NationStates Jolt Archive

War is the health of the state. Its sole purpose is to consolidate central power, enrich cronies of the state, and restrict liberty.

I believe war can be justified, but more so in a sense of survival only. A way to look at it from my view would be the story line from Battlefield2142, two large forces against each other so that one side could survive, there wasn't enough room on the planet for the other side (well not habitable). So yeah, for survival I believe war is justified, even required, just for the survival of the race one day.

War? Huh! What is it good for?


It is good for seizing other soveriegn states, raping them of their resoruces and changing their system of government and way of life so it is more in line with what you deem acceptable.

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?

I do not think so, as for every war, regardless of what good intentions might have been given in justification, in actuality the impetus has been the good of a select few who are enriched by political distribution. Especially considering the destructive power of modern technology, warfare destroys and deteriorates the lives of many for the benefit of only a few.

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?

I do not think so, as for every war, regardless of what good intentions might have been given in justification, in actuality the impetus has been the good of a select few who are enriched by political distribution. Especially considering the destructive power of modern technology, warfare destroys and deteriorates the lives of many for the benefit of only a few.

Yeah, fighting back against the Nazis in WW2 only benefitted a few people. We should have just let them take over.

/sarcasm (and godwin, but who's counting?)

Objectively war represents the competing interests of different national bourgeois interests for new markets that would not exist except through invasion and plundering of other countries.

Self-defense is always justified. Self-defense on a grand scale, therefore, is justifiable. The more a war deviates from self defense, the harder it is to justify. When and how to defend others who are unable to defend themselves is a little messier. :p

Objectively war represents the competing interests of different national bourgeois interests for new markets that would not exist except through invasion and plundering of other countries.


Do you just have some program where you enter a topic and the program will generate a marxist rant on said topic for you?

Absolutely nothing!
Say it again folks....

War is essentially a political move designed for the sole purpose of intimidation and frequently deposition of the opposing government. It is effective in that it lowers morale and popular support, gives the victor a diplomatic edge, and allows the claiming of land and resources. The downside is that frequently the population at home gets upset, reducing popular support for the declaring government and often requiring an upswing in law enforcement funding at home as well as in military funding overseas, which can harm the economy.

And, of course, it kills people.

Do you just have some program where you enter a topic and the program will generate a marxist rant on said topic for you?

ROFL

War is the health of the state. Its sole purpose is to consolidate central power, enrich cronies of the state, and restrict liberty.

When I read about war I constantly reinforce my belief in peace. I guess that makes me a pacifist because I don´t see any justification in war. War begets war. I do not condone the invasion of a country by another, for whatever reasons (true or imaginary) or that war related crimes are acceptable in any way. If anything, countries should do the same thing Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica) did, disband the military. No military to use as a marionette of the state, no war mongering leaders to fear.:)

Objectively war represents the competing interests of different national bourgeois interests for new markets that would not exist except through invasion and plundering of other countries.

Oh, So a war to liberate a nation that has been invaded and taken over by people that are slughtering the locals is for the befit of the "bourgeois"?

War is always wrong but sometimes a party may have a justification not for the war as a whole but only for the role they played in the war such as to prevent genocide.

Any kind of conflict is always the result of a failure to convince the other party to agree with you but sometimes a party may have an excuse for the failure such as the other side wouldn't even listen to what they had to say.

War is fun.

Well, war did stop the spread of Nazism...........

When I read about war I constantly reinforce my belief in peace. I guess that makes me a pacifist because I don´t see any justification in war. War begets war. I do not condone the invasion of a country by another, for whatever reasons (true or imaginary) or that war related crimes are acceptable in any way. If anything, countries should do the same thing Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica) did, disband the military. No military to use as a marionette of the state, no war mongering leaders to fear.:)

No offense, but you're an idiot. In an ideal world, there would be no war. But as this world is not ideal, we all need an army. If we didn't have an army, some other country with an army would move in and take over.

decreasing the surplus population

Starting political violence is never good for anything. But once one side starts it, that opens up the potential for retribution to be just and useful, sometimes even if the new entrant wasn't part of the initial conflict.

violence is good at stopping violence oddly (well it not but if you kill enough I guess...)

if we all decided to be n/ice that would be dandy :)

violence is good at stopping violence oddly (well it not but if you kill enough I guess...)

if we all decided to be n/ice that would be dandy :)



If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas

so its now:

candy we all decided to be nice that would be dandy :)

I feel a song coming...

Do you just have some program where you enter a topic and the program will generate a marxist rant on said topic for you?

Classic......

Holy triple time-warp, Batman!

Well, war did stop the spread of Nazism...........

And gave a pretext to the spread of Communism and Federal hegemony through the excuse of combatting half-dead, impotent fascism. (The benefits in America largely accrued to Washington and those in the NRA and AAA.) There most likely wouldn't have been a second World War if the anglophile financial elite and protectionist hadn't had their way with trade and the US's entry into the first World War. Quite frankly, it was an exchange of one demon for another.

Holy triple time-warp, Batman!



And gave a pretext to the spread of Communism and Federal hegemony through the excuse of combatting half-dead, impotent fascism. (The benefits in America largely accrued to Washington and those in the NRA and AAA.) There most likely wouldn't have been a second World War if the anglophile financial elite and protectionist hadn't had their way with trade and the US's entry into the first World War. Quite frankly, it was an exchange of one demon for another.


quite true, i couldn't agree more

however, under such pretext, you are assuming that in a perfect world, with all things being equal, war is never necessary, and the use of it to stop the spread of nazism was superfluous

and i would agree

but in the real world, where mistakes do happen and international conflicts sometimes arise from those mistakes, it is sometimes necessary to authorize the use of force to quell an insatiable extremist/rogue government bent on territorial conquest

Does the OP mean, "Is starting a war ever justified?" If so, I would say no. I'm sure there exists a scenario where beginning the violence would be justified, but I can't think of any and I'm not sure they ever have occurred in the real world.
On the other hand, being in a war is not necessarily wrong. When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was in a war whether Congress declared it or not. Two countries cannot be fighting if only one of them is at war. In that case, it is the government's duty to protect the sovereignty of its citizens.

Absolutely Nothing.

Pwoah. Yeh. Good God. War. What Is It Good For?

Self-defense is always justified. Self-defense on a grand scale, therefore, is justifiable. The more a war deviates from self defense, the harder it is to justify. When and how to defend others who are unable to defend themselves is a little messier. :p

the only problem with your reasoning is that a nation isn't a person. Would it be good to defend a 'dystopian' nation against liberators who will make that nation better?

Yeah, fighting back against the Nazis in WW2 only benefitted a few people. We should have just let them take over.

/sarcasm (and godwin, but who's counting?)

One dictatorship was replaced with another.

War can be justified but most of the time in history it has not.

Well, war did stop the spread of Nazism...........

seconded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0USVLDy9cQ&feature=related) I think the first couple minutes with the guy talking pretty much answers this thread. "I have learned that there is nothing good about war but there is good in why you fight wars"

War? Huh! What is it good for?


Absolutely nothing!
Say it again folks....


Absolutely Nothing.

Pwoah. Yeh. Good God. War. What Is It Good For?
If it weren't for war, we wouldn't have this song.

the only problem with your reasoning is that a nation isn't a person.

Nations are made up of people - defending a nation from attack usually defends individuals from harm. Self defense on a large scale, again.

Would it be good to defend a 'dystopian' nation against liberators who will make that nation better?

"Good" and justifiable are very different things. :p

War is war. People will be people. We are just going to keep fucking up ourselves with nuclear annihalation. Yay for fucking up the world!:)

:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

I never understand the "WWII was justified" argument in threads like this. WWII was a completley unjustified war. Germany was unjustified in attacking Poland, Japan was unjustified is attacking China, ect. The Allies were perfectly justified in entering the war, of course, but that does not mean the war itself was justified.

