Good effects of war

tennis_hand

Hall of Fame
Hi,

We don't want war, but war happens. In philosophy, there are 2 sides to everything. So is war. Let's talk about what are the good effects, economically or politically or geographically, that wars in the past have created afterwards.

This thread is not for you to hate war. We all know very well about why we don't want them, and we are not saying we are hoping for war by saying its good effects. But just dig out your knowledge about war and what happened in the history to contribute to this thread. Thanks.
 

Supernatural_Serve

Professional
They often lead to medical advancements.
They often lead to all kinds of technological advances. Wars are always the same, a handful suffer so that others can benefit.

Look at the WWII generation in America. The most entitled, economically advantaged, wealth accumulating, and leisure loving crowd that's ever walked the earth (the ones that weren't killed or maimed in the war).

They all experienced a tremendous windfall offered up by the sacrifice of those that served.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
They often lead to all kinds of technological advances. Wars are always the same, a handful suffer so that others can benefit.

Look at the WWII generation in America. The most entitled, economically advantaged, wealth accumulating, and leisure loving crowd that's ever walked the earth (the ones that weren't killed or maimed in the war).

They all experienced a tremendous windfall offered up by the sacrifice of those that served.

Most would say they earned everything they received. Even the families at home during WWII suffered during the war but prevailed. The world was in a major economic depression prior to WWII. So, thanks to the U.S. and other contributing nations, the world actually prospered economically after WWII, especially Japan and Germany, the two instigators.
 

35ft6

Legend
War is the greatest economic engine known to man if you're lucky enough to benefit. Like say you're Halliburton, and you get no bid contracts where you basically charge the government whatever you want. Overcharging US taxpayers 61 million for gas? Check.

Mercenaries like Blackwater also make out like bandits, getting what amounts to a blank check from the government for services deemed too sensitive for the stupid tax payers funding it to be let in on. Private security officers in Iraq make an average of $500 to $600 a day. Army privates by comparison make about $20,000 a year. So war is good for Blackwater and mercenaries.

An audit revealed that about 9 billion US dollars went missing, is unaccounted for in Iraq. So the crooks who got their hands on our tax payer dollars are also benefiting.

The Iraq war was also good for British and US oil companies, who have unilaterally made deals to make unprecedented profits from the world's 3rd largest oil reserves, oil that before the invasion had been nationalized since 1972, but that's Iraq's fault for having the nerve to be on America's oil. Problem solved. USA and British companies will be given unprecedented royalties, up to 75 percent of all profits until the oil companies themselves decide their initial investment has been sufficiently paid back.

War is also good when a huge army of Jew hating scumbags are threatening to take over much of the Western world. In my opinion, that's when war's effects are at its best, when we're stopping true evil, and most of the world is on our side.
 

ubel

Professional
Advancements in different kinds of stationaries. I love those mickey mouse watermarked papers! :D
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
What's good about war? Well, you can kill your enemies...and many of 'em, if you know what you're doing and possess a great deal of firepower.

Or, as Ghenghis Khan said, war allows you to "...scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters."
 

scez

Semi-Pro
Pretty sure it forces you to use your resources better, or atleast to find better ways to use them (atleast in past wars). Wasnt email invented during WW2 as a way to communicate within the army?
 

richw76

Rookie
We get to furhter infect other cultures with our morality and sensibilities...... oh and McDonalds and CocaCola everywhere.
 

richw76

Rookie
Oh and as long as the war isn't on your soil, it's awesome for the well being of your nation since alot of the working age men go away, so unemployment goes way down. And you have a new THEM to rally against so you don't know how crappy your life is.
 

superman1

Legend
Only when greed is seen as good is there the possibility of good from war.

Plenty of good came from World War II. There are circumstances in which war is necessary, and only a crazy liberal (such as yourself) would think otherwise. I'm liberal, but you're just OUT THERE.
 
