Justifying War

[The Persnickety Platypus]

1. Under what circumstances should the brutal killing of fellow human beings be ethically tolerable? In other words, if there were a universal law dictating the specific reasons for which to declare war, what might it say?


2. Which past and present wars would you deem unjustified? Perhaps this will allow us to put such rules into context.

[keltzkroz]

The USA at that time was still trying to recover from the great depression, and the memory of WW1 was still fresh in the minds of its people. It made the USA cautious in entering another conflict. After all, most wars are fought for 'gain' or to avert some future 'loss'.

[sin_is_fun]

First he took Austria with virtually no reaction from the west, then he took Czechoslovakia with Britain's Prime Minister's approval. When He invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war. Then the western allies sat on their duffs until he invaded and swallowed France. At this point, while Britain was being attacked daily, the USA refused to declare war on such an obviously aggessive power.

Atleast britain and france started the war when they did.Better be late than never.USA came in a bit late,but again better be late than never.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

criminal commited sin,so he dies.what crime did that animal commit?

I merely meant that vegetarianism and anti-death penalty are both generally liberal stances. And usually one that is liberal enough to be against eating meat, is against capital punishment. I said it was interesting, not necissarily hipocritical.

Just nevermind. It was a pointless statement anyway.

So If somebody rapes 100 women and kills them cruelly and what punishment does he get in return?

1.He gets a good room,life long food,no work,new friends,homosexual partners in jail,tv,music,sports,medical care,,,wow.

You sure paint a pretty picture for something as grisly as prison. Prison rooms are small and depressing, the food is comparable that of a school cafeteria (enough said...), LOTS of work (they usually have them be some use to society, rather than just let them sit around, as I understand), not necissarily new friends and partners (a rapist is likely to get solitary confinement), ect.

Locked inside a single dark building for the rest of your life, never to experience the joy of freedom and independence again. Sounds like ample punishment to me. Just the mere fact that they were unable to evade justice is probably punishment enough for some of them.

If the criminal promises he wont rape henceforth then by your logic he should be sent scotfree.

Not sure where you saw that in my logic.....

Death penalty is not given for preventing further crimes.It is given to console the victims family that justice is done.

punishment is for revenge.Only that will make the victim feel happy.

Not even sure what to say to this. That is just horrible. The victims families have no right to want revenge. Revenge is wrong. Committing a 'bad' for a 'bad' does not equal a 'good'. Honestly, I can't see how any further murdering would make anyone feel better anyway.

And what if that so called criminal is actually innocent? It is foolish to assume our justice system is faultless.

What if the victim's family instead decides to forgive the criminal? What would be the point of the death sentence then?

All wars and atrocities can be traced back to a thirst for revenge. Forgiveness is the only path to peace.



Sorry for sounding like such a hippy.

when somebody hits me,or rapes a woman,i need not analyze his horoscope and his family history to understand him.It is unneccesary.
Only a strong country can remain a peaceful country.If powerless people talk peace,world will laugh at them.

What if it was actually some wrong act of yours that made that person hit you in the first place? Might that be something you need to find out, before blindly retaliating? People must realize the need to slow down and talk things out, before engaging in battle that might in fact be unnecissary.

All throughout history rulers have taken this same "peace through strength and agression" attitude of yours. Our own president has this attitude. Tell me now, have we attained peace? No? Might this be a hint that agression is the wrong course of action?

I think achieving world peace is possible. But only through a philosophical change may this come about. Because whatever we are doing now sure isn't working.

If whole world reforms then I also will reform.

And it is THIS sort of attitude which prevents change. How about YOU reform first, and maybe then the world will follow?

Reform must start somewhere. Individual change must occur before anything happens on the wide scale.

[keltzkroz]

In a world filled with reasonable people, they could simply try to reason with each other to resolve their differences.

In the real world, where we have suicide bombers, and kidnappers who behead their captives, where their attitude is 'we blow up your people and cities, then we talk', that simply does not work.

[sin_is_fun]

You sure paint a pretty picture for something as grisly as prison. Prison rooms are small and depressing, the food is comparable that of a school cafeteria (enough said...), LOTS of work (they usually have them be some use to society, rather than just let them sit around, as I understand), not necissarily new friends and partners (a rapist is likely to get solitary confinement), ect.

A rapist will not get solitary confinement because of his rape.He will be under solitary confinement only if he is deemed dangerous to other prisoners and prison authorities.Also the work there will not be worse and inhuman.It will be almost similiar to the blue collar jobs in the outside world.Some educated prisoners will even get good white collar jobs inside prison.Prison rooms will be small,but you will stay inside them only while you sleep.In other words for intelligent prisoners,prison cannot be a punishment.

Locked inside a single dark building for the rest of your life, never to experience the joy of freedom and independence again. Sounds like ample punishment to me. Just the mere fact that they were unable to evade justice is probably punishment enough for some of them.

If criminals are willing to pay the price for their deeds,they wont consider it to be a punishment.

Not sure where you saw that in my logic.....

You said as follows

I believe all people have a right to life, no matter what act they may have committed. Their freedom of liberty however, obviously must be limited, as granting freedom would put others at risk. So send them to prison. You can't hurt anyone in prison.

So from this I understood that people are sent to prison only because they might put others to risk.You said they sre sent to prison because 'they cannot hurt anyone in prison'.

So naturally by this logic if a criminal promises not to repeat his act and if the government has reasons to believe he will keep his promise,why cannot it forgive him?

Not even sure what to say to this. That is just horrible. The victims families have no right to want revenge. Revenge is wrong. Committing a 'bad' for a 'bad' does not equal a 'good'. Honestly, I can't see how any further murdering would make anyone feel better anyway.

Revenge is the only reason why a criminal ought to be punished.For example government of Israel chased nazi war criminal Eichmann in 1960 in argentina.After 1945 Eichmann did not commit any crime.So he was not a threat to the society.So why Did israel punish him?Was it for stopping further crimes of him?Was it because he was a threat to the society?No.It was to avenge the holocaust.It was pure revenge.

Many holocaust victims felt happy and relieved that Eichmann was punished.Revenge is a carnal and basic instinct of all animal species,humans are no exception.Victims suffer a lot while bringing the criminals to trial.Many rape victims undergo trauma of narrating the incident in courts,to punish the criminal.They undergo this mental trauma to get revenge.

Revenge is for the sake of revenge only.It has no benefit except to cool off the victims hurt feelings.To further my point I will give you an example.

A serial killer after a series of gruesome murders is caught by police.He gets shot and as a result loses his legs.Now imagining he cannot harm the society further should he be sent scotfree?

And what if that so called criminal is actually innocent? It is foolish to assume our justice system is faultless.

When law punishesd somebody it takes enough precautions to ensure he isnt wrongly punished.Our law is based on axiom "1000 criminal can escape,but one innocent shall not be punished".It is loaded favorably towards the accused.

What if the victim's family instead decides to forgive the criminal? What would be the point of the death sentence then?

I think in that case the criminal,if he is not deemed a threat to the society need not be punished.I think some countries have laws to this effect.Some courts lessen the sentence if murder victims family agrees.

All wars and atrocities can be traced back to a thirst for revenge. Forgiveness is the only path to peace.

Revenge is not bad.Forgivness brings peace,but they also encourage further attacks against the forgiver.

What if it was actually some wrong act of yours that made that person hit you in the first place? Might that be something you need to find out, before blindly retaliating? People must realize the need to slow down and talk things out, before engaging in battle that might in fact be unnecissary.

War is a last option,but defenitely that option shall not be ruled out in toto.

All throughout history rulers have taken this same "peace through strength and agression" attitude of yours. Our own president has this attitude. Tell me now, have we attained peace? No? Might this be a hint that agression is the wrong course of action?

Defeating USSR defenitely bought more peace to the world.Now if we win the current war,our children will be safe.

Reform must start somewhere. Individual change must occur before anything happens on the wide scale.