The Allies were perfectly justified in entering the war, of course, but that does not mean the war itself was justified.

Couldn't the victims of German and Japanese invasions simply have ceased to fight?

They could have, yet were still justified in not doing so, and were not responsible for the ensuing war. The responsibility for the war lies on the agressors, and while self-defense is justified, WWII, started to gain greater power for the Axis, was not.

Couldn't the victims of German and Japanese invasions simply have ceased to fight?

That was, in fact, Gandhi's position.

War occurs when two groups, usually but not always nations, have a dispute that they either cannot or will not solve in a peaceful manner. "Good" is never part of the equation; each side will automatically see it's position as 'good' regardless.

War in itself can be good, if it provides a permanent solution to a problem. Thus, WWII was good because it permanently solved the problems of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan - or on a more philosophical note, Fascism's challenge to Democracy and Communism as one of the dominant governmental systems. Likewise the Cold War ended Communism's challenge to Democracy, and the US Civil War ended slavery, even if it took a few more years to actually die.

On the other hand, Korea, WWI, and Gulf War 2 (US vs. Iraq round 1) did not solve anything.

Week long specials on the History Channel.

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?.

What is the word for active hostility between a state and a nonstate society?

On the other hand, Korea, WWI, and Gulf War 2 (US vs. Iraq round 1) did not solve anything.

I think the South Koreans would disagree with you about the Korean War.

And the thing that enabled Nazism to rise to power in the first place?

A war-ravaged country.

[/thread]

Well, war did stop the spread of Nazism...........
And the thing that enabled Nazism to rise to power in the first place?

A war-ravaged country.

That was, in fact, Gandhi's position.


Not necessarily. Gandhi wasn't a strict pacifist.

absolutely nothing

yeah

war is justifed only when all other approches fail. this is not to ssay that those attacked before all else failed are unjustifed, only the attacker is.:sniper:

I think the South Koreans would disagree with you about the Korean War.

Oh, it had a relatively positive outcome - but the underlying problem (the division of the penninsula and peoples of Korea) remained. There is nothing to prevent the exact same war, for the exact same reason, starting all over again.

Not necessarily. Gandhi wasn't a strict pacifist.

Er, yeah, he was actually. He's on record as saying the Jews should not have resisted the final solution programmes.

What is the word for active hostility between a state and a nonstate society?


Asymmetric warfare in its original definition probably best describes it.

Asymmetric warfare probably best describes it.

Either that or "Extermination".

Oh, So a war to liberate a nation that has been invaded and taken over by people that are slughtering the locals is for the befit of the "bourgeois"?

Take Iraq for example, before the war Iraq had a nationalized economy, after it has a completely privatized economy, flat tax rate of 10%, no limits on foreign ownership etc etc, the same happened in Kosovo. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so foreign state-linked corporations can begin the process of rebuilding. Capitalism by definition requires markets to go everywhere, to exploit everything, it's a natural reaction that when barriers to the free-market ideology appear that military strength is used to destroy those barriers of capitalism that can't be put down peacefully.

The ultimate expression of capitalism is war.

quite true, i couldn't agree more

however, under such pretext, you are assuming that in a perfect world, with all things being equal, war is never necessary, and the use of it to stop the spread of nazism was superfluous

and i would agree

but in the real world, where mistakes do happen and international conflicts sometimes arise from those mistakes, it is sometimes necessary to authorize the use of force to quell an insatiable extremist/rogue government bent on territorial conquest

But the people who are states just the same as the offending government cannot be trusted to stop them and not cause more suffering (especially considering that war powers always come at the expense of the political periphery.) It is like giving a psychotic murderer an assault rifle to kill another psychotic murderer and then give you back your gun when he is finished. I wouldn't say no violence is justified, as I think a lot more good can be done through private donations and volunteering than by going imperialistic bureaucracies, but rather that warmongers and imperialists cannot be trusted to stop war and imperialism.

