professional historians do not consider the Pacific theater to be a separate war or not directly tied into WWII. The Pacific War (or Asia-Pacific war, to be more accurate) is a name, not a separate conflict. This is not a debateable point.

While it is true that "Canada was involved first," this does nothing to advance the argument of Canada's involvement in WWII surpassing that of the U.S. Longer involvement does not equal "larger" (your term) involvement.

And you are not correct that I am uninformed, uneducated, or narrow-minded on this topic. I have studied it in-depth.

The statement that "Canada's involvement was significantly larger than that of the U.S." is wrong on every count, by every measure you care to use. Canada did not put out more supplies than the U.S., did not put out more military force than the U.S., and was not more heavily involved in the European theater than the U.S.

You could say Canada's involvement was significantly longer, yes. Significantly larger, nope.

>My whole statement to clarify your intention that the U.S. played a major role (in the tail end of WWII) was to politely suggest you have a narrow view of things. I made my points clear to emphasis that NO ONE country outdid the other in respects to WWII.

And I politely and utterly reject your polite suggestion. You are simply wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the U.S. "outdid Canada in respects to WWII" (if that's how you care to put it) any way you slice it.

>In my opinion its a complete slap in the face to all the veterans to suggest that the U.S. role was understated, and that somehow you all should get crowned prom queen when you arrived late for the prom.

>rolls eyes< Yeah, because that's exactly what I said...

...or not. I actually said YOU in particular understated the U.S.'s role, and that that is very unusual.

>BTW. I'm done. Feel free to put in your last word. I have nothing more to say when your arguments use uneducated and belittling stereotypes.

Yes, thank you for the permission. I don't think I'm the one best described by "uneducated," though.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-28

True.

(Start of WWI was seriously convoluted...)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2012-05-28

While I have a strongly pseudo-pacifist bent in general when it comes to war (self-defense on an individual level being a notable exception), it isn't readily reducible to such terms. I hate to think what would have happened had the US not gotten involved in WWII, for example. But of course, usually wars are painted to their citizens as wars of (sometimes presumptive) self-defense against the enemy, regardless of whether that's true.

It's just a really complicated subject. Unless you have very extreme views, it's not really possible to reduce war to always good or always bad.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-28

I'm currently part-way through "Churchill's Wizards", about the sneaker side of WWI & WWII. It's a history of camouflage in all it's forms.

I hadn't realised that the propaganda war ("camouflaging truth") was played on several fronts, including against the USA, to persuade you to Jon in WWI (I haven't gotten to WWII yet).

It worked.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Lithium Rain2012-05-28

Under many if not most conditions, war is "declared" originally by those that want (and many many times by those that have a religious conviction that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong). The response of defense is simply that. But the aggression that starts the war is reducible to "I want what you have" AND/OR "you are not the same as me, therefor you must not be allowed to exist". So, aggressive acts to alter others is reducible to good or bad. Forceful anything means someone doesn't have enough understanding in the world's diversity to live WITH it....so they want it to become them. THIS IS WRONG.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer