Originally posted by: ricarleite
It isn't, but just to be able to answer your question I oversimplified these terms. To be completely honest to what I belive, no war is ever justifiable because we should be able to prevent them to take place, by providing education, by providing assistance in other areas, by political acts, by the action from it's own people.
BUT people try to mine this way of thinking saying that military actions are the only way to handle these situations, only violence can solve these sort of things and yet... that is not the real reason why countries go to war.
There's no samaritan, altruistic reason for going to war, it's all for the money it generates, and hidden behind this scheme there's a brainwashing on who pays for those wars to take place - we are all paying while we consume - and that brainwashing hides the scheme by using peer preassuer build patriotism, fear, and a sense of doing the right thing, by getting rid of "evil-doers".
But not all of them, eh? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, all these places never appear on TV. And giving money and WEAPONS to Saddam, well that never happened. Sshh.
Originally posted by: JediSage
But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...
But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?
It isn't, but just to be able to answer your question I oversimplified these terms. To be completely honest to what I belive, no war is ever justifiable because we should be able to prevent them to take place, by providing education, by providing assistance in other areas, by political acts, by the action from it's own people.
BUT people try to mine this way of thinking saying that military actions are the only way to handle these situations, only violence can solve these sort of things and yet... that is not the real reason why countries go to war.
There's no samaritan, altruistic reason for going to war, it's all for the money it generates, and hidden behind this scheme there's a brainwashing on who pays for those wars to take place - we are all paying while we consume - and that brainwashing hides the scheme by using peer preassuer build patriotism, fear, and a sense of doing the right thing, by getting rid of "evil-doers".
But not all of them, eh? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, all these places never appear on TV. And giving money and WEAPONS to Saddam, well that never happened. Sshh.
You forgot Rwanda...it seems you want to have it both ways. If violence breaks out in an area of the world that we "don't care about" will education in Cuba solve the problem? Aren't more immediate solutions needed in the face of crises? Educating and feeding the world are great ideas, but they are long term ones that can easily be abbrogated when the "educating" country's rulers decide to annex Poland, or most of Eastern Europe, or wipe Israel off the map, for example.