World War III

So you measure the tragedy of death by the way it affects the living??

Sorry to tell you this, but the tragedy is in the loss of life period...

The dead, are dead, no matter what reason they were fighting, and to quote a line from a movie...

"The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive."

But I guess if your only concern is the people left behind to deal with the loss, then the actual people who died really don't matter...

sad

 

No, the tragedy is in the war itself and why it's fought. Maybe have the ability to see the larger picture, not all deaths are in vain.

Yes, you measure the tragedy of death in war in how it affects the living, a pointless war is just that, pointless. These men and women died for no reason. A just war has purpose for the betterment of all of humanity.

jesus, get over the numbers

 

A 'just' war?

Obviously we have no basis for communication if you think such a thing exists...

 

Not to someone who has lost a loved one.eace:

 

So, those 500,000 from wwII didn't have as many loved ones as the 4000 who died in Iraq??

Thats some good logic there...

 

Actually that is the way you measure it. You are making your determinations about this subject from the numbers of the living.

Sorry to tell you this but death is an ordinary part of the course of life.

You see, they get away with saying things like that because it is a movie, not real life. In real life we have no reports from the dead.

 

Logic has nothing to do with it. A person who has lost a loved one has to deal with their loss. The total numbers that died along with their loved one does not really enter into it. Especially to a child that has lost a parent or vice versa.

 

WW2 wasn't just then? Liberating Kuwait in the first gulf war wasn't "just"? Protecting South Korea? Keeping the union together in the civil war?

The tragedy of the dead in a war is directly correlated to what they died for and what the living gained from it.

 

And each of the people who died in every war was a child and possibly a parent.

But you know what, I am done with conversation. It's just going in a circle and getting nowhere.

The fact that people who claim to value all life equally have argued just the opposite while making all sorts of excuses as to why they are right just demonstrates their hypocrisy.

 

One last response... seems this was posted as I typed the last..

War is not 'just', war is killing.

It's the people who suffer for the policies of their leaders.

"Justice" would be targeting the leaders... which wars do not do... they target the men and women on the ground, both military and civilian...

 

No shit war is killing. You can't fight a war by just killing leaders. Other leaders will take their spot. War is in fact just. I'll be god damned if you find me a WW2 or Korean vet who will say their cause was not just.

 

bingo

 

I don't think I agree with you now Tom.
I was assuming you meant the media and to a greater extent those apposed to the two conflicts were evaluating the rights, the wrongs and the progress or deterioration based on the body count.

News reporter: "Another soldier has died in XXXX, critics are questioning whether we should be there or if we should bring the troops home."

IMHO, you can't make judgments like that on the - comparatively speaking - minuscule amount of people that have died.

Yes, you can run it up into the millions, but you're still playing the No.s game. Is it really running into millions? Really?

Did Churchill say.....er, actually I won't go there.

 

You contradict yourself so badly in this.

 

There are about 155,520 deaths a day in the world normally. Both World wars went on for years, so by your logic daily life over a long enough time is more tragic and upright than any war in the history of man?

Get a grip dude, you're all caught up in details and numbers and statistics (which you then say don't matter for some reason, odd considering they're the whole of your argument) and you're missing the point. There is an ideology behind this that is growing and had a shadow far vaster than any statistics you're brought up.

 

Any loss of life is tragic, but I would have to agree that a million suddenly dying is more sad than one dying.

On the other hand, I see extreme beauty in the cycle of being born, living, and eventually putting your borrowed energy back into the circle of life

 

yes, actually. I don't know who you were talking to but they were right. Death isn't sad for the dead. Death isn't tragic for the dead.

The dead aren't liable to be sad about anything. The only people who are hurt by death are those it has left behind.

And that movie quote was just stupid.

 

I kinda skimmed the last couple pages when I got home from work, but I'm pretty sure I agree with Tom. You do measure the scope of a tragedy in terms of how many people it affects.

Which is why world war was appropriate for world war 2, and not for Iraq. I mean if there were more deaths in Korea, why not call this world war VI? You can still be opposed to it; I'm just saying it's not suitable.

 

Because this spans across the globe. Africa, Asia, Europe, America. This 'war' is fought in all of them in one way or the other. That was my point.

It is not a war in the traditional sense, I never argued that... but in it's way (which is in my opinion a lot more terrifying than large armies clashing on a set battle-field) it is much more dangerous than it's predecessors.

Because it's a war of ideology. A war without form or rules. And a war that can not be won.

 

But world war 2 was a war of ideologies. And even if the scope of the war is geographically consuming, it's not really present.

I mean it doesn't effect many peoples lives in this country even... outside of the countries involved there isn't war. And that's two. And they're separate conflicts, granted that last part applies to WWII.