War between governments: A discussion of war

[Endotherm]

There is something I've never understood about government. If it represents the best interests of the people, why does it start wars? In these wars, it isn't the governments being hurt, it is the people. These people are just like you and me, trying to live out their lives in peace. No one really wants war, so why do the people let their governments do it? My partial answer to that question is fear, which is the most powerful tool a government has.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Defense of the nation against an aggressor. Why an aggressor starts it is the question, but one side is generally justified.

 

[Endotherm]

Defense of the nation against an aggressor. Why an aggressor starts it is the question, but one side is generally justified.

unless the "agressor" physically attacks the nation, neither side has a right to invade. Though I do agree with you that if a nation is attacked, they have a right to retaliation.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

unless the "agressor" physically attacks the nation, neither side has a right to invade. Though I do agree with you that if a nation is attacked, they have a right to retaliation.

Liberation from oppression can also be justified but that's in the eye of the beholder. Look at WWII and that's the most confusing of situations. Soviets 'liberated' Eastern Europe from Nazi occupation only to be delivered to the perils of communism.

 

[gick]

Liberation from oppression can also be justified but that's in the eye of the beholder. Look at WWII and that's the most confusing of situations. Soviets 'liberated' Eastern Europe from Nazi occupation only to be delivered to the perils of communism.

It was kinda a case of 'either red or dead' for the eastern europeans though. Hitler had plans....

Anyhoo, although IMO 99% of wars are unjustified and/or unnecessary, there are times (eg WWII) when a government is entirely justified in sending its people to fight.

 

[15357]

The fear of invasion is most effective, even more than the fear of oppression.

 

[Razor]

There are lots of reasons that countries invade one another, to gain natural resources, to gain a good defensive position against another aggressor, to spread your religion or way of life, etc.

 

[Ome_Vince]

well, i do believe in pre-emptive strike even though the UN forbids it (if im correct its illegal in UN regulations).
I wouldnt want to sit around waiting for the opponent to mass all his armies at the border, until he's at his full strenght and capable of anihilating me (when all common logic says he will..).

If the Allies did a pre-emptive strike in 1933-1936 WW2 might have been avoided... (they had every reason to, just listen to a few early hitler speeches and his army buildup).
Also, when the Nazi's invaded Holland they massed up thousands of troops at the border while saying: "we wont invade dont worry".. (thats bs statement Nr1)
Kind of like the surrounding Arabic nations when they were massing on Israel 4 times or so..

Today the world and its conflicts are all about "rule-****ing" thats what it is. Its playing around with Geneve and UN rules and regulations, to put the opponent in a bad spotlight UN and media-wise.
Get the opponent to invade first, and he'll go down in history as the official aggressor no matter what you've done.

 

[Raziaar]

War has long in history been a way for a country, or entity to gain land, resources, food, wealth, fame.

Today, we're beyond that, mostly anyways.

 

[bliink]

If it represents the best interests of the people

It doesn't. Thats the truth of the matter.