The answer without a question

LinuxSam · Post by **LinuxSam** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:18 am

I have seen a lot of these "war is not the answer" signs lately, (what can I expect, living in Washington...) and I allways wonder what the question is. It seems that it would be logical to define the question before deciding what isn't an answer. Any help would be appreciated.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:36 am

It's just a dumb bumper sticker..... advocating an anti-war philosophy that obviously won't work in all situations.

If your neighboring country invades your territory with the expressed purpose of killing every one of you, you can resist or die. Call it what you want, but it's war, a war to rightfully protect your interests, your life.

Conclusion.... it's a dumb answer that cannot not apply to all questions.

LinuxSam · Post by **LinuxSam** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:44 am

Of course it doesn't work in all situations, but doesn't it imply that those who use it think it works in our current situation? I mean, why put up a sign with no meaning?

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:51 am

That bumper sticker has been around forever. It's nothing new, only applying to the current situation. What would be the opposing bumper sticker? "War is the answer if the alternative is death". Won't quite fit the sticker however....

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:02 pm

I thought Jeopardy was still popular in the US.

"How do we solve our conflict with country X?"

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:14 pm

LinuxSam wrote:I have seen a lot of these "war is not the answer" signs lately, (what can I expect, living in Washington...) and I allways wonder what the question is. It seems that it would be logical to define the question before deciding what isn't an answer. Any help would be appreciated.

It means that both sides have high costs in both lives and tax money. From that aspect "the only way to win is not play."
(I'm quoting a computer if anyone recalls.)

It's an attempt to bring sheeple out of denial. Yeah, good luck with that.

The bumper sticker had to be re-issued and used because there are still a bunch of people who believe that the likes of Cheney, and his clearly "objective opinion." Come on sheeple, how could you ever believe (let alone still believe) that somebody who still gets a couple of million a year from his "old company" has no conflict of interest? These politcians say to Joe Average, "Here are the issues that can be viewed as conflicts of interest. They just so happen not to apply to us."

To get an idea just how gullible and clueless some people are when they support their government get a load of the end of this recent story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24430171/

This man tried to save his country, and the world for that matter. But just like US sheeple, some people, once outside their circle of comfort, refuse to believe in reality. So it comes as no surprise that sheeple today stick to this administration while it continues to "OJ" us with its propaganda.

"There was also the fact that immediately after World War II, the July 20 plotters were widely viewed as traitors, a label the Nazis gave them that stuck for years.

"For a long time, it was not believable to normal Germans that the government was criminal," he recalled. "And as soon as one thought they had pushed that out of the way, then people just didn't want to know.""

One does get tired of watching history repeat itself.

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:57 pm

aristide1 wrote:From that aspect "the only way to win is not play."
(I'm quoting a computer if anyone recalls.)

Wargames, 1983

JoeWPgh · Post by **JoeWPgh** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:23 pm

Bluefront wrote:It's just a dumb bumper sticker..... advocating an anti-war philosophy that obviously won't work in all situations.

I don't know anyone who thinks it would work in all situations. Unfortunately, there are too many who think 'war is the answer' to all too many situations, where it obviously is not.

WW I: Pointless
WW II: Valid
Korean war: Pointless
VietNam: Pointless
Gulf war (1990): Dubious at the time, ultimately pointless
Afghanistan: Valid, until Bush chased a new shiny in Iraq. Pointless since.
Iraq: Pointless

More often than not, war is clearly not the answer.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:31 pm

The "I won't fight back no matter what" outlook has been tried by many different people over the years. The European Jews of WWII are a good example......and you see what happened. I doubt Jews of today would take a similar course of action, even if facing overwhelming odds. They've learned the hard lessons of history.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

I can add to that little list.....

The American War Between the States.....pointless. Right?

qviri · Post by **qviri** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:50 pm

Bluefront wrote:If your neighboring country invades your territory with the expressed purpose of killing every one of you, you can resist or die.

Colourful analogy outside, do you know of one case in history when this actually happened? The bit about an intent to kill every person in the country?

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:48 pm

Bluefront wrote:I can add to that little list.....

The American War Between the States.....pointless. Right?

Based on the result, or based on their beliefs? There is a difference.

If the former is your concern, then "war is not the answer" seems to be true, to current day reference (note: this is in part in contrast to your first reply, this is a perfect example of an anti-war philosophy that would have worked, and would have payed off in this situation - not in all situations, but this doesn't help your case).

Regardless, the civil war has had a major influence on what the US is today. To deny that would be pointless.
Of course this doesn't mean in hindsight it's a "good" thing in happened, but it is reality and you are living in the result of it.
To deny that would really make all the lives lost pointless, all those people fighting for what they deemed to be the good cause.
I sense a lack of respect here.

