MovieChat Forums > The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006) Discussion > What is the alternative to war?

What is the alternative to war?

posted 18 years ago by Meek2k
28 replies | jump to latest

All,

please help me answer some of these questions for a class of mine. I would appreciate intelligent points of view argued from both sides. If you can, please refrain from name calling. If you can't then I understand. If you would like to be cited please say so and I'll use your IMDB username. Thank you in advance for your input. Answer which ever question or questions you'd like. Also, if you'd like to pose a different question with an answer that would be great as well.

1. Should America simply stay out of all other countries affairs?

2. Does America need to be the so called "World's Police"?

3. If oil is a big part of the war, why is that bad for America?

4. Was the U.S. justified in entering WWII and why or why not?

5. Was the U.S. justified in entering Vietnam and why or why not?

6. Was the U.S. justified in entering the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and why or why not?

[–] bruce-129 17 years ago

1. Should America simply stay out of all other countries affairs?
No .... the world is all about this link .... check it out:
http://www.transparency.org/content/download/10672/91340/version/1/file/elmundo_cpi_y-or-re.pdf
This is what the US is all about, reducing corruption in the world,
and to the extent that we are the World Police we try to do that.
Since we are so open, it also means that corrupt countries
focus their money and attention here to sway us. That is why
we are not the least corrupt country in the world. We are
not perfect, but this is what I think we are trying to do,
or should be doing with other countries.

2. Does America need to be the so called "World's Police"?
Yes, we have the largest military, and a history of
not being imperialistic and helping the world.

3. If oil is a big part of the war, why is that bad for America?
Oil is about stability for the world economy, see 1 above.

4. Was the U.S. justified in entering WWII and why or why not?
Of course.

5. Was the U.S. justified in entering Vietnam and why or why not?
No. There has to be a lot about how and why that happened that is
still not open to the public.

6. Was the U.S. justified in entering the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and why or why not?
Yes, we were justified, we have just not been as competant as we should be.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emialternative 17 years ago

since when was the U.S. looked at as not imperialistic? i mean, there was the open door with china, that part in time where we declared that we would NOT annex cuba, but then forced them to submit to our plan for their nation and their economy, the Phillippines (sp?), for a few examples. oh and the Roosevelt Corallary.... yeah, we're protectors alright, of our own interests.

[–] bruce-129 17 years ago

>> yeah, we're protectors alright, of our own interests.

Look up empire in a dictionary or encyclopedia, the US does not really fit
the classical description. But if you want to refer to the US as an empire
I know what you mean. I think hegemony is a better term, or the leader
in a certain world order.

The parallels to Rome are there, but if you think about it, Rome had its
good points as well as its bad points. Think of the Pax Romana where peace
and stability ruled the land for about a thousand years, and when it fell
there were the Dark Ages ... for what, about 500 years? What a thrill that
must have been to live in.

What surviving entity, biological, social, poltical or otherwise survives
by NOT looking after its own interests. The US has mostly taken other
countries interests into account in world issues. The Phillipines has
not faired that great on its own, maybe they would have done better under
the frickin' Japanese, ya think? Or Cuba under the Russians? I think
Cuba should have the embargo lifted, and I imagine it is only because
of uncertainty about Castro having a role in killing Kennedy that it will
not be lifted until he is dead.

Every nation has done bad things, no nation is perfect. The US has done
good and is a force for good if people would assist. You know this whole
Iraq thing would have been avoidable if the world had rallied around the
US and demanded that Saddam yeild to the nuclear inspectors, yes or no?

This was orchestrated, sure, but not all by the US. America is full of
businessmen ... and they are of all ethnicities and religions too, as it
our country and our government, that is one good thing, and you do not see
us blowing each other up every day either do you?

[–] SourGreenapple42 17 years ago

1. Should America simply stay out of all other countries affairs?

Yes. It seems whenever we get involved with other people's conflicts, we've never made anything better. Unfortunately, we don't do it "because we care about other countries", but because somehow it might threaten us economically, or it is somehow an indirect threat.

2. Does America need to be the so called "World's Police"?

No. Fighting only brings more trouble for us. Instead, we should try to peacefully and cooperatively make efforts to resolve things between nations. Not enough efforts are made towards avoiding war it seems. If someone really needs are help to the extreeme, we can always donate supplies and food. We don't need our soldiers getting hurt though.

3. If oil is a big part of the war, why is that bad for America?

Because we could take aggression to countries that we have disagreements with the production of oil and such.

4. Was the U.S. justified in entering WWII and why or why not?

Though I'm for the most part anti-war, I'll say yes. We were attacked first, and to be honest, I wouldn't want Nazis, Mussolini or the japenese (at that time) to take over the world.

