NationStates Jolt Archive

So. I was reading a past post about war and whatnot, with someone condemning thermonuclear (atomic and hydrogen) weapons.

Their opinion was that the bomb's destructive capacity is enough to level entire cities. True, I thought. And it was also true that the radioactive after-effects are certainly enough to kill off vegetation and organisms to an extent. This of course means that if they were used, it would be mass-destruction on an extreme scale, with long-term effects.

Although this is true, I considered something else. With most developed, modernized, or highly-industrialized nations possessing these weapons, the world must be a pretty scary place, eh? Not really. The use of these weapons would ensure mutual destruction. So, in effect, wars between first-world nations have been effectively outlawed. After all, following the Second World War, how many wars were fought between first-world nations? None.

Our world is a battlefield for economics. Wars still occur in the underdeveloped nations along what I term the Equatorial Regions, but it seems those wars benefit us more than harm us. A collapsed economy is a breadbasket for first-world nation companies requiring a cheap source of labor, and what cheaper source than a nation with an almost non-existant wage price? And then, in the guise of aiding, occasional rallies are held to raise funds to help such said people in the Equatorial Regions.

But things will not change. Perhaps nations like Malaysia will continue to progress industrially, to the benefit of the developed world. But the world will always demand some source of cheap labor. A world in which everyone is educated, clothed, and sheltered would be a world in which the incentive to innovate, or become an entrepreneur, would be eliminated, because the marginal cost of maintaining a new business, or maintaining an existing business without a reasonable margin of profit, would effectively destroy the current system of capitalism. It would not lead to an egalitarian utopia. An oligarchy would find its way into the upper echelons of power, and exploit a society without economic incentive for its own purposes of power.

And so, without any hint of irony, in our modern world, we can truly say, our war is our peace. War will always be necessary, because with a lasting peace, there would be a greater chance of a lasting dictatorship, in the guise of democracy and centralized bureaucracy.

Edited: I am neither liberal nor conservative. And I take offense to either side saying I support them. Please, do not associate me with your political ideologies, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

There are also two other ways to look at this.
#1 War creates peace, thus war is peace.
#2 War creates patriotism, thus there is no opposition to acts and laws you wish to pass at home. War abroad makes peace at home.

War is always the failure of two nations to maintain peace, but not necessarily with the goal of having peace. The generalization does not apply to the past, because there have been unjustifiable wars, nor will it apply to the future.

There are also two other ways to look at this.
#1 War creates peace, thus war is peace.
#2 War creates patriotism, thus there is no opposition to acts and laws you wish to pass at home. War abroad makes peace at home.
#1. War doesn't "create" peace, it merely comes out of it after it's over. The same is true of peace. Peace does not create war, but war merely comes out of it after it's over. And since war can only come from peace, would you say peace is war? Obviously not.

#2. War doesn't always create patriotism, nor does it always create peace at home. During the Vietnam war, American civilians spat on soldiers and there were unprecedented protests. Nationalism is a cause for war, not the other way around.

Quoting RedCommunist
There are also two other ways to look at this.
#1 War creates peace, thus war is peace.
#2 War creates patriotism, thus there is no opposition to acts and laws you wish to pass at home. War abroad makes peace at home.

Not necessarily. Wars do not always create patriotism. And there is plenty discontent here in America over this "War on Terrorism". My point is that by keeping the Equatorial Regions in a state of underdevelopment, we can continue to keep the flow of cheap labor flowing. It would certainly benefit no one in the West if everyone else in the world demanded a minimum wage for their own labor.

Quoting President Shrub
War is always the failure of two nations to maintain peace, but not necessarily with the goal of having peace. The generalization does not apply to the past, because there have been unjustifiable wars, nor will it apply to the future.

I won't assume you support or do not support America's current foreign policy, but your definition goes at odds against our current "war", a war that isn't even against a government. As for the irony in "war is peace", the purpose of war isn't to create peace. But war certainly can create a atmosphere in which peace is more prevalent at the moment, and war is but a distant conflict somewhere off the horizon.