What is the word for active hostility between a state and a nonstate society?

I'm not aware of one. Would you like to coin a term?

Si vis pacem para bellum.

FTW.

Take Iraq for example, before the war Iraq had a nationalized economy, after it has a completely privatized economy, flat tax rate of 10%, no limits on foreign ownership etc etc, the same happened in Kosovo. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so foreign state-linked corporations can begin the process of rebuilding. Capitalism by definition requires markets to go everywhere, to exploit everything, it's a natural reaction that when barriers to the free-market ideology appear that military strength is used to destroy those barriers of capitalism that can't be put down peacefully.

The ultimate expression of capitalism is war.

Andaras, clearly your understanding of Capitalism is seriously limited.

War is not good for capitalism. War demands central control of production, maximises government interference, and limits or even reduces the consumer base. It creates materials shortages and devalues capital. Plus, in the end, war is too great a risk - because if you lose, you can lose everything.

War can be good for capitalism - if it's two other people fighting.

I'm not aware of one. Would you like to coin a term?

Not really, but it should be harsh to the ear yet also pleasing to hear.

Andaras, clearly your understanding of Capitalism is seriously limited.

War is not good for capitalism. War demands central control of production, maximises government interference, and limits or even reduces the consumer base. It creates materials shortages and devalues capital. Plus, in the end, war is too great a risk - because if you lose, you can lose everything.

War can be good for capitalism - if it's two other people fighting.
Your laboring under the false pretense that capitalism by design works for the whole population as a whole, and not for the exclusive profit of the production controllers. Thus while the economy can be up the creek for the average person, for the politically connected corporations and private interests business has never been better. Thus the high growth, low conditions phenomenon of capitalism. Yes war can destroy everything for the general economy, but for the top tier they profit massively. Capitalism is naturally self-destructive.

Without getting into ths psycho babble that some wish to spew, I'll just say that war is evil and without a basis in human decency and morality. That being said, the human race will always war on itself so not preparing for war when you are a target will only lead to defeat and subjugation. Costa Rica is a poor example to use for demilitarization because no one really wants to invade Costa Rica and if someone did the UN would be all over the invaders. If the majority of the planet disarmed, all that would happen is those cuntries who are still armed would subjugate the other countries that aren't.

Your laboring under the false pretense that capitalism by design works for the whole population as a whole, and not for the exclusive profit of the production controllers. Thus while the economy can be up the creek for the average person, for the politically connected corporations and private interests business has never been better. Thus the high growth, low conditions phenomenon of capitalism. Yes war can destroy everything for the general economy, but for the top tier they profit massively. Capitalism is naturally self-destructive.

Well, you're obviously wrong there - since Capitalism is doing just fine, thank you.

Further, capitalism has never, and cannot, work from a top-down basis. The fundamental aspect of Capitalism is the market - the consumer. The stronger your consumer base - the more wealth is spread, rather than being locked up in hierarchies - the stronger capitalism becomes.

What you're speaking of is monopolism, where the free market is replaced by controlled markets and competition is eliminated. I freely admit, monopolism is a danger in any Capitalistic economy - and is encouraged by war.

But monopolism is not inevitable. Provided some form of change is inherent in the system - currently, that is technology's role - large monopolies eventually become too ponderous and ineffectual to keep up. At that point, competition again takes over, and the giant either topples or reconfigures itself for the new era.

Are we in danger of a monopolist takeover? Yes. But it hasn't happened yet, andif we're careful, it won't.

wars are fought:
by the many for the few;
and when the fighting's over,
the many still get screwed.

=^^=
.../\...

Nations are made up of people - defending a nation from attack usually defends individuals from harm. Self defense on a large scale, again.

If the people wouldn't defend themselves the attackers wouldn't have anyone to shoot. (again, this is in the case of a "human rights lovefest" invading a dystopian dictatorship.) you're presupposing that the nations interests are the same as those of it's individuals.

Without getting into ths psycho babble that some wish to spew, I'll just say that war is evil and without a basis in human decency and morality. That being said, the human race will always war on itself so not preparing for war when you are a target will only lead to defeat and subjugation. Costa Rica is a poor example to use for demilitarization because no one really wants to invade Costa Rica and if someone did the UN would be all over the invaders. If the majority of the planet disarmed, all that would happen is those cuntries who are still armed would subjugate the other countries that aren't.

Untrue - I want to invade Costa Rica. I even started a thread on it to try and get help from fellow NSGers.

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?

I do not think so, as for every war, regardless of what good intentions might have been given in justification, in actuality the impetus has been the good of a select few who are enriched by political distribution. Especially considering the destructive power of modern technology, warfare destroys and deteriorates the lives of many for the benefit of only a few.

Of course war can be beneficial for nations, and can be justifiable. If the war benefits the nation in any way, then the war can be justifiable.

Of course war can be beneficial for nations, and can be justifiable. If the war benefits the nation in any way, then the war can be justifiable.

So Iraq were justified in invading Kuwait because it benefitted them? That really is a rather silly thing to say.

So Iraq were justified in invading Iraq because it benefitted them? That really is a rather silly thing to say.

Just when did Iraq invade itself? And how is that even possible?

Just when did Iraq invade itself? And how is that even possible?

Oops typo - I meant to type Kuwait.

War is obsolete.

For every war, all of the ends at least one of the belligerents would seek to achieve are either no longer achievable through war, or are more readily achieved through other means.

Modern war is like when a civil case goes to trial instead of settling - at least one of the sides has let their ego get the best of their rational judgment.

Oops typo - I meant to type Kuwait.

Hehe, I figured it was a typo! ;)

But yes, Iraq could have been fully justified. Did it need Kuwait's oil and money to improve the living conditions in Iraq? Or was it just to increase Saddam's wealth? Was it to make Iraq appear strong so it would receive respect? (I actually don't remember why Iraq invaded Kuwait). But, the fact is other countries didn't like Iraq doing that, so they kicked Iraq's ass.

In international relations might makes right.

The ONLY thing wars are good for is that they make people invent things. Lots of stuff has come off of warfare, useful things, like microwave oven. *goes to 'nuke up' some food*

Modern war is like when a civil case goes to trial instead of settling - at least one of the sides has let their ego get the best of their rational judgment.

The equivalent for that case would more likely be intervention by UN, diplomatic discussions done by a third party and so on. War to a civil case would be one side of the civil case taking a gun and going to shoot the other.

War is obsolete.

For every war, all of the ends at least one of the belligerents would seek to achieve are either no longer achievable through war, or are more readily achieved through other means.

Modern war is like when a civil case goes to trial instead of settling - at least one of the sides has let their ego get the best of their rational judgment.

Until one country actually decides to fight and the other countries can only yell and raise objections while they are destroyed.

Until one country actually decides to fight and the other countries can only yell and raise objections while they are destroyed.I suppose, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Let's say country A wants to go to war with country B. Firstly, they have to acquire sufficient military forces, which costs resources. Economic pressure can be brought to bear on them from other countries. Next, they decide to attack helpless country B out of the blue. Country B has rational grounds to persuade other countries to isolate country A's economy and communications. Country A attacks anyway. Let's say they want to conquer, in which case they will not destroy everything and everybody, but march in with an occupying force. Then asymmetric warfare starts, which can be fed by other countries. Country A loses even more resources at an even very disproportionate amount, and this may happen for an indefinite period of time. At some point, they will have lost more than they have gained by invading the country. Let's say they want to truly put a stop to the guerrillas. They would have to literally destroy country B, and what wasn't destroyed would surely be sabotaged by Country B's fleeing residents. So Country at this point Country A has invaded Country B to no ends at all, except loss. And now there's an angry Country B diaspora, international sentiment against them, etc. And in their permanently weakened state, Country A may not be able to guarantee that Country B's former residents will not be able to return and resettle at some point in the future.

