Examining War

General Smedley Butler was Commandant of the maritime Corp colse to the turn of the 20th century. He was a two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He wrote a short book called "War Is a Racket." It exposed the habitancy who were making a lot of money from the waging of war.

"War is the supreme test of man in which he rises to heights never approached in any other activity." So spoke normal George S. Patton, one of the most famous Us generals in World War 2. He openly loved war.

South Kyrgyzstan

Somewhere in between these extremes is where most Americans fall. Let's discover the whole matter of war.

People in favor of the use of war to resolve political or economic differences between nations can point out instances where the use of war as an instrument of the state is justified. Israel's defensive war, just after the state of Israel came into being, is an example of this, where a group of Arab countries invaded Israel with the intention of wiping the baby country off the map and killing every person in that country. Even habitancy who are ardent pacifists, when theoretically placed in Israel at that time, would probably say that they would fight to defend their country, and especially their families. Old men and quite young children did fight, and prevailed.

This can be cited as a "good war," and one that had to be fought. Score 1 for Patton's use of war.

Are there examples of "bad" wars that should not have been fought? If you study the causes of the War between the States, ordinarily mislabeled the Civil War, (it can't be called a Civil War because it occurred between independent nation states), you will find that the event that precipitated that war was an economic one. Lincoln needed revenue to run his increasing federal government. He decided that he would levy a Punitive import tax on goods coming from the southern states in the Union. It was punitive because it was above the level of a legitimate and standard tax, as defined at that time. The southern states warned Lincoln that they would not accept that tax, and that it would, in effect, destroy their industries. They also told him that if he did this, they would invoke their constitutional right to leave the Union. Lincoln did, the southern states did, and over 600,000 Americans died in an unnecessary war.

Put that war in the Smedley Butler column. It started because of money.

There is a third category, which is the most complicated of all. Should Country A resolve to take performance in Country B, uninvited, if a crime against humanity is occurring? That crime would consist of genocide, such as occurred in Germany in Ww2, in the Holocaust, or more recently, in Kosovo or Africa. Complexity enters the photograph when what must be determined is where does morality take precedence over international law, which historically prohibits preemptive war? What needs to be examined minutely is what is the true infer for a preemptive war.

So we must discover why a war starts, the Real "why," before we put it in whether the Patton or Butler column. That takes work. It's worth the time, though. I think you will find that the "good" wars, the "just" wars, are ones that are fought by habitancy defending their country, (where they live), their homes, (where they live), and their families, with whom they live. If you define a war (small), as picking up a chair and smashing it over the head of an intruder armed with a gun, who broke into your home, there are few habitancy in the world who would not call your mini war as "just" and necessary. Israel did that, on a larger scale, and please notice that these two wars, yours and theirs, are defensive in nature. The Us war of 1812, when the British invaded the Us, was a just war of defense, as well. Is a "just" war all the time one of defense? Just asking.

Let's look at the normal state of affairs of America in the year 2010, as it pertains to the wars we are currently waging. If you are of the idea that those wars are being fought in defense of our country, homes and family, put them in the Patton side of the ledger. If you are safe bet that there is no chance that the Afghan Navy will be sailing into New York harbor, disgorging Taliban soldiers in landing craft intent on subjugating the whole country, vote for the Butler point of view, and look for the real infer we are fighting there.

What must also be examined objectively, is why the United States has forces stationed in Kyrgyzstan, Djibouti, Togo, East Timor, Fiji, and 130 more countries comprising 70% of the total numbers of countries on Earth. If they are in these countries to ensure that the Usa is not attacked by anyone from those countries, I vote to keep them there. Details of our worldwide forces presence are all in one place, here below. It's a fast education, and may surprise you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

If the proposed defense budget for 2011, by the Obama administration, of 8 Billion will guarantee that bad guys stay out of my home, and don't hurt my family, I'll hold that, too. This website below has a great deal of information on where that money will go. It's our money, so you should take a peek.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17626

The above arguments, both for and against war, are just words. They get real only when some guys blow up a building near where you work, or when two habitancy in forces uniforms knock on the door of an American home, and the sound of pain is heard by the neighbors as a mum is told her 18 year-old child soldier was killed three days ago. These things are the reality of war, and must be determined by all of us when we consider what position to take on whether or not our country goes to war. Wars are not video games.

Examining War

My Links : todays world news headlines