Unjustifiable? The notions of right and wrong belong to each individual. And certainly there are individuals who believe certain wars were just.

-snip-

I bow to your understanding of the world.

Pardon me, Undelia, but, "sinp"?

Man cant have peace for long, as you can see with rome, the empire wasnt so great without the armies doing what they do best.

Its bred into our bodies to fight for better things. No amount of liberal propaganda can ever change that.


You can see it in children. They instinctivly run around and hit things while they play with eachother.



War is inevitable. And not necissarily (sp?) bad.
Population control for one.
And to the victor goes the spoils.

Although fucking liberals and their "blood for oil" shit.... gah

Pardon me, Undelia, but, "sinp"?

Typo. Tends to happen at 3:00 in the morning. :D

I won't assume you support or do not support America's current foreign policy, but your definition goes at odds against our current "war", a war that isn't even against a government.
It's at odds with every war. Because wars should never be looked at as good. They should not be viewed as tools to create peace, because that encourages unnecessary bloodshed. But rather, they should be viewed as a last resort. That's why I oppose this idea of "war is peace." War is never peace. Anyone who says that should go live in Iraq, and they'll see how "war is peace" is nonsense.

As for the irony in "war is peace", the purpose of war isn't to create peace. But war certainly can create a atmosphere in which peace is more prevalent at the moment, and war is but a distant conflict somewhere off the horizon.
Your last statement: Not always. Britain and France entered WW2. Britain got bombed, France got invaded.

Unjustifiable? The notions of right and wrong belong to each individual. And certainly there are individuals who believe certain wars were just.
But some justifications are logically poor or their notions of right and wrong is twisted, insane.

You can claim scientifically that there is no right and wrong, but sociologically-speaking, they isn't exactly true. In the western world, we all share a series of ethics, which merge when cultures come together (so, murder is murder, no matter where you're at, unless you're on an island in the middle of nowhere). Furthermore, the golden rule is at the heart of all major religions. And finally, we have Ethics, which uses logic and philosophy in order to determine ethics based on reason, rather than emotion or whimsy.

That's fine. I was just confused what it was supposed to mean.

As for the "blood for oil" thing, I think it's apparent that the war is not for oil. We have enough petroleum-trading partners. It seems idiotic to me to claim the war is based upon getting more cheap oil, as oil prices artificially increase world-wide.

I'll explain what I mean through an analogy. If I were a businessman involved in the oil industry, and if I wanted to process Iraqi oil, I would always be seeking a profit. So, why not fail to provide adequate infrastructure to Iraq, even though it has been over two years of occupation, so that I can continue to hire Iraqi workers at low wages? Makes sense, doesn't it?

Quoting President Shrubs
It's at odds with every war. Because wars should never be looked at as good. They should not be viewed as tools to create peace, because that encourages unnecessary bloodshed. But rather, they should be viewed as a last resort. That's why I oppose this idea of "war is peace." War is never peace. Anyone who says that should go live in Iraq, and they'll see how "war is peace" is nonsense.

Quoting myself: our war is our peace.

Quoting President Shrubs
Your last statement: Not always. Britain and France entered WW2. Britain got bombed, France got invaded.

Quoting myself: But war certainly can create a atmosphere in which peace is more prevalent at the moment, and war is but a distant conflict somewhere off the horizon.

Quoting President Shrubs
But some justifications are logically poor or their notions of right and wrong is twisted, insane.

You can claim scientifically that there is no right and wrong, but sociologically-speaking, they isn't exactly true. In the western world, we all share a series of ethics, which merge when cultures come together (so, murder is murder, no matter where you're at, unless you're on an island in the middle of nowhere). Furthermore, the golden rule is at the heart of all major religions. And finally, we have Ethics, which uses logic and philosophy in order to determine ethics based on reason, rather than emotion or whimsy.

In your own opinion, they may seem twisted and insane. Not everyone shares the same values and morals as you do. Some people do not support capital punishment, while others do support it, and it happens to be murder, in a neutral sense.

