0
   

War

 
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 03:44 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula;41826 wrote:
Those who see any virtue in war make me puke. And I'm not sorry!
I agree, but I think you and xris may be on the same page about this one.

Waging war against Hitler, particularly on the part of the Soviets (who faced a truly existential threat against Hitler's genocidal, scorched-earth war of annihilation in the East), was virtuous because the whole point of it was to end Hitler's war. Sometimes you need to wage war to end war. That's ok.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:29 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Sorry you have lost me..how can defending ones family in war be not war but something else..the nutter at the door or the army at your borders its still war..I will be ready for war but plead for peace.

War is organized and regimented and everything else is come as may... Look at all the people the Romans defeated, but they were as soon defeated when they could not field an army. And their war was impersonal, while for most every one else it was person, individualistic... The Romans loved nothing better than the choice of battle field... They did best where they could narrow their front, and when the front line got tired they would duck under the arms of the line behind... Spread them out man for man and they were no better than anyone else...
Look a English history... What gave the Englishman such equality as they know is that in recognition of the changing nature of warfare the king found out that numbers of peasants more than equalled mounted knights...Out of necessity and not out of kindness did the king form up the people against the nobles...

So the difference is in the personality involved, that in self defense, and defense of family one is fighting an age old battle for life and honor; but that one fighting war fights as a machine...
0 Replies
 
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 02:27 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
...Sometimes you need to wage war to end war. That's ok.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 02:33 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote:
What a naive wonderful world you live in..so not facing the nazis would be better than what we have now.I find this attitude so worthy of fairy tales rather than reality. So how do you see the world if we had not stepped up to face Hitler?
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 02:59 pm
@xris,
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:16 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote:
Just answer the question rhetoric does not give credence to your notion.
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:21 pm
@xris,
I believe in what I believe. What you believe is up to you.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:23 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote:
I believe in what I believe. What you believe is up to you.
Its not about belief its about opinions that you have stated..dont give me rhetoric, scorn me then run away..
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:26 pm
@xris,
You are completely right... Can I go now?
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:31 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote:
Aedes, I know I pull it out of its context, but "war against war" and "fighting for peace" are a dangerous idea and even more dangerous expressions... Wage war for peace? Fight for it? Let's not confuse things, it's either war or peace.
Don't dwell on the words. Think about the ideas. If someone is waging a war of aggression and annihilation, the way to end that is to eliminate their capacity to fight.

In the 1930s, Josef Stalin purged and executed nearly the entire leadership of the Red Army, including nearly everyone who had battlefield command experience from World War I.

In 1941, with the Nazis having pulled their diplomats out of Moscow, with German reconnaissance overflights over Soviet territory, and with more than 2 million troops and thousands of tanks on the Soviet border, Stalin refused to believe that there was an imminent German invasion. And he refused to allow his commanders to do anything to confront it.

Not sure how well you know the history, but effectively this created a nearly complete vacuum that allowed a functionally unopposed Nazi invasion. They overran the Soviet units, took 600,000 prisoners within a few weeks (nearly all of whom died in captivity), stormed thousands of kilometers into Russia, sent out SS death squads who killed more than 1 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others, and this invasion is the only thing that really made the Holocaust possible, because the Nazis suddenly had 4 years to play with 8 million Jews in their occupied territories.

My point is that if nothing could be done to make Hitler less aggressive, it was ALSO the utter ineptitude of Stalin that made the war in the East so devastating, so apocalyptic.

So I agree with you that "waging war to end a war" does not roll off the tongue like poetry, but that's not my point. It's a practical matter. You don't let a genocidal maniac run unopposed just because you oppose the principle of war. Believe me that if you look through history, no one wanted war in the 1940s except for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But they brought everyone down with them.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:37 pm
@Aedes,
If the germans had entered britain millions of jews would have died..i defend the right to defend the defenseless.If it means killing those who have those intentions ,give me my sword .
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:58 pm
@Icon,
Icon;41471 wrote:
Why do we still need war?

We don't 'need war', war is, at the moment, who we are! Our identity! Our nature...
We manifest war, like smiling and frowning. It displays our 'nature', our 'world view', our 'feelings', Perspectives. As 'world-view' alters, so will (our) nature. To One who sees all as 'One', the notion of 'gaining' through harming 'another' is absurd and is not part of the 'world-view', who we are.
As long as the notion of autonomous 'free-will' persists (for a little while longer) so will man's violent nature. 'Violence' is, ultimately, a feature of an egoic Perspective.
0 Replies
 
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 05:29 pm
@Aedes,
Ok Aedes, you know your history, and you are very convincing. What you're giving here are just the facts, objective hard facts that no ill-meant interpretation can doubt. They convinced me that there are situations where we must take our gun and fight for peace and justice. We must stop the raving maniacs of this world for the sake of international peace and world safety. Sometimes there are people who refuse to fight the injustice done by these raving maniacs. These people call themselves radical pacifists but in fact they are just yellers. They are cowards refusing to take responsilbilty and they hide behind theory and rhetorics. I promise I will try to better myself. Better learn to handle guns than create bad poetry. Good reasoning implies saying the other is right and being critical towards yourself. I know now that one must fight for a better world, instead of using empty words, and I will take my place at the side of the just and the righteous. Thank you all.

Can I go now? I'm really very tired...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 05:02 am
@Catchabula,
If there was no agression on the part of certain evil men we would not need war.Ide love to live in world where no weapon is ever necessary but we have to realise that men of evil only understand might and might means training to kill.It is accepted that 90% of soldiers have a natural human desire when confronted with killing to shoot above the enemies heads, they are like us all hate the idea of killing. They sacrifice alot more than their bodies when the need to kill is essential.I know a soldier who went through three years of combat being a vegetarian, he was in his opinion saving lives.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 05:11 am
@Icon,
Catchabula -- just be careful not to take the idea too far, because you get the "Bush doctrine" at the other end.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:46 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
If there was no agression on the part of certain evil men we would not need war.Ide love to live in world where no weapon is ever necessary but we have to realise that men of evil only understand might and might means training to kill.It is accepted that 90% of soldiers have a natural human desire when confronted with killing to shoot above the enemies heads, they are like us all hate the idea of killing. They sacrifice alot more than their bodies when the need to kill is essential.I know a soldier who went through three years of combat being a vegetarian, he was in his opinion saving lives.

