Let them fight

[Bozo Erectus]

Something Ive been thinking about for some time: We dont let problems be resolved anymore. In the past, two peoples would have a dispute, and when diplomacy failed, theyd fight a war. One side would win, and the matter would be settled. But for some reason, we dont find that acceptable these days. There are so many examples in the world where the international community has stepped in and prevented things from being resolved, with the result that problems never go away, they just keep festering forever. Its the latest example of that which prompted me to make the thread: the Islamic Courts in Somalia. Here at last is a native group with the organization, local support and force of arms necessary to bring order to the country. What is the international communitys reaction? To do everything it can to put the brakes on the groups drive to consolidate power and unify the country. We seem determined to keep Somalia in the grip of warlordism forever. Why do we do this? Is it some weird PC sort of thinking, like 'If somebody wins, that means somebody loses, and that wouldnt be nice' Is it something more sinister than that? Its not fear of an Islamic regime, because the international community does it all over the world, regardless of the religion involved.

Can someone explain the logic here?

 

[CurtSibling]

Suffering and war leads to big profits for the people who truly run the nations.

Not conspiracy, but natural facts.

.

 

[IglooDame]

For one thing, sometimes putting the ice on a violent conflict lets the furor cool enough that people don't resort to force of arms after the ice is removed.

Then again, I can't think of any examples for that...

 

[warpus]

Violence rarely solves problems either.

It might get rid of problems - but at a cost that is too high, imo.

 

[skadistic]

Its the hippy peace, love, live & let live mind set of to many people today. They want everyone to live and be happy. What they fail to realize is that man is a vicious animal and thinning of the heard is good thing. When you start to put the individual over the whole you doom everyone. Its not just a large scale problem like you point out Bozo. With the abolishment of capitol punishment we let to many people live that dont deserve to. This costs everyone money and takes up space in jails. Bottem line is people need to kill and be killed when you up[set that ballance problems pop up.

 

[Urederra]

I can argue that the Earth is flat, If I am much stronger than you, no matter how many facts you show to me, I am not going to recognize that you have convinced me. Then, as we cannot reach an agreement, we fight, I shake your skeleton a little, I win, and the issue is settled once and for all: The Earth is flat.

Not a good method, IMHO.

 

[Ovulator]

Your example of Somalia seems to sort of contradict itself. A heavily armed militia takes control of a region, just like the warlords did. How is this any differant?

What problems are we avoiding by having people kill one another? Less crime and murder on the streets when one side wipes out or subdues the other side? But the means to get to that end are crime and murder.

So many wars are absolutly fruitless, Iraq/Iran, Six Days War, Vietnam...what did any of these solve? Absolutly nothing, people died, thats it.

And how does killing a person help solve a situation more than changing that persons mind?

 

[Narz]

Can someone explain the logic here?

If we don't make sure we have proper control over the oil you no longer will have the freedom to spend your days posting about metaphysical twaddle in your boxer shorts.

 

[Narz]

not that there's anything wrong with posting about metaphysical twaddle in your boxer shorts or anything.

 

[Masquerouge]

Maybe because wars only solve things in the short term?

 

[Gallienus]

In some cases, the international community intervenes in a conflict, and in other cases we let both sides slog it out. It just depends on how we think the conflict will affect our national interests.

In the case of Somalia, I think the West is worried about it falling under the control of an Islamic fundamentalist regime like the Taleban that would support Al Qaeda operations throughout East Africa, and more importantly to our economic interests, the Middle East. A Somalia controlled by brigands is less feared by the West than a Somalia under the control of Islamic fundamentalists.

Britain organised the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia over Kosovo in the hope of stemming the tide of refugees fleeing the conflict and heading for Western Europe, including Britain. I know that the USA provided the bulk of the firepower, but Clinton looked like he was terrified of America suffering even one fatality in a conflict that the USA has no economic interests in, thus causing his ratings to go down - the real leadership was coming from Blair.

A major power will intervene in a conflict to ensure that the side that it can do business with gains the upper hand. Both the Americans and Soviets did this during the Cold War; intervention took the form of anything from supplying weapons to their favoured side to sending in 50,000 'military advisors'. The civil war in whatever Zaire is calling itself this week is pretty complex because every one of its neighbours has steamed in in the hope of controlling a share of Zaire's lucrative mineral deposits.

There are other cases when the international community intervenes in a conflict in order to prevent it escalating, such as the conflict between Greece and Turkey in Cyprus. This is a pretty thankless task as both sides end up hating the peacekeepers for not letting them exercise their freedom to brutally slaughter each other.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Your example of Somalia seems to sort of contradict itself. A heavily armed militia takes control of a region, just like the warlords did. How is this any differant?

One supreme warlord who's defeated all of his rivals, becomes known as 'head of state'.

What problems are we avoiding by having people kill one another? Less crime and murder on the streets when one side wipes out or subdues the other side? But the means to get to that end are crime and murder.

Its called war.

So many wars are absolutly fruitless, Iraq/Iran, Six Days War, Vietnam...what did any of these solve? Absolutly nothing, people died, thats it.

Yeah but at least they got it out of their system. In order for a war to end, it has to begin first.