Edited: One more thing to add. Be careful to read something, and take someone into proper context, Shrubs.

It's at odds with every war. Because wars should never be looked at as good. They should not be viewed as tools to create peace, because that encourages unnecessary bloodshed. But rather, they should be viewed as a last resort. That's why I oppose this idea of "war is peace." War is never peace. Anyone who says that should go live in Iraq, and they'll see how "war is peace" is nonsense.

I agree. Peace doesn't always come from war. Who told you that crock of shit? Example: Iraq.

Your last statement: Not always. Britain and France entered WW2. Britain got bombed, France got invaded.

Yes, it was not the smartest thing to say. Even if he tags "to America's experience" onto it, it still doesn't work. The American Civil War?

But some justifications are logically poor or their notions of right and wrong is twisted, insane.

Morality is subjective though. How can you claim moral superiority to anyone else? What if your idea of morality is wrong?

You can claim scientifically that there is no right and wrong, but sociologically-speaking, they isn't exactly true. In the western world, we all share a series of ethics, which merge when cultures come together (so, murder is murder, no matter where you're at, unless you're on an island in the middle of nowhere). Furthermore, the golden rule is at the heart of all major religions. And finally, we have Ethics, which uses logic and philosophy in order to determine ethics based on reason, rather than emotion or whimsy.

Philosophy is varying and logic can be false. Hence false logic.

Quoting myself: our war is our peace.

We have some terrible views of peace then.

Quoting myself: But war certainly can create a atmosphere in which peace is more prevalent at the moment, and war is but a distant conflict somewhere off the horizon.

Most of the time though, it doesn't.

In your own opinion, they may seem twisted and insane. Not everyone shares the same values and morals as you do. Some people do not support capital punishment, while others do support it, and it happens to be murder, in a neutral sense.

Not what he's talking about. And what you call neutral murder in the real world we call it death.

Edited: One more thing to add. Be careful to read something, and take someone into proper context, Shrubs.

Well, it's actually me, and I did.

I don't think I made a certain issue clear enough, although when I mentioned things like "lasting peace", I expected people to at least take into account the antithesis of that term.

The "War on Terrorism" is a constant war. Using the term "war is peace" coined by Orwell, I was showing how such a war benefits us. In no way did I mention conventional warfare, and if I seemed to be suggesting that, then I apologize, and hopefully this post makes clear my point.

You are somewhat perplexing, Jane. You seem to think my post in response to Shrubs was directed at you in some fashion, which was pretty odd. I also find it pretty odd to get a response of "not what he's talking about" after I made a response speaking of moral subjectivity. Feeling tired? And your comment of "neutral murder" was incredibly stupid; please put me into context. I said "neutral sense" because I didn't want to seem for or against capital punishment.

Am I going to have to hire some context police... for god's sakes.

A world in which everyone is educated, clothed, and sheltered would be a world in which the incentive to innovate, or become an entrepreneur, would be eliminated, because the marginal cost of maintaining a new business, or maintaining an existing business without a reasonable margin of profit, would effectively destroy the current system of capitalism.

So like, my pizza shop requires people to live in poverty in other countries in order to be profitable? If people in other countries become educated, clothed and sheltered, people will stop buying my pizzas? Will I wake up in the morning and say, "Screw it! Everyone in the world is educated, clothed and sheltered! This makes me want to throw gravel in the pizza dough so I'll stop making a profit!"

Peace is absence of anyone to fight.

War is having someone to fight. Even if it is an abstract concept.

war is just politics using a different method .

To the people saying war doesn't create peace at home:
War creates a way of getting things through. Take 9/11 or The War Against Terrorism for example; how many times in each politican speech that does have a bill pass do they mention one or the other? I am just waiting for a politican to just say 9/11 and the bill passes. War gives peace in the sense of power and control, the politicans have an excuse to pass laws that are not needed or called for and thus they can create peace in their nation.

War Is Peace

Freedom Is Slavery

Ignorance Is Strength

So. I was reading a past post about war and whatnot, with someone condemning thermonuclear (atomic and hydrogen) weapons.

Their opinion was that the bomb's destructive capacity is enough to level entire cities. True, I thought. And it was also true that the radioactive after-effects are certainly enough to kill off vegetation and organisms to an extent. This of course means that if they were used, it would be mass-destruction on an extreme scale, with long-term effects.

Although this is true, I considered something else. With most developed, modernized, or highly-industrialized nations possessing these weapons, the world must be a pretty scary place, eh? Not really. The use of these weapons would ensure mutual destruction. So, in effect, wars between first-world nations have been effectively outlawed. After all, following the Second World War, how many wars were fought between first-world nations? None.

Our world is a battlefield for economics. Wars still occur in the underdeveloped nations along what I term the Equatorial Regions, but it seems those wars benefit us more than harm us. A collapsed economy is a breadbasket for first-world nation companies requiring a cheap source of labor, and what cheaper source than a nation with an almost non-existant wage price? And then, in the guise of aiding, occasional rallies are held to raise funds to help such said people in the Equatorial Regions.

But things will not change. Perhaps nations like Malaysia will continue to progress industrially, to the benefit of the developed world. But the world will always demand some source of cheap labor. A world in which everyone is educated, clothed, and sheltered would be a world in which the incentive to innovate, or become an entrepreneur, would be eliminated, because the marginal cost of maintaining a new business, or maintaining an existing business without a reasonable margin of profit, would effectively destroy the current system of capitalism. It would not lead to an egalitarian utopia. An oligarchy would find its way into the upper echelons of power, and exploit a society without economic incentive for its own purposes of power.

And so, without any hint of irony, in our modern world, we can truly say, our war is our peace. War will always be necessary, because with a lasting peace, there would be a greater chance of a lasting dictatorship, in the guise of democracy and centralized bureaucracy.

Edited: I am neither liberal nor conservative. And I take offense to either side saying I support them. Please, do not associate me with your political ideologies, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Well its true what your saying, Nuclear capabilities are already illegal in the eyes of the UN... But, your forgetting terrorists and other communities that are preety much crazy enough to blow up the world... btw world peace is just too hard to attain

So like, my pizza shop requires people to live in poverty in other countries in order to be profitable? If people in other countries become educated, clothed and sheltered, people will stop buying my pizzas? Will I wake up in the morning and say, "Screw it! Everyone in the world is educated, clothed and sheltered! This makes me want to throw gravel in the pizza dough so I'll stop making a profit!"

If people in other countries become educated, clothed, sheltered, and begin exporting pizzas at a lower price than you sell at, you're going to lose profit, either because people will buy the cheaper pizzas, or because you'll have to lower your prices. Depending on how far it goes - how low their prices get - you may have to reduce the quality of your ingredients, sell more, possibly by spending some of that reduced profit on advertising, or give up and do something else.

Quoting Rakenshi
Well its true what your saying, Nuclear capabilities are already illegal in the eyes of the UN... But, your forgetting terrorists and other communities that are preety much crazy enough to blow up the world... btw world peace is just too hard to attain

Well, of course there are lunatics who want to detonate a few thermonuclear bombs. The thing is, none have one. And when did I ever talk about world peace? I talked about peace in the first-world nations. Please read my article more thoroughly.

Quoting Non Aligned States
Peace is absence of anyone to fight.

War is having someone to fight. Even if it is an abstract concept.

Not necessarily. Peace can be a state of mind. And there are plenty of times of peace in which there is someone to fight.

And so, without any hint of irony, in our modern world, we can truly say, our war is our peace. War will always be necessary, because with a lasting peace, there would be a greater chance of a lasting dictatorship, in the guise of democracy and centralized bureaucracy.


Utter twaddle.

Quoting Dobbsworld
Utter twaddle.

What makes you think it's twaddle? How about espousing your reasons instead of an unintelligible remark?

peace by it's very definition requires war. As for Nuclear weapons prompting peace, that is true but I still think we need to get rid of them because it puts to much power in one person's hands (ok maybe two peoples). If some nutbar decides to launch a missile at Russia (or the US) then they will launch theirs and so on and so on untill everyone is dead.

Out of curiosity, have any of you seen Patlabor 2? There was an interesting section of it along this line.

Peace is a purely theoretical state of affairs whose existence we deduce because there have been intervals between wars.

I'm surprised that nobody has caught this. "War is peace" is a line right out of Geaorge Orwell's 1984. This is a line that they use to contro the populace excpet for they take it a step further and say:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I'm surprised that nobody has caught this. "War is peace" is a line right out of Geaorge Orwell's 1984. This is a line that they use to contro the populace excpet for they take it a step further and say:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
In the context of 1984, the line "war is peace" is a little different than the argument presented in this thread. I haven't been following that closely, but I think the point here is that all war ultimately achieves peace.

"The purpose of all war is ultimately peace."
- Saint Augustine

In 1984, the context was that the government convinced the people that the perpetual war the three (or four? been a while since I read it) powers were fighting was actually peace. It worked because the people loved Big Brother and believed everything he said, and also because those that lived during true peace had since died or been "vaporized."

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-- Dubya steals a line from George Orwell, Washington, D.C., Jun. 18, 2002

From time to time, there are leaders of countries/regimes of countries that must be stopped because:

a)They unduly oppress most, if not all, of their own people (Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Saddam), and those people have no way to depose said ruler/regime.

or

b)They wish to conquer/rule other countries without the consent of those countries (Stalin in Eastern Europe, Hitler in Europe, North Korea in South Korea, etc.)

In such cases -- when the goal of such war, and benefit of the victory, is to allow for a brighter future for those who are being oppressed (former) or to stop the invader from advancing on lands that are not his own (latter) -- war may be justified.

when war is wanton, it is obviously wrong. It is not always wrong. And sometimes, there can be relative peace after war.

In the context of 1984, those statements were true. I simply made a link between that context and the context of the "war on terrorism".

But things will not change. Perhaps nations like Malaysia will continue to progress industrially, to the benefit of the developed world. But the world will always demand some source of cheap labor. A world in which everyone is educated, clothed, and sheltered would be a world in which the incentive to innovate, or become an entrepreneur, would be eliminated, because the marginal cost of maintaining a new business, or maintaining an existing business without a reasonable margin of profit, would effectively destroy the current system of capitalism. It would not lead to an egalitarian utopia. An oligarchy would find its way into the upper echelons of power, and exploit a society without economic incentive for its own purposes of power.

And so, without any hint of irony, in our modern world, we can truly say, our war is our peace. War will always be necessary, because with a lasting peace, there would be a greater chance of a lasting dictatorship, in the guise of democracy and centralized bureaucracy.

Edited: I am neither liberal nor conservative. And I take offense to either side saying I support them. Please, do not associate me with your political ideologies, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sorry I don't see how it follows that dictatorship will arise when greater economic equality is achieved

Sorry I don't see how it follows that dictatorship will arise when greater economic equality is achieved

someone has to be there to hold down the mob once they realize that they're stuck in their jobs for life and can no longer try to better themselves financially... Communism, imo, was created for the sake of the lower classes, to lift them up at the expense of everyone else's financial freedom.

I agree. Peace doesn't always come from war. Who told you that crock of shit? Example: Iraq.
Jumping the gun, isn't it? The Iraq war has only been going on for two years.

It's a shame the Americans didn't turn south after they reached Baghdad, and deposed the Saudi monarchy. Saudi Arabia is one of the most barbaric nations on the planet, and the only thing which disguises it is the fact that they all drive around in BMW 7-series and Mercedes S-classes.

How the US can be allied to a nation in which women are not allowed to drive or go on the streets without male escorts perplexes me...Besides, if they took control they'd have better control over the oil.

It's a shame the Americans didn't turn south after they reached Baghdad, and deposed the Saudi monarchy. Saudi Arabia is one of the most barbaric nations on the planet, and the only thing which disguises it is the fact that they all drive around in BMW 7-series and Mercedes S-classes.

How the US can be allied to a nation in which women are not allowed to drive or go on the streets without male escorts perplexes me...Besides, if they took control they'd have better control over the oil.
Because the Saudis control a relatively large portion of the U.S. economy. And because the Bush family is very close with the Saudis. Read House of Bush House of Saud, it's queued on my list to read.

Drzhen, have you read 1984?

NO!NO! NO! NO! NO!

bombing for peace is like fucking for verginity :)

I don't think I made a certain issue clear enough, although when I mentioned things like "lasting peace", I expected people to at least take into account the antithesis of that term.

The "War on Terrorism" is a constant war. Using the term "war is peace" coined by Orwell, I was showing how such a war benefits us. In no way did I mention conventional warfare, and if I seemed to be suggesting that, then I apologize, and hopefully this post makes clear my point.

You are somewhat perplexing, Jane. You seem to think my post in response to Shrubs was directed at you in some fashion, which was pretty odd. I also find it pretty odd to get a response of "not what he's talking about" after I made a response speaking of moral subjectivity. Feeling tired? And your comment of "neutral murder" was incredibly stupid; please put me into context. I said "neutral sense" because I didn't want to seem for or against capital punishment.

The first part can only be taken out of context, second part, the "War on Terrorism" is a constant war? It just started, and frankly, it should end. And, obviously you don't get what Orwell was trying to convey. He was saying it wasn't true, saying that it was double speak.... So using it, then using him as an example is like saying that you think it's untrue, or just didn't get the book. Third part, if your arguement can only be applied to one person, it's faulty logic. Um, maybe because this thread is so hot, that I didn't see that part? No, It's 7pm over here. Thanks for asking. Um, your words were, "it's murder, in a neutral sense." I don't think you have the right to say that your wording was perfect. And murder is a negative conotation. So, a neutral negative conotation.

Oh, and I'm a guy. My name is refering to the name of an unidentified human female corpse.

Jumping the gun, isn't it? The Iraq war has only been going on for two years.

Actually, the actual war is over. Now it's just an occupation. in fact, we made it worse than ever. Oh, and war and occupation are different.

Jumping the gun, isn't it? The Iraq war has only been going on for two years.

Actually, the actual war is over. Now it's just an occupation. in fact, we made it worse than ever.

In the context of 1984, the line "war is peace" is a little different than the argument presented in this thread. I haven't been following that closely, but I think the point here is that all war ultimately achieves peace.

"The purpose of all war is ultimately peace."
- Saint Augustine

In 1984, the context was that the government convinced the people that the perpetual war the three (or four? been a while since I read it) powers were fighting was actually peace. It worked because the people loved Big Brother and believed everything he said, and also because those that lived during true peace had since died or been "vaporized."

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-- Dubya steals a line from George Orwell, Washington, D.C., Jun. 18, 2002

But on the back it says
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
And Big Brother is watching...

#1. War doesn't "create" peace, it merely comes out of it after it's over. The same is true of peace. Peace does not create war, but war merely comes out of it after it's over. And since war can only come from peace, would you say peace is war? Obviously not.some zen masters would say yes, Peace does give birth to War as War does give birth to Peace... Yin and Yang.

BTW... were you trying to be "deep"?

I bet a lot of people that lived through the cold war believe the cold war was a more stable time in history then it is now. At least back then you knew who the enemy was and the lines were drawn in the sand....now a days the battleline can be anywhere, and the damage done by anybody...hell there are some ultra left groups in the united states planning to attack their own country....the british terrorists were british citizens...ect ect..

Bumpity bump bump.

Bumpity bump bump.
that was a rather large bump :D I think I hit my head on the ceiling!

that was a rather large bump :D I think I hit my head on the ceiling!Plus the driver was going WAAAAY to fast when he hit that bump. :D

They unduly oppress most, if not all, of their own people (Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Saddam), and those people have no way to depose said ruler/regime.
I don't think that is ever the case. If there really was a large enough public movement against any of those leaders, there could have been a revolution. There simply wasn't.