5. Was the U.S. justified in entering Vietnam and why or why not?

Absolutely not. Probaly one of the biggest mistakes in U.S history. We drafted innocent people and fought in a war that was unwinnable. Millions of our soldiers died, and to make it worst, a lot of them had no choice but to fight because of the draft. And when we exited, nothing had been accomplished except the fact we got out.

6. Was the U.S. justified in entering the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and why or why not?

1st one: I don't know much about it. It's usually not a very discussed war. There probaly could've been alternate ways, but I'm not sure.
2nd one: Nope. See my answers to 1 and 2.

"It was definitly some puerto rican guy alright".-OJ Simpson, South Park

[–] bruce-129 17 years ago

Sourgreen ... you have all the answers all squared away, but as soon as
you start to analyze them you have contradiction.

You say we should have entered WWII, because we were attacked. But you
throw out almost all other armed conflict as being worse than doing
nothing.

Posit this ... let's say the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor. Their
admirals advised against this because they knew they could not take on the
US in the long run ... and when you think about it, we won WWII very
quickly because of such a huge miscalculation on Japan's part.

Likewise Germany, if it had not double crossed Russia and wasted their
army in the Russian winter would not have been so easy to defeat.

The sensible thing would have been to attack or to help attack Germany
before it had started to arm itself. It was breaking the treaty it had
signed after WWI not to have an army, but no one did anything.

Now you see Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, etc are all dangers to us.
Not because they attack their neighbors but because a belligerent and
successful country always wants more. The exception to his has been
the US who did not use its nuclear advantage to take over territory, we
instead took in - in a tacit way being the World's policeman, because
we were the strongest.

Looking at Iraq or Iran now, we can premptively understand them as a threat
that will upset the world, probably more people now than during WWII, and
handle it now at a relatively low level, or we can pretend that a country
can be a pacifist, or that there is no difference between pacifist and
civilization.

Look at the way countries behave and you can see that the US though not
perfect has had a positive effect on world peace and prosperity.

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 17 years ago

What is the alternative to war?

It's simple. Peace!

[–] godric34 17 years ago

Peace is only possible when everyone wants it, and I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.

Anyway, thanks to all the posters who answered the questions, I learned quite a bit from your posts.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ayla63 17 years ago

I would just like the opportunity to answer your original question -
"What is the alternative to war?"
That got me really thinking about an answer - it was an easy answer, peace, of course. Ah, but how do we get it? That was much harder to answer. This brought me back to the original question again, then I asked myself, what is the alternative to peace? War, of course, now this answer is much easier to achieve, right?
Now I am wondering why is it that people/countries find it much easier to achieve war/killing than to achieve peace/harmony - I mean, I thought majority of people would love to live in peace - so why not just do it? I guess that would be the $64,000. question.

[–] SimplySteve 17 years ago

".....I mean, I thought majority of people would love to live in peace - so why not just do it? I guess that would be the $64,000. question."

It's a sad, but simple answer. There is evil in the world. Evil with a capitol E. They will NEVER STOP attacking the innocent. Scary, and sad.

[–] nawe_dm21 13 years ago

it's easy, it's not people who finds it much easier to go to war, it's countries that they do. It's so much easy to punch a kid an stole his candy than convince him to give it peacefully.

[–] teddybear_the_first 17 years ago

1. Should America simply stay out of all other countries affairs?

Yes unless Invited in! This first and foremost is the bases of most of my other answers America has become the bully of the playground when it should be the friend. There is no reason for it to be throwing its weight around like it does. If you want some further proof in the years after independance America created a manifest/document/treaty call it what you will and its basic purpose was to state you will not interfere in other countries affairs unless invited you will not invade other countries, the whole reason this was created was to put at ease Americas fears of invasion and the surrounding Countries fears of invasion/Hostilities. This was created while America was still lacking in the power but as soon as America had some power guess what gets ignored in favour of some weight throwing.

2. Does America need to be the so called "World's Police"?

No we have other organisations that are dedicated to this purpose and are being gimped because America is throwing its weight around to little effect.

3. If oil is a big part of the war, why is that bad for America?

Because it is bad for business thats why.

4. Was the U.S. justified in entering WWII and why or why not?

Yes and if you ask me you should have entered sooner if you had entered sooner the war would have ended sooner Hitler realised the power of America at the time that was why American Interests were not attacked earlier.

5. Was the U.S. justified in entering Vietnam and why or why not?

Yes you were asked to help South Vietnam and that is what it started off as yes it did get nastier further on down the track but you were originally invited to help.

