The loud little handful

[Medievalist]

The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: "It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war." Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it ... Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Mark Twain. The Mysterious Stranger (http://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/authors/Twain/Mysterious-Stranger.htm).

[dgiharris]

Ummm....

Would you care to frame your thread?

Are you equating the War in Iraq or Afghanistan to this quote?

Are you speaking about War in general?

Mel...

[MacAllister]

This is what happens to people who read too much.

[Medievalist]

Ummm....

Would you care to frame your thread?

Are you equating the War in Iraq or Afghanistan to this quote?

Are you speaking about War in general?

Mel...

yes

[alleycat]

This is what happens to people who read too much.
At least it was Twain.

I kinda like my sig quote from Twain about school boards. I particularly appreciate it after seeing the Nashville school board in action lately (part of which included appearing before a Federal judge).

[alleycat]

Don't tell me I killed a thread in P&CE!

No one can kill a thread here . . . at least I didn't think so.

[jodiodi]

I don't know about the Nashville school board, but here in Clarksville, my stepkids have to go to some odd schools based on where they live. I told their mom to use our address so they can go to better schools than on the side of town they live on. Since my husband legally shares custody, they should be able to go.

[alleycat]

Oh, good, I didn't kill the thread . . . I merely hijacked it.


;-)

[Bartholomew]

Don't tell me I killed a thread in P&CE!

No one can kill a thread here . . . at least I didn't think so.

Really? (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=13)

[AMCrenshaw]

this is a constant happening.

[Andrew]

The world waits
At heaven’s gate,
At hell’s deep,<o:p></o:p>
Millions keep.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
A fitful journey ran in blood fine,<o:p></o:p>
Abhorrent journey of helpless pain,<o:p></o:p>
No one spared, dear sister mine,<o:p></o:p>
Nothing, brother shall be the same.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Matters not how high the cost,<o:p></o:p>
Matters not how many are lost,<o:p></o:p>
To do the work that must be done,<o:p></o:p>
Matters only who shall have won.<o:p></o:p>

Anon

[robeiae]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," 1862.

[Don]

Twain is among that small band of geniuses who should be king of the world, because they would above all not want the job.

The War Prayer (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_War_Prayer)

You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor – and also you in your hearts – fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so!
Nowhere else is the law of unintended consequences so horrifyingly displayed, or so easily excused, as in war.

[POPASMOKE]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," 1862.

Quite true, and

We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
- George Orwell

It's quite easy for some to sit back and criticize the institution of war as merely some kind of immoral, testosterone fueled contest between equally reprehensible parties. By this philosophy, there would no justification for defending oneself from the Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc., and those nations so threatened should merely accept these evils as their fate.

Mill and Orwell had the right (no pun intended) of it.

[Don]

Self-defense is easily justified. Collateral damage is not.

[robeiae]

Mill was not speaking of self-defense, Don.

[AMCrenshaw]

If anyone wants to know Orwell's views on war, I suggest Homage to Catalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia). (btw, what's the source of that Orwell quote, because I don't think he wrote that)


* * *


I personally don't care about "patriotic" (er uh tribal, nationalistic) feeling, and in fact I would - if I could - eliminate it from the globe if it didn't cause so many people a sudden emptiness in their lives.


And for what should we fight -- A logo? A flag? A god? A belief system? A skin color?


War is a sad device operating in a sad system run by people who believe there is no alternative to it.


AMC

[Medievalist]

Mill was not speaking of self-defense, Don.

Neither was Twain.

[robeiae]

Neither was Twain.
I know. And Hermann Goering said pretty much the same thing--at Nuremberg--as Twain:

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

I always figured Twain was his source, though the thoughts have been opined since long before. And it's a very true sentiment, imo. But it doesn't serve to invalidate every war.

So the words of Pontius Telesinus are no less wise than Cato's. As he reviewed the ranks of his army in the battle against Sulla at the Colline Gate, he cried that Rome itself must be demolished and destroyed, remarking that there would never be an end to Wolves preying upon the liberty of Italy, unless the forest in which they took refuge was cut down. There are two maxims which are surely both true: Man is a God to Man, and Man is a Wolf to Man. The former is true of the relations of citizens with each other, the latter of relations between commonwealths. In justice and charity, the virtues of peace, citizens show some likeness to God. But between commonwealths, the wickedness of bad men compels the good too to have recourse, for their own protection, to the virtues of war, which are violence and fraud, i.e. to the predatory nature of beasts.--Thomas Hobbes, from "On the Citizen"

;)

[Williebee]

...the institution of war as merely some kind of...

imo
Anyone who would argue that War, like race or love is "merely" anything isn't qualified to argue it all.

(And for all, no this comment was not pointed at Popasmoke. I did not misunderstand him, just a thought inspired by what he said.)

[Celia Cyanide]

At least it was Twain.

I kinda like my sig quote from Twain about school boards. I particularly appreciate it after seeing the Nashville school board in action lately (part of which included appearing before a Federal judge).

What did they do?

[Perks]

By this philosophy, there would no justification for defending oneself from the Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc., and those nations so threatened should merely accept these evils as their fate.

What I was struck by was the universality of what Twain said. It certainly need not be a condemnation of American war (although, there would be instances where you wouldn't need to be a contortionist to make it fit.)

Immediately I thought of what mental process allowed young German men to do their military service with conviction in the 1930's. And what makes it do-able for the tribal/bureaucratic/economic bloodbaths in central Africa.

When it comes down to it, each person has to rationalize it in their heads, unless we suppose that demonic possession is the order of the actual battles. At some point, everyone is convinced they are right, or they simply do what they are told with nothing but white static noise filling in the space between their ears, which I cannot believe happens with any soothing regularity.

Twain diagrammed one such path to fervor.

[Magdalen]

If we speak of the fear of emancipation from the fear-regime, we put the whole situation into a single phrase; fear regarding ourselves now taking the place of the ancient fear of the enemy.

Turn the fear over as I will in my mind, it all seems to lead back to two unwillingnesses of the imagination, one aesthetic, and the other moral; unwillingness, first, to envisage a future in which army-life, with its many elements of charm, shall be forever impossible, and in which the destinies of peoples shall nevermore be decided quickly, thrillingly, and tragically by force, but only gradually and insipidly by "evolution," and, secondly, unwillingness to see the supreme theatre of human strenuousness closed, and the splendid military aptitudes of men doomed to keep always in a state of latency and never show themselves in action. These insistent unwillingnesses, no less than other aesthetic and ethical insistencies, have, it seems to me, to be listened to and respected. One cannot meet them effectively by mere counter-insistency on war's expensiveness and horror. The horror makes the thrill; and when the question is of getting the extremest and supremest out of human nature, talk of expense sounds ignominious. The weakness of so much merely negative criticism is evident — pacifism makes no converts from the military party. The military party denies neither the bestiality nor the horror, nor the expense; it only says that these things tell but half the story. It only says that war is worth them; that, taking human nature as a whole, its wars are its best protection against its weaker and more cowardly self, and that mankind cannot afford to adopt a peace economy.

-- William James 1906

http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm

War is well-known to us, from the earliest splatterings of ochre and saffron upon cave walls and the from the mournful reverberations of the drums of war. Peace, on the other hand is such a fleeting state of existence that in contrast seems to be the "unknown". As a species, we fear the unknown.

[Romantic Heretic]

This is also known as the 'turd in the punchbowl effect'. ;)

[Medievalist]

What I was struck by was the universality of what Twain said. It certainly need not be a condemnation of American war (although, there would be instances where you wouldn't need to be a contortionist to make it fit.)

Immediately I thought of what mental process allowed young German men to do their military service with conviction in the 1930's. And what makes it do-able for the tribal/bureaucratic/economic bloodbaths in central Africa.

When it comes down to it, each person has to rationalize it in their heads, unless we suppose that demonic possession is the order of the actual battles. At some point, everyone is convinced they are right, or they simply do what they are told with nothing but white static noise filling in the space between their ears, which I cannot believe happens with any soothing regularity.

Twain diagrammed one such path to fervor.

QFT

And that's exactly what struck me in re-reading Mysterious Stranger, or what we have of it.

Twain never finished it--there's a partial hand-written ms. with corrections, and then a typescript with Twain's corrections. I keep hoping we'll find more in Twain's papers--there are a surprisingly large number of them, and not terribly well cataloged.

[dgiharris]

War as an extension of politics

Clausewitz

We like to isolate war as a separate evil/bad/unreasonable course of action. But as a whole, it really isn't. It is the natural and logical extension of politics.

Human beings use ANY AND EVERY form of power in which to impose their will.

I can make a very strong argument that more human beings have died due to the use and abuse of FINANCIAL forms of power than all the wars ever fought on this planet.

Hell, thousands of people starve to death every single day. Thousands die every day due to not having access to modern health care.

If I were to sum up the damage done by the 'other' forms of politics: financial, social, diplomacy, etc. etc. i'm sure they would easily be an order of magnitude higher than war.

But it is War that gets the attention and the labels as 'evil'.

You want evil. How about a social and political philosophy that maintains that a woman is nothing but property with no rights to education or ability to better herself?

IMHO, that is inifinitely more deplorable than the War it would take to give her those rights we take for granted.

War is merely an extension of politics and if you look at the entire political spectrum, you'd see that there are worst things than war that happen everyday.

Mel...

[Bird of Prey]

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

Edwin Starr

[Fran]

dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori - Wilfred Owen

It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. He died four days before the Armistice was declared in 1918. If only those who had the power to declare war were the ones who went to fight it. I'd personally be much more comfortable with war if anyone who made the decision was ever in harm's way.

[AMCrenshaw]

I can make a very strong argument that more human beings have died due to the use and abuse of FINANCIAL forms of power than all the wars ever fought on this planet.

Hell, thousands of people starve to death every single day. Thousands die every day due to not having access to modern health care.


Evil, yes.

Why - in this country, for example - don't people have modern health care?

Where is our money going? Why not take the annual $15 million we use to train Latin American men and women counter-insurgency tactics and fund a housing program?

Or think on these numbers: $515 Billion budget for the US military. $1.4 trillion world spending on military. How much food, housing, and medicine would this buy?


We like to isolate war as a separate evil/bad/unreasonable course of action. But as a whole, it really isn't. It is the natural and logical extension of politics.


What's included in the political war machine, Mel? Assassinations, torture, rape, kidnapping, bombings, gunfire, and constant fear. Is that about right?

Human beings use ANY AND EVERY form of power in which to impose their will.


What is natural shouldn't define what is moral and what is not moral.


If I were to sum up the damage done by the 'other' forms of politics: financial, social, diplomacy, etc. etc. i'm sure they would easily be an order of magnitude higher than war.


Except how are these forms of politics currently supported, at least and especially by the US? Troops on foreign soil (the US military occupies roughly 135 of 195 countries in earthly existence).

War is merely an extension of politics and if you look at the entire political spectrum, you'd see that there are worst things than war that happen everyday.


I disagree that war is an extension of politics -- it's clearly a mechanism that can be found outside the human realm. And really there's nothing inherently "wrong" with "war" except when it intersects with politics -- for example, one would never think of chess as an immoral game, but it imo clearly operates as a war mechanism. No one looks at two dogs fighting as immoral (unless they're being forced to do so by a human hand), but certainly they're at war.

It's that we are supposedly aware of our appetites that makes our use of war immoral. When we have plenty of other options outside of cruelty and degradation to human dignity and yet choose the one that exploits this dignity most harshly and impersonally, well ... I don't get it, really.

I don't get -- except due to someone's fargone fanaticism -- why war would ever be an option for anybody at any time.


You want evil.


Not particularly

How about a social and political philosophy that maintains that a woman is nothing but property with no rights to education or ability to better herself?



Calling this evil (which I think it is) doesn't take away from the evil of war; and essentially I think they encompass the same evil, which is that of confining the human spirit and destroying it.


AMC


*Tangent: Are there just wars? I don't think so. At 'best' I think there are wars one fights to survive, wars that are amoral, and have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

[jodiodi]

dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori - Wilfred Owen

It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. He died four days before the Armistice was declared in 1918. If only those who had the power to declare war were the ones who went to fight it. I'd personally be much more comfortable with war if anyone who made the decision was ever in harm's way.

Bolding mine.

I agree 100% with this statement. The decision to go to war should only be made by the people who will be actually going and those whose children, spouses, siblings, parents will be going.

It's quite easy for people who are risking nothing to sit around and say, "Oh yes, we should send troops! This cannot be allowed to continue!"

Well, if you feel so strongly about it, put on a uniform, pick up a gun and go do something about it. I have no respect for the people who wait for someone else to fight their battles for them. Big talkers had better be ready to back up their overblown words themselves. If they had to make personal sacrifices, they'd put more thought into their decisions.

[Romantic Heretic]

This song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG48Ftsr3OI) always sums up war for me.

And this painting (http://www.iconoduel.org/images-site/content/images11_05/tom_lea-the_price.jpg). I made it a link rather than a picture because it's quite a shocking piece of work.

[rugcat]

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for. . .
Did you know that was the original title of War and Peace?

[Romantic Heretic]

I'm not sure war is good for nothing. It defeated the Axis which was a damned good thing. It got Saddam kicked out of Kuwait, kept North Korea out of South Korea.

On the other hand it cost the Soviet Union many lives and much money in Afghanistan for no good purpose. The same for America in Vietnam. Hell, a couple of countries went to war over a soccer game once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_War).

War should be like surgery. A last resort, planned carefully and executed swiftly. Unfortunately it is, or was until recently, a preferred method of solving problems.

[benbradley]

The Twain quote sort of reminds me of the tone of "The True Believer," though Hoffer uses present tense instead of future tense ("The true believer does this, the true believer does not do that...").

But on to the apparent substance of the thread:

It we ("we," first-world nations such as the USA) valued the decision to go to war solely on the number of lives that would be saved, we would have been in Rwanda last decade and Darfur this decade. But there's really not much if anything there that interests "us" politically or economically. The UN food program just barely keep tens of millions of displaced people, victims of the wars that have pushed them off their lands, from starving to death.

It's one of those unspoken truths: we value some lives more than others.

[Don]

I still believe the way to deal with the loud little handful, while they are still a loud little handful, is to fit them with special white jackets and reservations in self-protective accomodations where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.

I don't see any substantial difference between believing you should send people off to die and believing it's ok to do them in yourself. We have to start treating people who make those claims just as we would anyone hearing voices in their head.