And by the way:
Isn't anybody going to mention the infinitely more relevant line? The one line that really sums up 1984? The one line that really is applicable in modern society already?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I don't think that is ever the case. If there really was a large enough public movement against any of those leaders, there could have been a revolution. There simply wasn't.

And by the way:
Isn't anybody going to mention the infinitely more relevant line? The one line that really sums up 1984? The one line that really is applicable in modern society already?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY is becoming more evident as you see patriotic flag waving fervors at Bush rallies.

WAR IS PEACE will soon follow, I'm sure.

The first part can only be taken out of context, second part, the "War on Terrorism" is a constant war? It just started, and frankly, it should end. And, obviously you don't get what Orwell was trying to convey. He was saying it wasn't true, saying that it was double speak.... So using it, then using him as an example is like saying that you think it's untrue, or just didn't get the book. Third part, if your arguement can only be applied to one person, it's faulty logic. Um, maybe because this thread is so hot, that I didn't see that part? No, It's 7pm over here. Thanks for asking. Um, your words were, "it's murder, in a neutral sense." I don't think you have the right to say that your wording was perfect. And murder is a negative conotation. So, a neutral negative conotation.

I understand perfectly well what Orwell wrote about. And I have every right to say my wording was perfect. I said "it's murder, in a neutral sense", as in, it is murder, from the perspective of someone trying not to say something biased for or against capital punishment.

Sometimes it's depressing how people have trouble reading what people write.

The war in 1984 was very real. But it was not a war in any normal sense. Here are some helpful quotes, and a suggestion to read a book you dare to comment on.

"The fighting... takes place on the vague frontiers..."

"When any large operation is undertaken..."

"Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the... areas round the Equator and the Pole; no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken."

Certainly, it was a war never meant to be won. But it was still fought.

Certainly, it was a war never meant to be won. But it was still fought.
Orwell was a Socialist. He would've known a little bit about Capitalism, and this war was clearly an economic one.
He knew that to keep society on the same level, to freeze it in time at the point when the party was in power, all produce on a higher than subsistence level had to be destroyed without ever helping anyone.
And that was why there had to be eternal war.

However, the war wasn't external. The various skirmishes that actually took place, the worthless Floating Fortresses that were continuously built, scrapped, and replaced, and the countless slaves changed hands like land-tied serfs didn't change the fact that the war was directed at the lower classes. Only through ignorance and poverty can a ruling class exist, and through suffering and fear it keeps its grasp.

Speaking of Democratic Socialists, Orwell was one. Calling him a socialist would negate the fact he believed in democracy as a form of viable political existence.

Speaking of Democratic Socialists, Orwell was one. Calling him a socialist would negate the fact he believed in democracy as a form of viable political existence.
Hehe...did I fall for the same thing myself.
Obviously I meant a "Socialist" in a sense like the French or Spanish Socialist Parties.

Fair enough, but next time say French or Spanish Socialist Parties :)

Speaking of being a socialist, are you aware Orwell was shot in the throat fighting the fascists in Spain? I like him. He was such an honest writer and individual.

Fair enough, but next time say French or Spanish Socialist Parties :)

Speaking of being a socialist, are you aware Orwell was shot in the throat fighting the fascists in Spain? I like him. He was such an honest writer and individual.
nothing to argue with here, but you might want to think about shortening up that sig before the mods do it for you! :)

Speaking of being a socialist, are you aware Orwell was shot in the throat fighting the fascists in Spain? I like him. He was such an honest writer and individual.
Reading the little that I did about him, I always felt like he really was a sad man. I can imagine him really feeling for the Russian Revolution, but then it turned out so bad. Just like in Animal Farm...

Reading the little that I did about him, I always felt like he really was a sad man. I can imagine him really feeling for the Russian Revolution, but then it turned out so bad. Just like in Animal Farm...

How about the Spanish one? Read "Homage to Catalonia", one of his non-fiction books.

It talks about his wartime experience there, ending when his faction collapsed when betrayed by a new political alliance and he was shot in the throat during his flight. If I remember correctly he wrote the book on the train taking him out.