Not always.Unilateral disarmamaent is a bad option.

[MagusYanam]

If criminals are willing to pay the price for their deeds,they wont consider it to be a punishment.

And who says criminals are ever willing to pay the price for their deeds? Are shoplifters willing to pay the price for what they lift? Obviously not, otherwise they wouldn't have lifted it. The assertion itself doesn't seem to have any logic behind it and is easily reduced to absurdity, as it were.

Revenge is the only reason why a criminal ought to be punished.

That is simply not true. Parents don't punish their children when they do something wrong to avenge themselves on them. They punish the children for their own good and so they can learn from their mistakes so that they don't hurt themselves or those around them. The same applies for criminals. They are captured and punished a.) as part of the agreement a government has with its public to protect it from them and b.) in order to rehabilitate them and refit them for participation in the society. Revenge doesn't play into the primary purposes for punishment at least on a social level, since revenge is by and large an individual response to an individual wrong, with some exceptions.

Revenge is for the sake of revenge only.It has no benefit except to cool off the victims hurt feelings.

It doesn't even do that. When I got even with someone it didn't make me feel better at all. I still felt the hurt from the original wrong. Only being able to make peace with them was able to heal that hurt (or, failing that, time and distance).

So why Did israel punish him?Was it for stopping further crimes of him?Was it because he was a threat to the society?No.It was to avenge the holocaust.It was pure revenge.

I don't even think that's the right way to look at it. Given the fact that the Israeli government arrested him and brought him to trial, it doesn't make sense that it should be pure revenge. Revenge, pure revenge, would have been served had the police just shot him running away, but I think the trial was carried out more to make a point that needed to be made. The Holocaust was a horrible evil and the point needed to be driven home that we won't put up with it happening again. So in that sense, arresting and trying him was beneficial to the society and to the world community.

Revenge is not bad.Forgivness brings peace,but they also encourage further attacks against the forgiver.

Then what is revenge if not bad? What good does it serve? That's right - none. It does no good for the victim, and we know it does no good for the wrongdoer. It does no good for the society in general, particularly if a feud breaks out over it. Hatfield vs. McCoy is never good for the society in general and we can definitely see that it isn't good for either the Hatfields or the McCoys. No, revenge is bad, primal instinct or no - nothing can convince me otherwise.

Also, you are mistaking the term 'forgiveness' for the meaning 'excuse'. Forgiveness is not something just given to the wrongdoer as 'excuse' is, it involves some interplay between victim and wrongdoer. Forgiveness is something the victim does for him/herself as much as for the wrongdoer, and it is something the wrongdoer has to do for himself if s/he is going to overcome his/her wrong. 'Excuse' leaves the wrongdoer free in some sense to keep doing wrong, 'forgiveness' does not.

Defeating USSR defenitely bought more peace to the world.Now if we win the current war,our children will be safe.

The USSR was not defeated by our hand but by its own infrastructure and foreign policy with regard to its allies. Its economy simply collapsed under the weight of keeping its satellite states running and in line (it was unbelievably expensive in money, manpower and equipment).

News flash: we're not winning the current war. Saddam's lost, and chaos and terrorism are taking his place (and then some). Our children are not safer now that Saddam is out of power - look at what happened in London. I'd lay big money that wouldn't have happened had we kept our attention and our troops where they belonged (not on Iraq but on what few al-Qaeda leads we had).

Honestly, I'm shocked you'd even suggest that our children will be safe once we 'win' the current war (whatever that means), especially after the London attacks.

Unilateral disarmamaent is a bad option.

I'd agree with you here, but I also think that even if multilateral disarmament is to occur, the United States should take a leading role and put its own arms on the line.

[sin_is_fun]

If criminals are willing to pay the price for their deeds,they wont consider it to be a punishment.

And who says criminals are ever willing to pay the price for their deeds? Are shoplifters willing to pay the price for what they lift? Obviously not, otherwise they wouldn't have lifted it. The assertion itself doesn't seem to have any logic behind it and is easily reduced to absurdity, as it were.