Compare that to to what's going on today. Are these losses pointless?
If so, you would agree to stop fighting the war, right?
Or are you only willing to make that statement 10 years after America left Iraq? "Pointless"

Bluefront wrote:Conclusion.... it's a dumb answer that cannot not apply to all questions.

Eh?

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:21 pm

Hello,

Did Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi fail?

Did Nelson Mandela fail?

What about Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Was there war in Switzerland that we do not know about?

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:14 pm

Of course "War is not the answer" is not always going to work. Poland, France, etc, are prime examples.

What's the at-present-day point? The sticker is out now, not in the 1930s and 1940's. Who considers such a response adult-like? The OP is asking about now.

I have seen a lot of these "war is not the answer" signs lately

Stay on the subject by avoiding non-productive generalizations.

Wow, a rule has exception. Funny thing is GWB has none. Am I referring to the rule portion or the exception portion of the sentence? Yes.

It's an attempt to bring sheeple out of denial. <- See how ineffective it is right in this thread.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:59 am

Neil.... The "war is not the answer" sticker is a generalized statement proven wrong time after time over the course of history. In so many cases it is the answer......

Now if you modify the statement by saying something like "war in Iraq is not the answer"....... I'll agree with you. Of course the untold number of dead people killed by the hanged former dictator, might have wished we had started the war earlier since they might still be alive.

Exactly how you look at such conflicts depends entirely on just who you are. The winners of wars usually write the history.....doesn't always make make them right. The American War Between the States is an example. Some people call that war "The War of Northern Aggression".

Dutchmm · Post by **Dutchmm** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:29 am

Neil wrote:

Was there war in Switzerland that we do not know about?

Although the Swiss decided upon a policy of neutrality after their defeat by the French at the battle of Marignano in 1515, they have been involved in a number of wars since. To mention but two, they were invaded by the French (again!) in the 1790s, and eventually managed to get themselves autonomy under the Act of Mediation. After the Congress of Vienna, everyone acknowledged their independence, but there was a civil war (the Sonderbund war) in 1847.

That said, I am as much against wars in countries starting with an "I" as anyone else. There is little doubt that we were tricked into the second invasion of Iraq (I write as a Brit), and like Neil, I don't think that you may do ill so that good may come of it. It will all end in tears, like (nearly) all the other wars. Those of you who doubt it should read Corelli Barnett's "The Audit of War". It will make you very angry if you are a Brit, and very angry on our behalf if you are not.</rant>

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:59 am

Hello,

"War is not the answer" is the slogan of Friends Committee on National Legislation -- and I think that it has accomplished it's purpose, by raising the issue and starting the conversation. It's not going to convince everybody, obviously.

The "rest" of their mission statement:

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war

We seek a society with equity and justice for all

We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled

We seek an earth restored.

FCNL is a long standing (founded in 1943), non-partisan, non-profit group that works towards the goals that are most important to Friends (aka Quakers). They are well respected for their integrity, and their directness.

http://www.fcnl.org/index.htm

The issues currently at the top of their list are:

Prevent War
Iraq
Cluster Bomb Ban
Nuclear Disarmament
Federal Budget
Environment
Civil Liberties
Native Americans

They provide an excellent way to email and/or send letters to your Congress people.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:40 am

I have seen a lot of these "war is not the answer" signs lately

Anybody can think they are making a point by ignoring portions of opposing argument they can't address.

Can anybody find a rule that has no exceptions? Of course when you're into generalizations and nothing else you do such things.

Mission accomplished!

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:45 am

That's on a monument at a National Cemetery a few miles from my house. Happens to be the result of a single battle of a European war the USA got involved it. The country we attacked had not attacked us first. The majority of Americans were against this war at the start. The president at the time wanted us to enter the war, none-the-less. And we did......

Sounds very similar to our current situation. And yet right now most people would agree that our entry into that war was "the right thing to do"....... even though the cost in American lives was many times greater than what we endure right now in Iraq.

What did we gain from that battle? Does that "war is not the answer" apply? If not why not? Know what the name of that battle is.......

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:14 am

Hello Carl,

Are you saying that the current Iraq war is similar to World War 2?

It's not even close to the same situation. Not remotely close...

Here's proof: in WW2, you could not keep people from volunteering for the armed services! Under aged young men lied about their age to get in. Today, we have lowered the standards, raised the incentives, and we still can't sustain the needed numbers of people in the military.

Let alone getting kids to collect cans and paper, planting Victory gardens, going on food and fuel rations, etc. -- and everybody pitching in all ways they could.

There is NO shared sacrifice for this war -- and this is because there is NO legitimate reasons for this war! And American citizens know this -- at least the ones who don't believe Bush's lies.

War is not the answer -- this current war in Iraq most of all. I would have thought that this "question" was obvious?

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:16 am

That battle is called "The Battle of the Bulge"......and our losses were terrible. Any loss of American life is terrible. But we had about as much business entering WWII, as this current "war". Germany never attacked the USA..... they were sinking some of our ships because we were violating the rules of war by supplying Germany's enemies.

