The Cost Of War

[OpenMind5]

Ok, let me ask another question that falls under the same idea...

 

How much evil do you have to do before you start seeing good outcome?

 

Op5

[OpenMind5]

Is there no answers to the questions i seek?

[OpenMind5]

Maybe i need to recap on what i wanna know/ hear from everyone....

 

1) what is the cost of war?

2) when is going to war worth that cost?

3) How much evil does one have to do before good is an outcome?

4) Is all fair in love and war?

 

Op5

[OpenMind5]

I would seriously enjoy SOME feed back...insted of the utter silence...does this mean no one has an opion for once?

 

Op5

[OpenMind5]

I am crying, :(

No one has any comments on this post.

I am very disapointed.

 

Op5

[nemo]

Perhaps if you chose a specific war... War in general seems to be universally accepted as the unfortunate result of a failure to resolve a situation through diplomatic channels, but people tend to get much more personal about the topic when they can identify with a specific event or set of events.

 

At the moment, much is being made about the war in Iraq; however, the vast majority of people have derived their opinions on that war through whatever they have been given by the media. If you were to ask about the cost of the Vietnam war, you would not only get the fiscal evaluations, you might hear about the mental anguish that soldiers went through - fighting a war they didn't agree with, only to come home and be spit on... I asked my grandfather about WWII a few times when he was still alive, but for the most part, he didn't want to talk about it. He flew bombers over Germany and apparently got to hear "Tell my wife I love her..." too many times as he watched his friends' aircraft spiral toward earth. The cost of that war has been tabulated time and time again, but I still have yet to see any figures that show the cost of my grandfather coming back from the war and climbing into a bottle.

 

Perhaps this is what you wanted to see; perhaps you were just looking for another rant against some current political figure. Either way, I suggest you put more effort into your question (singular) instead of asking question(s) and announcing dissapointment with the results.

[pgrmdave]

The problem is that 'cost of war' is too general. As to when we should go to war, I think that anytime we deal with an unreasonable leader, who is destructive towards his or her own people, and cannot reasonably be overthrown by his or her own people, war is acceptable.

[OpenMind5]

1) what is the cost of war?

2) when is going to war worth that cost?

3) How much evil does one have to do before good is an outcome?

4) Is all fair in love and war?

 

Apply these questions to vietnam, and other wars as you wish. The questions are general so you guys have the freedom to say what you wish on "war." I was hoping for some war rants, and i had very little feed back and nobody has answered the above questions.

 

Op5

[nemo]

The questions are general so you guys have the freedom to say what you wish on "war."

Op5

Perhaps if you gave us your professor's name, we could ask him/her for clarification :hihi:

 

Sorry - I've seen too much war to want to rant. Trying to define the cost of war is like trying to define a human experience; each person interprets it differently. Trying to rant about war is, in my humble opinion, as effective as ranting about Alzhiemer's disease. Regardless of what you may hear on the news or see in a theatre, war is a slow, painful process that should be viewed as (sometimes) a necessary evil, but also a defeat for all parties involved.

[OpenMind5]

So nemo, you are saying that all war is meaningless and holds no value at all?

 

Perhaps in the rants that you see so meanlingless is where i will find meaning for me.

Thank you.

 

Op5

[OpenMind5]

Based on Nemo's comment, i begain to think:

 

If war holds no true value, but a cost, then it is rather like paying for somthing that ends up doing you no good at all. But haven't there been good things come from war?

 

Op5

[Queso]

Yeah, wars get us places, get us respect, get us further onto the timeline, get us land, get us resources, get us history.

Everything has it's ups an downs.

It would have been nice if we started solving everything in the past in a peaceful manor, that's how it would still be today.

It was our nature as humans to fight other humans for land...and here we are.

[OpenMind5]

I agree that humans have the nature to fight for many things, from women to resources, but at what cost do we fight for theses things? All things hold very little value in the end, right? But there are people soo committed to winning tings that they die for it. Look at the story about the trogans, and the trogan horse. All for that pretty lady Helen! So many would fight and lose their lives for a beauty that would one day grow old and die away, only to be lost.

*Sigh*

Or do i have the wrong costs in mind?

 

Op5

[Queso]

nevermind.

[OpenMind5]

Nevermind?

 

?

Op5

[maddog]

As most others here have said, you answer can not easily be answered in generalities.

 

Better to use examples.

 

One general statement about figuring the "Cost of War": It is calculated in the Total Cost of Pain and

Suffering in Not going to War against that Total Cost in doing so.

 

This total cost would be calculated with all parties involved.

 

Examples:

Last Gulf War - Unessecary if what had happened 12 years ealier went differently.

Afghanistan - Yes/No. The goal should have been more covert to eliminate Bin Laden than the Taliban.

Kosovo - Attrocities were being done. Was this engagement the only solution ? No.

Desert Storm - Yes, to go in defense of Kuwait. Why did we stop 60 mi from Bagdad ?

Mogodishu - Was this one really nessecary ?

Vietnam - This war was Definitely NOT nessecary. I would still honor those that went.

Korean War - This was not another Vietnam

WW II - Yes. Was there a way to avoid this fight world-wide ? No, I don't think so. Some things could

have been done different. Engagement was inevitable.

WW I - Yes, though this war started because of all the interlocking treaties. Could something else be

done. With hindsight, yes. At the time, limited.

Boer War - No. Another example of British Imperialism.

Spanish American War - Yes. Retribution for provication. Could some more negotiation be done. Yes.

American Civil War - No. This was the saddest war America ever fought (with herself).

American Indian Wars - No. More respect for the Indians would have made welcome neighbors from the

beginining. This would have needed to start when we first got to Americas.

War 1812 - Yes. Though proper negotiation could have eliminated the need. Neither side would back down.

Napolean Conquest - Once he got going, I guess somebody had to fight him. Else all the world would be

French.

French Revolution - No. But was innevitable.

American Revolution - Yes. For a principle.

French and Indian War - Yes. Both sides used and abused the Indians in the process.

Invasion of Ireland by British (1640) - No. Not the last time the Irish treated poorly.

War of the Roses - No.

Crusades (3 waves) - No. Total waste.

 

I could go on. Further back life wasn't as important the heads of state for any particular country.

 

Maddog

[OpenMind5]

War is one of those things that seems pointless and meaningless. Somthin that is usually a fight over somthing completely stupid. We spend, money on war, lives, and resources. yet All of these seem meaningless if war is. We had madddog who went bck in time and told us if certain wars held any merit at all. Some did, but for the ones that did, there seemed to be alternet soultions. SO maybe the cost war is high, but that cost can never be met, because (1) no one can put a valuse on human life (2) the outcome is no where near what we want.

 

I beileve this should sum up what we have heard so far on this post.

 

Op5