I gave that quote with an "if". If punishments are low and reward is high it wont stop the criminals.

[That is simply not true. Parents don't punish their children when they do something wrong to avenge themselves on them. They punish the children for their own good and so they can learn from their mistakes so that they don't hurt themselves or those around them. The same applies for criminals. They are captured and punished a.) as part of the agreement a government has with its public to protect it from them and b.) in order to rehabilitate them and refit them for participation in the society. Revenge doesn't play into the primary purposes for punishment at least on a social level, since revenge is by and large an individual response to an individual wrong, with some exceptions.

Rehabiliating the criminal doesnt arise in case of life sentence or death punishment.Reforming the criminal is a myth.Law doesnt have that as primary purpose of punishment.

If protecting the society is an option then the criminal can be allowed to go and settle in another country instead of being sent to prison.

Law punishes a criminal for avenging the suffering incurred by the victim and victim's family and to prevent the society from the criminal.Reforming the criminal is a side effect of this objective.

It doesn't even do that. When I got even with someone it didn't make me feel better at all. I still felt the hurt from the original wrong. Only being able to make peace with them was able to heal that hurt (or, failing that, time and distance).

Had USA signed a peace agreement with terrrorists immediatly after 9/11 without retaliating,American public would have protested strongly.Now Britain is vowing for revenge for the london bombings.

President said he will have revenge on the terrorists after the 9/11 attack.
"Bush vows revenge on terrorists " read the headlines (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wrev12.xml)

I don't even think that's the right way to look at it. Given the fact that the Israeli government arrested him and brought him to trial, it doesn't make sense that it should be pure revenge. Revenge, pure revenge, would have been served had the police just shot him running away, but I think the trial was carried out more to make a point that needed to be made. The Holocaust was a horrible evil and the point needed to be driven home that we won't put up with it happening again. So in that sense, arresting and trying him was beneficial to the society and to the world community.

Israel wanted pure revenge.They even creamated his body as a revenge for eichmann sending jews to ovens.It thought that by having revenge,it can stop further such genocide.Prevention is a side effect of having revenge

Then what is revenge if not bad? What good does it serve? That's right - none. It does no good for the victim, and we know it does no good for the wrongdoer. It does no good for the society in general, particularly if a feud breaks out over it. Hatfield vs. McCoy is never good for the society in general and we can definitely see that it isn't good for either the Hatfields or the McCoys. No, revenge is bad, primal instinct or no - nothing can convince me otherwise.

It certainly heals the wounds of the victim.Although it doesnt take him back to pre-crime status,he feels that justice has been done.People do so many things to have revenge.They track their attackers for years and have revenge.They spend lots of money and efforts and pay a huge price to have revenge.Are they doing this just for preventing further crimes?No.They do it for revenge.They get a mental satisfaction.They feel happy by it.

It is a primal instinct,but not a bad one.Only revenge or time can heal the wounds.But some wounds are never healed by time.

Also, you are mistaking the term 'forgiveness' for the meaning 'excuse'. Forgiveness is not something just given to the wrongdoer as 'excuse' is, it involves some interplay between victim and wrongdoer. Forgiveness is something the victim does for him/herself as much as for the wrongdoer, and it is something the wrongdoer has to do for himself if s/he is going to overcome his/her wrong. 'Excuse' leaves the wrongdoer free in some sense to keep doing wrong, 'forgiveness' does not.

If wrongdoer truely reforms he shows it to the victim by somehow proving that he has reformed,he often says 'I have suffered a lot thinking about what I did to you".If the victim is satisfied that the wrong doer got his punishment somehow,he then forgives him.Here he feels that the wrongdoer has paid the price,somehow.

The USSR was not defeated by our hand but by its own infrastructure and foreign policy with regard to its allies. Its economy simply collapsed under the weight of keeping its satellite states running and in line (it was unbelievably expensive in money, manpower and equipment).

Our war with USSR in afghanisthan also contributed a lot to its collapse.

