Has the world become too soft.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If we all wanted to be equal, then we should have embraced communism.

Really, Denoir. You are obviously very intelligent, so how can you say that communism is a way to create equality? You can't just go with political theory, you have to remember that human nature kills communism.

Quote[/b] ]another thing i might throw in is that people became expecting less casualty since we now have those reasonably precise and deadly weapons. With technology available, people want to beleive that a missile fired hundreds of miles away still can hit enemy without incurring loss on our side. of course it goes the other way too, and people tend to forget that.

Many people seem to believe that we can win wars by pounding our enemy with cruise missiles, so they're shocked at the concept of infantry.

[killagee 0]

Every hour, an average of 5000 children under the age of FIVE die of starvation. Mostly in countries where excess produce from subsidised western countries is cheaper to buy than local product, sending local producers broke and starving.

Terrorists dont always have guns and bombs. Sometimes they have banks and armoured limo's and have been democratically elected by the 'will" of the people...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

See? We's jes tryin to keep teh world "homogenous"     .

Yes if everybody would embrace American culture, tradition and organization of society, the world would be a much more stable place. Stability is however not the only important thing in the world.

If we all wanted to be equal, then we should have embraced communism.  

Not realy. What is wrong about a homogenous world? In the end it is the only logical consequence. It is sad for the disapearance of cultural diversities but in the end mixing the gene-pool selektively (to speak in genetical terms) is a good thing. With the amount of cultures you find on planet earth everyone has a good choice of which elements to adapt from this or that culture. You pretend that homogenitiy (spelling?) excludes selection.

Quite frankly I think it is a pitty that my language is more and more substituted with less attractive but more simply english terms, but hell I dont want to wear bavarian leathers pants and prefer the english "no brown shoes after six" and the italian Toscana style instead.  

Oh and before I forget: the panama hat is not from panama! (just like the "100year war" wasnt 100 years long)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I'd say that as far as societal ills go, an increased sensitivity towards human life doesn't exactly make the top 100.

[dm 9]

...even though they are soldiers, they are still human beings with families and loved ones who have no choice about whether to serve or not...

If I recall correctly, the US Army is NOT a conscript Army, which makes them all voulenteers, hence they made the choice to serve...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Not to say that long term peace is an impossibility. You can take my country as an example. Sweden has had peace for about 200 years now. In the period of thousand years before that, the longest we had peace was about five years in a row.

The prequisites for peace are as I see it:

1) A homogenous population

2) No territorial disputes

3) No imperialistic/expansionist ambitions

4) Little or no nationalism.

As we're going to a more homogenous global society where business is multinational and people move freely across borders, I think that the world is slowly getting there too. At least the western world, but the rest don't really have a choice.

What exactly do you mean by 'homogeneous' population?

[Guest]

I think the age of Bismark's Makpolitik really defined the "traditional" war were thousands of soldiers came home in boxes... This was seen as "healthy" for the growth of a country, and led to WWI... Then, after Europe lost 20% of its young men, things changed. You can see how reluctant the allied powers then became when Hitler rose to power.

As everyone has already said, this is a good thing, because wars are not "healthy" exercises. And it also helps to debunk the myth that, since WWII ressurected the American economy, war is good for the economy. Its just plain bad for everyone (except the media)...

[denoir 0]

Not to say that long term peace is an impossibility. You can take my country as an example. Sweden has had peace for about 200 years now. In the period of thousand years before that, the longest we had peace was about five years in a row.

The prequisites for peace are as I see it:

1) A homogenous population

2) No territorial disputes

3) No imperialistic/expansionist ambitions

4) Little or no nationalism.

As we're going to a more homogenous global society where business is multinational and people move freely across borders, I think that the world is slowly getting there too. At least the western world, but the rest don't really have a choice.

What exactly do you mean by 'homogeneous' population?

That the people share a common culture and political beliefs. That makes it very unlikely for the society to get into internal conflicts and by that also avoiding external powers getting involved.

[bn880 5]

(except the media)...

Depends on who's "side" they are on.

[Blake 0]

200,000 died in the Bosnian civil war and nobody did nothing about it for years, so I would not say that world has gone softer even if wars take place on Europe's doorsteps.

And thinking about US losses in Iraq it certainly dwarfs Somalian skirmish which was a big deal before current conflict. Nobody would be surprised if it would be a tally for a single day or a week in Iraq. So people get 'hard-skinned' after mounting losses are churned out and the novelty value loses signifigance.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Capt. Frostbite, who exactly do you classify as a terrorist?

An example of the abuse of this term was on a recent 60 Minutes show where they were in Iraq investigating an incident in which a child and several adults were killed in front of a Jordanian hospital by US soldiers as the truck there were in was shot up.  The difference in the stories by troops vs. what the Iraqis said was amazing.  Even some of the soldiers they interviewed sided with the Iraqi telling of the story because at least one of the soldiers knew the family of the slain boy whos elder brother and father were also killed.  They found a missing son in the attack at a US Army hospital and took his mother to see him.  This family had absolutely no reason to attack US soldiers as their family supporters of the Americans there and numerous witnesses confirmed that the actual attackers were in an another vehicle and that they just happened to be the closest vehicle to shoot at during the shooting frenzy.  

Yet... the US military released a statement saying that this family whos members were killed were terrorist attackers who were thwarted.  

So don't believe everything you hear on the news when they say that terrorists were killed.

In fact actually, Iraqis who specifically target US soldiers and who take care to minimize civilian casualties are NOT terrorists technically.  If they are focusing their attacks on enemy soldiers then they are guerilla soldiers not terrorists.

However as for ACTUAL terrorists, yes I hope they kill more of them.  Sadly however that's seldom the case.  Usually its some innocent person that ends up getting killed or imprisoned unjustly.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

sorry for this late reply, but I'm quite bussy these days.

A terrorst I see it;(all points together)

A person who is NOT an official soldier of the country who he is fighting for or an ally soldier of that nation. He attacks in civel cloths an can not be recognized as a soldier of that nation. (this is forbidden by the geneva covention). Such a person is called a rebel or something like that.

If this guy also starts blowing things up with the intention to hurt/kill civialians or has no problem if this happens as a side effect while attacking enemy soldiers, he is a terrorist.

The fedayeen fighters (if they still excist) who attack the US soldiers, are not torrorists. Although they do blow up civilians according to the US. They are official soldiers and can only be blamed for not following the rules of war.

It sounds strange; "rules of war", but there are actually more rules than most think. War is brutal, but at the same time we act as gentlemen.