Japan attacked the USA, and we used that excuse to enter the European war. Our president at the time knew of the pending attack and did nothing, because he wanted to enter the European war. So the story goes.....and there's as much proof of that as anything about the current war and it's origins. IMHO of course, and the Roosevelt fanboys will object no doubt.

Face it....we enter wars for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good. Sorting out which is which is a matter of decades, and looking back, and not a hasty conclusion based on emotion.

LinuxSam · Post by **LinuxSam** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:26 am

Bluefront wrote:What did we gain from that battle?

Sometimes the war is not about ourselves. To withdraw now from Iraq would be the most horrible move that we can make. Currently, our troops over there, quelling the terrorists, assisting the Iraq government, training their soldiers to fight their own battles.
We have brought democracy to their country, and to leave now would jerk that dream from thier hands. (not only that, the terrorists would take it as a win and gain more support) And remember, the population was initally for this war (famous saying, "I was for the war before I was against the war...").

WWII was also like this, although on a far bigger scale.

Bluefront wrote:Japan attacked the USA, and we used that excuse to enter the European war.

I hardly call being attacked an excuse (an excuse is something that you pull out when your hand is caught in the cookie jar), it is more of a reason, a very big reason.

You'd think they learned by now, attack the United States and it will attack you back...

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:51 am

Japan attacked the USA, and we used that excuse to enter the European war.

I hardly call being attacked an excuse (an excuse is something that you pull out when your hand is caught in the cookie jar), it is more of a reason, a very big reason.

You'd think they learned by now, attack the United States and it will attack you back...

in fact it was the biggest mistake the Japanese ever made, if they had not done that the Axis powers may have won and we (or me at least) would now be speaking German. to avail myself of Yamamoto's apocryphal quote:

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"

however, don't underestimate European bitterness at America's reluctance to intervene earlier in the war, so much for the "special relationship". you are, after all mostly from European stock.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:54 pm

Bluefront wrote: Any loss of American life is terrible.

Pardon me, that's not a Christian attitude, that's a supremacist attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism

Think - Is this the best method to increase your credibility?

I know, I know, I asked too much on the very first word.

Bluefront wrote:

OK, now post how many dead Iraqi civilians of the past 5 years. Oh I forgot, supremacists don't count them.

Perhaps I made some uncomfortable. Shall I refer to dead Iraqis as those, will that help?

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:20 pm

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz

That has not changed when words were said. Sadly war has evolved after WWII it became total warfare. Unfortuantely peoples who are loud these days seem to think that wars must fought without killing innocent and without breaking laws... which as sad as it is, is impossible.

I don't know it just seems that a lot in attitudes in western societies seem to be very hypocritical when it comes to war. Maybe its just me.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:36 pm

thejamppa wrote:... Unfortuantely peoples who are loud these days seem to think that wars must fought without killing innocent and without breaking laws... which as sad as it is, is impossible.

You don't think that after all the hype about weapon accuracy that the ratio of targets to collateral damage could be just a wee bit better than what it is now?

600,000+ dead Iraqi's, how many were just people minding their own business?

All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

Voltaire

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:58 pm

Think about Burma, if we just invaded them via mass food and supply drops would that help or hinder the people being buggered by their regime.???

Thy are essentially going to kill the best part of a million people and everyone is walking away because no-one wants fisticuffs, but people complain when militarian countries like the USA and the UK invade countries to put them straight.

The argument comes down to money - oil specifically.

By rights we should have invaded and rescued Burma, and not liberated Iraq.

Andy

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Im sorry, but I have to send this off on a tangent....

The issues currently at the top of their list are:

Prevent War
Iraq
Cluster Bomb Ban
Nuclear Disarmament
Federal Budget
Environment
Civil Liberties
Native Americans

Thats practically upside down.

If these people really gave a flying fornication about Northern America the indiginous people would be in first place and not 8th........... Lets face the facts here - how many indiginous Northern Americans have been affected by cluster bombs.????

.......that works towards the goals that are most important to Friends (aka Quakers).

I dont know a lot about quakers (apart from their oats), but I suspect their not "True Americans", otherwise they would have lobbied to have the list changed.

Andy

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:46 pm

Hello,

The Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) were started in England in the 1600's by George Fox. Friends were hanged by the Puritans here in Massachusetts, and Friends were quite active abolitionists, and some worked in the Underground Railroad. Other Friends owed slaves.

In 1947, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work with refugees in WW2.

The Quaker Oats Company is not related to Quakerism, AFAIK.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:41 am

Well sure Neil.....if everyone in the USA had been Quakers in 1940, we'd all be speaking Japanese and German right now.

There are times when we must stand and fight.....

The answer without a question

The answer without a question

Re: The answer without a question

Re: The answer without a question

Wars in Switzerland