War what is it good for absolutly nothing?
Posted by admin in 1
Is a quick brutal “unfair / evil” war now, better than a long drawn out “fair” war later on?
Well lets look at it for a moment. Lets look at India and Pakistan as an example. The disputed region of Kashmir has been fought over for over 50 years now. Countless people have died, and the war goes on. The world highest battle took place on a glacier there at 6,000 meters above sea level. People were fighting in temperatures from -34 - -50degrees! People died, and the war goes on…
… so what was the alternative? When Indian first got independance and Pakistan was formed, that is when they occupied Kashmir. At that time, had India’s leader Neru actually sent in the troops, he could have easily taken the land back as Pakistans military force was still forming as the country was new. So why didn’t he?
Coming out of a recent victory that was achieved through non violence, Nehru wanted to avoid the shedding of blood. If he had gone in, many would have died. He chose to avoid the blood shed of the brutal campaign, and they are now both left with an ongoing war that still goes on to this very day.
So should they have just gone in and killed them all outright? Sometimes abortion is the only option - perhaps here they should have just been brutal about doing what was needed? It makes logical sense, doesn’t it? A few deaths now for less in the long term.
Well, it is very easy to wish a war on a far away people in a different country. It may have been “better” in the long term, but are we really in a position to condemn a people to death. And I think the real question I am posing here is actually that perhaps we are…
On a different note, we’ve added a page for Pigmented lesions it actually sounds pretty shit hot. I don’t need it myself but I’d certainly consider it. It’s potentially more useful than buying the discounted red diesel that I can now get cos of working with crown oil.