Jump to content

Approx. 50 Marines land in Haiti


The Bus Driver
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

@Kewl

Von Clausewitz said it best,

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Think of war in another term too.  Wars are what happens when a man's honour fails him.  As you ponder that consider Saddam or Hitler just to name two.  Also consider that most wars are fought over one or more of three things.

1.  The desire for more land

2.  The desire for more money

3.  The desire for more natural resources

Wars are not fought for peace.  Peace is simply the by product of a war.

EDIT: For the record, if those 50 Marines can't handle Haitians I will eat Reconsnakes hat. 

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

While many wars in the past were fought for material gain, recent conflict certainly do not hold that theory to be true. Before getting into specifics i have a few general points; if group A is warring against group B, then group B's peace has been interupted so they fight to restore their former order. They arent fighting for land or money but rather peace. But more specifically, since the end of the second world war when you see the rise of the United Nations (taking a few lessons from the failed League of Nations) the focus on war does become peace; the entire purpose of this organization is to promote peace and to try an ensure that another world war does not occurr.

Also, most recent conflicts do not support your theory either. For example, the first Gulf war wasnt fought for land or money but rather peace (as was the second). The U.S and British led forces invaded Iraq because they claimed Iraq was a threat to global peace. The entire war on terror is based around a war against people who wish to distrub peace. Ofcourse peace is the end product of war, but its also the goal in recent times.

As for Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of policy by other means", his whole theory is based around the will of a government. The paradoxical trinity which together set the political agenda and then excerise that agenda. Applied to present times and agendas, the military has become a tool of foreign policy, a policy that is entirely based around peace.

Edited by Kewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before getting into specifics i have a few general points; if group A is warring against group B, then group B's peace has been interupted so they fight to restore their former order.  They arent fighting for land or money but rather peace. 

But why did A declare war on B? There has to be a reason. Some sort of political/social/economic/religious conflict had to exist prior to the start of armed conflict. So Clausewitz and Heinlein were right. War is about politics, not peace.

Edited by Ryan243
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, then the act of war of Usama bin Laden is also an act of peace right? His logic is, he's fighting for peace because after he's killed off all the infidels, there will be nobody to fight with, and everyone will be happy :)

ie. My point is; fighting is never as clear cut as anyone makes it seem, or wants it to seem. Even if you have the noblest intentions, war is war.

Edited by Mamon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

if group A is warring against group B, then group B's peace has been interupted so they fight to restore their former order.

Actually in this case Group B's first and foremost goal would be to keep Group A from taking what Group B has. Thereby validating what I said. Again peace would naturally come at the end of the conflict. Or at least some version there of. Many factors in this case would dictate the level of tension between both groups at the end of hostilities and thereby would have a direct effect on what both groups considered peace.

Also, most recent conflicts do not support your theory either. For example, the first Gulf war wasnt fought for land or money but rather peace (as was the second).

Wrong and wrong.

The first Gulf War was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why the invasion? Guess what for the land and resources. More to the point the sea ports that Kuwait has and by siezing Kuwaitie oil fields Irag would have had a majority control over the oil production coming out of the Middle East.

The reasons for the second Gulf war are still considered up in the air by most. Some argue that it was about terrorism. As far as I am concerned, reguardless of the stated political reasons Saddam was not living up to his agreement which lead to the end of the first Gulf War. (Remember people we need to tread lightly on this subject due to new forum rules).

As for Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of policy by other means", his whole theory is based around the will of a government. The paradoxical trinity which together set the political agenda and then excerise that agenda. Applied to present times and agendas, the military has become a tool of foreign policy, a policy that is entirely based around peace.

Again, peace is not the reasons why wars are really fought. Peace is really nothing more than just a buzz word anymore for the press and most governments to justify their actions to the general populas.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before getting into specifics i have a few general points; if group A is warring against group B, then group B's peace has been interupted so they fight to restore their former order.  They arent fighting for land or money but rather peace. 

But why did A declare war on B? There has to be a reason. Some sort of political/social/economic/religious conflict had to exist prior to the start of armed conflict. So Clausewitz and Heinlein were right. War is about politics, not peace.

Thanks for repeating my point:) Check out the rest of my post. The purpose of a particular war depends on which side you view it from and the purpose of that goup's government. Maybe you should read a couple books on Clausewitz or Clausewitz's words...especially the section dealing with peace. But again, why did the U.S and British forces invade Iraq? Because they viewed Iraq as a threat to global peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

Also, most recent conflicts do not support your theory either. For example, the first Gulf war wasnt fought for land or money but rather peace (as was the second).

Wrong and wrong.

The first Gulf War was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why the invasion? Guess what for the land and resources. More to the point the sea ports that Kuwait has and by siezing Kuwaitie oil fields Irag would have had a majority control over the oil production coming out of the Middle East.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Exactly, the first Gulf war was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. So why did the U.S and numerous other countries get involed? Why was it sanctioned by the U.N? Because Iraq was upsetting peace in the middle east.

Edited by Kewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why did the U.S and numerous other countries get involed?  Why was it sanctioned by the U.N? 

These are two seperate things.

The US and numerous other countries got involved because of the oil. (HMM, those resources Warhawk was talking about.)

The UN got involved because of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

Exactly, the first Gulf war was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait. So why did the U.S and numerous other countries get involed? Why was it sanctioned by the U.N? Because Iraq was upsetting peace in the middle east.

You are so missing the point here.

Stop thinking about this particular situation from the current global mindset that you are bombarded with everyday. Look at it from the strategic point of view.