We do not need war, and you cannot prove the existence of evil or of evil men...Within certain contexts violence is natural, and should be expected... In the fashion humanity has grown out of natural communities it is inevitable that brother will at some point fight brother, but barring some outside force, or some advance of technology on one side or the other, people would soon grow sick of the killing, and seek peace and accomodation... What we have of modern war has nothing of community conflicts in it... It grows not out of necessity, out of populations competing over the same resources, but out of states and nation states preventing justice until injustice becomes international...People who can get justice from their neighbors do not seek it from strangers... And if it were a fact, that among tribal and prestate people, that violence was general, today, peace is maintained at the price of justice...Nothing is more easily perverted than law to deliver injustice instead of justice, and the universal response to injustice is population growth, leaving justice for another day while increasing those who require it...Population feeds war, and it solves for a time injustice because with less population, resources seem sufficient...If people demanded justice they would die, or those who refused justice would die; but more important, those inclined to settle their own scores would demand and defend their own freedom as people do not today... And, since they would pay the price of injustice it is they who would make it a priority...In other words people would have democracy as they did in the past... They would demand honor of each other and keep it for themselves, and in a word, they would act responsibly because they would be held responsible... Today, those who benefit from injustice do not defend their injustice, but the slaves they have made of their populations are made cannon fodder... The wealthy are freely irresponsible, and seldom bear the price of irresponsibility... Working people kill each other for the benefit of a class above them... Certainly they may benefit some from victory and suffer a defeat... But in any event, it is the wealthy who benfit and profit regardless... The fact is that no people can have democracy without equality, nor reach justice without democracy, nor know realiable peace without democracy, nor properly defend itself without democracy... War grows out of injustice and dishonor just as feud grows out of justice and honor... War is the result of what has been lost, and feud is the defense of what no man can live without... The difference is that justice is no more likely out of war than out of peace once the social tools and freedoms necessary to justice have been lost... If everyone knew their behavior toward all demanded justice, or would invite death or violence no one high or low could dare injustice; and yet we must admit that injustice is commonplace... So war is common.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:01 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
We do not need war, and you cannot prove the existence of evil or of evil men...Within certain contexts violence is natural, and should be expected... In the fashion humanity has grown out of natural communities it is inevitable that brother will at some point fight brother, but barring some outside force, or some advance of technology on one side or the other, people would soon grow sick of the killing, and seek peace and accomodation... What we have of modern war has nothing of community conflicts in it... It grows not out of necessity, out of populations competing over the same resources, but out of states and nation states preventing justice until injustice becomes international...People who can get justice from their neighbors do not seek it from strangers... And if it were a fact, that among tribal and prestate people, that violence was general, today, peace is maintained at the price of justice...Nothing is more easily perverted than law to deliver injustice instead of justice, and the universal response to injustice is population growth, leaving justice for another day while increasing those who require it...Population feeds war, and it solves for a time injustice because with less population, resources seem sufficient...If people demanded justice they would die, or those who refused justice would die; but more important, those inclined to settle their own scores would demand and defend their own freedom as people do not today... And, since they would pay the price of injustice it is they who would make it a priority...In other words people would have democracy as they did in the past... They would demand honor of each other and keep it for themselves, and in a word, they would act responsibly because they would be held responsible... Today, those who benefit from injustice do not defend their injustice, but the slaves they have made of their populations are made cannon fodder... The wealthy are freely irresponsible, and seldom bear the price of irresponsibility... Working people kill each other for the benefit of a class above them... Certainly they may benefit some from victory and suffer a defeat... But in any event, it is the wealthy who benfit and profit regardless... The fact is that no people can have democracy without equality, nor reach justice without democracy, nor know realiable peace without democracy, nor properly defend itself without democracy... War grows out of injustice and dishonor just as feud grows out of justice and honor... War is the result of what has been lost, and feud is the defense of what no man can live without... The difference is that justice is no more likely out of war than out of peace once the social tools and freedoms necessary to justice have been lost... If everyone knew their behavior toward all demanded justice, or would invite death or violence no one high or low could dare injustice; and yet we must admit that injustice is commonplace... So war is common.
You lost me there Bros. you say its not needed and i cant prove evil men then ramble on about the nature of man..what was your point exactly..please.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:38 am
@xris,
I am not trying to prove that people are evil...I said they are not... When people had feud, justice was at hand... Injustice is common where unjust people do not themselves suffer the consequences... It does not mean they are evil, but it does mean our system of laws does not work, does not deliever justice, does not deliver peace, and does make war inevitable..
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 09:49 am
@Fido,
I'm staying out of this by fear of being rhetorical. Just I just cannot say: blood and tears is the question and what is your answer? I thought I had an answer. I have none, anymore...
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 10:37 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
you cannot prove the existence of evil or of evil men
that's abstract rhetoric with no bearing on the human experience. Evil may not be "provable" the way that a rock is provable, but who cares, real humans live on earth and not in the hall of ideas.

"Evil" is a judgement that we can rightly apply to a certain spectrum of intentional inhumanity, cruelty, victimization, and infliction of suffering. And if you are willing to give humans credit for making decisions, then you also need to give humans credit for choosing to treat others in a way we deem evil.

Quote:
What we have of modern war has nothing of community conflicts in it
Nonsense, even the most cursory look at the history of warfare would refute that. The nature of modern war is simply an extremity of the escalation in army size and armament that has been happening since antiquity. As we developed muskets from swords, then rifles from muskets, then machine guns from rifles, the defensive posture in war became overwhelmingly advantageous. This necessitated much larger armies in order to accomplish offensive tactics. This happened to coincide with the increased size of draftable populations, so starting in the 19th century really with the Napoleonic wars, armies became huge.

You really think the diplomatic issues at play are much different from community conflicts? It's the same stuff. Access to resources, nationalism (formerly known as tribalism), border disputes, and occasionally megalomaniac aggression. The difference between a Hitler and a ruthless warlord is mainly scale.

Quote:
... It grows out of states and nation states preventing justice until injustice becomes international...
You cannot contend that evil is unproven and yet assume that justice is.

Quote:
War grows out of injustice and dishonor
War doesn't grow. War is a strategy used to accomplish practical ends that are almost always economic and/or nationalistic. Injustice and dishonor are the favorite toys of propagandists to get people to go along with the war. Goebbels needed an audience that bought the injustice and dishonor line. But that's not what the Nazis were actually fighting for.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » War
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 03:01:25