I don't yet understand the process whereby sane individuals, using their own judgement, buy into the ravings of the loud little handful. If we can ever understand that, we'll deal with the handful quickly, as they arise, and devote the rest of our time to peaceful coexistance.

[Death Wizard]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," 1862.

If it's not the ugliest of things, then it's close.

[benbradley]

I'm not sure war is good for nothing. It defeated the Axis which was a damned good thing. It got Saddam kicked out of Kuwait, kept North Korea out of South Korea.

On the other hand it cost the Soviet Union many lives and much money in Afghanistan for no good purpose. The same for America in Vietnam. Hell, a couple of countries went to war over a soccer game once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_War).
How ironic. This isn't the season for it yet, but did you hear what broke out during World War One?
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3101211&postcount=26

[MGraybosch]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," 1862.

I'm willing to fight for my home, for my friends, and for my family. However, I have seen what happens to people who think they're fighting for their country. They suffer, bleed, and (if they're lucky) die for their country, and what do they get in return? Scars, and maybe a medal. They come back from war with broken minds or broken bodies; they're not the same people they were before they put on the uniform, but the politicians don't care because all they did was issue the orders.

It's easy for politicians to say that we should go to war, and that we should be willing to fight, because that "we" never includes them. As far as I'm concerned, unless the hawkish politicians are willing to put their own lives on the line, the only sensible response to a politician's call for war should be, "Fight your own battles, asshole!"

[Magdalen]

TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
Munster, October 24, 1648

Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France
and their respective Allies.


That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual,
true, and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty, and his
most Christian Majesty; as also, between all and each of the Allies, and
Adherents of his said Imperial Majesty, the House of Austria, and its
Heirs, and Successors; but chiefly between the Electors, Princes, and
States of the Empire on the one side; and all and each of the Allies of
his said Christian Majesty, and all their Heirs and Successors, chiefly
between the most Serene Queen and Kingdom of Swedeland, the Electors
respectively, the Princes and States of the Empire, on the other part.
That this Peace and Amity be observ'd and cultivated with such a
Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the
Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they
may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of
France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.

The Treaty of Paris of Feb. 10, 1763, was signed by Great Britain, France, and Spain. Together with the treaty of Hubertusburg, it terminated the Seven Years War.

Although Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in the Fall of 1781 marked the end of the Revolutionary War, minor battles between the British and the colonists continued for another two years. Finally, in February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783. Signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, the agreement — also known as the Paris Peace Treaty — formally ended the United States War for Independence.


The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Great Britain from June 1812 to the spring of 1815, although the peace treaty ending the war was signed in Europe in December 1814. The main land fighting of the war occurred along the Canadian border, in the Chesapeake Bay region, and along the Gulf of Mexico; extensive action also took place at sea.



The Treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers.

The Paris Peace Conference (July 29 to October 15, 1946) resulted in the Paris Peace Treaties signed on February 10, 1947. The victorious wartime Allied powers (principally the USA, USSR, UK, France and Canada) negotiated the details of treaties with Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland (see the List of countries involved in World War II) Rt. Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King and colleagues at the Paris Peace Conference, Palais du Luxembourg. (L.-r.:) Norman Robertson, Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Hon. Brooke Claxton, Arnold HeeneyThe treaties allowed Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland to reassume their responsibilities as sovereign states in international affairs and to qualify for membership in the United Nations.

Treaty of Peace with Japan

Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951
Initial entry into force*: 28 April 1952

Note: Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China were invited to the San Francisco Peace Conference, and neither were parties to the San Francisco Treaty. The Republic of China concluded a separate Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1952.


The last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941 on Japan & December 11, 1941 on Germany. WWII. Prior to WWII:

WWI

Spanish-American War of 1898

The Mexican War 1846-1848

The War of 1812 (1812-1814)

NOTE-The US Civil War & the Vietnam War were not declared wars.

Both the US Civil War/Revolutionary War were considered acts of Rebellion.


During War, declared or not, shots are fired, bombs are dropped, blood leaches into the land. And when the smoke settles, a small quiet group gathers to affix their names to a document composed of meaningless words. The cycle repeats. We must all be insane. I agree with Don.

[MGraybosch]

We must all be insane. I agree with Don.

We're not all insane. Some of us know better, but we're outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned. I remember my senior year of high school, when the local USMC recruiter got it into his head that I might make a good officer candidate despite being a stocky, bespectacled, longhaired metalhead with all the loyalty and idealism of a feral cat. I ended up asking him the following: "Tell me something, sir. Can you give me one good reason that I should be willing to lay down my life for a bunch of rear-echelon motherfuckers who aren't willing to give their own lives to the cause, but expect me to give mine? What have Congress and the President done for me that I should be willing to kill people who have done me no harm just because they ask it of me?"

I never heard from the guy again. He never did answer my question. I'm not sure he liked me calling President Clinton a REMF.

[Death Wizard]

We're not all insane. Some of us know better, but we're outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned. I remember my senior year of high school, when the local USMC recruiter got it into his head that I might make a good officer candidate despite being a stocky, bespectacled, longhaired metalhead with all the loyalty and idealism of a feral cat. I ended up asking him the following: "Tell me something, sir. Can you give me one good reason that I should be willing to lay down my life for a bunch of rear-echelon motherfuckers who aren't willing to give their own lives to the cause, but expect me to give mine? What have Congress and the President done for me that I should be willing to kill people who have done me no harm just because they ask it of me?"

I never heard from the guy again. He never did answer my question. I'm not sure he liked me calling President Clinton a REMF.


Would you have called Bush the same thing?

[MGraybosch]

Would you have called Bush the same thing?

I would, and have. As far as I'm concerned, the only Presidents we've had who weren't REMFs are Washington, Jackson, Kennedy, and Grant. I might fight beside the President, but I won't fight for him. If Obama thinks the war in Afghanistan is such a good idea, get him some BDUs and a rifle.

[tiny]

The recruiter was just doing his job.

[Death Wizard]

I would, and have. As far as I'm concerned, the only Presidents we've had who weren't REMFs are Washington, Jackson, Kennedy, and Grant. I might fight beside the President, but I won't fight for him. If Obama thinks the war in Afghanistan is such a good idea, get him some BDUs and a rifle.

I disagree with you in some regards, but I can't deny that you're consistent with your principles.

[rugcat]

As far as I'm concerned, unless the hawkish politicians are willing to put their own lives on the line, the only sensible response to a politician's call for war should be, "Fight your own battles, asshole!"President Braveheart?

[Don]

Put me down as one who believes the president and congress should be the first to don battle gear and pick up a gun.

After all, look how well it worked in Independence Day. :D

[MGraybosch]

The recruiter was just doing his job.

That's true, but I had no reason to make his job easier for him after he refused three times to take no for an answer.

[MGraybosch]

President Braveheart?

If they're not willing to die for their own cause, why should I?

[tiny]

That's true, but I had no reason to make his job easier for him after he refused three times to take no for an answer.

Considering what a high stress job it is in the military, no reason to make it harder either.

[Romantic Heretic]

I would, and have. As far as I'm concerned, the only Presidents we've had who weren't REMFs are Washington, Jackson, Kennedy, and Grant. I might fight beside the President, but I won't fight for him. If Obama thinks the war in Afghanistan is such a good idea, get him some BDUs and a rifle.
You forgot Truman.

[AMCrenshaw]

If they're not willing to die for their own cause, why should I?

All I'm saying is that a cause (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3602744&postcount=93) one may be required to die for isn't so great a cause.

Then there's killing. A cause that requires the killing of another human being is not so great a cause. That's my opinion. That's how I value every human life.



But is that really the thing? That we should expect those making decisions to also do what they command? Can we get real? How many jobs you all been on that the boss is sitting in some office while you're carrying the shingles up to the roof (or whatever real metaphor is applicable)? 80% of us underpaid workers in the US? Why bemoan the system we allow to live on with or without our support?


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't yet understand the process whereby sane individuals, using their own judgement, buy into the ravings of the loud little handful. If we can ever understand that, we'll deal with the handful quickly, as they arise, and devote the rest of our time to peaceful coexistance.


See I don't believe that loud little handful is insane. I don't believe they need to be locked up. Rather, I believe they need to be released. So many of our world's leaders have great talent, intellect, and moral capacity -- but we can't expect any individual's talent, intellect, or moral capacity to weigh against even one practical demand.

I think there is much theory and evidence already present about this topic (I personally can think of maybe ten authors off the top of my head that address it directly; indeed, a few AWers besides myself have offered suggestions. I'd recommend recent threads for some clear depictions of such a process, nonetheless centered upon the phenomenon of "othering").

Human beings are animals. We scare. We protect. We want to survive.

It's simple to me: there are better ways to protect ourselves. There are better ways to survive. There are better ways to feel secure. And, to me, not one involves a military, and - more to the point - not one involves war.




AMC

[dgiharris]

But on to the apparent substance of the thread:

It we ("we," first-world nations such as the USA) valued the decision to go to war solely on the number of lives that would be saved, we would have been in Rwanda last decade and Darfur this decade. But there's really not much if anything there that interests "us" politically or economically. The UN food program just barely keep tens of millions of displaced people, victims of the wars that have pushed them off their lands, from starving to death.

It's one of those unspoken truths: we value some lives more than others.

This was somewhat part of the spirit of my rant. Many in this thread who view war as evil, unreasonable, or useless often cite the value of human life as the corner stone of their argument.

Yet, you can't turn on the TV without seeing Millions upon millions dying everyday due to starvation or violence along with being enslaved, denied basic human rights, etc. etc. Killing a human being is wrong but watching one die of starvation in front of you is okay?

I find it interesting that the same philosophical and moral principles that cite the sanctity of human life somehow enable us to ignore the death and suffering of our fellow human beings around the world.

I consider such arguments the height of hypocrisy. Going to war for oil is wrong, but watching millions of people being massacred while you have the ability to prevent it is okay?

My point is that death, killing, etc. is part of the way of the world. It is part of our everyday occurrence, and to single out 'war' as the ultimate evil immoral act is to be both hypocritical and myopic.

There are worse evils than war. Does that excuse war? Yes. Yes it does. Context is everything and the context of life on earth is that human life is a commodity that is bought and sold and squandered and wasted every second of every day.

Am I advocating violence and mass murders. No. I'm merely trying to give some perspective and context that I feel is lacking in the ideolistic and altruistic arguments.

Mel...

[Zoombie]

It would be a lot easier to feed all those starving people if their nations weren't warzones and if their infrastructure hadn't been smashed by wars and their medical support was destroyed by wars...

(Just to play devils avocado)

[dgiharris]

It would be a lot easier to feed all those starving people if their nations weren't warzones and if their infrastructure hadn't been smashed by wars and their medical support was destroyed by wars...

(Just to play devils avocado)

You are absolutely correct, it would be easier, yet we still don't do it. There are plenty of countries (that aren't warzones) with people starving to death, yet we still don't prevent their deaths.

Mel...

[Zoombie]

I blame Greenpeace.

No, really! They've got a history of blocking genetically engineered crops from getting to starving african nations...

Seriously, we need more people like Norman Borlaugh.

[robeiae]

I still believe the way to deal with the loud little handful, while they are still a loud little handful, is to fit them with special white jackets and reservations in self-protective accomodations where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
So, you're not a big fan of the American Revolution, I take it.

[robeiae]

I'm willing to fight for my home, for my friends, and for my family. However, I have seen what happens to people who think they're fighting for their country. They suffer, bleed, and (if they're lucky) die for their country, and what do they get in return? Scars, and maybe a medal. They come back from war with broken minds or broken bodies; they're not the same people they were before they put on the uniform, but the politicians don't care because all they did was issue the orders.

It's easy for politicians to say that we should go to war, and that we should be willing to fight, because that "we" never includes them. As far as I'm concerned, unless the hawkish politicians are willing to put their own lives on the line, the only sensible response to a politician's call for war should be, "Fight your own battles, asshole!"
I hear ya. I'm a very big Credence Clearwater Revival fan, myself. Still, as much as I think there is truth in Twain's quote, I also think people have to accept responsibility for their own actions and should be treated as individuals, with regard to their choices. So clearly, many, many people choose a different response.

Always have, always will. The fix? Destroy civilization. That's the short version, anyway.

[MGraybosch]

You forgot Truman.

Thanks.

[AMCrenshaw]

So, you're not a big fan of the American Revolution, I take it.

The revolution was won when the tea bags hit the water (we were costing the Empire, not serving it).

[Don]

So, you're not a big fan of the American Revolution, I take it.
I think a surgical strike against the King himself, along with a number of British generals and functionaries dying in their sleep could have been just as effective and much less expensive.

Pretending the loud little handful somehow deserve immunity from attack, while they line their citizens up for battle like chess men on a board, makes me nauseous.

[dgiharris]

I think a surgical strike against the King himself, along with a number of British generals and functionaries dying in their sleep could have been just as effective and much less expensive.

Pretending the loud little handful somehow deserve immunity from attack, while they line their citizens up for battle like chess men on a board, makes me nauseous.

I'm not so sure.

It seems that in order for people (the populace as a whole) to appreciate the magnitude of certain actions or events, that a proportional amount of pain, suffering, trials, and tribulations must be experienced by said populace. It is human nature.

Things just aren't that real to us unless we experience it (in some manner) first hand. Without the blood, pain, etc. etc. I do not believe America would have ever become its own country.

At the time, MOST of America didn't want to succeed. It was only AFTER the Brits took a heavy hand into quelling rebellion and a couple of massacres that the States galvanized and united.

Mel...

[Medievalist]

Destroy civilization. That's the short version, anyway.

I think we're working on it.

In all honesty, I think we're paralleling the last decades of the Roman Empire.

I'm waiting for women's haute couture adopt bare-breasted gowns, as they did in Rome, as my final sign of the end-times.

[dgiharris]

I think we're working on it.

In all honesty, I think we're paralleling the last decades of the Roman Empire.

I'm waiting for women's haute couture adopt bare-breasted gowns, as they did in Rome, as my final sign of the end-times.

the end is near

http://blog.racetotheright.com/post/lilkim.jpg

[Romantic Heretic]

I think the end will be near when the U.S. has to fill out the ranks of its military with mercenaries as the Romans did.

Oh wait! They already do (http://www.ustraining.com/new/index.asp). :(

[Don]

Mel, that is hands-down the juiciest rationalization for killing uninterested parties that I have ever heard. It's enough to convince me that Medi is right.

[Ken]

... thank goodness for that 'loud little handful.' If it wasn't for them we'd all be living under dictatorships, right now, instead of enjoying the freedoms we take for granted. Sure the handful calls it wrong sometimes, but I'd much rather put my trust in them then in the general public who never seem to have the heart for war, no matter how urgent the necessity. Much of the beast remains in man, and the only way to keep that beast at bay is through might. And when that fails a shotgun prevails.

[robeiae]

I think we're working on it.

In all honesty, I think we're paralleling the last decades of the Roman Empire.

I'm waiting for women's haute couture adopt bare-breasted gowns, as they did in Rome, as my final sign of the end-times.
I had an Idea. Pass it on, if you like, because I know I'll never research it in full:

Research all of the periods of large-scale economic volatility during the years of the Republic and Empire. Do the same for the USA. Account for wars not started from within.

Now, my idea is that technological growth can possibly be turned into some kind of temporal function. So on that basis, assume that the US Civil War is the moment of moving from Republic to Empire. Then, based on the number of economic disturbances in the Roman Republic and the American Republic, the temporal function can be extrapolated.

Then, simply count the number of economic disturbances in the Roman Empire prior to collapse, apply the function, and we would have an endpoint for the American Empire, and a number of economic disturbances left before that endpoint.

[MGraybosch]

Pretending the loud little handful somehow deserve immunity from attack, while they line their citizens up for battle like chess men on a board, makes me nauseous.

I agree, which is why I never get worked up when I hear about an assassination attempt on a politician. As far as I'm concerned, it's an occupational hazard.

[AMCrenshaw]

If it wasn't for them we'd all be living under dictatorships, right now, instead of enjoying the freedoms we take for granted.


Is there any way to back up this hyperbolic, oft-used argument?

Sure the handful calls it wrong sometimes, but I'd much rather put my trust in them then in the general public who never seem to have the heart for war, no matter how urgent the necessity.


The "heart" for war? Or do you mean stomach? Spine?


Much of the beast remains in man, and the only way to keep that beast at bay is through might.

Some might say intelligence.



AMC

[dgiharris]

I had an Idea. Pass it on, if you like, because I know I'll never research it in full:

Research all of the periods of large-scale economic volatility during the years of the Republic and Empire. Do the same for the USA. Account for wars not started from within.

Now, my idea is that technological growth can possibly be turned into some kind of temporal function. So on that basis, assume that the US Civil War is the moment of moving from Republic to Empire. Then, based on the number of economic disturbances in the Roman Republic and the American Republic, the temporal function can be extrapolated.

Then, simply count the number of economic disturbances in the Roman Empire prior to collapse, apply the function, and we would have an endpoint for the American Empire, and a number of economic disturbances left before that endpoint.

Hmmm...

I'm not sure this pans out. As I understand your argument, you are trying to find and use a correalation between technological growth, War, and Economic Volatility.

But the problem is, that technological growth is not linear, in fact, the further back you go, the more 'constant' technological growth is. That is, there was very little difference in technology from 1320 vs. 1420.

Conversely, technological growth in the 20th century to now could almost be considered exponential.

So, if there were a correalation between economic volatility, war, and technological growth, based on just the TG aspect, we should be experiencing war and economic volatility on a scale 100 to 1000 times more now than the past, but if you look at the past, there has pretty much always been a war going on.

hmmm....

you know. I think i'm thinking to macro on this. I think if I were to think on a more micro level, maybe you have something.

Logically, I think that the cause of War is based on some form of instability (whether it be cultural, political, military, technological, etc.). One thing that can cause instability is if one nation gained a technological advantage over another...

But I think the model will run into difficulties because the delta in technological change right now is so extreme...

ANyways, I will give this some thought, though I do not have the history expertise required.

Mel...

[robeiae]

Hmmm...

I'm not sure this pans out. As I understand your argument, you are trying to find and use a correalation between technological growth, War, and Economic Volatility.
No, no. I want to factor out the effects of some wars--the ones not started by Romans or the USA--on economic volatility.

But the problem is, that technological growth is not linear, in fact, the further back you go, the more 'constant' technological growth is. That is, there was very little difference in technology from 1320 vs. 1420.

Conversely, technological growth in the 20th century to now could almost be considered exponential.

Right. So what I'm suggesting is that our lifespan is gonna be a whole lot shorter than that of the Romans. See?

[Zoombie]

You know what irritates me?

When people predict a dire future and then a complete washing of hands.

"Oh, America is going to collapse like the Roman Empire!"

Cause, predicting that sort of thing brings with it the need to, oh I don't know DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Cause, I don't know about you, but I don't particularly like the idea of civilization collapsing right before we get somewhere really really cool.

Or it could be that we're NOT about to collapse and everyone is just predicting doom and gloom cause that's a great way to get attention.

But I'd rather bedge by hets and make sure that we prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

Soooo...any and all suggestions should go into the Save the World Thread.

[robeiae]

You do not know the unfathomable cowardice of humanity... servile in the face of force, pitiless in the face of weakness, implacable before blunders, indulgent before crimes... and patient to the point of martyrdom before all the violence of bold despotism.--Niccolo Machiavelli (attributed)

[dgiharris]

Right. So what I'm suggesting is that our lifespan is gonna be a whole lot shorter than that of the Romans. See?

Okay.

Yeah, I think you are definitely right on that score. Based on not only the technological growth but the severity of said growth-- that is, there is a difference between inventing the long bow and a nuclear bomb, I can't help but conclude that or lifespan as a nation will be shorter.

No way I see current governments lasting a thousand years. No way in hell.

I think that we are due for an 'evolution' of a new governmental model.

I love to speculate about this, but alot of the sci-fi books I believe aren't too far off in their predictions.

Overpopulation + dangerous technology = something different.

Just hope we don't blow ourselves back to the Stone Age.

Mel...

[Zoombie]

Oh, the end of goverment and the end of civilization is a bit different.

Heck, I'm actually up for a change of goverment. How about non-hierarchal demarchy enhanced with neural implants to help people keep up with the constant rate of change?

[robeiae]

Oh, the end of goverment and the end of civilization is a bit different.

Heck, I'm actually up for a change of goverment. How about non-hierarchal demarchy enhanced with neural implants to help people keep up with the constant rate of change?
Well, you'd really need to end civilization to end war. Changing governments won't do a thing in that regard.

[Zoombie]

Or you create a utopia through the awesome power of SCIENCE!

...not that I think that's going to happen any time soon.

[Magdalen]

Well, you'd really need to end civilization to end war. Changing governments won't do a thing in that regard.

Not playing semantics here, just enjoying the thread -- ending War and war-like behaviors would be a matter of increased civility, which would be an "advance" in civilization, IMHO. (Er, I think I just got your true intent regarding "end" -- I infer you mean that the remaining survivors would be more civil! Not so sure about that, but please don't vote me off the island just yet.)

[robeiae]

Not playing semantics here, just enjoying the thread -- ending War and war-like behaviors would be a matter of increased civility, which would be an "advance" in civilization, IMHO. (Er, I think I just got your true intent regarding "end" -- I infer you mean that the remaining survivors would be more civil! Not so sure about that, but please don't vote me off the island just yet.)
War, proper, requires civilization. Violence is omnipresent, regardless.

It's civilization that makes unequal conditions apparent, that highlights difference, and that creates group demands for resources. And it's civilization that provides the tools to give power to desire.

[Magdalen]

It's civilization that makes unequal conditions apparent, that highlights difference, and that creates group demands for resources. And it's civilization that provides the tools to give power to desire.

Size matters.

[robeiae]

Sure. But you still get war.

I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.--Thomas Hobbes

Violence on an individual level is simply not war, because there's no organization, no leadership.

[Magdalen]

"How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy."

Nietzsche

[AMCrenshaw]

War, proper, requires civilization. Violence is omnipresent, regardless.

I disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system). Why link there? Because war is clearly present. If you think about war as being an activity of civilization, OK, but let's then call the Immune System a civilization...



AMC

[Don]

Sure. But you still get war.

I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.--Thomas Hobbes

Violence on an individual level is simply not war, because there's no organization, no leadership.
Exactly. And by recognizing those who wish to control others as ill, and treating them early, you eliminate the leadership.

[AMCrenshaw]

Violence on an individual level is simply not war, because there's no organization, no leadership.

Leadership as a definitional prerequisite?

I can understand organization -- after all, organization can't occur in a vacuum. But I'd argue there is always organization -- it just might not look the way we think it should.



AMC

[robeiae]

I disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system). Why link there? Because war is clearly present. If you think about war as being an activity of civilization, OK, but let's then call the Immune System a civilization...



AMC

Leadership as a definitional prerequisite?

I can understand organization -- after all, organization can't occur in a vacuum. But I'd argue there is always organization -- it just might not look the way we think it should.



AMCSorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at, in either of these posts.

[robeiae]

Exactly. And by recognizing those who wish to control others as ill, and treating them early, you eliminate the leadership.Via other leadership? Regardless, that's a fix for the moment, only. What of the next generation? It's a fool's goal, Don...imo, of course.

[MGraybosch]

Via other leadership? Regardless, that's a fix for the moment, only. What of the next generation? It's a fool's goal, Don...imo, of course.

The next generation can do what it likes when we're dead.

[robeiae]

The next generation can do what it likes when we're dead.
Yeah, but I still don't think it can even get done in the moment. I was throwing Don a bone, as it were.

[blacbird]

Or you create a utopia through the awesome power of SCIENCE!

Aldous Huxley has given us a good description of such a place in Brave New World.

caw

[rugcat]

War, proper, requires civilization. Violence is omnipresent, regardless.Not all wars stem from the same principles. Some are over ideology, some religion (almost the same) some truly about power and control.

But some are simply over resources. If two individuals fins a water hole and there's only enough water for one, you're going to have violence. If two farms share a water source, and drought causes there to be only enough water to grow crops for one farm, there's going to be violence. Expand that to two towns, with only enough water to support one town's population, and you've got big trouble. Expand that to two countries, and you have a war for survival.

I'm not sure civilization has much to do with it, except in the sense of coordinated violence -- the only difference is the scale and cooperation.

[robeiae]

Not all wars stem from the same principles. Some are over ideology, some religion (almost the same) some truly about power and control.

But some are simply over resources. If two individuals fins a water hole and there's only enough water for one, you're going to have violence. If two farms share a water source, and drought causes there to be only enough water to grow crops for one farm, there's going to be violence. Expand that to two towns, with only enough water to support one town's population, and you've got big trouble. Expand that to two countries, and you have a war for survival.Right. I agree.

I'm not sure civilization has much to do with it, except in the sense of coordinated violence -- the only difference is the scale and cooperation.No, I don't think so. Minus "civilization," you're in pretty much of a vacuum. You only know your immediate environment. You can only compare yourself with others on an individual basis. Civilization ups the ante, so to speak. It provides more things to want, more things to desire, more points of comparison, more avenues of power. You take the bad with the good, imo.

[dgiharris]

But some are simply over resources. If two individuals fins a water hole and there's only enough water for one, you're going to have violence....

The problem with many altruistic type idealists is that they cannot nor are they willing to imagine this scenario.

In thier minds there is always a 'reasonable' way to reach some sort of consensus that is amiable to both parties.

But in real life, there are scenarios in which there really can be no meeting of the minds, one side must capitulate.

Take Iran's view of Israel. Iran has stated numerous times that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth. So how do you reason with that?

And furthermore, if you are Israel, do you just sit back and wait? Or do you be proactive.

IMHO, if I were Israel, the second Iran developed a ICBM they would be glowing from my nukes dropping on them like rain.

Civilization ups the ante, so to speak. It provides more things to want, more things to desire, more points of comparison, more avenues of power. You take the bad with the good, imo.

It also increases the COMPLEXITY by an order of magnitude if not greater. So much so that sometimes you can't anticipate the results

Mel...

[Medievalist]

I blame Greenpeace.

No, really! They've got a history of blocking genetically engineered crops from getting to starving african nations...

Seriously, we need more people like Norman Borlaugh.

The problem with genetically engineered crops these days is that it's pretty much all Monsanto, and the seeds are deliberately rendered sterile. That is, you plant your corn, or beans, and you harvest them--but you have to buy more seed to plant crops the next year; you can't plant seed you save from the crops.

It's a new kind of indentured servitude. It's also a little risky--I don't think we know nearly enough to be engaging in the sorts of gene-splicing that Monsanto and other are engaging in.

[Magdalen]

Alternatively, there's the devil to pay if the seeds do what seeds do and begin to grow without "authorization"!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

Today, Monsanto's patented "Round-up Ready" soy commands the lion's share of the genetically-modified soybean seed market, its genetic code manipulated to withstand the company's popular weed killer.

But the promise of fewer weeds and greater production comes with a hefty fee. Farmers must sign an iron-clad agreement not to re-plant the harvested seed, or face serious legal consequences - up to $3 million in damages.

"It's about protecting the patent, defending the patents, so farmers have the protection and can use these technologies over time," said Monsanto spokeswoman Tami Craig Schilling.

The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm.

"Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said.

[brokenfingers]

This question always makes me scratch my head.

Yes, I agree war is a horrible thing and it would be great if it didn’t exist. But I can say the same thing about crime. I’m pretty sure everybody here is against crime and wishes it weren’t so and can agree it is indeed a terrible problem for humankind.

But so what? We control our own actions and we don’t commit crimes, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t millions of other people who do commit crimes and see no problem with it. And that it must be fought.

Just as there are other people and nations who harbor no hesitancy whatsoever when it comes to using violence and terror to achieve their aims.

So does that mean we should abolish police departments or end law enforcement or not allow cops to carry guns? Or that regular citizens should be willing to protect themselves if they feel they want to prevent crime? Otherwise why ask cops to risk their lives?

No, it means we do what we must, even if it’s personally repugnant to us (after all, how many people want to get up at the crack of dawn and fight traffic to get to a job they hate every day?) because there is no other choice.

Sometimes you do what you have to do for the greater good. So that your family and children and those unable to physically do so, can continue to live a life you agree with and believe in – safe from harm.

So that the principles and ideals that you feel make humans worthy and grand and beautiful can continue, and yes, triumph over the darker aspects of humanity.

Yes, war is ugly and horrible, but at this point in our evolution, it’s still necessary sometimes.

[robeiae]

I'm against split ends, also.

[Medievalist]

What does "civilization" mean? What "counts"? Literacy? Some specific level of technology? Urban structures? Organized agriculture? What?

[Zoombie]

Aldous Huxley has given us a good description of such a place in Brave New World.

caw

No, that was a DYS-topia, the thing I'm trying to avoid.

See, science is like an anything invented in the entire span of human civilization.

You can use the anything invented in the entire span of human civilization for either GOOD or EVIL.

I see no reason why we can't use the powers of SCIENCE to provide a healthier, happier, freeier, and generally more 'ier' society in the future.

Beyond...ya know, luddiets and those who would manipulate the world for their own ends at the expense of others.

[tiny]

I'd be really interested to hear thoughts from someone who actually lives or has lived in a war zone.

[Zoombie]

I'd be interested too, cause all my thoughts of someone who has lived through a war comes from reading books and other sources and...well, I may be a very imaginative person, but I'm not *that* imaginative and I don't think anyone is.

[AMCrenshaw]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at, in either of these posts.

War exists independently of human civilization.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'd be really interested to hear thoughts from someone who actually lives or has lived in a war zone.

If you like to read (presumably you do since you presumably like to write :)), maybe check out Eduardo Galeano's Days and Nights of Love and War.


AMC

[Magdalen]

I'd be really interested to hear thoughts from someone who actually lives or has lived in a war zone.

Does Detroit count?

[tiny]

I can easily talk to someone who's lived in a war zone, I meant someone here, in this discussion. But I will look into the book, thanks. And no, Detroit is not a combat zone.

[AMCrenshaw]

The problem with many altruistic type idealists is that they cannot nor are they willing to imagine this scenario.



More men of straw wandering the countryside, asking one another, "Where is my brain?"

In their minds there is always a 'reasonable' way to reach some sort of consensus that is amiable to both parties.


Yes and no. When individuals or states share a desire they will compete for it -- is that what you're saying, essentially? In such a narrow framework you are right 100% of the time.

But discussing the supposed inevitability of war doesn't make war a good or bad thing (I thought dropping nukes or firing round or cutting throats would make war a bad thing, but I could be wrong...).

And really I think we have (and are) the necessary tools to create an environment in which war will occur less and less as time goes on, but we'd need to be imaginative in implementing them.

But in real life, there are scenarios in which there really can be no meeting of the minds, one side must capitulate.


"Sides" are most of the problem. US vs THEM is most of the problem. YOU vs ME is most of the problem. "Othering" is most of the problem. We only actively seek to destroy that which we consider less than us.

Take Iran's view of Israel. Iran has stated numerous times that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth. So how do you reason with that?


Wait, Mel. You're saying that -

the second Iran developed a ICBM they would be glowing from my nukes dropping on them like rain.


- is reasonable?




AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

I can easily talk to someone who's lived in a war zone, I meant someone here, in this discussion. But I will look into the book, thanks. And no, Detroit is not a combat zone.

Oh, I knew what you meant -- but I've never lived in a war / combat zone, though I know and am related to many who have.


AMC

[GeorgeK]

I had an Idea. ...
Now, my idea is that technological growth can possibly be turned into some kind of temporal function. ...Then, simply count the number of economic disturbances in the Roman Empire prior to collapse, apply the function, and we would have an endpoint for the American Empire, and a number of economic disturbances left before that endpoint.

It is an insufficient model because it assumes that all economic distubances are detrimental in the long run. The collapse of one industry will give rise to a better new one in a different form in a healthy system. The things that marked the decline of Rome were disinterest in learning to the point that they mandated what was in effect a caste system. "We can't get people to study medicine, so we will require all children of doctors to become physicians."

Entertainers were paid so much more than everyone else that people were selling themselves (and their children) into slavery so that they could compete in gladiatorial games.

Corruption...that's so blatant it doesn't need mentioning. It's so caustic in reviling honest idealists to even the thought of politics.

Having to hire mercs for wars


It just goes on. The parallels are there, and by the way, I think America is better parrallelled (That's got too many letters, but I've been up for a long time) by the history of Carthage, since they were an Economic Empire as opposed to the Roman War Machine.

Add to that, antropology studies on human population densities and taking into account wars, famines, pandemics etc. something horrendously BIG is on it's way in the next ten years. (assuming there aren't new factors to counteract a lot of this stuff)

[AMCrenshaw]

"We do not overcome lying with lies; we overcome it with truth...Sickness is not overcome with sickness; it is overcome with health. If I cut my finger, the remedy is not to cut another finger, but to succor the original wound...

...The successful way to overcome the evil of war is by the good of peace, a steadfast refusal to 'render evil for evil'"


--Benjamin Joseph Salmon (http://www.jonahhouse.org/BenSalmonltr.htm)

[Romantic Heretic]

The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. - Bill Mauldin (http://www.stripes.com/02/nov02/mauldin/)

[tiny]

I have to ask, are the many quotes supposed to be some sort of truism about war?

[dgiharris]

More men of straw wandering the countryside, asking one another, "Where is my brain?"


In regards to idealists and altruists. Yes. I realize i'm speaking in generalizations, but you give them historical examples of war and the reasons for war and many times, despite historical facts and the benefits of hindsight 20/20 many idealists and altruists will insist that we shouldn't have fought in WWII, will conveniently ignore Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. etc.

Yes and no. When individuals or states share a desire they will compete for it -- is that what you're saying, essentially? In such a narrow framework you are right 100% of the time.


I don't see this as such a narrow framework but a reality. Iran wishes to pursue and possess nuclear weapons, the West does not wish them to have them.

The West wishes to posses a missile defense platform, Russia is vehemently opposed to this system.

North Korea frequently sabre rattles and is actively pursuing nukes and the Region/West doesn't wish them to have them

Russia wished to secure their oil interests in Georgia and did so with military force...

I could go on and on with examples, many narrow minded examples that are representative of the real world. Many conflicts boil down to us vs. them.

But discussing the supposed inevitability of war doesn't make war a good or bad thing (I thought dropping nukes or firing round or cutting throats would make war a bad thing, but I could be wrong...)

My discussions around war, death, human life, etc. were more in the sense to provide context. I find that many anti-war arguments tend to try to isolate 'war', take it out of context and by doing so you highlight the horrors of war.

Despite my rantings, I am not a warmonger, merely a realist.

And really I think we have (and are) the necessary tools to create an environment in which war will occur less and less as time goes on, but we'd need to be imaginative in implementing them.
Yes and no. We have a certain naivette when it comes to the 'real world'. If we took off the rose tinted glasses and looked at the way of the world objectively, I do believe it is within our power (our being the world) to substantially reduce war. Unfortunately, we lack the integrity and honesty to acknowledge many basic truths that would require our adequately addressing the problems.

For example, look at Rwanda and Bosnia. We watched while Millions were being killed and did nothing. And yet, we walk around talking about how precious human life is. It is this type of mental contortion that enables all manners of 'evil' to exist in the world. We need to be honest in our morals and integrity and be consistent. At present, we as a species do not have the internal strength required for honest self introspection. WIthout this strength, 'the powers that be' will be able to manipulate their respective populaces and continue endless cycles of war...

"Sides" are most of the problem. US vs THEM is most of the problem. YOU vs ME is most of the problem. "Othering" is most of the problem. We only actively seek to destroy that which we consider less than us.

The real world often boils down to sides. See the list of conflicts above. And no, sometimes its not a matter of 'us' being superior to 'them'. Often times, it is a case of conflicting interests.

Iran wants Nukes. The West does not want Iran to have Nukes.

Wait, Mel. You're saying that -

- is reasonable?

In regards to me saying that Israel nuking Iran is reasonable.

Absolutely. If any State (X) has declared that another State (Y) should be destroyed, that is a declaration of war. And if that X is developing the means to carry out that threat then Y has no choice but to prevent X from developing those means.

I mean, what do you propose as the alternative? You are the leader of Israel, your Intelligence agency says that Iran is 2 yrs - 10yrs away from developing a nuclear ICBM that can reach your state. Iran has recently just released another statement calling for your destruction. What do you do? Incidentally, this scenario IS NOT a hypothetical!

Mel...

[robeiae]

What does "civilization" mean? What "counts"? Literacy? Some specific level of technology? Urban structures? Organized agriculture? What?
Good point. It's not a very clear thing, at all.

But I think the minimal economic requirement is specialization of labor. Maybe the minimal political requirement is a concept of law/rules.

Socially? The one thing you definitely need for civilization is something to contrast it with: there's no civilized without an uncivilized. And that's another excellent way to make a war...

[robeiae]

War exists independently of human civilization.
War among people? No, I don't think it does.

A general idea of war, that does not require people? Sure. But that's obviously not what I've been talking about. Can't speak for everyone else.

[Bird of Prey]

Afghan police want more training, not more international troops
By Rahim Faiez (CP) – 18 minutes ago

KABUL, Afghanistan — Police officials from some of Afghanistan's most violent regions questioned the need for more U.S. troops, saying Monday it would increase the perception they are an occupying power and that the money was better spent on local forces.

The police officials were responding to a confidential report in which Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, warned the war was getting worse and could be lost without more troops. Details of McChrystal's assessment was first reported late Sunday by The Washington Post.

President Barack Obama earlier this year approved sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by the end of 2009. Increasing that number risks alienating Afghans, police officials said.

"It is very hard for local people to accept any foreigners who come to our country and say they are fighting for our freedom," said Gen. Azizudin Wardak, the police chief in Paktia province. "To give the idea that they are not invaders, that they are not occupiers, is very difficult."

Mohammad Pashtun, the chief of criminal investigation unit of southern Kandahar province, the Taliban's heartland, said that the money would be better off going to Afghan forces.

"Increasing international troops is not useful," he said. "For the expense of one American soldier, we can pay for 15 Afghan soldiers or police."

Gen. Abdul Jalal Jalal, a board member of the national police academy, called for increased funding for training centres to boost the skills of Afghan troops whom he complained don't get the credit they deserve for protecting the country.

"Increasing troops in Afghanistan is not effective. This has been our experience over the past years," said Jalal, who used to be the police chief for eastern Kunar province. "From the experience I have from Kunar province, our Army and police were very effective in all operations that we launched."

All sides are calling for more training for Afghan troops, but it may be difficult to root out the corruption and incompetence in the force. Residents said they are relieved to see international troops with them on joint patrols because they associate Afghan troops with thieves and American troops often complain their Afghan counterparts are not battle ready. . . . http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gX526MFxIjiDOlTclBZaDdLEkVFA


I know this much. If that which is taking lives in gun battles and roadside bombings is not considered "war" by any legal declaration, it shouldn't be funded or fought.

[SPMiller]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," 1862.Makes the (false) assumption that all opposition to war is predicated upon one's personal safety. Which is false.

Did I mention it's false?

False.

Hey. You know what?









False!

[robeiae]

Makes the (false) assumption that all opposition to war is predicated upon one's personal safety. Which is false.

Did I mention it's false?

False.

Hey. You know what?









False!But you've made the false assumption that Mill was speaking of all opposition and all war. Which is false...

When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.--J.S. Mill

See?

[Don]

Join me outside the box that the leaders, the schools, and the media have created for us, and take a fresh look for just a moment, suspending disbelief for a half-dozen paragraphs.

The West, Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran, United States are all handy legal fictions we can blame the crimes of their leaders on.

States cannot act. Only individuals can act. Some person fires the first shot. Some person launches the first missle. Every physical act is the result of a personal decision by a self-responsible individual. Every non-natural death of an individual occurs at the hands of another individual.

No despot could achieve his aims without those willing to set aside their own judgement and follow his orders. The leaders of a country cannot develop or deploy weapons, cannot wage war, except with the willing participation of citizens who suspend their critical judgement and accept their leader's claim of the necessity to murder other non-leaders.

Yet what do our government schools teach? Obedience to authority, or independent judgement and self-responsibility? What do our social structures and media drill into our heads, day in and day out? Us vs. them, our sports team over theirs, our leaders over theirs. And those who speak for reason and fairness? "Kill the umpire" is not simply emotional hyperbole.

It is impossible to shift blame, share guilt, or distribute responsibility, as those are judgements of actions taken by individuals. Mankind moved beyond the excuse "I was only following orders" generations ago.

There is no doubt that evil people exist, and must be removed from society, and from control over society. Is the best way to accomplish that by innocent people lining up to kill other innocent people at the commands of their leaders, or by dropping bombs on innocent people under control of an evil person because of their geographical location? Is that the best solution that 7 billion people can find to remove a few thousand evil people from their thrones?

War is the best solution to removing evil people from positions of authority? Seriously? We can't come up with anything better than that?

[SPMiller]

There was no falsity in my post--only that posed by this Mill fellow. I guess I have to break it down, then. /sigh

The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

Equating the feeling that "nothing is worth war" with a "decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling". Poorly-framed rubbish.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, [...]

Another implied tautology conflating "nothing for which he is willing to fight" with "nothing [...] more important than his own personal safety", thereby excluding the possibility that there could be other reasons for opposing war, of which there happen to be a great many.

It's plain bad rhetoric. Perhaps some enclosing context might better explain his intent, but standing alone, his quote is a poor one. I'm unwilling to delve any deeper into the argument.

[robeiae]

It's plain bad rhetoric. Perhaps some enclosing context might better explain his intent, but standing alone, his quote is a poor one. I'm unwilling to delve any deeper into the argument.
I thought the date and name of the piece gave sufficient context. My apologies. He was speaking of the U.S. Civil War.

[AMCrenshaw]

In regards to idealists and altruists. Yes. I realize i'm speaking in generalizations, but you give them historical examples of war and the reasons for war and many times, despite historical facts and the benefits of hindsight 20/20 many idealists and altruists will insist that we shouldn't have fought in WWII, will conveniently ignore Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. etc.


The soldiers of WWII may have fought for "Good" reasons, but the people ordering the invasions couldn't care less. I've posted on that a number of times and linked to one such post in this thread.


My discussions around war, death, human life, etc. were more in the sense to provide context. I find that many anti-war arguments tend to try to isolate 'war', take it out of context and by doing so you highlight the horrors of war.

Mel, I know you're not a war-monger, and the thought of it hadn't even entered my head. But the horror of war is embedded in the context. That's probably what makes it even worse (immoral, impractical) for me. That after how many thousands of years we still have this country-nation, body-ego problem - still an us vs them problem.

But OK. Let's take this from a "realist's" point of view. Are you saying that in the long term war is really the best option? Or just the best option in some isolated, extreme, emergency situations? If so, is it worth the argument that war is a good option in circumstances which amount to statistical outliers?

Again, from a realists' point of view, consider how much money, time, and life is spent on military and the preparation for war........Is it reasonable? Practical? When 10-20% of a country is unemployed, let's spend half a trillion on the military. Or, for another example, half a country is impoverished, so why not spend more money on developing and testing nuclear weapons -- even though doing so only harms those impoverished in the first place.


For example, look at Rwanda and Bosnia. We watched while Millions were being killed and did nothing. And yet, we walk around talking about how precious human life is.


Here's what I was saying: sometimes war has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. I won't kill anyone, for moral reasons -- but I understand that sometimes people need to take up arms in order to survive or to protect their dignity. In the cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur (and many more) I wouldn't ever blame people for going to war to stop genocide...if that were the real reason, at least. That doesn't mean I'll participate directly. Nor should I be forced to.


It is this type of mental contortion that enables all manners of 'evil' to exist in the world. We need to be honest in our morals and integrity and be consistent. At present, we as a species do not have the internal strength required for honest self introspection. WIthout this strength, 'the powers that be' will be able to manipulate their respective populaces and continue endless cycles of war...

Yes. This is precisely why I keep saying that war is a mechanism independent of human civilization. Because it's not necessary or an absolute. We'll freely admit human potential and likewise admit its errors and shortcomings. The intersection of the state and war is one very serious human mistake, in my opinion. One that can in fact be fixed. Soon? ay ay ay, probably not.


Absolutely. If any State (X) has declared that another State (Y) should be destroyed, that is a declaration of war. And if that X is developing the means to carry out that threat then Y has no choice but to prevent X from developing those means.

I mean, what do you propose as the alternative? You are the leader of Israel, your Intelligence agency says that Iran is 2 yrs - 10yrs away from developing a nuclear ICBM that can reach your state. Iran has recently just released another statement calling for your destruction. What do you do? Incidentally, this scenario IS NOT a hypothetical!



It would be unfair of me to ask you what you would do, since you're a scientist and not a world leader. So I won't answer this question unless or until I'm in such a position with proper education and skills. I won't bother armchairin' it, at least now.

But from man to man, let me say that I've been threatened 1,000 times in my life and have never once been beaten up or attacked or met with any of the threats actually proposed to me. Talk is cheap, everyone knows it.

At the same time "attack before you're attacked" is, to me, the shoddiest excuse I've ever heard to send 18 years olds off to combat.

As a side - and personal - note, I urge you to visit Hiroshima. My visit there may have been the beginning of my pacifism.


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

I have to ask, are the many quotes supposed to be some sort of truism about war?


What is universally true about war? I'm not sure. When I provide quotes, it's because I find them insightful. It's still only a slice of the cake, and, Tiny Terror, you can choose to eat, chew, swallow, vomit, ignore, stare at or throw away what people put on the table. Of course you know your real options. But I have to ask, did you make up your mind before asking the question?



AMC

[SPMiller]

Here's what I was saying: sometimes war has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. I won't kill anyone, for moral reasons -- but I understand that sometimes people need to take up arms in order to survive or to protect their dignity. In the cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur (and many more) I wouldn't ever blame people for going to war to stop genocide...if that were the real reason, at least. That doesn't mean I'll participate directly. Nor should I be forced to.Yet our government still requires its children to register for the draft. They reserve the right to force us into service against our will. If I could go back in time to age eighteen, I'd make sure I didn't register. To this day I regret that I did. I'd gladly suffer all applicable consequences to make my opinion on the matter clear.

[tiny]

What is universally true about war? I'm not sure. When I provide quotes, it's because I find them insightful. It's still only a slice of the cake, and, Tiny Terror, you can choose to eat, chew, swallow, vomit, ignore, stare at or throw away what people put on the table. Of course you know your real options. But I have to ask, did you make up your mind before asking the question?



AMC

I get the distinct impression that regardless of my answer, you believe I have.

[dgiharris]

There was no falsity in my post--only that posed by this Mill fellow. I guess I have to break it down, then. /sigh
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
Equating the feeling that "nothing is worth war" with a "decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling". Poorly-framed rubbish.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, [...]
Another implied tautology conflating "nothing for which he is willing to fight" with "nothing [...] more important than his own personal safety", thereby excluding the possibility that there could be other reasons for opposing war, of which there happen to be a great many.

It's plain bad rhetoric. Perhaps some enclosing context might better explain his intent, but standing alone, his quote is a poor one. I'm unwilling to delve any deeper into the argument.

Sorry, I guess we see what we want to see.

John Mills quote does a decent job of escapsulating the issue.

All wars have at their base Moral and Patriotic feelings.
Yes, the statements "nothing for which he is willing to fight" + "nothing which is more important than his on personal safety" implies a cause and effect, however this statement is not a 'Conditional And' statement. Meaning that the statements can and should be looked at separately as well as together.

And I happen to agree. I've met people who refuse to fight in ANY circumstance and these people invoke a visceral response within me of pure loathing.

Why?

I feel it is biological and evolutionary. Mankind's ability to survive is/was DEPENDANT on the tribe. One on One, man cannot stand against most of the other predators on this planet. For that matter, one on one, man does fairly poorly against most animals on this planet.

Thus, our survival depends on our ability to work and fight together. I'm sure there were people who refused to help or defend the camp when a sabre tooth tiger or grizzy bear or 'other' human tribe strolled into camp. The actions of those who refused to 'help' actually endanger the survival of the entire tribe. And I'm sure the tribe exiled or killed such people since not to do so endangered the tribe.

And thus, I have a vehement subconscious hatred for those who refuse 'under any circumstances' to fight for the tribe, and in this case my tribe is America.

Why? Well, that refusal to fight endangers me and threatens my survival.

Incidentally, you can pick apart any quote. But John Mills quote is one of the better ones, especially when taken into context. What is the context? Well, pretty much any war, regardless of the side it is applied.

Mel...

EDIT: by 'fight' I mean to aid resisting. Or to 'support' your state by other means. It is possible to 'fight' through non-violent resistance ala Ghandi.

[AMCrenshaw]

I get the distinct impression that regardless of my answer, you believe I have.

I try not to ask rhetorical questions.



AMC

[William Haskins]

Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals.

In our late canvass half of the nation passionately believed that in silver lay salvation, the other half as passionately believed that that way lay destruction. Do you believe that a tenth part of the people, on either side, had any rational excuse for having an opinion about the matter at all? I studied that mighty question to the bottom—came out empty. Half of our people passionately believe in high tariff, the other half believe otherwise. Does this mean study and examination, or only feeling? The latter, I think. I have deeply studied that question, too—and didn't arrive. We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.


Mark Twain. Corn-Pone Opinions (http://people.virginia.edu/%7Ejmc3qm/enwr105/corn-pone.html)

[tiny]

I try not to ask rhetorical questions.



AMC


Neither do I, nor do I question people's sincerity when asking one.

[dgiharris]

The soldiers of WWII may have fought for "Good" reasons, but the people ordering the invasions couldn't care less. I've posted on that a number of times and linked to one such post in this thread.
I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. But at this point, i want to get away from the 'right or wrong' aspect of war. War is about survival of the State. And in matters of survival, the only thing that matters is, well, your survival.

Mel, I know you're not a war-monger, and the thought of it hadn't even entered my head. But the horror of war is embedded in the context. That's probably what makes it even worse (immoral, impractical) for me. That after how many thousands of years we still have this country-nation, body-ego problem - still an us vs them problem.

This is where I think your argument breaks down. The REALITY is that the world is us vs. them. I mean, look at a map. Every country is separated by a bold thick line for a reason, because we are all separate!


But OK. Let's take this from a "realist's" point of view. Are you saying that in the long term war is really the best option? Or just the best option in some isolated, extreme, emergency situations? If so, is it worth the argument that war is a good option in circumstances which amount to statistical outliers?
IMHO, I agree with Clausewitz. War is an extension of politics. Another way to view it is that War is an extension of 'conflict'.

If I drew an analogy between two individuals. When there is a conflict, the first resort is to talk and reason. If that fails, another path to resolution is often some form of batering. If that fails, the next escalation is often physical or an implied physical threat (i.e. like getting out of your car when contesting a parking space, or stepping up to someone demanding an apology, etc).

This is natural and we see this every single day in our own personal interactions and dealings. So I don't understand why many can't see how this progression occurs between nation states.

Again, from a realists' point of view, consider how much money, time, and life is spent on military and the preparation for war........Is it reasonable? Practical? When 10-20% of a country is unemployed, let's spend half a trillion on the military. Or, for another example, half a country is impoverished, so why not spend more money on developing and testing nuclear weapons -- even though doing so only harms those impoverished in the first place.

This is actually an easy argument to counter. How much did Poland and France spend on their military back in 1938? Whatever the amount, I bet in 1939 they WISHED they spent double or triple that! What is the safety and security of a nation worth?


Here's what I was saying: sometimes war has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. I won't kill anyone, for moral reasons -- but I understand that sometimes people need to take up arms in order to survive or to protect their dignity. In the cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur (and many more) I wouldn't ever blame people for going to war to stop genocide...if that were the real reason, at least. That doesn't mean I'll participate directly. Nor should I be forced to.

You are free not to fight.

It would be unfair of me to ask you what you would do, since you're a scientist and not a world leader. So I won't answer this question unless or until I'm in such a position with proper education and skills. I won't bother armchairin' it, at least now.


I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I consider answers of this sort to be a cop out. You are arguing the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and yet when a real world scenario has been presented to you, you refuse to apply your arguments to it?

The decision for War is often based on incomplete information. IMHO, Israel will be place in an extremely uncomfortable situation in the next 2 - 10 yrs. And their actions can have a broad range from depending on a MAD type scenario to protect them to being the first to do a preemptive strike.

But the reason I listed this example is that it is a perfect real world case of us vs. them and a conflict that is beyond a Kumbi-ya meeting of the minds. So what do you do?

But from man to man, let me say that I've been threatened 1,000 times in my life and have never once been beaten up or attacked or met with any of the threats actually proposed to me. Talk is cheap, everyone knows it.

THere is a difference between cheap talk and a real threat. People are beaten and killed daily on 'threats' so don't be so quick to dimiss them just because you've never experienced a credible threat.

I've personally been attacked numerous times based on threats so I have a different perspective.

At the same time "attack before you're attacked" is, to me, the shoddiest excuse I've ever heard to send 18 years olds off to combat.

o.k. so you should wait until you are attacked first regardless of circumstance?

As a side - and personal - note, I urge you to visit Hiroshima. My visit there may have been the beginning of my pacifism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd_Jr.

I have a different take on the world. Violence is a part of the world and as a minority you 'feel' the vulnerability of what can happen to you.

One day, I do hope that we can all live in peace and harmony, but for now, the world is a dangerous place with real dangers. And as such, I must act accordingly

Mel...

[AMCrenshaw]

I feel it is biological and evolutionary. Mankind's ability to survive is/was DEPENDANT on the tribe.


Sure. Is it possible that the tribe mentality has outlived its usefulness? That would indicate evolution (change). Rather, you're talking about evolutionary stagnant waters.

Thus, our survival depends on our ability to work and fight together.


Still? I think our ability to rationalize and feel compassion are better for survival than tribalism.

I'm sure there were people who refused to help or defend the camp when a sabre tooth tiger or grizzy bear or 'other' human tribe strolled into camp.


Funny you use this analogy, considering you don't put animals and humans on the same level. Until there are tribal issues, then one tribe (us) is superior to another (them)...



And thus, I have a vehement subconscious hatred for those who refuse 'under any circumstances' to fight for the tribe, and in this case my tribe is America.


It's my opinion that nationalism amounts to an ego problem. No better example here: If you're not with me, the way I want when I want it, you're against me. If you're not willing to kill for my tribe, you're a threat to my tribe.

A familiar, sad logic...




AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

This is actually an easy argument to counter. How much did Poland and France spend on their military back in 1938? Whatever the amount, I bet in 1939 they WISHED they spent double or triple that! What is the safety and security of a nation worth?

Ask those countries now. The times have since changed, in some places...but I suppose not in others.


This is natural and we see this every single day in our own personal interactions and dealings. So I don't understand why many can't see how this progression occurs between nation states.


No we don't. When people engage in interpersonal violence I call it childish, short-sighted, and brutish. Is this the best "last resort" (ha!) we can come up with? We, writers? We, who supposedly have access to an imagination?



AMC



ETA: another point...maps are reality? People see it that way. That's my problem, I guess-- that my imaginary boundaries would contain something better (more valuable) than someone else's is distinctly absurd, imo.

[AMCrenshaw]

Neither do I, nor do I question people's sincerity when asking one.

I have problems detecting tone over the internet, and should have given you the benefit of the doubt. My apologies.


AMC

[William Haskins]

Sure. Is it possible that the tribe mentality has outlived its usefulness? That would indicate evolution (change). Rather, you're talking about evolutionary stagnant waters.

it's possible, but we appear not to have reached that point yet, as tribalism is still deeply ingrained, not as an intellectualized concept, but as a psychological default.

[AMCrenshaw]

it's possible, but we appear not to have reached that point yet, as tribalism is still deeply ingrained, not as an intellectualized concept, but as a psychological default.

Yes, but so is all kinds of bigotry (excuse my language-- please understand that I'm not aiming this at anyone personally) that we've overcome, and are still overcoming. And the kind of tribalism which asserts superiority over another has a lot of common ancestry with those kinds of bigotry.


AMC

[William Haskins]

i believe they are both from the same source. the inherent tribalism and discrimination present in small children is the seed from which entrenched bigotry and prejudice grow.

the challenge is to recognize and accept the evolutionary origin of tribalism, but break the cycle of subverted socialization that allows it to calcify into racial dogma.

[SPMiller]

Oh no, don't you two go dragging race and other similar issues into this. I'm perfectly happy without your book-learning ruining my preconceptions. Bigotry and tribalism have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all in any way whatsoever. Duuuhhhh.

[dgiharris]

Sure. Is it possible that the tribe mentality has outlived its usefulness? That would indicate evolution (change). Rather, you're talking about evolutionary stagnant waters.


No. Humans are pack animals, thus everything we produce, be it nations or governments, etc, will be founded by the logic and dynamics that govern packs.


Still? I think our ability to rationalize and feel compassion are better for survival than tribalism.

Actually, no. Rationalization implies that there is a singular correct solution and sometimes that is simply not the case. In a world of infinite need and finite resources there will be conflict. It is unavoidable.

I do agree that rationalization and compassion can help and should be employed, however we must recognize the situation in which these factors will not solve the conflict


Funny you use this analogy, considering you don't put animals and humans on the same level. Until there are tribal issues, then one tribe (us) is superior to another (them)...

I was not inferring superior vs inferior, I was just giving an example of threats and us vs. them. My us vs. them model does not need for 'us' to be superior. In fact, my model is based on both sides being equivalent.

In these types of arguments, the natural inclination is to try to be morally 'right'. that is, our side is 'right' in the war. I think that is more or less irrelevant since both sides will feel there side is right. In matters of survival, there is no right or wrong, merely who survives and who doesn't.

It's my opinion that nationalism amounts to an ego problem. No better example here: If you're not with me, the way I want when I want it, you're against me. If you're not willing to kill for my tribe, you're a threat to my tribe.
I would amend my argument from 'killing' for my tribe to 'helping' my tribe in times of crisis.

I do consider pacifists vital to our moral consciousness. We need that extreme to keep people like me from advocating that we simply conquer the world.

However, as with any extreme, there are cases where it is inappropriate or the argument breaks down.

The fact is, the world is a violent place. Bad things happen to good people, evil is not always punished. Good does not always trump evil.

Anyways, those are my views. In a nutshell, we have not evolved beyond violence and as such, there are times when it will be needed

Mel...

[SPMiller]

And for the record, dgiharris, I am proud to evoke in you "pure loathing".

Sup? While you're doing all that loathing, I'm having a damn good time with some lovin'.

[William Haskins]

Oh no, don't you two go dragging race and other similar issues into this. I'm perfectly happy without your book-learning ruining my preconceptions. Bigotry and tribalism have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all in any way whatsoever. Duuuhhhh.

and, with that, i will gently back out of the conversation.

[AMCrenshaw]

i believe they are both from the same source. the inherent tribalism and discrimination present in small children is the seed from which entrenched bigotry and prejudice grow.

the challenge is to recognize and accept the evolutionary origin of tribalism, but break the cycle of subverted socialization that allows it to calcify into racial dogma.

I agree fully with this. But I guess I also think there's a cycle of subverted socialization which gives way to nationalism. To the extent that those killed are sub-human...less human than we are. From my point of view, at least, that which is equal (as opposed to equally valuable at a fleeting moment in time) to me I will not willingly destroy. Again, that's a moral stance.


AMC

[dgiharris]

Ask those countries now. The times have since changed, in some places...but I suppose not in others.

Many European countries reap the benefits of NATO and US protection. 'Somebody' must pay the cost and right now, the US is paying that cost.

But ask your question when Russia rolls into their neighborhoods on tanks. I bet you'd get a different answer.

No we don't. When people engage in interpersonal violence I call it childish, short-sighted, and brutish. Is this the best "last resort" (ha!) we can come up with? We, writers? We, who supposedly have access to an imagination?


Read what you wrote. My point is simple. IT HAPPENS!!! That is my point. I don't care if it is childish, stupid, etc. etc. The point is, in the real world, not a hypothetical Kumbi-ya world, violent conflicts occur daily.

And my arguments account for actions in the real world, not my theoritical musings on how the world 'should' work.

Yes, it sucks that we are still monkeys running around with laptops and machine guns, but that is the state of the world now. I do hope we evolve beyond violence, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Mel...

[AMCrenshaw]

Actually, no. Rationalization implies that there is a singular correct solution and sometimes that is simply not the case.

I disagree. Rationalization implies there is a multiplicity of possible solutions and yes indeed there can be a hierarchy of better, worse, etc. -- but we'd have to set parameters for any absolute / best / correct solution to exist
I imagine mine would have to do with balancing survivability, general well-being, and ethics.


In a world of infinite need and finite resources there will be conflict. It is unavoidable.

I like conflict. I live on it. Not all conflict is war, though. And, ethically speaking . . .





AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

Read what you wrote. My point is simple. IT HAPPENS!!! That is my point. I don't care if it is childish, stupid, etc. etc. The point is, in the real world, not a hypothetical Kumbi-ya world, violent conflicts occur daily.


Mel...quote me. Where did I once say these things don't happen?

And my arguments account for actions in the real world, not my theoritical musings on how the world 'should' work.


Your argument entailed nuking a country!!

Yes, it sucks that we are still monkeys running around with laptops and machine guns, but that is the state of the world now. I do hope we evolve beyond violence, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


OK. I'm not in disagreement about your sentiment - that NO SHIT there's violence. But quite often we are the agents of our changes. Crossing my arms and saying, Well that's how it is, doesn't do shit to stop violence. With that in mind, consider the above tribal elements William and I briefly discussed.



AMC


When we want fire we rub stones together (or however)...

[rugcat]

And I happen to agree. I've met people who refuse to fight in ANY circumstance and these people invoke a visceral response within me of pure loathing.Does that include Gandhi, Mel?

Remember, refusing to fight does not mean refusing to resist. From the Indian perspective, they wished to rid themselves of a Colonial occupier. Many bloody battles were fought with this in mind. But only Ghandhi and his strategy succeeded in obtaining this goal.

Evolutionarily speaking, aggression and conflict is only one method of ensuring species survival, and not necessarily the most effective one.

[dgiharris]

Does that include Gandhi, Mel?

Remember, refusing to fight does not mean refusing to resist. From the Indian perspective, they wished to rid themselves of a Colonial occupier. Many bloody battles were fought with this in mind. But only Ghandhi and his strategy succeeded in obtaining this goal.

Evolutionarily speaking, aggression and conflict is only one method of ensuring species survival, and not necessarily the most effective one.

Ah, ever the semantics with us writers.

You are right. "resist" would be a much better word.

Nonviolent resistance is one of the most powerful forms of 'fighting' as you are basically engaging in a battle of ethics and morals.

Similarly, one can 'fight' through supporting those that are actually doing the fighting. Basically, when I said 'fight' I did not soley mean physical violence though I will admit I infer imply it.

Mel...

EDIT: don't drink and post, leads to the use of the wrong words

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I consider answers of this sort to be a cop out. You are arguing the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and yet when a real world scenario has been presented to you, you refuse to apply your arguments to it?


Well on one hand you're flaming (kumbaya is an insult); on the other I see sincerity here. Let me say that I don't feel qualified to make the decisions for a whole country, much less Israel OK?

But, strictly hypothetically, if a country declares my country as an enemy and threatens to launch nukes soon...doesn't the US have a nuclear defense system, for example (and, as a side-note, we don't need to invade all kinds of countries to develop this technology)?



o.k. so you should wait until you are attacked first regardless of circumstance?

Yes. But in the mean time prepare some damn good defense, if it is in fact such a real threat. And particularly, I'd establish ahead of time escape routes we can transport children, non-fighting men and women to safe countries.


AMC

[dgiharris]

Well on one hand you're flaming (kumbaya is an insult); on the other I see sincerity here. Let me say that I don't feel qualified to make the decisions for a whole country, much less Israel OK?

But, strictly hypothetically, if a country declares my country as an enemy and threatens to launch nukes soon...doesn't the US have a nuclear defense system, for example (and, as a side-note, we don't need to invade all kinds of countries to develop this technology)?


Yes. But in the mean time prepare some damn good defense, if it is in fact such a real threat. And particularly, I'd establish ahead of time escape routes we can transport children, non-fighting men and women to safe countries.

Sorry to flame,

I will also admit I'm not qualified to answer for Israel. I just acknowledge that decisions for War are mired in incomplete information and uncertainty.

On one hand you have what may or may not happen, and then on the other hand, you have the lives and interest of your State. This reminds me of the Prisoner's Dilema somewhat. And I think the end result for many nations is to 'error' on the side of their interests and security which in some cases means war or even a preemptive strike.

IIRC, wasn't Israel's war in the 70s essentially a preemptive strike of those around them gearing up to wipe them out?

Anyways, we will agree to disagree. I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree. And I apologize if any of my postings infer imply the contrary.

Mel...

[AMCrenshaw]

we will agree to disagree. I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree. And I apologize if any of my postings infer the contrary.

Likewise, on all points.


AMC

[dmytryp]

IIRC, wasn't Israel's war in the 70s essentially a preemptive strike of those around them gearing up to wipe them out?

Mel...

The Six Day War started as a preemptive strike against Egypt (Jordan and Syria are another matter). But Egypt had already done agressive moves -- it expelled UN observers from Sinai, amassed its military there (against armistace agreements) and closed the straights of Tiran to israeli shipping. There is a little know fact that mere couple of weeks before the israeli strike Egypt was gearing for an attack that eventually didn't go through.

A couple of points. Some of this argument evokes in me the feeling of "wishful thinking vs. reality". Yeah, it would be nice if there wasn't war or if people would transcend their nationalism (I actually see nothing wrong with healthy doses of nationalism, it preserves different cultures and the likes). But this isn't reality. AMC says (I am paraphrasing), "I know s* happens, but we should strive to imporve things." I generally agree, but we have to accept at some point that not everything is up to us. Other players might not see it this way and even actively work to subvert your actions. So what do you do? Do you pretend that this is not true and try to live in the world that you think it should be, or do you live with the hand you are dealt?

I actually don't have a problem with people being pacifists (especially if they are true consistent pacifists). I do have a problem with those who would try to moralize others for making a different choice.

AMC, one point about defensive vs. offensive means. You have two problems with your argument. Historically, offensive weaponry always comes in front of defensive weaponry. One side makes a weapon, the other side can counter. The first side improves his weapon and then the defender has to seek to counter again, but during this time he is vulnerable (there are several interesting Sci.fi. stories on the subject. one of them is called Arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(short_story))). You can see this over time by following history of tank developements. The second problem is strategic depth. It is one thing for a country like the US to say that it will always wait till it is attacked (I might disagree with the moral rationals, but at least there are defensible rationals). For small countries like Israel, you can't do that. There is no strategic depth. All the population centers would be overrun before you could sneeze (this almost happened during Yom Kippur war. If Jordan had joined the fight, Israel would have probably fallen). All our military doctirne is based on prevention and taking the war to the enemy's territory in case of the war. It is still a defensive doctrine, but there is simply no other way. In case of Mel's question (nukes in Iran's hands), the situation is even worse -- you can probably wipe out large swaths of our population with one or two bombs (incidently, I don't support Mel's position vis-a-vis pre-emptive use of nukes).

[dgiharris]

(incidently, I don't support Mel's position vis-a-vis pre-emptive use of nukes).

Hell, I'm not even sure I support my position. But in all seriousness, I'm not sure what choice Israel will have depending on how far Iran pushes the issue.

Depending on how things develop, logically, I think that a joint US and Israel conventional strike on all Iran nuclear assests would proceed a preemptive nuclear strike.

In the event that the US and Israel were unable to do a conventional strike, then things get really dicey.

But one thing is clear, once Iran obtains nukes, things will escalate and the stakes get pretty damn high.

I do not envy Israel's position. They seem to be in a perpetual 'Damned if you do, Damned if you don't' scenario.

Mel...

[Williebee]

TANGENT ~~Just thinking through my fingers here ~~

So, is it possible that the old cold war spy vs spy skirmish and insurrection operations are an acceptable mode of operation here? In other words, a country identifies the guys that are making the technology possible for people acting counter to said country's interests, and assassinate or otherwise disable them, knowing full well that their country's intelligence is going to do the same in retaliation. Additionally, there are incursions, skirmishes, localized wars, all to be considered acceptable casualties in exchange for averting the damage and human cost of a nuclear exchange.

??

[Don]

TANGENT ~~Just thinking through my fingers here ~~

So, is it possible that the old cold war spy vs spy skirmish and insurrection operations are an acceptable mode of operation here? In other words, a country identifies the guys that are making the technology possible for people acting counter to said country's interests, and assassinate or otherwise disable them, knowing full well that their country's intelligence is going to do the same in retaliation. Additionally, there are incursions, skirmishes, localized wars, all to be considered acceptable casualties in exchange for averting the damage and human cost of a nuclear exchange.

??
OMG, is it that hard to recognize the real villains here? Why would the initial targets be the technologists instead of the leaders who directed the research from power generation to nuclear weapons? Sure the technologists share some blame for "only following orders," but the guy who gave the order to develop the weapon would seem to be the real problem, IMO.

[AMCrenshaw]

"I know s* happens, but we should strive to imporve things." I generally agree, but we have to accept at some point that not everything is up to us. Other players might not see it this way and even actively work to subvert your actions. So what do you do? Do you pretend that this is not true and try to live in the world that you think it should be, or do you live with the hand you are dealt?



You do both, I think. You can't ignore the hand you're dealt and you can't ignore the compassion and intellect that drives you're action either...People assume I can't be practical because I have ideals. It's simply not true.


I actually don't have a problem with people being pacifists (especially if they are true consistent pacifists). I do have a problem with those who would try to moralize others for making a different choice.

And people who use violence are going to use violence. After thousands of years of not resolving anything reliably or for any extended period of time, but rather establishing the grounds on which the next violence will take place, I'm convinced violence isn't a real option in the overwhelming majority of cases. Choosing to fight within that tiny minority of cases can be a moral issue -- some people will choose to fight and some people will choose not to fight. Then there are those who fight to survive or to protect their dignity; I don't consider them immoral or moral at all- their actions have nothing to do with morality IMO

...We might also wish that wars happened only because of these two reasons, but it's not the case.



AMC, one point about defensive vs. offensive means. You have two problems with your argument. Historically, offensive weaponry always comes in front of defensive weaponry. One side makes a weapon, the other side can counter. The first side improves his weapon and then the defender has to seek to counter again, but during this time he is vulnerable (there are several interesting Sci.fi. stories on the subject. one of them is called Arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_%28short_story%29)). You can see this over time by following history of tank developements.

But again, I just made up an answer. But given current circumstances, I'm pretty sure Israel's military is stronger than the Iranian military. Not only that, if Israel doesn't have nuclear missile defense of its own, I'm fairly certain the US does, and is certain to back them up. I don't believe the majority of the globe wants to see a war break out in that region and will aid and defend against aggression.

My other point of contention, which you didn't argue for or against (that's OK!), was there needs to be an escape plan for people not involved in a war. This is important to me, since during WWII these kinds of plans saved a lot of people that wouldn't have otherwise been saved...




AMC

[dmytryp]

You do both, I think. You can't ignore the hand you're dealt and you can't ignore the compassion and intellect that drives you're action either...People assume I can't be practical because I have ideals. It's simply not true.
How does that practicism relates to real life scenarios where there are parties who seek to violently undermine your state/welfare/safety etc? In the world as it is war shouldn't be the first or the second choice, and certainly shouldn't be entered lightly, but it is sometimes a necessary evil. in short, I think there is such a thing as Just War.



And people who use violence are going to use violence. After thousands of years of not resolving anything reliably or for any extended period of time, but rather establishing the grounds on which the next violence will take place, I'm convinced violence isn't a real option in the overwhelming majority of cases. Choosing to fight within that tiny minority of cases can be a moral issue -- some people will choose to fight and some people will choose not to fight. Then there are those who fight to survive or to protect their dignity; I don't consider them immoral or moral at all- their actions have nothing to do with morality IMO

...We might also wish that wars happened only because of these two reasons, but it's not the case.
My point wasn't directed at you specifically. The main jist was that I respect a personal choice of pacifism, but I find it completely condescending and beyond pale when a person starts behaving that other people are morally bankrupt/warmongers/evil etc. for making a different choice (i.e. believing that violence while not prefferable sometimes is necessary in real world).
I am not exactly clear how your point relates to mine, but I will adress it. First, I disagree with your historical analysis, but that's a long discussion. This is nothing to say about the morality or immorality of actions, but only about results (I think the latest occurenses in Sri Lank are a perfect example).
The rest of your post, basically goes to Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War) theory with which I am in general agreement. We can quibble about particulars, though :)





But again, I just made up an answer. But given current circumstances, I'm pretty sure Israel's military is stronger than the Iranian military. Not only that, if Israel doesn't have nuclear missile defense of its own, I'm fairly certain the US does, and is certain to back them up. I don't believe the majority of the globe wants to see a war break out in that region and will aid and defend against aggression.
You'd be wrong in your assumption. There is currently no comprehensive defense against a nuclear blast. As for missile defenses -- Israel is actually at the forefront of those (much of the research is joint US/Israeli projects). Nothing is fullproof. I really don't want to go into a long discussion with regards to Iran's nuclear program and its reprecaussions on the ME, the world and Israel. It is best saved for another thread. I concur with what our PM had said -- the only thing worse than Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is nuclear armed Iran. While I am fairly certain nobody in their right mind wants an armed confrontation between Israel and Iran, I also think that some of the misguided policies pursued are bringing that confrontation ever closer.

My other point of contention, which you didn't argue for or against (that's OK!), was there needs to be an escape plan for people not involved in a war. This is important to me, since during WWII these kinds of plans saved a lot of people that wouldn't have otherwise been saved...




AMC
I am not exactly following here. Just War theory includes two components -- a just reason for war and a just way to wage war. For example, I think Sri-Lanka had a just reason to wage their war on Tamil Tigers, but I think that the way they waged the war wasn't just (in fact I think it was abhorrent). Unfortunately, many people (due to psycology) can't get past the first part of Just War theory, basically determining their reaction based on the way they view the cause in general.

[AMCrenshaw]

My point wasn't directed at you specifically. The main jist was that I respect a personal choice of pacifism, but I find it completely condescending and beyond pale when a person starts behaving that other people are morally bankrupt/warmongers/evil etc. for making a different choice (i.e. believing that violence while not prefferable sometimes is necessary in real world).

I understand -- but our definitions of "necessary" seem to be wholly different. Preemptive attacks aren't ever necessary in my opinion, and are a sign of aggressive brutishness and lack of imagination.

But I think when people fight out of self-defense (if they're going to fight at all) it's amoral - and I have to place to judge whatsoever - which is a lot different than calling that fight "just"... and even then, I'd still deeply lament the violence and most likely refuse to take part in it. Know what I mean?

Here I'm thinking of Zapatistas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation) as the clearest example.

The rest of the time, I apply ethics and morality to the situation, which generally calls for nonviolent, direct action -- in other words, I don't believe in a "just" war.


AMC

[semilargeintestine]

I understand -- but our definitions of "necessary" seem to be wholly different. Preemptive attacks aren't ever necessary in my opinion, and are a sign of aggressive brutishness and lack of imagination.

But I think when people fight out of self-defense (if they're going to fight at all) it's amoral - and I have to place to judge whatsoever - which is a lot different than calling that fight "just"... and even then, I'd still deeply lament the violence and most likely refuse to take part in it. Know what I mean?

Here I'm thinking of Zapatistas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation) as the clearest example.

The rest of the time, I apply ethics and morality to the situation, which generally calls for nonviolent, direct action.


AMC

When a handful of countries surround you on all sides and an attack is imminent, you're saying it's not just to preemptively strike--that the country about to be attacked should just let itself be destroyed and try and react after the fact?

That's the problem with pure pacifism. It takes words like "just" and "necessary" and "amoral" and throws them around without thinking about the consequences of the inaction it champions. According your view, being completely exterminated is preferable to a preemptive attack. It's easy to say that all violence is abhorrent when you don't have to actually deal with the situation.

[AMCrenshaw]

Whaaaaaat?


When a handful of countries surround you on all sides and an attack is imminent, you're saying it's not just to preemptively strike--that the country about to be attacked should just let itself be destroyed and try and react after the fact?


Let itself be destroyed? My words or yours?



According your view, being completely exterminated is preferable to a preemptive attack.

My words or yours?



AMC



PS

Telling from the tone of your post, I doubt you and I will be discussing this matter since I don't trust we can have it without flaming. Thanks.

[dmytryp]

I understand -- but our definitions of "necessary" seem to be wholly different. Preemptive attacks aren't ever necessary in my opinion, and are a sign of aggressive brutishness and lack of imagination.


Thank you for insulting me.
I obviously disagree. It has to do mostly with margins of error you can allow yourself. I'll use the Six Day War against Egypt as an example. Egypt clearly made agressive moves which constituted casus belli for going to war. Though at least parts of our commanding staff had confidence in IDF being able to defend Israel in case of an attack, others weren't so sure. Additionally, everyone (including those confident in IDF's abilities) recognised that if a war starts on Egypt's terms it will be long and bloody. Thus a decision was reached for a pre-emptive strike (the decision took much delibirating and was not taken lightly. In fact, it almost missed the window of opportunity since just a week or two before the beginning of the war Egypt almost launched its own offensive). The reslut was an owerwhelming and swift victory that prevented much bigger losses in case of the alternative.

Incidently, consequences of this war also show the hole in your position vis-a-vis defensive measures. After the war Israel had created a line of fortified bunkers on the shores of the Suez Canal, called the Bar Lev line (similar to Majinot Line in France before WWII). It was believed to be impregnable. Yet, during the Yom Kippur War it was overrun.

[robeiae]

Whaaaaaat?




Let itself be destroyed? My words or yours?




My words or yours?



AMC



PS

Telling from the tone of your post, I doubt you and I will be discussing this matter since I don't trust we can have it without flaming. Thanks.
Well, I read it the same way--as does DM--so perhaps you might clarify why this statement entails something different than what we are all supposing:
Preemptive attacks aren't ever necessary in my opinion, and are a sign of aggressive brutishness and lack of imagination.

[AMCrenshaw]

Thank you for insulting me.

Dm, I don't ever mean to insult you - and I repeated only what I'd already written elsewhere in this thread.


I obviously disagree.

I'm cool you and I disagreeing, man. Can we be clear on that?

It has to do mostly with margins of error you can allow yourself. I'll use the Six Day War against Egypt as an example. Egypt clearly made agressive moves which constituted casus belli for going to war.


For the most part I have no answer, which I'll get to at the end, but hopefully you can see my argument build.



Though at least parts of our commanding staff had confidence in IDF being able to defend Israel in case of an attack, others weren't so sure. Additionally, everyone (including those confident in IDF's abilities) recognised that if a war starts on Egypt's terms it will be long and bloody.


So start a war on your terms, essentially, is the strategy -- is this an aggressive maneuver or in reality a defensive one, if in fact there is a war happening or literally just about to?

Again, I'm not very concerned about what people choose to do to defend themselves. If this was given as much thought as you say I trust this action had nothing to do with Israel's aggression, and I still lament the fact violence was considered necessary, i.e., that neither party was capable of finding a way to deal with the conflict that didn't involve bloodshed.


Thus a decision was reached for a pre-emptive strike (the decision took much delibirating and was not taken lightly. In fact, it almost missed the window of opportunity since just a week or two before the beginning of the war Egypt almost launched its own offensive). The reslut was an owerwhelming and swift victory that prevented much bigger losses in case of the alternative.

This reminds me of a taoist principle of necessary force I recently was told about. I don't mind it. I think there are better ways...

May I put it this way? That perhaps the problem I have isn't with the fact people choose to defend themselves or their country. Each party/side puts themselves into this position in the first place.

A lot of what I get from people is asking me "What would I do now" when perhaps it would have been nice to be asked, What would you do now to prevent war (notice I don't say conflict) in the future? Because I can't stop ensuing violence, and I've stated all along that I know it currently happens. Why not make movements toward cutting off the causes?


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

Well, I read it the same way--as does DM--so perhaps you might clarify why this statement entails something different than what we are all supposing:

It wasn't aimed at anyone here; I've made that abundantly clear elsewhere in this thread. As far as I know, no one here is making the decisions about what to do with their countries. Got that straight?

So, anyway, my point is that it does entail a lack of imagination and-- from my point of view -- a long-standing lack of forethought. Why didn't anyone see this coming? Why wait till war is just about to happen to resolve a conflict? And what are the real causes of these conflicts in the first place?

To me, it's tribalism up and down - the nation being both an extension of the ego and a swelled up tribe. I said all this before and no one seemed to blink an eye.


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

repper:

"You did say that preemtive attacks are never necessary"

And I still don't believe they are. But, lol, does that mean allow yourself to be utterly destroyed?

Get real.


AMC

[robeiae]

It wasn't aimed at anyone here; I've made that abundantly clear elsewhere in this thread. As far as I know, no one here is making the decisions about what to do with their countries. Got that straight?I didn't think it was "aimed" at anyone, at all. So there's nothing to "get straight"." I'm asking for clarification on what you meant, because I draw the same conclusions that DM and Semilarge drew.


So, anyway, my point is that it does entail a lack of imagination and-- from my point of view -- a long-standing lack of forethought. Why didn't anyone see this coming? Why wait till war is just about to happen to resolve a conflict? And what are the real causes of these conflicts in the first place?You are--imo--assuming that all parties involved in a conflict or potential conflict can see their best interests served by avoiding said conflict.

The Greeks could have--I guess--worked harder for a diplomatic solution to the Persian expansion. Or I guess they could have accepted tributary status. And in the moment, fewer people die. But is that the only yardstick? I think they acted in their best interests in going to war in 490 BCE, and I don't think there were any reasonable alternatives.

To me, it's tribalism up and down - the nation being both an extension of the ego and a swelled up tribe. I said all this before and no one seemed to blink an eye.
So again, what are we misreading in your statement?

[AMCrenshaw]

You are--imo--assuming that all parties involved in a conflict or potential conflict can see their best interests served by avoiding said conflict.

No no no. I didn't say avoid conflict, did I? I said better ways of resolving conflict.


So again, what are we misreading in your statement?

If you thought that's what I meant in the first place you didn't misread my statement. But what's insulting about it? Clearly swelled up tribalism is a large part of the problem! What's another? Lack of imagination. Another? Lack of forethought.


AMC

[robeiae]

No no no. I didn't say avoid conflict, did I? I said better ways of resolving conflict.
Let me rephrase: You are--imo--assuming that all parties involved in a war or potential war can see their best interests served by avoiding said war.


If you thought that's what I meant in the first place you didn't misread my statement. But what's insulting about it? Clearly swelled up tribalism is a large part of the problem! What's another? Lack of imagination. Another? Lack of forethought.


AMCI didn't think it was insulting. You seem to think the conclusion Semilarge drew was not consistent with your statement. Again, I draw the same conclusion: a nation surrounded by belligerents that are preparing to attack shouldn't attack first. That's tantamount--imo--to allowing that the nation should accept it's own destruction.

[AMCrenshaw]

Let me rephrase: You are--imo--assuming that all parties involved in a war or potential war can see their best interests served by avoiding said war.


No I'm not. That's clearly been demonstrated to not be the case, in reality. I've said it maybe 5 times now.

Hence doing what you'll do to defend yourself has nothing to do with any moral stance (which, again, I've stated before!) I might propose. I will still lament the violence and more than likely refuse to engage it myself.

However, once the wheels of a war are in motion, it's very difficult or impossible to stop them. This I know. It's been demonstrated for a few thousand years already.

That's why, then, we'd need to work on snipping the causes for war. This entails an obliteration of a swelled up tribalism: The kind that allows for people to look across a border and say...this or that is more valuable than their lives.

[robeiae]

No I'm not. That's clearly been demonstrated to not be the case, in reality. I've said it maybe 5 times now.
This is what you said: So, anyway, my point is that it does entail a lack of imagination and-- from my point of view -- a long-standing lack of forethought. Why didn't anyone see this coming? Why wait till war is just about to happen to resolve a conflict? And what are the real causes of these conflicts in the first place?To me, those questions entail--as a matter of fact--the assumption I noted.

Now, if you didn't intend those questions as legitimate within the framework of an historical reality, but rather were posing them as philosophical ones only, good enough. But people are talking specifics here, so it's kinda hard to see the separation.

[Romantic Heretic]

I always return to Sun Tzu (http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Art%20of%20War%20PDF.pdf) when pondering war. Go to page 5, Attack by Stratagem, to see how low on the list he places attacking another nation's armed forces.

So far as von Clausetwitz goes I recommend A History of Warfare (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679730826/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=12085XVFF25K7EY86MRR&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938131&pf_rd_i=507846) by John Keegan. He studies all the different methods of waging war that have existed. In doing so he showed that von Clausewitz was very much a prisoner of his culture. Von Clausewitz took the horror of the Napoleonic Wars and decided it was the way war worked and had always worked.