The greatest byproduct of war may be the distaste for war. Europe became a land of pacifists after having "hosted" two world wars in the last century, and now seems determined to do nearly anything to try to avoid conflict. Japan has been in no hurry in the last 60 years to remilitarize after two nuclear weapons were detonated on its soil. This nation as well seems poised in the post-Bush years to reconsider its confrontational style of foreign policy. It may be, as noted in "The Godfather" that conflicts are inevitable periodically to "get the bad blood out", as it were. I don't think man has evolved to a condition better than that.
 

croatian sensation

Professional
Hi,



This thread is not for you to hate war. We all know very well about why we don't want them, and we are not saying we are hoping for war by saying its good effects. But just dig out your knowledge about war and what happened in the history to contribute to this thread. Thanks.

And is the thread for people who just saw war on TV?
Just shut it. When you are in 1st grade and u have to run at the siren of an air attack then we'll talk about good effects of war.
And that was in the non occupied territory. Ask kids from Sarajevo how was it to be 1000+ days under occupation. And we won't even mention the genocide.
 

SFrazeur

Legend
Guys, consider understanding that you can hate war, but still be able to recognize the positive things that come from war. It is emotionally blind to refuse to recognize that.

-SF
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
Guys, consider understanding that you can hate war, but still be able to recognize the positive things that come from war. It is emotionally blind to refuse to recognize that.

-SF

Such "positive things" accrue to the "winners"...it all depends on which side of the war you are on. The black Christian tribesman in Southern Sudan, for example, somehow, and despite your "wise" words, is probably unable to recognize the "positive things" that come from the decades-long war that he is a part of.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
Plenty of good came from World War II. There are circumstances in which war is necessary, and only a crazy liberal (such as yourself) would think otherwise. I'm liberal, but you're just OUT THERE.
yup, i wish that slavery was still an issue and that the south had seceded too.
This is simplistic thinking.

I said only when greed is considered good can it be said that war has benefits. This is because every benefit that people have attributed to war, such as scientific progress, could have come about independently of war. Slavery and other examples of racism can be solved without war, and World War II wasn't a good thing. It could have been prevented, and should have been. Greed, in fact, caused WWII. It wasn't just the greed of Germany's ****s, either. The war reparations demanded by England and France allowed the ****s to gain power.

War is fundamentally about greed, and there is nothing good about that.
 

35ft6

Legend
Pretty sure it forces you to use your resources better, or atleast to find better ways to use them (atleast in past wars).
Not Americans. We the civilians aren't really being asked to sacrifice.
Wasnt email invented during WW2 as a way to communicate within the army?
If you're talking about communicating using electricity, telegraphs existed way before WW2.

But, no, pretty sure email as we know it today wasn't invented during WW2 unless you're talking about a kind of electronic mail that doesn't rely on the internet. Like a telegraph.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
Not Americans. We the civilians aren't really being asked to sacrifice.

No, we aren't, but we should be. During WWII, civilians lived in a world of rationing, air raid alerts, lights darkened, and a world of uncertainty. In the middle of it all, we became the greatest industrial nation in history, thanks in large part to Rosie the Riveter.

Now we depend on a very small number of citiznes to do the dirty work while the rest of us marvel at the "E" channel news, the latest movies, iPhones and worry about our backhands and if the league team captain is doing the proper line-up. To me, this is a problem that will come back to haunt the U.S. in the near future. The U.S. doesn't go to war, the volunteer army does. For the rest of the country, it's business as usual.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
We are sacrificing. People just don't realize it. The national debt is expanding. Our infrastructure (including education), that could have been improved with the trillion dumped into the Middle East, remains stagnant. The high standard of living Americans have enjoyed for so long is being eroded with personal debt, government debt, stagnant wages, unchecked immigration, outsourcing, rising health care costs, increasing workloads, and so forth.

The money that's been poured into Iraq and Afghanistan isn't being paid back in full as tax revenue by the companies that benefit.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
We are sacrificing. People just don't realize it. The national debt is expanding. Our infrastructure (including education), that could have been improved with the trillion dumped into the Middle East, remains stagnant. The high standard of living Americans have enjoyed for so long is being eroded with personal debt, government debt, stagnant wages, unchecked immigration, outsourcing, rising health care costs, increasing workloads, and so forth.

