undefined | Better HN

0 pointsknz9y ago0 comments

I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories.

It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.

0 comments

laumars9y ago

Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict.

I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.

AnimalMuppet9y ago

In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.

chrishacken9y ago

"To date, the U.S. has spent more than $60 billion in reconstruction grants to help Iraq get back on its feet after the country was broken by more than two decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship. That works out to about $15 million a day. And yet Iraq's government is rife with corruption and infighting." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of-60b-from-us-to-rebuild-i...

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse