Haven’t you heard this?
Here are a few opinions we should solicit…
…a black man born into slavery in Virginia in 1845…then ask him again in 1870…
…a jew in Dachau in 1944…then ask him again in 1950…
…a Kuwaiti in 1990…then ask him again in 1995…
…a woman in Afghanistan in 2000…then ask her again in 2003…
Can we agree that the oft batted about slogan, “war never solved anything” is tripe? bunk? baloney?
It certainly is rethorics, just as your pretty meaningless thread is 
The word “rethorics” is what is meaningless. :rolleyes:
Well i am no master of the english language… Was it the meaning or the spelling you referred to?
What i meant was that the OP in combination with the title of the thread seemed more propagandistic than really opening up for a discussion…
I believe the phrase you’re looking for is a “straw man” where a person creates a position which he attributes to his opponent just so he can dispute that position. In this particular case, newcrasher should give a cite to whomever he feels originally said “war solves nothing” in order that we can read what they said.
The word is “rhetoric”. It means “the art of speaking or writing effectively”.
Don’t forget the Carthaginians - war certainly had a role in their fate.
msmith537:
Oh i know the meaning. I just meant this peace of rethoric lacked somewhat in “logos”. Or something like that.
Actually i think the term i was looking for was “straw man”, thanks Little Nemo!
It’s not a straw man. “War solves nothing”, and “Violence never solves anything” are standard phrases used by many opponents of war. Skewing the idea is fair game.
And of course, it’s ridiculous. Wars have solved more big human issues than you can count. The entire political structure of the world is like a collection of remnants of past wars.
I suspect that phrase gained prominence after WWI - a war that truly didn’t solve much.
I have heard people make another claim which is much more accurate - UNFINISHED wars never solve anything. It seems that whenever we have a ‘negotiated’ peace, it just sets up bigger conflict down the road. WWI led to WWII. The Korean war ended in a negotiated cease-fire, and that problem is again rearing its head. Gulf war I ended in a negotiated cease fire, and in the end we required a Gulf War II.
On the other hand, Germany and Japan were smashed and made to unconditionally surrender, and that seems to have very effectively ended those two problems, which had been vexing the free world for fifty years.
Er, skewering the idea. Freudian slip!
Sam Stone:
Since I am new to the term “straw man” I take it to mean what Little Nemo said:
Given this meaning, it still seems to me that the OP could safely be characterized as a straw man?
Personally I don’t hold that position. I would support the notion that “The majority of wars has, historically, created more problems than they solve.” And even “The majority of wars waged by the United States”.
A side point:
In WWII hostilities were started by the axis powers and not by the allies as would be implied by suggesting an analogy with the GW II.
And it can safely be said that WWII didn’t solve any of the problems that Adolf Hitler hoped to solve: It didn’t provide lebensraum to the germans. It didn’t solve the “Jewish problem” once and for all. And so on…
Egads man.
Who said war solves ALL problems? I would suggest that the problems facing Hitler were NOT solved by WW2. Geesh.
When I posted “War solves nothing” I had hoped the more well informed here would recognize it as a catch all for the placards of the protestors covered so copiously in the media. I will try to explain my self better in the future.
Anyway, would you like to address the OP? I realize now I should have writeen it MUCH more plainly, but the gist is, do you or do you not agree that war at times CAN solve problems, and is often the only option available, contrary to the assertion of many in the so-called “peace” movement.
Define your terms. Every war creates problems, from reduced birth rates to diversion of capital into the non-productive military sector to human corpses polluting water supplies. Similarly, every war solves problems, from keeping populations down to the level the agriculture can support, to securing valuable territory, to eliminating a threat.
So your notions are meaningless.
Now, if you mean instead that “the majority of wars left the combatants in a worse position than before the war,” we may have something to discuss. If you mean that “the majority of wars waged by the US left the US in a worse position than before the war,” you are demonstrably incorrect.
Sua
Sua:
I expresssed my belief that in the majority of wars the problems they cause (reduced birthrate, corpses polluting the water supply etc) outweigh the problems they solve (keeping populations down, securing territory, neutralizing dangerous dictators etc).
I didn’t mean that the problems solved and produced should be viewed through some nihilistic, quantitative perspective, if thats what you meant?
So i could certainly agree to “the majority of wars left the combatants, and others effected, in a worse position than before the war”. And that would go for the majority of wars waged by the US, too. And we can discuss that
Sammie:
My position is that “war can solve problems, most often it doesn’t, and very seldomly is war the only option available, and it was not in the particular case of GW II”.
Not directed to anyone specfic
Some wars solve problems, some wars make problems. I dont think you can lump all wars togerther, they are all different.