News flash: we're not winning the current war. Saddam's lost, and chaos and terrorism are taking his place (and then some). Our children are not safer now that Saddam is out of power - look at what happened in London. I'd lay big money that wouldn't have happened had we kept our attention and our troops where they belonged

I meant al quiaeda in general as 'war on terror' and not just irak.

Honestly, I'm shocked you'd even suggest that our children will be safe once we 'win' the current war (whatever that means), especially after the London attacks.

The current war is a different debate.We can have it in politics section if you want.I believe war against terrorists is a must.

I'd agree with you here, but I also think that even if multilateral disarmament is to occur, the United States should take a leading role and put its own arms on the line.

Only a strong united states can save the world.When new enemies keep on mushrooming any sort of disarmament is useless.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

So naturally by this logic if a criminal promises not to repeat his act and if the government has reasons to believe he will keep his promise,why cannot it forgive him?

Anyone can be forgiven. That’s the entire point I am preaching here. But just because you are forgiven, does free you from the consequences. I am not against punishment, I am against the death penalty. With no threat of punishment, criminals are left with no incentive to not commit crime. There must be some form of justice.

But really, how often does this particular scenario occur? Not very often, from what I have heard.

Revenge is the only reason why a criminal ought to be punished.For example government of Israel chased nazi war criminal Eichmann in 1960 in argentina.After 1945 Eichmann did not commit any crime.So he was not a threat to the society.So why Did israel punish him?Was it for stopping further crimes of him?Was it because he was a threat to the society?No.It was to avenge the holocaust.It was pure revenge.

Then the Isreali government was wrong. What if Eichmann had "repented", so to speak- saw the error of his ways after the war and sought to ammend them? They went and killed him regardless. I am wary of punishing people of past crimes... does your mother still punish you for times you disobeyed her as a kid?

When law punishesd somebody it takes enough precautions to ensure he isnt wrongly punished.Our law is based on axiom "1000 criminal can escape,but one innocent shall not be punished".It is loaded favorably towards the accused.

So you are saying our courts are never wrong? That it is impossible to tactfully frame an innocent bystander of a crime, impossible for a misexamination of evidence to occur? There was just a person recently that was sent free after a re-examination of evidence; he had spend ten or so years in prison, I believe.
Every court, no matter how well executed, makes mistakes. There is a great possibility that one or more of the hundreds of people currently on death row may be innocent.

Revenge is not bad.Forgivness brings peace,but they also encourage further attacks against the forgiver.

I'll go back to my previous statement: "almost all wars and atrocities can be traced back to a thirst for revenge".

Case in point, one of the contributing factors of WW2 was the Nazi avenging of the Jews, and the treaty of Versailles that left their ravaged country in shambles.

WW1 started when Russia sought to avenge the mistreatment of the Serbs (I think it was the serbs... not sure).

We avenged the invasion of Kuwait and their oil reserves in the Gulf War.

And the list goes on. Quite a few wars and the loss of countless innocent lives may have been prevented if the thirst for revenge was not a factor, and more peaceful tactics were pursued. Revenge is not bad, eh? Even when it spurs mass killings, battles, murder, hate, and intolerance?

War is a last option, but definitely that option shall not be ruled out in toto.

I have never ruled out the use of war. Sadly, it is necessary, in a select few cases when there is no peaceful alternative may be realized.

Rehabiliating the criminal doesnt arise in case of life sentence or death punishment.Reforming the criminal is a myth.Law doesnt have that as primary purpose of punishment.

Well it should. See, we lock criminals up in prison just to have them out of sight..... it's like pretending the problem doesn’t exist. But the problem does in fact exist, and just killing them or keeping them in the dark does nothing to prevent future cases. Understanding the motives and reforming the offender may be a proactive way to prevent many future cases.

At any rate, what we are doing now sure isn't helping.

If protecting the society is an option then the criminal can be allowed to go and settle in another country instead of being sent to prison.

So he can terrorize the citizens there?

Once again, "out of sight, out of mind". It's not helping anyone.

