Reply #335: Oh yeah

[Lithos]

Let's warp history, shall we? War is not something to be glorified in a way which you seem to think. First war has NEVER solved a social situation or problem such as slavery, poverty, terrorism or drugs.

Slavery? Seems the only time war was needed to solve it was when a bunch of proto-fascist Southern state nationalists felt it necessary to start a war to protect their own self-interests. (Sounds pretty Republican-lite to me). Elsewhere in the world, they dealt with the ending of slavery in a peaceful manner. England, Brazil, Europe, the Ottoman Empire, India, China, all ended it not thru war, but thru political means. Even Russia which had serfdom as their form of slavery ended it politically. So, peaceful resolutions, not war solved slavery.

Communism? I take it the Soviet Union went away as a result of military action? Of course not, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe changed not as a result of war or as the Freepers think, Ronnie Rayguns bad-acting, but as the result of a long term degredation of economics. Had it come to a war they would have likely kicked our butt during most of the 50's and 70's. Course you are seeing a rise in the equivalent government again in Russia.

Fascism/Nazism? Yes, they lost wars they started, but look at places where they choose not to initiate a war, Argentina, Spain, most of Latin America. Was it war that drove them out? No. Then again, you've got countries such as Chile whose democratically elected government was overthrown by a Fascistic dictator fully supported by the Democratic United States.

Then again, you could always add Democracy to the list as well. The US lost Vietnam and lost it well before the peace movement had gained any substantial initiative. It Tet was in 1968, the peace movement was not signficant until the early 70's.

No, my friend, winning at war is a matter of will, determination, and economics. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

L-