News NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

Holy cow!

This is so outrageous I'm nearly speechless. I think you should run down, sign up, and hurry over to Iraq. Talk about arguing in a vacuum!

Giving up can be worse than war

This was part of my original point which you chose to ignore.

 

[Hurkyl]

TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?

Man will never be able to stop all the violence in the world. So why be a part of it?

One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.
Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.

Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me.

You asked how war could be productive, not for a moral judgement.

However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.

The progress that you speak of, what are they? ... If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.

I found some articles with a quick search... not exactly history texts, but they are the sort of thing I expect to find:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/966882281.Sh.r.html
http://www.accel-team.com/scientific/scientific_04.html

But the point is that scientific development isn't done in a vacuum. It's not like there's a field of science called "weapons research" that is 100% independent from all other fields of science.

The principle here is the same as with economic stimulation: war creates a need, and is willing to pour money and people into satisfying that need.

so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?

I assume you mean that in a moral sense, in which case I would have to say that my post says nothing about this question.

 

[Entropy]

One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.

That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.

Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.

Like you said before, it isn't that simple. Most violent actions are the direct result of other violent actions. By being the better man and forgiving people you stop the circle. This isn't even taking into consideration that mankind doesn't know what the hell is good for them. No man can fight for the greater good because man doesn't know what it is.

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?

You're just so easy and the typical 'everyman' of America.

A Homer Simpson of the PF Lounge epitomizing all that is wrong with the USA.

It's true, I do tend to address more than you have said because I find it hard to assume the narrow view of reality of the American psyche and this certainly must confuse you.

I sort of get the impression of that 'deer in the headlights' stare as your eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension.

Step back and read what you wrote.

You are trying to justify that war is a 'good thing'.

War is Peace ... "Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war." I mean ... Do you really need me to quote the Orwell or are you capable of getting there on your own? When do we discuss 'freedom is slavery'? We have all noticed that the 'ministry of information' has been changing the reason for the war.

However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.

Hence the Ghandi comment. As an American, you truly have not explored the alternate methods of reaching a goal, have you? I mean really, for a 'Christian Nation' you really have to wonder what it is all about when the religion itself was named afer a man who would rather get nailed to a cross than raise a hand to despots even though HE could weild the power of GOD!

Do you know what war does to a nation other than people go away from your town occasionally and some of them don't come back?

Hurkyl, I sure as heck hope you are really good at some branch of science and have a really valid reason for being here because your ranking as a theologian, philosopher and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean. (The character and NOT Rowan Atkinson the actor)

 

[Hurkyl]

That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.

I was answering the question "So why be a part of it?". I was not answering the question "What morally justifiable reasons are there for violence?"



TSM: If I'm a "Homer Simpson" whose "eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension", and my "ranking as a theologian, philosopher, and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean"...

then of the two of us, why am I the only one who is able to respond to a question directly? And why are you the only one who is attacking straw men, and bringing in emotionally charged baggage?

 

[kyleb]

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.

 

[Smurf]

It doesn't. That's the point. There is nothing overly positive about war.

 

[Entropy]

I was answering the question "So why be a part of it?". I was not answering the question "What morally justifiable reasons are there for violence?"

Okay, my misunderstanding.

 

[Smurf]

Misunderstanding what? "Why start war" and "When is it okay to start war" are, for all practical purposes, the SAME QUESTION.

 

[Entropy]

He was simply pointing out why people start wars. I was taking it for his own personally reasoning. As if he believe it was okay, personally, to kill someone just for personal gain. And I apologized for misunderstanding what he ment.

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM: If I'm a "Homer Simpson" whose "eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension", and my "ranking as a theologian, philosopher, and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean"...

then of the two of us, why am I the only one who is able to respond to a question directly? And why are you the only one who is attacking straw men, and bringing in emotionally charged baggage?

Because ... of the two of us, I seem to know that war and the results of war are not controlled by the mentality of the computer.

Wars conclude with 'emotion' and this is what Americans fail to understand with their cool calculation.

You DO remember Iraq and that little 'sticking point' called 'hearts and minds'?

THAT's the emotional component you fail to understand.

Few seem to comprehend that the advice from most of Europe was as a result of two world wars which cost loss of families and not just soldiers.