Law punishes a criminal for avenging the suffering incurred by the victim and victim's family

You have yet to explain how exactly that works, or eases anyone’s suffering. Magnus made a good point in reference to this. I too believe revenge serves no positive purpose.

President said he will have revenge on the terrorists after the 9/11 attack.

What? Our morally right Christian president, vowing revenge? Is it not God himself that proclaimed "Only I have the right to take revenge"?

Really must study that Bible more, George.

Prevention is a side effect of having revenge

Revenge creates a circular effect, in that your act of revenge eventually will become avenged itself. It is a never ending cycle, and may only be stopped by wagering peace.

Putting criminals to death doesn’t seem to have prevented further murder.
Putting mass murderers to death has yet to abolish genocide.

History will tell you the gruesome effects of revenge. History is also proof that revenge prevents nothing.

It certainly heals the wounds of the victim.Although it doesnt take him back to pre-crime status,he feels that justice has been done.People do so many things to have revenge.They track their attackers for years and have revenge.They spend lots of money and efforts and pay a huge price to have revenge.Are they doing this just for preventing further crimes?No.They do it for revenge.They get a mental satisfaction.They feel happy by it.

Says you. Tell me, have you personally been through all of this? Can you vouch for the effectiveness of a good hearty revenge?

And lastly, will you ever look back at history and realize that your logic simply does not work, nor has it ever?

According to you, revenge ends conflicts. According to history, it fuels them. If revenge is so effective, why are their still wars? Why do people still fight? It has been around forever, yet things are just as violent today as they were in the beginning. I have an idea. Lets try something DIFFERENT.

Only a strong united states can save the world.

"Saving the world" is what you call it?

Now if we win the current war,our children will be safe.

From what? Harmless Iraqis harboring absolutely no so called weapons of mass destruction? An Iraqi government that has never in the history of humanity attacked the United States? Your not one of those people who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, are you? Al Quada are the terrorists. Why are we not still fighting them?

I believe that this particular war on terrorism is a failed philosophy. Has anyone ever stopped to inquire exactly why we are a terrorist target? Do all of these terrorists go through all the trouble to plan and execute attacks just for the fun of it? Do they commit suicide in these attacks because of a sheer lack of anything better to do? No, they are mad at our government. And you know what, I have a strong feeling that it might, just MIGHT have something to do with all of our meddling in their affairs. So what do we do to put an end to this? Meddle in their affairs some more, of course! Meanwhile terrorist numbers are mushrooming, despite all that we have killed, and they continue to attack. Once again, why are they attacking us? Because we meddle in their affairs. See this cycle? Ever wondered why a nice uninterfering country like Canada is not a terrorist target?

Here we have a classic example of misunderstanding, and instead of seeking to understand the conflict and pursue a peaceful alternative, we rush to war, with no idea of what we are getting into. The war on terrorism is a revenge of 9/11. And ONCE AGAIN, this revenge is accomplishing absolutely nothing.

[sin_is_fun]

Then the Isreali government was wrong. What if Eichmann had "repented", so to speak- saw the error of his ways after the war and sought to ammend them? They went and killed him regardless. I am wary of punishing people of past crimes... does your mother still punish you for times you disobeyed her as a kid?

Israel wasnt wrong.Eichmann was wrong.Eichmann repenting or reforming is immaterial here.If past crimes are not to be punished no criminal will get punished.

Mother punishing child anaology doesnt hold here.I did not commit a crime just a mistake for which she already punished me and she has no reason to take revenge on me.

On the contrary Eichmann commited a big crime,genocide.Next he was never punished earlier for that.

So you are saying our courts are never wrong? That it is impossible to tactfully frame an innocent bystander of a crime, impossible for a misexamination of evidence to occur? There was just a person recently that was sent free after a re-examination of evidence; he had spend ten or so years in prison, I believe.
Every court, no matter how well executed, makes mistakes. There is a great possibility that one or more of the hundreds of people currently on death row may be innocent.

Our courts are willing to take that risk.The chances of an innocent being hung are very rare even though they arent ruled out.But our society adn courts are willing to take that chance.