Keegan's book showed that was not the case. War, conflict, happens for myriad reasons and not always to do with politics. The constant irruptions of horse barbarians against Rome, Byzantium, Islam and Europe had more to do with demographics and ecology than politics. Shaka's conquering was also driven by demographics, along with his megalomania. The Aztecs engaged in war to capture victims to sacrifice to the gods. Their weapons were designed to disable, not kill, and there were strict rules in place to decide who could fight who.

In my mind, using von Clausewitz as the only source of thought about warfare is to limit our vision of it to a point where only maximum effort and complete destruction of your opponent is the only logical conclusion. A conclusion I find foolish and rather evil.

[dgiharris]

And I still don't believe they are. But, lol, does that mean allow yourself to be utterly destroyed?

Just wanted to comment on preemptive strikes.

There are many cases in which the side that strikes FIRST will win.

Dm mentioned a few concepts: Strategic Depth, and Margin for Error.

In modern warfare, many nations do not have the Strategic Depth nor Margin for Error to absorb an initial attack and retailate with sufficient force to win the war.

What can a first attack do?

Knock out a nations entire power structure
Destroy a nation's entire communication system
Destroy a nation's entire air defense infrastructure: airports, radar stations, etc.
Disrupt a nation's key logistical points

That is just a short list.

When you take any point to an extreme it breaks down and this is one of the problems with a pacifist's argument in regards to War. War, by its very nature, is an extreme and the absolute opposite of pacificism. WHich is no wonder why many of the logical arguments for pacificism break down when applied to scenarios in which War occur.

I do respect the ideals of pacificism, but there are numerous historical examples that show where the arguments for pacificism break down.

Take your preemptive strike argument. This argument is flawed because you assume that a nation can survive a first strike in order to retaliate and that is simply not true 100% of the time. In modern warfare, the side that attacks first has an OVERWHELMING advantage. In fact, if you go back to WWII, if Japan had caught the US fleet at Pearl Harbor (a first strike), then it is doubtful the Allies would have won. Even without catching the entire fleet, Japan almost crippled our Navy with that first strike. If not for the US's strategic depth, we would have been unable to recover.

*Sigh*

I guess if all these historical and modern examples can't convince you there really is no point in me continuing this argument.

Mel...

[dmytryp]

AMC, you assume (in your comments about lack of imagination and foresight) that the conflict is reconcilable. This is not always the case. If one side wants the other side dead, there is no reconciling the two, no matter how vivid your imagination is. As for eliminating tribalism -- again, you assume that it is possible, or that it is the main driver of war. I do not entirely agree. It very much depends on the culture, not just the mere fact of the existence of the tribe. Look at Europe today. Nationalistic feelings are still strong there, but I doubt war can erupt there. The reason for this is the evolvement of democratic institutions that don't entail only "one man, one vote," but treating minorities right (this is not entirely accomplished, but it is the goal) and most importanly openness and culture of self-criticism. Once the culture is able to allow criticism of itslef to be expressed and uses it as a way to imporve itself rather than seeing it as an insult, tribalism loses its worst traits.

As an aside. I and Semi took issue with your claim that pre-emptive war is never justified and is due to agressiveness and lack of imagination. You then contradicted yourself when you basically claimed that such a war in case war is deemed unavoidable is not due to these facts. So, I'll just chalk this to your slightly weird definition of "pre-emptive war" :)

P.S. I wasn't really offended, but your words can be taken this way.

[AMCrenshaw]

To me, those questions entail--as a matter of fact--the assumption I noted.

Rob I get the feeling we're speaking right past each other. I'm not trying to be rude when I say you pulled that last quote out of context.

I said, also, right before:

A lot of what I get from people is asking me "What would I do now" when perhaps it would have been nice to be asked, What would you do now to prevent war (notice I don't say conflict) in the future? Because I can't stop ensuing violence, and I've stated all along that I know it currently happens. Why not make movements toward cutting off the causes?


And my saying that wars -- including pre-emptive strikes -- occur because of 1) tribalism 2) lack of imagination and 3) lack of forethought isn't necessarily discordant with the idea that competing tribes may or may not have their desires satisfied by avoiding war. But I'm saying while tribes will do what tribes will do - when the shots are fired, or very nearly about to be, nonviolence is out of the picture, anyway, and is sadly no longer a viable option - we need to be thinking about what to do to prevent war in the future. It doesn't mean I agree with the war. I can still find it disgusting, which I do. I can still feel the violence is wrong, both practically (in the long term) and morally, which I do. But if people need to defend themselves...

Of course, there needs to be some courage in finding ways of creating a reliable environment in which resolving conflicts cannot fall back upon resorting to war. From my pov, this entails a complete reversal of the above (1, 2, 3) problems, plus around a thousand others.


AMC


eta:

Now, if you didn't intend those questions as legitimate within the framework of an historical reality,

But I did and received no reply. I think they are fair questions. Let's boil down the conflict. What's it about? Why does it last? Is it about resources? Religion?

And to me, when we boil it down, it's about a tribe believing they are more entitled to something than another tribe; that a something is worth more than a someone...and how shall they prove it?

[AMCrenshaw]

As an aside. I and Semi took issue with your claim that pre-emptive war is never justified and is due to agressiveness and lack of imagination.



Is there a difference between necessary vs. justified? imo there is. There's no justification for defending yourself because there's no need for justification in that instance. Which I've said all along. I also said that if a pre-emptive strike can be demonstrated to be, in reality, a defensive measure, I can still dislike it, and lament that neither of these tribes had the imagination or forethought to settle the conflict long before war was an option, without making a moral judgment.

So, when a fight is necessary for survival or to protect dignity it needn't be "justified" at all.



You then contradicted yourself when you basically claimed that such a war in case war is deemed unavoidable is not due to these facts. So, I'll just chalk this to your slightly weird definition of "pre-emptive war" :)

...Not sure what you mean, Dm.

P.S. I wasn't really offended, but your words can be taken this way.

That works. Thanks. I realize this is more personal for you than theoretical. But I think that puts you in a better position to talk about your country than it does me, which I've admitted from the beginning -- and in fact wanted to avoid the question of "what to do now" altogether.


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

Take your preemptive strike argument. This argument is flawed because you assume that a nation can survive a first strike in order to retaliate and that is simply not true 100% of the time. In modern warfare, the side that attacks first has an OVERWHELMING advantage. In fact, if you go back to WWII, if Japan had caught the US fleet at Pearl Harbor (a first strike), then it is doubtful the Allies would have won. Even without catching the entire fleet, Japan almost crippled our Navy with that first strike. If not for the US's strategic depth, we would have been unable to recover.


Again, I was prodded into that argument. Let me say that as a nonviolence activist my job isn't to stop wars that are about to happen or are happening. If they're going to happen it's because they've been en route for quite a long time. My job, rather, is to create the environment - slowly, little by little, by example - in which war becomes less and less of a viable option, both morally and practically speaking, and to try to point out that war is rarely, if ever, a viable option at present. And it seems to me that the remaining problems (things that still allow war to be a "viable" option) are as I've already described them.

AMC


p.s. The last time I provided multiple examples of historical analysis, I was shrugged off and told, in no uncertain terms, that I was a cherry-picker. I don't feel like going down that road today, if that's all right by you.

[dmytryp]

Ok, correction. Our differences stemmed from your weird definition of "justified" not "pre-emptive war". :)

In terms of morality and law self defense is the justification (making the act of self defense justified)

[dgiharris]

But if people need to defend themselves...

What about defending others?.

If I see a woman being attacked, under your views of pacificism, is it ok for me to attack her attacker to help her?

Or do I just call the police and watch her get beaten to death while it takes the police 10 - 15 minutes to arrive?

I'm being completely serious as this scenario happened to me 10 yrs ago.

A rather big man was choking/punching his girlfriend in a hotel parking lot just as I was heading to my car. I rushed over, wrestled the man off of her (broke his nose in the process) and served as a buffer between her and him while he screamed death threats at her. He left before police arrived and I have no idea what happened between them.

But in that case, under your views, were my actions acceptable? I mean, it had nothing to do with me, I wasn't in any danger. Did I show a lack of imagination for not being able to resolve the situation without violence? Were my actions the result of me being part of a tribe?

Mel...

[AMCrenshaw]

What about defending others?

As far as pacifism goes, I'm with Gandhi on this one. If it's a choice between violence and cowardice, go with violence.



If I see a woman being attacked, under your views of pacificism, is it ok for me to attack her attacker to help her?

Or do I just call the police and watch her get beaten to death while it takes the police 10 - 15 minutes to arrive?


I have 10+ years of martial arts experience. I could easily restrain just about anyone without inflicting lethal force. Nor do I have a reliable cell phone, so calling the police is going to happen after that confrontation is over, but not a moment before.


AMC

[dclary]

This thread is better than ambien. Holy cow!



Mel --- you made the right decision. Violence may be the last refuge of the incompetent, or whatever asimov said in Foundation, but it's often the first resort of the strong, too.

[AMCrenshaw]

In terms of morality and law self defense is the justification (making the act of self defense justified)

Ah. This is a split in pacifistic philosophy.

Some people don't see self-defense as a legitimate use of force. For myself, in theory violence is wrong 100% of the time, and 99.9999999% in practice.

The reason I see self-defense as a legitimate use of force, rarely, is because sometimes there's no choice. The violence is brought to you. No (or very little) freedom to act.


AMC

[dclary]

Ah. This is a split in pacifistic philosophy.

Some people don't see self-defense as a legitimate use of force. For myself, in theory violence is wrong 100% of the time, and 99.9999999% in practice.


AMC

Isn't a pacifistic life out of balance with nature and the universe, AMC? Everything has a time and a place, each to their own natures and means. Even violence.

[AMCrenshaw]

Isn't a pacifistic life out of balance with nature and the universe, AMC?

Do I seek to be in balance with nature and the universe, Deek?

Everything has a time and a place, each to their own natures and means. Even violence.

How ecclesiastical of you. I agree, at any rate. But I also believe that some seasons pass, for good, never to be seen again, and that we can affect that.

Some machines we've appropriated and used up are best left behind, dead from disuse.


AMC

[dgiharris]

My job, rather, is to create the environment - slowly, little by little, by example - in which war becomes less and less of a viable option, both morally and practically speaking, and to try to point out that war is rarely, if ever, a viable option at present.

I guess this is the disconnect.

In a sense, this corresponds to a blame the victim mentality. That is, there must have been something wrong for this bad thing to have occurred.

I see your point. Basically, if you are a good and honorable state you should have nothing to worry about.

But the problem isn't you, its THEM. Sometimes there are people/states that you cannot reason with. Sometimes there are irreconcilable differences.

I had a real world business case that epitomizes 'war' between states.

We had a contract with a supplier for a critical part in our system. The part cost $200,000 dollars. Our system retailed for $4M.

There were two companies that provided this critical part but we made a deal and had a contract with Company X. Anyways, Company Y went out of business.

Anyways, despite us having a contract, Company X tripled the price of that critical part once Company Y folded.

We had a meeting with them and basically said, "What the hell, we have a legal agreement."

They responded, "Well, if you take us to court, we will stop building the part and that will cripple your product line and result in Billions of dollars of liability on your end."

We then asked, "Why are you doing this, we've had a great relationship for years."

They responded, "Well, because we can and there isn't dick you can do about it."

Now, i'm paraphrasing some, but this did in fact happen 2 yrs ago.

My point? People aren't always reasonable. Good does not always trump evil. Sometimes, people are assholes and that is just the way it is.

As relates to War. This happens all the time. Ask Georgia about their agreements with Russia.

Mel...

[AMCrenshaw]

In a sense, this corresponds to a blame the victim mentality. That is, there must have been something wrong for this bad thing to have occurred.


Whoa whoa, before I respond to the rest, let me say that's false, from my point of view. When it comes to war, there are two or more sides. If we are going to blame the "victim" I must also believe both sides are victims. Especially after also stating that war just doesn't happen randomly out of thin air. Both parties are to blame. Sometimes one more than the other, as seen below.


Basically, if you are a good and honorable state you should have nothing to worry about.

What's good for you on your terms shouldn't violate me -- this is the basic law of liberty for all isn't it? This liberty can be and is violated, of course.

But - the same way I think we can get rid of or at least lessen racism (I really believe we can) - I think we can shrink and maybe rid of the environment in which war is anything other than an absurd option...


AMC

[dclary]

Do I seek to be in balance with nature and the universe, Deek?



How ecclesiastical of you. I agree, at any rate. But I also believe that some seasons pass, for good, never to be seen again, and that we can affect that.

Some machines we've appropriated and used up are best left behind, dead from disuse.


AMC

And yet we still rely on the wheel.

[AMCrenshaw]

"some" machines.

"some" Deek.

[dclary]

"some" machines.

"some" Deek.


I'm gonna have to come over there and beat you, aren't I?

;)

[AMCrenshaw]

lol

[dmytryp]

An interesting op-ed on implications of international law as it is now (I am posting this also in the "UN Condemns Israel" thread, too, since it seems relevant.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574424872677357720.html

[Romantic Heretic]

If there was no enforcement mechanism Saddam would have been in Kuwait until the U.S. invaded in 2003. There would be no North and South Korea, just Korea, under control of the Sungs.

This organization is created to keep you from going to hell It isn't created to take you to heaven - Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Republican Senator and delegate to the UN, 1955

[dmytryp]

Sorry, you mean that if there wasn't US there would be those things. The only enforce mechanism is when US wills it. And it has nothing to do with the main points of the article, by the way.

[dgiharris]

Because international law has no enforcement mechanism, it is almost wholly dependent upon moral authority to gain compliance. Yet the reputation international law will increasingly earn from its rules on the use of defensive force is one of moral deafness.


WOw, I had no idea that International law was so, simplistic to the point of being irrelevant and naive.

That is the problem of laws being drafted by those who have nor will ever experience any danger.

It is so easy to be idealistic when the laws do not impact you personally. Waiting until you are attacked 'regardless of circumstances' in order to justify the use of force is just unrealistic.

I think that since there is no enforcement mechanism, those that wrote the law were then trying to use 'morality' as the enforcement mechanism. But how can morality be an enforcement tool when your opponents lack that same morality?

I mean, people who will knowing blow up a bus full of children are suppose to adhere to the moral principles of international law?

Yeah, right. Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Mel...