War in itself

CrazyDiamond wrote:

flushd wrote:

War is irrational.

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.

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.

flushd wrote:

War is irrational.

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.

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'.

Questioner wrote:

Eorl wrote:

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.

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.

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 ???

Crazy,

I certainly did not intend to insult you. In fact, I thought you were 'playing' . Sorry if you found my words dismissive or otherwise negatively directed at you.

Here is the post I was responding to:

CrazyDiamond wrote:

flushd wrote:

War is irrational.

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.

War is completely rational?
I disagree.
It is not always rational. It often started much in the way the exchange between the two of us is going. Sometimes it is of a different beast: pure ridiculousness, hate, greed, whathaveyou. Or ignorance.
It is not always a fight for virtue or good.

I don't know everything. This is just my view. I have not fought in a war, lived through a war that seriously affected my life, nor had to deal with these issues seriously.

CrazyDiamond wrote:

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'.

Ok, well, your caveman hunting analogy is weak. Killing animals to eat is not comparable to warfare.

Your piece about South Korea. Hmm. You clearly believe that war was necessary in that case, and I do not. We disagree. However, would you be open to the possibility that other ways of going about reaching the 'goal' could have worked? That , perhaps, the actions taken were not the best?

I agree that sometimes human beings need to fight. I agree that war is not completely irrational.

My point is that war can not be understood by rational thought alone. That approach has sunk many a good man/country.
Evil exists. Irrational acts, hate, greed, warfare EXISTS.

It is impossible to change something that is not understood. Often, good people underestimate the level of irrationality, hate, and anger that drives some men.

If I were to start a mini-war with you right now, would I necessarily have to have a rational reason to do so? Would you need a rational reason to take part?
Of course not.
Maybe I'm just a meanie.

Hope you understand where I'm coming from.

There is no moral obligation to practice non-violent resistance to oppressors, particularly murderous ones.

I do not think that, strictly speaking, war is inherently irrational (as Flushd asserts). Strictly speaking rationality has to do with ends and means; any means that achieves an end is "rational".

But that does not, of course (and here I agree with Flushd) mean that a rational act is a "good" one. War is cruel and unwise, but it is usually conducted to serve the interests of someone or some group within a society. I do not think it serves the interests of those who must fight and die. From the perspective of soldiers, then, war is clearly "irrational," even if they are conditioned not to realize it.

The soliders themselves have to be motivated to fight, often against their own instinct for self-preservation.