The money that's been poured into Iraq and Afghanistan isn't being paid back in full as tax revenue by the companies that benefit.

I don't think there is any comparison to what you describe and what the average military person is sacraficing in Iraq and Afganistan and the other area that support this "war". We could be suffering the national debt crisis without any military involvement. We all owe that to our elected politicians of both parties. We owe a hellava lot more to the men and womem uniform who are, for the most part, forgotten during our little debates here in peacetime America. If there is any doubt, it should be removed with a trip to the mall, movie theater, restaurant or sporting event.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
I don't think there is any comparison to what you describe and what the average military person is sacraficing in Iraq and Afganistan and the other area that support this "war".
We have a volunteer military. There is no draft. The people over there have chosen to be there. And, those people, when they return, will suffer from the problems we're facing, too. The real responsibility, though, rests with the Bush administration, the members of Congress that voted for the Iraq debacle, and the members of the media that enabled the administration.
We could be suffering the national debt crisis without any military involvement.
The trillion spent in the Middle East matters.
We owe a hellava lot more to the men and womem uniform who are, for the most part, forgotten during our little debates here in peacetime America. If there is any doubt, it should be removed with a trip to the mall, movie theater, restaurant or sporting event.
If people believe the situation in Iraq should change, then what we owe everyone, not just members of the volunteer military, is to do something. But, I will not be blamed for the situation, because I didn't vote for Bush and didn't support the Iraq plan. I spoke out even when the mainstream media was still playing Bush's game by pretending there was a debate when it fact the operation was already beginning and the decision had been made some time before. My words accomplished nothing. Cindy Sheehan did more, and she's been ridiculed for it.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
We have a volunteer military. There is no draft. The people over there have chosen to be there. And, those people, when they return, will suffer from the problems we're facing, too. The real responsibility, though, rests with the Bush administration, the members of Congress that voted for the Iraq debacle, and the members of the media that enabled the administration.

The trillion spent in the Middle East matters.

If people believe the situation in Iraq should change, then what we owe everyone, not just members of the volunteer military, is to do something. But, I will not be blamed for the situation, because I didn't vote for Bush and didn't support the Iraq plan. I spoke out even when the mainstream media was still playing Bush's game by pretending there was a debate when it fact the operation was already beginning and the decision had been made some time before. My words accomplished nothing. Cindy Sheehan did more, and she's been ridiculed for it.

I am all for every physically and mentally cable citizen serving their country for two years at age 19 in some capacity. Such service would certainly have broadened your horizons. And it matters not who you voted for, you owe those serving a debt of gratitude.
 

35ft6

Legend
I am all for every physically and mentally cable citizen serving their country for two years at age 19 in some capacity. Such service would certainly have broadened your horizons. And it matters not who you voted for, you owe those serving a debt of gratitude.
I appreciate cops, fire fighters, and soldiers, but the way we worship these professions have taken on moronic levels in the states.

But I will say that soldiers, especially ones who were injured in Iraq, should get the finest medical care possible. In general, soldiers and their families deserve better treatment by our government. I wonder how Bush feels about that?
Bush administration announced its formal opposition to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system, jeopardizing the plan's future and angering supporters. A recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance.�

The President made these comments on the same day that his Administration announced it was cutting off access to its health care system for approximately 164,000 veterans. The Administration also is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports �hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors.�
But don't worry, Halliburton is being well paid.
 
Last edited:

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
This is simplistic thinking.

I said only when greed is considered good can it be said that war has benefits. This is because every benefit that people have attributed to war, such as scientific progress, could have come about independently of war. Slavery and other examples of racism can be solved without war, and World War II wasn't a good thing. It could have been prevented, and should have been. Greed, in fact, caused WWII. It wasn't just the greed of Germany's ****s, either. The war reparations demanded by England and France allowed the ****s to gain power.

War is fundamentally about greed, and there is nothing good about that.
So the defeat of totalitarian regimes that threatened to engulf the globe was not a good thing?
I think you have trouble distinguishing between things that shouldn't have happened and things that definitely did happen. Like the rise of totalitarianism before WWII. Or should we have just let it happen because war is bad?