If Iraq had been allowed to maintain control of Kuwait it could have effectively controlled world oil prices. From a country's strategic point of view, this could mean any country be it the UK, US, Germany anyone, this is unacceptable. What happens to nations economies when oil prices jump? They tend, depending on how much of an increase we are talking about, to go into a tail spin. Consider the effects of increased fuel costs on just one section of a nations infrastructure, trucking. If the cost of operating tractor-trailers goes up because of higher fuel prices then things like gas and food are going to cost the average consumer more. Which means the average consumer then has less money for other things. Such as movies, and other forms of recreation. After any extended period such as this places like resturants and movie theaters have to start cutting back on their staff. Which puts people out of work. This is very simplistic in scope but the ramifications of what Iraq did in the early 90's were very serious. Having UN backing for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait was nothing more than window dressing and, here comes that buzzword, the promotion of the idea of peace and stability in the region. The underlying cause of the first gulf war was something of strategic value to all of the world.

Oh and do you honestly think that a country like Saudi Arabia would want Saddam Hussein to have more control over the world's oil market than they?

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the second Gulf war? All the arguments around this conflict revolve around peace. Statements were repeatedly made that Iraq had violated U.N resolutions, resolutions established to limit a country's military might and in turn dimish their potential threat. Also, how many times were WMDs mentioned as a reason for the invasion? Seems to me that peace is the only answer to this question. It was a preventative war (ie. preventing possible future problems).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

As I stated earlier we have to all be real carefull about how we approach our discussions on the second gulf war. Remember, we do have certain boundries.

That said:

All the arguments around this conflict revolve around peace. Statements were repeatedly made that Iraq had violated U.N resolutions, resolutions established to limit a country's military might and in turn dimish their potential threat.

Exactly! Only you made my point without knowing it let me explain what I mean.

The First Gulf War was stopped by UN Resolutions that decreed a ceasation of hostilities provided Iraq did certain things. Things which later on they did not do. Thereby violating the terms of the cease fire.

Think back in history. Do you honestly think that either Germany or Japan would have been allowed to violate the terms of their surrender? Or would the allies have pounded them into the ground for it?

So in this case the second gulf war was in fact a continuation of politics by other means.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

So in this case the second gulf war was in fact a continuation of politics by other means.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

you dont seem to understand Clauswitz very well. Ofcourse it was a continuation of policy by other means...but that policy was a preventative war under the guise of peace. Security is peace...what exactly are you trying to secure if it isnt your own country's peace and ability to grow without worry over outside threats. Just to clarify to everyone, the infamous quote "war is the continuation of POLICY by other means" is not a reason but a medium; an argument that attempts to explain why wars happen. Obviously each case (war) has different reasons and in turn the quote changes each time...ie. the policy (reason) depends on the government (the policy makers).

Edited by Kewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peace is a result of security. You can have national security but not be at eace.

Sure you can. National security should provide a nation with peace from outside threats. Dont confuse a country at war as a country not at peace, both can exist at the same time. The U.S is at war with terror, and i suppose still legally at war with Iraq considering that there was no formal surrender. But U.S itself is at peace from armed conflict within its own borders.

Edited by Kewl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ReconSnake @ Feb 24 2004, 20:59 )

Peace is a result of security. You can have national security but not be at eace. 

Sure you can.

I know, thanks for validating.

But U.S itself is at peace from armed conflict within its own borders.

That is not the definition of overall peace. We were at peace during WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? You are quiet wrong. We were secure. We were not at peace. It is you that is mistaken kewl.

Edited by ReconSnake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the definition of overall peace. We were at peace during WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? You are quiet wrong. We were secure. We were not at peace. It is you that is mistaken kewl.

Overall peace? lol is that the tech. defination? when did i ever mentioned world peace or complete peace in this thread? Tell me, is the average U.S citizen (aka civilian) also at war or are they at peace? Fact is, internally, the U.S is at peace...externally they are at war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question has been the US, not the average citizen. Don't try and change the rules late in the game.

Fact is, internally, the U.S is at peace...externally they are at war.

Lol...what is this supposed to mean? So if we are at war we are actually at peace as long as the war is not inside our borders? How absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kewl

Ofcourse it was a continuation of policy by other means...but that policy was a preventative war under the guise of peace

Again I ask you to not look at this from the perspective that the media and politicans alike are presenting to you. No war is ever prevenative in nature. A war has one objective. That is to subjugate your enemy. In this case it was Saddam and his government.

One of the stated reasons put forward by not only the US but the UK as well was peace yes. But the root cause of this war was not peace nor stability. Nor was it just about oil. If you remember one other thing I said earlier, I said that wars are what happens when a man's honour fails him. In this particular case Saddam was not living up to his obligations set forth by the UN to end the first Gulf War. It was also a corrective measure in an attempt at correct the UN's first mistake, and indeed most of the rest of the world at the time, in not allowing the coalition in the early 90's to remove Saddam from power then. The strategic ramifications of the actions taken recently in Iraq will not be truely felt until such time as Iraq is returned to something close to normality.

what exactly are you trying to secure if it isnt your own country's peace and ability to grow without worry over outside threats.

War's are fought for security plain and simple. While fighting Germany during WWII over it's own skies were the British fighting for peace or their own security?

Obviously each case (war) has different reasons and in turn the quote changes each time...ie. the policy (reason) depends on the government (the policy makers).

Quotes such as this can always be twisted. Twisting what people say these days seems to be the rule rather than the exception. A nations policy can be a lot of things but any nations number 1 foreign policy is to ensure it's own security. Diplomatic means are the first step in this endeavor. Armed conflict is almost always last.

War is not something that is not entered into lightly. It is not Ghost Recon nor any other type of game. This is something that even the most devious politicians know. Even though their aim might not always be in the best interest of those they proclaim to represent they know that with out public support for any conflict that their time in power can be fleeting. Therefore, they will always tie any conflict to the notion of peace. As well as the notion of security. Reconsnake is right both of these terms are not synonymous.

Stout Hearts

=UE=Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...