Is War Right?

Francis M

Is war right? hmm. Good question as in it brings up the thought exercise of what causes wars. Alot of peole have studied how wars start to see what can be done to prevent them. THis is again a simple question with a complex answer. FIrst of all we can't simply dismiss wars as being fought for extremist reasons by people, groups, or countries that had nothing but fighting on their minds. THese same groups don't just wake up one day and decide violence is the answer that will solve their problems. Wars are the last step usually wanted by people or countries and as far as I've seen from reading about history and politics is usually arrive dat by a series of missteps along the road of diplomacy.
THe only good war is a war of defense? WHo's fighting the defensive war depends on the perspective you take. Id' also take exception to this statement by Churchill on the grounds that you can't then justify your war as good once you are on the offensive and the other group/country is fighting on the defensive.
As far as I've seen most of the wars that were fought were fought because both sides in the matter thought that they had no other choice. Hence why in diplomacy you never try to back each other into a corner.
A wars origin usually has a very complex set of interwoven economic, geographic and political reasons for why it started and these have to be taken into consideration. Each war has to be taken in the context/time that it happend. I think to ask in general is war good can't be answered because we first have to define a context for having a war in the first place.

Esnas

The implications of Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience and obeisance are astounding!

See http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/psych...ial/lec4-1.htm

Military psychologists and advertisement specialists have certainly understood it. But the implications have not filtered down to the general public although the initial research was done over 50 years ago. What it implies is that most of us are capable of torture or any other form of violence if directed to do so by an authority. We are not only capable but will carry out such measures with gusto (especially in times of psychological insecurity). What are the alternatives? Perhaps understanding insecurity and educating children and adults for critical thinking.

selfAdjoint

I think we will not ever have a scientific understanding of human personality if we do not acknowledge these potentialities within us.

Zlex

Civil society is 100% dependent, ultimately, on the concept of Superior Violence; thus, the Paradox of Violence.

It's not even debatable, except with the fringe anarchists who disavow the role of the cops, courts, jails, and military in defending civilization from the first barbarian so inclined to say 'no' to mere polite requests on paper. All of those expensive institutions are instruments of superior violence directed at the physical absolute "laws without enforcement are mere polite wishes on paper."

We arm our cops with lethal force to serve impolite warrants and remove freedom in heated jails while awaiting forced appearances in front of a judge and jury who will dispose of one's freedom as they see fit, at the point of a gun. aka, via projection of Superior Violence. At no point in the process is a polite, "No, thank-you" ever sufficient to avoid the Superior Violence projected by the state in defense of civilization.


Civil society may attempt polite means first, "Please obey these laws, please accede to this warrant," but ultimately, civil society relies on and is dependent upon the concept of superior violence in order to subdue violence.

The yet children among us rail at this without offering viable alternatives, because the hard fact is, the alternative is surrender society to the first barbarian to arrive.

The same is true in the international community as well as any community. A town without a sheriff is just alot of utopic wishful thinking.



We are partially lied to from day one; "Crime does not pay." That is a load of crap; Crime not only pays, it pays damn well. The only reason crime does not pay is because the balance of civil society bands together to project Superior Violence in the name of the state to artificially exact a price for crime. Crime will always be easier than calculus, and the inevitable takers of those short cuts will always be with us in our not about to lockstep like a giant bee colony sea of just naked sweaty apes.

Those anarcho-children that would disagree would need to disavow the role of the cops, courts, jails, and the military, and wish, like children, that there would never be a need for a stern word from mom or dad to establish a civil order in the world.

Even if that were true for 99% of us, and it is, the never going to be merely wished away 1% will forever make it not sufficient.