Everything you listed that "shouldn't have happened" or "could have" been prevented or "should have" been avoided somehow doesn't change the facts.
Acknowledging something good that comes out of something bad isn't an endorsement of that thing. It's an acknowledgement of reality. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
And is the thread for people who just saw war on TV?
Just shut it. When you are in 1st grade and u have to run at the siren of an air attack then we'll talk about good effects of war.
And that was in the non occupied territory. Ask kids from Sarajevo how was it to be 1000+ days under occupation. And we won't even mention the genocide.
Okay. I'll talk to the kids from Sarajevo about their feelings on war when you talk to the survivors of Dachau,Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau, ect. and ask them if they approved of the war that liberated them from the death camps.

Something tells me you'll find that even wars can produce some good things.
You just have to think about it for a moment.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
I appreciate cops, fire fighters, and soldiers, but the way we worship these professions have taken on moronic levels in the states.

If we are gonna worship any profession, those would be choices. Maybe throw in a few teachers. But the recipient of most of the worship goes to the almost thugs of the NBA and NFL.
 
Last edited:

alan-n

Professional
Curious why anyone who would want to volunteer TO BE IN Iraq chose the traditional way when today it is more profitable ($400-600 per day) to join a security firm and not be subject to any rules of engagement or civilian casualty or be the subject of media scrutiny.

Private security companies have a blank check, no enforce rules of conduct, little media scrutiny, and their casualties aren't all reported.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
Curious why anyone who would want to volunteer TO BE IN Iraq chose the traditional way when today it is more profitable ($400-600 per day) to join a security firm and not be subject to any rules of engagement or civilian casualty or be the subject of media scrutiny.

Private security companies have a blank check, no enforce rules of conduct, little media scrutiny, and their casualties aren't all reported.

Surely you know the answer to your question.
 

alan-n

Professional
Surely you know the answer to your question.

Besides the usual unemployed that has to do something for a living, hey its a fact that a "volunteer" army typically means that the middle to lower income of society are the ones standing on the front lines. I'm more curious as to WHY they would WANT to reenlist knowing they are going to be stationed in Iraq when they could make 4x the amount of money with a privatized army or the BlackWater USAs of the world.. who are subject to practically no scrutiny and can do practically whatever the hell they want.
 

tennis-n-sc

Professional
Besides the usual unemployed that has to do something for a living, hey its a fact that a "volunteer" army typically means that the middle to lower income of society are the ones standing on the front lines. I'm more curious as to WHY they would WANT to reenlist knowing they are going to be stationed in Iraq when they could make 4x the amount of money with a privatized army or the BlackWater USAs of the world.. who are subject to practically no scrutiny and can do practically whatever the hell they want.

It is pretty obvious from your comments that you are not knowledgeable of today's military. And if you honestly do not know why they volunteer or re-enlist, nothing I can say could explain their motives.
 

alan-n

Professional
It is pretty obvious from your comments that you are not knowledgeable of today's military. And if you honestly do not know why they volunteer or re-enlist, nothing I can say could explain their motives.

No really if someone would break down the demographics and what social income class of those joining the military. I wouldn't be surprised to see those of the upper income out of harms way and those of the lower income on the front lines, the positions would scale along very closely.

Peacetime enlistments on the other hand, leave that out of the equation.
 

lethalfang

Professional
Two good things that can come out of a war: unification of a nation and independence of a nation, depending on who wins and who loses.
 

alan-n

Professional
Two good things that can come out of a war: unification of a nation and independence of a nation, depending on who wins and who loses.
Well we already know how the Bush administration will try to twist what that means. History has proven that independence meant that the occupying or invading military was defeated. As for unification, that doesn't always matter.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
So the defeat of totalitarian regimes that threatened to engulf the globe was not a good thing?
I think you have trouble distinguishing between things that shouldn't have happened and things that definitely did happen. Like the rise of totalitarianism before WWII. Or should we have just let it happen because war is bad?
The ****s' warlike behavior was one of their worst attributes. And, the ****s would not have been able to come to power if greed hadn't enabled them. The British and French demanded war reparations that Germany couldn't pay—the economy was in no condition to be able to do so. When the public felt the sitting government was caving, the ****s were able to make a strong case for regime change.