So yeah, Hurkyl, you can sit there and play your little games talking about acceptable collateral damage and the like and 'regime change'.

However, that is why I can also sit here constantly poking fun at you with black humour over your success in Iraq and your 'Redneck Rationalization' originating from Rummy and that 'Sock Puppet' known as Shrub.

And no, I am not only talking about foreign 'terrorists' fighting in Iraq. I am talking about the current government of Iraq which is going through the motions to deliver a piece of paper to get you out of their country while ... at the same time ... negotiating with the country of Iran, your sworn enemy.

Yes, Hurkyl, that has been their 'emotional response' to you and what they perceive to be your quest for oil.

Like all fascist approaches to war, you cut out the human element and speak of it in terms of a computer game totally ignoring anything that was said and its effect on the population, who was killed and what it did to them and a whole host of other features that will eventually result in a disaster for you.

After all, the two governments and people you just toppled where your allies only a few years prior to this.

Your next target, Iran, hates you because of what you did there in the 1950's in toppling their democratic government.

Just when will you learn the lesson, Hurkyl?

When will you understand the irritation you cause in Europe each time you state you won the Second World War? ... When you insult them with movies like U-571 ... Blackhawk Down, etc.?

What about the opinion of the loss of people in China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, Holland, etc. and the hatred you dredge up when you mention beating Japan and signing them to the Treaty of San Francisco which effectively cut out any hope of repatriations for 60 years?

Emotion, Hurkyl, get used to it. Saddam was easy to control however you just released a nation now free to help in the war oF terrorism and not oN terrorism as you had hoped.

 

[outsider]

Hurkyl, you still did not address my post...

Warriors... come out and play ay.

 

[outsider]

A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me.

Wars are good motivators.

in what way? That scary, run for your life way?

They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

they can... but it's just not necessary.
The progress that you speak of, what are they? better weapons? W's of MD? Where are the cures for cancer / aids / TB? Why is there poverty? Why do we still use oil / gas? Why is the world heating up and the environment going to ****? If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.

You've sort of avoided this question by redirecting links that I won't read because it doesn't come from your own knowledge... therefore I cannot consider it part of your previous argument (plus they don't appear relevant to my questions)

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.

so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?

Giving up can be worse than war.

firstly, where do you derive "giving up" from "doing the best you can"?

if you think war is a solution, there are those who consider war the ultimate surrender.

 

[Icebreaker]

Wars bring out the worst of humanity. No war has ever been good, period.

 

[SOS2008]

Though invasion of Afghanistan was invasion of a nation state that had done nothing as a state against the U.S., at least it was a "war on terror" in that it was believed that OBL was hiding there.

The invasion of Iraq was questioned at the outset for many reasons. First was that there was no link between 9-11/OBL and Iraq/Saddam. ME experts no doubt questioned why a religious idealogue from Saudi Arabia would partner with a self-serving dictator who was unpopular with the Islamic/Arab world as a whole. As for WMD, after the Gulf War and inspections thereafter it was questionable if these existed in a quantity of real concern. Even so, a "clear and present danger" was never evident.

Not only were these two reasons for invasion questionable to begin with, the reasons soon changed to "freedom and democracy" and now "nation building." Aside from the fact the the U.S. itself ignores UN resolutions, how can one argue that this was sufficient reason for war? Oh and I know the next argument--the ruthless dictator argument. We've already discussed at great length that regime change not only is illegal and not U.S. foreign policy, but this ruthless dictatorship did not represent a "clear and present danger" to our own national security--no matter how ruthless he was, the level of ruthlessness did not change this. You don't ask Americans to sacrifice their lives unless they are clearly defending their nation.

Sorry, but most of us are really tired of those who are still reaching, really reaching for justification for this war. I hope an international peace-keeping effort can be organized so the U.S. can withdraw, and I hope this will be the kind of alternative used with cases such as this in the future.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.

As I said before I asked this question before, but I'm still waiting for someone to respond. Of course I'm interested to know the reasons which make a war good!

 

[vanesch]

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.

It's discussable. For instance, the war against Nazi Germany had of course a lot of side effects which were regrettable in some sense, but given the atrocities of their plan, it had something good to it too. The point can be made, however, that one should weight (with enough hindsight) what was worse. After all, similar atrocities were committed by Stalin, and he was NOT stopped by a war. So what has been the "best" solution ? Let some fools do horrible things until people get enough of it and get the fools out, or go and bomb the fools ? I think, with hindsight, that it was a better thing to throw a bomb on Hitler's house than to let him do his thing. Maybe it would have been a good thing too to throw a bomb on Stalin's house, I don't know - but probably not, because the damage of such a war would have been terrible.
The point is, sometimes, horrible things happen. Does that justify going at war ? I don't think so, automatically. In fact, it's a gamble to wage war, and you don't know if after the fact, the war did in fact more bad things than it was supposed to eliminate. So in any case it should be a last option, and only when the horror it is supposed to stop is so terrible, that it's worth the gamble. I think the war on the Nazis DID satify that criterium. Most other wars after that didn't. Most other wars before that didn't either.

 

[arildno]

kyleb:
I used "good" in the sense of "justifiable", not in the sense that I believe that some wars were really entertaining song&dance acts.

 

[Archon]

Whether or not wars are "good" is a meaningless question: I think we all agree that wars are, in general, bad. Like people have been saying (more or less), you can't argue this in a vacuum. If you consider only the immediate effects of war, then you see that people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, etc. To ask any question like this, you must look at the bigger picture: that is, you must measure the relative benefits and detriments of war and any other alternatives.

Thus, what we should be asking is: "Have there been wars that were better than the alternatives?" The answer to this question is yes, i.e. stopping Hitler by means of war was better than allowing him to conquer the entire world. Few people would disagree with this given the levels of death that would have resulted had Hitler been allowed to proceed as he wished. But if you look only at the millions of deaths due to the War, you think immediately that war wasn't worth it. This may be a somewhat unlikely example, but the same principle applies to less obvious wars.

 

[Smurf]

I disagree with it.

 

[Lisa!]

kyleb:
I used "good" in the sense of "justifiable",

Like which war?

 

[arildno]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

 

[vanesch]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans

??
A silly b**ch not willing to let a civilisation with superior values instruct her people in return for a few ressources ?

 

[arildno]

??
A silly b**ch not willing to let a civilisation with superior values instruct her people in return for a few ressources ?

No, a morally bigoted b**h who wasn't able to appreciate the public rape of her two daughters as just a piece of raunchy, soldierly fun.

 

[Lisa!]

Boadicca's revolt against the Romans, King Brian against the Vikings, the Sicilian Vespers, WW2, and probably a few others I've forgotten, or haven't heard about.

Well I wasn't born when these wars happened, so I have no idea about them. And it couldn't be important to me why you think they were justifiable. But I'm curious to know if you think the wars that US started in Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable.

 

[vanesch]

Well I wasn't born when these wars happened, so I have no idea about them.

Lisa!, you're funny! You don't have to LIVE a historical fact to have some idea about it, you know ! Like you thinking I needed to be 65 million years old to know something about the end of the dinosaurs...

 

[vanesch]

No, a morally bigoted b**h who wasn't able to appreciate the public rape of her two daughters as just a piece of raunchy, soldierly fun.

And she waged a war just for THAT ?? Talk about a restrictive mother !

 

[PerennialII]

I'm left with my impression that war is always morally condemnable, but can be unavoidable. So don't think Lisa's etc. question can be answered to any satisfaction.

 

[arildno]

I think the US action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was justified, in that, if I remember correctly, the government there publicly lauded the terror attack 9/11, along with that there was incontroverible evidence that Taliban did, in fact, financially support Al-Qaeda along with providing them with bases of operations.
That the US may have botched the operation, does not, IMO, remove the justifiability of initiating an attack.

No such evidence, or evidence of mass destruction weapons in Iraq was ever present, and that's basically why I opposed the actual invasion, since these were the (false) grounds upon which US&UK went to war.
Furthermore, it does not hold water to say that Iraq did not comply with the inspectors; in the 2-3 weeks just prior to the attack they did, and the leader of the inspectors practically begged US&UK not to do this, along with the rest of UN.

 

[kyleb]

Archon, arildno, vanesch, I suppose I wasn't quite clear but what I am looking for examples good wars, wars where the aggressors were fighting the good fight. WWII is an extreme example of quite the opposite. Can anyone provide examples in accepted history where the aggressors are generally accepted to have been in the right?