Quote:
Just because a group of people think they are oppressed doesn't give them the right to bomb innocent civilians. Just thought i'd throw that out there.
Rights really have nothing to do with it. A war abandons every concept of peacetime "rights." I and other people like to make up wartime "rights" as well, but those don't justify wars or allow us to apply those same standards to the enemy; they simply limit the damage that we cause.
My "anti-war stance" is justified insofar as that no stance should ever be "pro-war;" the very existence of the military, and the very potential for it to be a need of society is a stain upon it and cheapens our very existence. We have a military, even according to most people must further to the "right" than I, because we
need one, not because it's good.
Whenever it's used it represents the failure of society and of humanity to respect each other; it is a fundamental breakdown of law and order, because we see fit to temporarily abandon those laws in order to bring them about again in stronger force.
It's only logical, after having realized what military force is, to use it with precision, alacrity, and with as least amount of transgression of the breakdown as possible, in order to effect a peace. Waiting "until it's stabilized" is disrespectful to every single party involved in the war: civilians everywhere, governments, enemy combatants, and especially our own service.
The war in Afghanistan can't "fail" if Obama were to recall every single person from there tomorrow. It has already been a failure since it began, and will continue to be a failure until it is over; all wars are. The only real objective of the use of military (assuming that the participants are conscientious) is to try to
fail the least amount and in the shortest amount of time.
Edited, Dec 7th 2009 12:43pm by Pensive