Greed caused ****sm. Greed enabled the ****s to take power. The carpet bombing of German cities and the nuking of two Japanese cities are hardly examples of good things coming from war.

Diplomacy should have prevented WWII. It's truly absurd that another war happened after WWI — "the war to end all wars".

Everything you listed that "shouldn't have happened" or "could have" been prevented or "should have" been avoided somehow doesn't change the facts.
It doesn't change the fact that war isn't a good thing, yes.
Acknowledging something good that comes out of something bad isn't an endorsement of that thing. It's an acknowledgement of reality. Nothing more.
Everything that is good can come about independently of war. War itself is not good. There is a difference between war and defense, a crucial difference that most ignore, a difference that's obscured by the perverse "pre-emptive doctrine" of people like the neocons. It's too easy to let greed flow through "defense". It's easy to use "war" to try to justify it.

Everyone has the right to live, and everyone has the right to basic necessities. What people don't have the right to do is kill for greed.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
Well we already know how the Bush administration will try to twist what that means. History has proven that independence meant that the occupying or invading military was defeated. As for unification, that doesn't always matter.
One of the justifications I often hear for the nuking of two Japanese cities is that the Japanese, including civilians, were so unified that it was scary. How's that for ironic?

I guess abusing weapons of mass destruction is groovy for getting rid of unification when that unification threatens your bucks?
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
The ****s' warlike behavior was one of their worst attributes. And, the ****s would not have been able to come to power if greed hadn't enabled them. The British and French demanded war reparations that Germany couldn't pay—the economy was in no condition to be able to do so. When the public felt the sitting government was caving, the ****s were able to make a strong case for regime change.

Greed caused ****sm. Greed enabled the ****s to take power. The carpet bombing of German cities and the nuking of two Japanese cities are hardly examples of good things coming from war.

Diplomacy should have prevented WWII. It's truly absurd that another war happened after WWI — "the war to end all wars".
It doesn't change the fact that war isn't a good thing, yes.
No one will ever be able to accuse you of over thinking an issue, will they?
It's incredibly foolish to look back and see the history you think should have been, rather than the events that really happened in the real world. Some people would even call that stupidity.
If you don't think it was a good thing that fascism and totalitarianism were stopped and literally millions of lives saved by fighting WWII then you stand in favor of the death camps and the ovens and the mass graves.
So that is what you are advocating. Nothing good has ever come out of war?
Not even ending the death camps? What a moral degenerate you are. The ultimate irony of your position is that it promotes what you claim to be against.
I can't call you intellectually dishonest because I honestly don't think you are smart enough to see what a load your postion is.
I can definitely call you a very,very second rate intellect,though.



Everything that is good can come about independently of war.
Wrong. Opposing evil sometimes can only be acheived through war, as abhorent as it is.

War itself is not good. There is a difference between war and defense,
Tell that to the family members that lost loved ones in the ovens during WWII. Their only defense was the war that liberated them. What utter nonsense! What a tool!

Everyone has the right to live, and everyone has the right to basic necessities. What people don't have the right to do is kill for greed.
What a steamy load of crap! What self rightous blather. You wouldn't stand up for the right to defend the very lives of the defenseless,because it's "bad", yet you claim everyone has the right to live.
It's hard for me not to feel anger reading your stupid words because people like you put everyone in danger because you refuse to confront evil.
Sometimes war is the only thing that can stop true evil. If that isn't good then you tell me what is.
 
Last edited:

Phil

Hall of Fame
One of the justifications I often hear for the nuking of two Japanese cities is that the Japanese, including civilians, were so unified that it was scary. How's that for ironic?

I guess abusing weapons of mass destruction is groovy for getting rid of unification when that unification threatens your bucks?

Can you explain what role "bucks" had in the use of atomic weapons on Japan?

I didn't think you could.
 

superstition

Hall of Fame
Can you explain what role "bucks" had in the use of atomic weapons on Japan?