I'll go back to my previous statement: "almost all wars and atrocities can be traced back to a thirst for revenge".

Revenge is retaliation.It is not offense,it is retaliation.

If somebody hits me and I hit him back,it is not me who started the fight.It was him.

And the list goes on. Quite a few wars and the loss of countless innocent lives may have been prevented if the thirst for revenge was not a factor, and more peaceful tactics were pursued. Revenge is not bad, eh? Even when it spurs mass killings, battles, murder, hate, and intolerance?

War is started by original act of agressor.Revenge is just retaliation.

If protecting the society is an option then the criminal can be allowed to go and settle in another country instead of being sent to prison.

So he can terrorize the citizens there?

If the government of that country doesnt mind why should we care?

You have yet to explain how exactly that works, or eases anyone’s suffering. Magnus made a good point in reference to this. I too believe revenge serves no positive purpose.

Revenge heals the wounds of the victim.So it serves a purpose.

What? Our morally right Christian president, vowing revenge? Is it not God himself that proclaimed "Only I have the right to take revenge"?

Really must study that Bible more, George.

Why does god take revenge?You said not having revenge is a noble quality.Why doesnt god follow it?

Says you. Tell me, have you personally been through all of this? Can you vouch for the effectiveness of a good hearty revenge?

Yes.Revenge heals.

According to you, revenge ends conflicts. According to history, it fuels them. If revenge is so effective, why are their still wars? Why do people still fight? It has been around forever, yet things are just as violent today as they were in the beginning. I have an idea. Lets try something DIFFERENT.

Wars are caused by aggression and not revenge.Revenge is retaliation.

Ever wondered why a nice uninterfering country like Canada is not a terrorist target?

Ever wondered why canada was not called as liberator of europe from Hitler?Those who fight evil will make evil mongers as enemies.We should noit be afraid of it.

Regarding current war on terrorism we can start a seperate thread if you want.

[MagusYanam]

It certainly heals the wounds of the victim.Although it doesnt take him back to pre-crime status,he feels that justice has been done.

Yes.Revenge heals.

So what am I missing here? Revenge never healed me (I speak from experience). The only way I have ever found peace is by making peace with the school bully, for example.

People do so many things to have revenge.They track their attackers for years and have revenge.They spend lots of money and efforts and pay a huge price to have revenge.Are they doing this just for preventing further crimes?No.They do it for revenge.They get a mental satisfaction.They feel happy by it.

Then I feel sorry for them. That they are so obsessed by the hurt done to them that they devote their money and their life to inflicting hurt on another person makes them extremely pitiable. They could try and have lives of their own and not let the hurt consume them, or would that be asking too much?

Only revenge or time can heal the wounds.

Revenge doesn't heal. Believe me; I know.

Our war with USSR in afghanisthan also contributed a lot to its collapse.

In comparison to the costs of propping up and maintaining military presences in Hungary, East Germany, Poland et cetera, the proxy war in Afghanistan was small potatoes indeed. The United States should show a little humility and respect for the facts for once in its history and stop patting itself on the back for something it didn't do.

I meant al quiaeda in general as 'war on terror' and not just irak.

Then my point still stands, all the better. We're still not winning - look at London. We've thrown thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars at Iraq trying first to debilitate and second to reconstruct it, and we've focused so much of our intelligence resources on Iraq that al-Qaeda has been able to pull this off without so much as an 'orange alert'. Bush has shown his incompetence one time too many here.

Only a strong united states can save the world.

No - only a trusted United States can keep the world safe. That's why we should be cutting back on military spending, raising taxes and starting to pay off the national debt, for one thing (it's what any real fiscal conservative would do, and it's one way we can rebuild our national credibility). If there's any money to spare it should go into foreign aid. We should be building working relationships with countries that have in the past been friendly to us (like Western Europe). That way, we won't have as many enemies to 'keep on mushrooming', as it were.

If disarmament is something we can do as a show of our good faith to the world, I'm all in favour.