And how does killing a person help solve a situation more than changing that persons mind?

It doesnt necessarily, but war happens when it proves impossible to change peoples minds.

In the case of Somalia, I think the West is worried about it falling under the control of an Islamic fundamentalist regime like the Taleban that would support Al Qaeda operations throughout East Africa, and more importantly to our economic interests, the Middle East. A Somalia controlled by brigands is less feared by the West than a Somalia under the control of Islamic fundamentalists.

I think interfering in this way in native efforts to end the chaos would only generate ill will and give us more to fear. I dont see a Taleban like state in Somalia as a threat. At least if there was a state in place we'd have addresses, specific places to direct ordnance. In a perpetual Mad Max sort of Somalia, AQ could operate freely and without much fear of reprisal from the West, and still infiltrate the rest of East Africa.

Britain organised the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia over Kosovo in the hope of stemming the tide of refugees fleeing the conflict and heading for Western Europe, including Britain. I know that the USA provided the bulk of the firepower, but Clinton looked like he was terrified of America suffering even one fatality in a conflict that the USA has no economic interests in, thus causing his ratings to go down - the real leadership was coming from Blair.

A major power will intervene in a conflict to ensure that the side that it can do business with gains the upper hand. Both the Americans and Soviets did this during the Cold War; intervention took the form of anything from supplying weapons to their favoured side to sending in 50,000 'military advisors'. The civil war in whatever Zaire is calling itself this week is pretty complex because every one of its neighbours has steamed in in the hope of controlling a share of Zaire's lucrative mineral deposits.

There are other cases when the international community intervenes in a conflict in order to prevent it escalating, such as the conflict between Greece and Turkey in Cyprus. This is a pretty thankless task as both sides end up hating the peacekeepers for not letting them exercise their freedom to brutally slaughter each other.

Well, we're agreed then that these interventions to prevent conflicts from taking place have nothing to do with saving lives. All the huggy kissy crap out of the UN and the 'international community' is just a smokescreen.

 

[Sidhe]

Suffering and war leads to big profits for the people who truly run the nations.

Not conspiracy, but natural facts.

.

That would have a hell of a lot more impetus if you showed me the facts, show me a bunch of wars from the 20th/21st century that made the resepective countries a profit, if you can name one that did no doubt people can name a few that didn't, modern wars are hugely expensive and often achieve little.

No one has ever tried sustained peace Bozo(except maybe the swiss and their rich as hell, in fact post war wise having no army was extremely profitable for both Japan and Germany) it certainly has never been tried globally, what platform are you using to make that stand?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No one has ever tried sustained peace Bozo(except maybe the swiss and their rich as hell, in fact post war wise having no army was extremely profitable for both Japan and Germany) it certainly has never been tried globally, what platform are you using to make that stand?

When your security is guaranteed by a powerful ally, you can afford to not have much of a military.

What platform, for which stand? You mean that I think it would be best in many cases to let wars happen and run their course, with a winner and loser, instead of maintaining them as low intensity conflicts for decades? I guess my idea of logic would be the platform.

 

[Sidhe]

What I meant was since the world has never seen global peace how can you judge that war would be a better idea, we can see the damage war does, but the damage peace does is far far more difficult to substantiate, try it

 

[Elrohir]

Violence rarely solves problems either.

It might get rid of problems - but at a cost that is too high, imo.

On the contrary, violence has solved many problems throughout all of human history.

William of Normandy wanted King Harold of England to hold to his vow to bow to him - a vow unknowingly taken upon sacred relics - and Harold refused. William invades England, defeats Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and that dispute is solved.

Violence is most definitely not a good, or fun thing. It should be avoided wherever possible. But saying it doesn't solve problems is simply innacurate.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Something Ive been thinking about for some time: We dont let problems be resolved anymore. In the past, two peoples would have a dispute, and when diplomacy failed, theyd fight a war. One side would win, and the matter would be settled.

This is surreal. Any number of wars, including WWI and WWII, have been fought wholly or partly because a previous war failed to settle matters.

(I'm not saying wars never settle matters - they sometimes do. But to pretend they always do is preposterous.)

 

[CurtSibling]

That would have a hell of a lot more impetus if you showed me the facts, show me a bunch of wars from the 20th/21st century that made the resepective countries a profit, if you can name one that did no doubt people can name a few that didn't, modern wars are hugely expensive and often achieve little.

Not countries, but Individuals, who have no connections to any one nation or empire.

They pull the strings, and make the personal fortunes, regardless of the rise or fall of states.

Think bigger than the boundaries of a map, or the TV screen.

.

 

[Tycoon101]

War solves problems. War makes more problems. That is why I have taken the stance that war is a neutral thing. If it is not done then many people will go insane, and corruption and inward violence will erupt and finally force a conflict. If war is constant then too much infrastructure is destroyed.

My greatest regret about war is the waste of GOOD humans, patriots, while much of the trash we have nowadays sits at home berating our soldiers. That's why I like theocracies: the government gets EVERYONE working on a war, instead of the lopsided system that many Western countries have now.

 

[Godwynn]

I'm a big fan of duels.