War in itself

Mostly you guys see war as being caused only by the aggressor. War is really the result of resisting that aggressor. No resistance, no war.

When asked if they would accept a hostile dictator taking control of their country most people say "no way".

When asked if war can be a good thing, most people say "no way".

You can't have it both ways.

So war can be caused by love, freedom, human rights, religion, ect just as it can be caused by greed, hate, religion, etc.

Sure if you feel racial extermination is a viable alternative! Witness the Jews in WW II, or the Russian pogroms vis-a-vis the Jews, or the Chinese decimation of the Tibetans, as just a few of many examples.

I don't see how your examples refute Eorl's statement....

It's not intended (nor written) as a refutation of his statement per se, it's intended (and written) to show the dire consequences of his statement and that the premise is unfeasible from a pragmatic perceptive.

It would be the equivalent of saying that there would be no car crashes if nobody drove, true and rather obvious also, but not without consequence.

Chumly,

It was exactly WWII and the Jews I had in mind. (I think maybe you thought I was saying that resistance was a bad thing - I wasn't)

My point is that giving in to the aggressor is often a much greater evil than war. I'm saying war can be caused by the good guys doing the right thing.

War is not necessarily the worst outcome.

I think most people are "pro-war" when the question is put to them in the right way...they just think they are anti-war.

Philip Sheridan (a hero) is credited by Ralph K Andrist with the original remark about a 'Good Indian,' at Fort Cobb, Indian Territory.
A Comanche named Turtle Dove introduced himself to Sheridan (A General) with the humble self attribution that he really was 'a good Indian'
"The only good Indians I know " Sheridan replied, "are dead."

Americans have and always will pride themselves on being able to do or achieve anything to which they dedicate themselves, the extension of 'white rule' across the length of the continent represented just such a communal dedication.
Not a single item was allowed to be a barrier to them; men, women, children, ponies, bison, grass, the very land itself was permitted to arrest the machine like operation, and if any of the village clean up operation appeared bloody, it was simply classed as part of the inevitable hardship of making the continent. The whites proved far more apt in being able to bear them than the Indians.

I think this is a rather specious argument. It's obvious that it takes two to tango, but if there were no aggressor to begin with then there would be no need for 'good guys' to do anything.

Your reasoning would have victims of robberies being made to recompense the losses of an establishment because they failed to stop the armed assailant.

Arey, you didn't understand what Eorl was really trying to say. I think he was saying that passive resistance is bad, or in other words to let the dictator get his way creates war and so passive resistance or no resistance may not be a good idea after all.

Whatever, he explained it and I read it afterwards.

No, I think most of you guys are confusing my idea of what "causes" war with the idea of "fault" or "blame" because it's easy to see war as a bad thing.

I see war as good thing in many situations...and people standing up for themselves (and sometimes for others who cannot) as a good thing also.

If everyone rolled over for Hitler, there would not have been a World War II, but I'm personally glad they didn't.

When I was younger, I thought war was the worst thing in the world....I grew to understand that it isn't. (for example, I see the Holocaust as much worse.)

bm

I like passive resistance, but I don't think Gandhi's strategy would have worked against the Nazis. But it was the strategy with the best net pay-off with the British.

Agreed JL

Shut up.
War is irrational.
I will hurt you if you try to disagree with me.
ahk
I will hurt you just for fun.

The Dalai Lama may have to try a new approach regarding the reds. I can't wait to see what happens next.

Wasn't that idea explored by Harry Turtledove in a alternative history novel?

So if a neighboring country to yours says "You must pay us tribute every month or we will drop bombs on you," you would say ???

War is NOT irrational. Would you not fight for what you believe in?!? If you were enslaved, would you not rise against your oppressors?!? War is completely rational and is sometimes even neccessary. It is very tragic and unpleasant, but it is certainly not irrational.

Spoken like true cannon fodder.

How dare you!! I'm no cannon fodder!! Didn't you read my post? I said that war is tragic and unpleasant! It's a terrible thing! All I said was that war is a completely rational ideal. I could be in the Peace Corps and still say that. It is indeed rational and I am no war-monger or cannon fodder or anything of that sort. In fact, I am tempted to be insulted at your implication of such a thing. Give me one good arguement as to why war is, in all situations, irrational and I will grant your statement some merit.

For example: Back in the old days (like caveman days...) we hunted. It killed many animals and I'm sure it caused them much pain. Does that mean it was irrational? It provided us with food and helped balance our diet as well. Without killing many animals per day we would not survive. It is not irrational. It is neccessary and war is also somtimes neccessary to survive.

Another example: In the Korean War, if we hadn't gone to war and helped out South Korea, the people of South Korea would be starving and dying, just like most North Koreans are now. It killed many Americans, true, but saved a much much higher number of Koreans. Do you believe that lives cannot be saved through war? Are you saying that our actions waere irrational in going to war to save innocent lives? We should've just let the whole country be overrun? Then Kim Jong Il would have even more reasources and, doubtless, even more nukes than he has already. We had the power to help the innocent South Koreans, who couldn't help themselves, so we did. Was this irrational?

Okay, got the anger worked out, now this all I want to say:
War is not irrational. I have provided an opinion as to why it is not, please provide an arguement, instead of simply telling me I am wrong and please don't again imply that because I hold certain philisophical views that I am a 'cannon fodder'.

I think Gandhi's strategy could have worked for the Ashkenazim of Germany had they organized in time to counter the growing power and influence of the Nazis there. The German people weren't all hate filled Nazis even by the time they took control of the German government. One thing they would have lacked, however, was a singular charasmatic leader like Gandhi himself, but, they still could have organized and succeeded, in my opinion.

I think the right wing Jews supported Hitler at first not realizing he meant to carry thru with Mein Kampf.