6. Was the U.S. justified in entering the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and why or why not?

Not entering into this one because it is too recent in history and I do not have any contextual knowledge of it.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but it is my opinion.

[–] mmckinnon99 17 years ago

Just want to clear up some historical fallacies some of you folks seem to have. There is no issue as to how or why the US entered WWII. Its simple: The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, so we declared war on them (their diplomats were late in doing so). NOW - Hitler declared war on the United States... He needed a second front for Russia, and thought that if he declared war on the US, the Japanese would declare war on Russia and start a second front in the east. Having been pummeled by Russian troops during battles in the previous years, the Japanese wanted no part of a land war against Russia. There, now the US is in WWII against both Axis majors.
The US did not enter the European theater 'to gain allies with the British'. No, in fact we had been supplying the British and Russians with massive amounts of ordinance for years. ('Lend-lease'..ahem). American and British colonial and idealogical goals have always been similar. There has always been a 'special relationship'.
The real question, then, is did FDR choose sides before Pearl Harbor. Did he secretly want us to be involved in WWII, despite what he said. We were basically on a wartime production before pearl harbor. Troops were drafted and trained. Capital naval ships were in production. Plus, Lend-lease. I would say yes, FDR wanted to enter WWII on the side of the allies. That is not saying he knew and let happen Pearl Harbor. That is another argument. This is all my opinion of course.

In fact, I would argue from an isolationist point of view, that the US was never seriously threatened by Fascist Germany. Had they taken all of Europa, they could still never send a combat effective force into the United States. They would never get a Navy and Army, with no land-based air support, anywhere near the US. The US has not actually been threatened since Maximillian. Nevertheless, all things coming to light, I have to agree that we did the right thing in WWII Europe. Even if we weren't ever threatened. Just too much evil.

Vietnam is a storm of opinions. In hind sight, it looks like a dreadful choice. I would agree. However, at the time, the 'Red Menace' was all the rage, and a US- Soviet war seemed ineveitable. Rationally, I cant get TOO upset about this, just leave my peace loving ways aside, and realize it was just a bad decision from a paranoid government and populace (hind-sight mind you~).

Gulf wars? I think not. I'm proud to be an American (err in theory), but would never condone this crap. I would NEVER join the military unless the actual US was under attack. THAT is serving your country. Serving in the military during offensive manuevers is serving someone's personal/private/political agenda. My pacifism precludes me from ever ever taking part in that.

Gulf war I: well, seeing as how the US gained nothing from it personally, I'll have to chalk it up as mis-placed humanism. Although thats hard for me to swallow. George HW Bush at least knew enough to keep Saddam Hussein in power, and keep that region stabilized in an artificially created nation. Only a secular tyrant could keep that artificially created 'nation' in one peace. Nothing more needs to be said here.

P.S. sorry for changing from facts to my own diatribes half-way through. But hey, I'm entitled to bitch like everyone else ~

[–] HHoffman-2 17 years ago

I don't claim to possess a great deal of knowledge about this, but I will state my opinions as they are currently.

1. Should America simply stay out of all other countries affairs?

Absolutely not. Should we attempt to settle things peacefully? Of course. Should we be wishy-washy and become apathetic just because people disapprove of our convictions when in times of war? No. War is justified under the right circumstances. Defending our country and other nations from oppression is an honorable thing.

2. Does America need to be the so called "World's Police"?

No. Governments should be capable of taking care of themselves, but I do believe that the United States should be willing to help those who seek aid, be it through diplomacy or (if necessary) force.

3. If oil is a big part of the war, why is that bad for America?

Because the value of oil is nothing compared to the value of a human life. That being said, I don't think this war was motivated primarily by oil, though I do think it played some part.

4. Was the U.S. justified in entering WWII and why or why not?

Yes. We were attacked by Japan and the Axis powers were threatening the free world's way of life. We were protecting our interests and the interests of others.

5. Was the U.S. justified in entering Vietnam and why or why not?

Based on my knowledge of the war, which is relatively limited compared to the other American conflicts, I would say yes. The typical Communist nations (the U.S.S.R. being the primary culprit) of the time were known for being oppressive in nature. And so, combined with Domino Theory, the U.S. government found its actions justified. The war had become a mistake when we chose not to go all the way.

6. Was the U.S. justified in entering the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and why or why not?

Yes. The Gulf War was about an illegal invasion of Kuwait. Hussein needed to be stopped. The current war in Iraq was about removing Hussein, a dictator who oppressed his people (not to mention tested chemical weapons and lord knows what else on his people), and to stop terrorist organizations from using Iraq as a haven for their operations, which Hussein seemed to have turned a blind eye to.