While we are on the topic of Orwell, I have an interesting factoid. He wrote the entirety of 1984 while dying on a hospital bed of, I believe, pneumonia. Many days while he wrote, he could barely retain consciousness. He write in longhand because he couldn't sit to type, and because it pained him too greatly. Maybe the cynicism and darkness of 1984, which I think is a book unparalleled in human literature, had something to do with Orwell facing his own mortality, and his own analysis of what the future might be, as bleak as death.

How about the Spanish one? Read "Homage to Catalonia", one of his non-fiction books.
I guess he obviously felt very strongly for that one too, considering he did go and fight...

Actually, it is interesting, although I really am a pacifist in so many ways...I think I would've gone too. Maybe it's the romaniticism of it, but although I don't believe violence can't really achieve something lasting, I would still go and fight in a revolution....... :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Oh, all-powerful wiki, how I love thee... ;)

I guess he obviously felt very strongly for that one too, considering he did go and fight...

Actually, it is interesting, although I really am a pacifist in so many ways...I think I would've gone too. Maybe it's the romaniticism of it, but although I don't believe violence can't really achieve something lasting, I would still go and fight in a revolution....... :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia
Oh, all-powerful wiki, how I love thee... ;)

As would many people, fighting for an ideal, for a better life, or simply to end the fighting and bring in peace...people have always found reasons to risk death.

Pacifists are no exception! Even pacifists have done great service in war, helping those who were wounded, bringing aid and comfort to others. Just because someone does not want to kill for an ideal does not mean they are not willing to die for it.

Politics and human nature have a nasty habit of turning "revolutions" into "wars" though. Power frequently changes hands, it rarely changes shape. But if it were that easy to make our ideals a reality, we never really have to fight for them.

I'd love to sit down with Orwell and chat about his books. I couldn't imagine a more interesting conversation.

I'd love to sit down with Orwell and chat about his books. I couldn't imagine a more interesting conversation.

Right at the end of his life, when the sum of experiences were upon him, and he had time to reflect about the passions of his youth, and the dissapointments of watching the world war around him...It would have been fascinating.

I agree. Orwell's insight has been preserved in literary form, but I can't help but crave his words, clear and unvarnished.

The way I see it, peace can only be created through war. You cannot create peace by taking weapons away from the people. This will only create more hostility. For true peace to come, two conditions must be met: Frist, all weapons must be destroyed; second, the desire to fight must be erased from the peoples' hearts. The only way to do this is for something so terrible to happen, that the people will lose their desire to fight.

The way I see it, peace can only be created through war. You cannot create peace by taking weapons away from the people. This will only create more hostility. For true peace to come, two conditions must be met: Frist, all weapons must be destroyed; second, the desire to fight must be erased from the peoples' hearts. The only way to do this is for something so terrible to happen, that the people will lose their desire to fight.

That smacks of Taoist thought...extremes are inherantly unstable and thus revert back to their opposite.

However, let us examine the evidence provided by history; WW1 was called by Wilson to be the last, most horrific war. WW2 was unprecidented in terms of lives lost. The Warring States period in China saw 400,000 men executed in a single battle, and "mountains of bodies with rivers of blood" was a phrase coined in this period.

Was there peace after these horrifc and destructive events? I think not.

Hideyoshi's sword hunt allowed the Tokugawa 300 years of unprecidented peace...in a strict warrior culture. While the Roman Peace invovled great bloodshed and glorified the culture of death and conquest in the arena. The Han and Tang dynasties of China were periods of great peace and prosperity, minus the near-constant border wars with surrounding nations.

The American periods of relative peace were rife with proxy wars and shadowed expansion policies. France enjoyed peace after WW2 and immediately moved to seize Monaco.

Nope. Great wars do not a great peace make. However constant readiness for war, within a society that constrains such activites to "safe" areas, that dillutes the warring instinct of man with rules, honor, rituals...THAT'S where we see peace.

TRUE peace may be an impossible dream, but realitive peace is still possible.