I didn't think you could.
I suppose the USA didn't have an economic interest in post-war Japan, and certainly wasn't involved in the country?

The Axis powers threatened the US' economy. That's about bucks. Plus, the opportunity to have influence over the reconstruction of Japan was about bucks. Germany's **** party came to power because of bucks (war reparations).

Why did we have a war with Vietnam, Phil?

The history of our involvement in world wars comes down to bucks. Before it became clear that there was an economic threat, there was the "War in Europe", not a world war. I believe that was WWI. Wilson developed a public informants campaign with posters that said any citizen who hears someone criticize his (Wilson's) decision to enter the war should inform the government and receive a reward. He also jailed newspaper owners for printing articles that were anything less than propagandistic regarding the war involvement. WWII also was a "War in Europe", I think, until we were attacked and it was clear that there would be an economic problem with isolationism, again.

As for good things supposedly coming from war, what caused the Dark Ages? The burning of the Library of Alexandria destroyed how much cultural richness and knowledge? The fall of Rome obliterated how much technology? Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier during war while he was working on some of his most groundbreaking work and his texts were lost.

War is a destructive activity, not a constructive one.
 
Last edited:

Phil

Hall of Fame
I suppose the USA didn't have an economic interest in post-war Japan, and certainly wasn't involved in the country?

The Axis powers threatened the US' economy. That's about bucks. Plus, the opportunity to have influence over the reconstruction of Japan was about bucks. Germany's **** party came to power because of bucks (war reparations).

Why did we have a war with Vietnam, Phil?

The history of our involvement in world wars comes down to bucks. Before it became clear that there was an economic threat, there was the "War in Europe", not a world war. I believe that was WWI. Wilson developed a public informants campaign with posters that said any citizen who hears someone criticize his (Wilson's) decision to enter the war should inform the government and receive a reward. He also jailed newspaper owners for printing articles that were anything less than propagandistic regarding the war involvement. WWII also was a "War in Europe", I think, until we were attacked and it was clear that there would be an economic problem with isolationism, again.

As for good things supposedly coming from war, what caused the Dark Ages? The burning of the Library of Alexandria destroyed how much cultural richness and knowledge? The fall of Rome obliterated how much technology? Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier during war while he was working on some of his most groundbreaking work and his texts were lost.

War is a destructive activity, not a constructive one.

I don't recall anyone mentioning Vietnam, or WW I, so why bring it up to answer my question about JAPAN? Apples and oranges, at the very least.

And of course war is a destructive activity. Tell me something I don't know, please. In the modern sense, someone will make money from a war, even the "good" wars, like WW II, but economic gain was not the primary REASON for WW II and I don't see a way that that war could have been avoided. Do you? The USA, of course, came out quite well economically following the war...but even in a "righteous" war, to the victor go the spoils.

A short history lesson for you: Japan attacked the USA, and Germany declared war on the US the next day, as per its treaty w/Japan. A country goes to war, if capable, if it is ATTACKED. Do you not agree with that? Immediately after Pearl Harbor, the USA's primary concern was not "taking part in Japan's reconstruction"; it was in defending the country against Japan's incursions in the Pacific. Japan was sent terms for surrender six weeks before the first Bomb was dropped on it. Those terms were ignored.

Actually, I could school you on this subject, but what's the point...you've got it in your little mind this paradigm of war that applies to each and every situation in history...and you fit that little paradign to each and every historical instance of war...even if you have to twist and manipulate (or just plain ignore) the facts. To say that Hit-ler came to power because of war reparations is a very simplistic view of how he came to power.

If a country is attacked, it has the right to defend itself. Would you not agree with that? WW II was such an instance. The allied leaders wisely decided that there was no option other than unconditional surrender for the Japanese (who murdered 10 to 15 million Asian people) and the Germans (who killed approximately two to three times that many people in Europe). Should we have stood by while this happened and allowed the Axis powers to march to victory? Many people, like you, actually DID advocate appeasement. Fortunately, those who chose to fight to the end prevailed over the cowards.

Maybe your views on this stem from the fact that you never "fought back" when attacked. It wouldn't surprise me that you're trying to make-up for that now.
 
Top