Whether the war has continued to follow that objective, I truly don't know anymore. But I will say that I support what the war initially stood for.

Just when my coil's reaching the green line...
- Shotaro Kaneda

[–] e-a-milliken 16 years ago

A few more historic clarifications:

Vietnam: the French were out of there after 1954. The US prevented nation wide elections that were supposed to be held in 1956, because US feared that Ho Chi Minh (leader of North Vietnam) would win. US supports corrupt dictatorship of South Vietnam in the name of containment of Communist threat. George F. Kennan, the brilliant state department official who authored the containment doctrine, said from the begining that involvement in Vietnam was a huge mistake because no vital US interests were involved and South Vietnam was a corrupt government not worthy of being defended in the name of "democracy".

Current Iraq war: the reasons for going to war were not Hussein's human rights abuses (if so why did the US support him through most of the 80s, when most of the worst of these abuses took place). Reasons were primarily the claim of WMD, which was bogus (and largely shown to be bogus BEFORE the invasion); and claims of terrorist activity (especially claims of al Quaeda activity) within Iraq also were shown to be bogus before the invasion (not to mention that 99% of al Quaeda support, then and now, comes from US allied Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

[–] msmith40 16 years ago

John Lennon was a great poet and songwriter, period!
To argue otherwise would be futile.

However, when it came to geopolitical strategy.....he was useless.
His attitude towards world affairs ("Why doesn't Nixon declare peace, instead of war?") was, to be blunt, quite naive. Ditto "Just give peace a chance."
I'm trying to imaging what success the 6 million Jews would've had if they'd merely linked arms and sang "All we are saying....is give peace a chance...' to their Nazi aggressors.

The same applies to the untold millions killed by Stalin.
The same applies to the poets and artists imprisoned and killed by Castro.
Perhaps the passengers on 9/11 could've escaped a fiery death and warmed the hearts of their hijackers by singing an uplifting Lennon/Ono composition.
There are times when you have to pick up a weapon and get aggressive.
John Lennon was a child during the London Blitz.
He was able to grow-up, develop his musical gift, and live a rich, fulfilled life.

...because men went to war to stop aggression...

South Vietnam needed our help just as the UK did.
So was it OK for London to be free.........but not South Vietnam....?

Lennon comes off as somewhat self-important......
While other musicians (at that time) were low-profile when it came to politics, Lennon felt otherwise.
His simplistic view ('Just bring them home.') bears evidence to his naïveté.
Abandoning people to defend themselves - when they're outnumbered - is not peace.
The man was too ignorant to realize, or understand, that we'd be turning our backs on people to be slaughtered.

Hey John, the war is over.
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"
The troops are withdrawing.
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"
The South Vietnamese people are panicking and afraid.
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"
The North Vietnamese have invaded the South and are killing people.
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"
Hello....?
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"
John....?
John: "Yeeeeeaaahhhh!"

And it seems that his attitude of 'give peace a chance' was directed at America.
Why?
North Vietnam wanted to invade South Vietnam and impose their will.
We were there to help the South.
Why didn't Lennon go to North Vietnam and give them the 'peace' message?

We pulled-out, the North invaded the South, and 1.5 million people were slaughtered.....and John Lennon was a happy man.
John Lennon has blood on his hands.

I've often wondered how Lennon would've reacted if he'd had access to a gun, and Chapman had been a bad shot......

[–] SimplySteve 16 years ago

So you think lennons geopolitical stratgy useless, heh??

asking for peace useless??

Sounds familiar actually....truth is, we're on the same page here. I wrote a few months ago on another board..

"Don't get me wrong, I love The Beatles and especially John. He was always my favorite. But when real questions about the state of the world were asked, his only response was always just to give peace a chance. Now that is always something to strive for as individuals, despite the fact we will always fall short of perfection. But our nations representatives can't go into Cuba, Iran or any terrorist cell and simply say "hey guys, let's just give peace a chance. OK." shake hands and sing we are the world. There is evil in this world we live in that will NEVER EVER give peace a chance! To me its a nice message, but too simple for the complex world we live in."

The truth to me is, as much as i love and thank John for his influence on me by way of music and memories, he is treated as even Paul himself once remarked "Martin Luther Lennon".

John talked alot about peace, but Mother Theresa actually cultivated it through true actions of selflessness and sacrifice. Kindness and giving.

While John was out protesting, blaming, and stirring up the status quo. Giving idiotic advice on political issues that were very real, and very deadly to many others. Mother Theresa spoke less, and acted more.

In truth, SHE is the "peace icon" everyone claims John to be.