Therefore, the interconnectedness of today's world, and universal access to technology makes war futile and stupid, and countries that realize this have a competitive edge.

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?

I do not think so, as for every war, regardless of what good intentions might have been given in justification, in actuality the impetus has been the good of a select few who are enriched by political distribution. Especially considering the destructive power of modern technology, warfare destroys and deteriorates the lives of many for the benefit of only a few.

Depends on your POV. If you look personally then no concious violence against other human being with intent to do harm is justifieable ever.

But if you sit back and take wider view than maybe war once in a time is good: for growth, science development. You know that many of great breakthroughs and scientific research come from military especcially in wartime. Afterwar there is usually some region left in ruins that have to be rebuilt, which attracts investments and companies to do work. In a way war is like cleaning so that 'happy state' does not bore us, the reckless humanity.

Wars can be compared to wildfires that are neccessary for Sequoi development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Ecology)

Untrue - I want to invade Costa Rica. I even started a thread on it to try and get help from fellow NSGers.


Ahh, cool. Can I help?

Ahh, cool. Can I help?

Can you bring your own aircraft carrier?

Do you think that war, defined as a relationship of active hostility between states, can ever be justified?

I do not think so, as for every war, regardless of what good intentions might have been given in justification, in actuality the impetus has been the good of a select few who are enriched by political distribution. Especially considering the destructive power of modern technology, warfare destroys and deteriorates the lives of many for the benefit of only a few.

Defenders might be justified. But justice is a such an arbitrary term. It is my opinion war can be justified against people like Hitler; however, threats like Hitler do not show-up too often.

War causes huge advencement in science. Medical, mechanical, engineering, philosofy, weak 1s die, almost all areas...

Depends on your POV. If you look personally then no concious violence against other human being with intent to do harm is justifieable ever.

But if you sit back and take wider view than maybe war once in a time is good: for growth, science development. You know that many of great breakthroughs and scientific research come from military especcially in wartime. Afterwar there is usually some region left in ruins that have to be rebuilt, which attracts investments and companies to do work. In a way war is like cleaning so that 'happy state' does not bore us, the reckless humanity.

Wars can be compared to wildfires that are neccessary for Sequoi development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Ecology)

Firstly, the idea that destruction of wealth makes us richer is a Broken Window Fallacy on a massive scale; if it were true, we should be regularly nuking the world so that there is always plenty to rebuild and we all become very rich. However, what such a theory fails to take into account is that, just the same as the shopkeeper will not be able to invest in new equipment but instead will be forced to repair a window, the devastated regions will have to use scarce resources replacing devastated production capacity instead of expanding it. Thus, it ends up being a generally negative-sum situation as a great deal of opportunities of wealth creation are lost.

And as for war's benefits for science, one must keep in mind that military research does not come from the blue, but must be done at the expense of other uses of scarce resources, i.e. it is inevitable that military research, which is done largely for destruction, is done at the expense of some civilian research, which is done to enrich ourselves. Additionally, the lowered rate of profit means due to the costs of taxes, regulation, etc. to support the warfare state means that certain scientific projects with relatively low rates of profit that would have been undertaken previously will be foregone, and that since the stock of present goods in the civilian sector will be reduced by expropriation that there will be a greater present-orientation (according to the law of margins, fewer present goods mean a larger value for each), interest rates will rise and even fewer long-term or less profitable scientific endeavors will be undertaken. Same for the destruction of present goods and productive capacity due to conflict. Add in the waste of non-price rationing that a government bureaucracy must use, and it is apparent that war is a deadweight in science as well.

A large scale war can greatly assist the economy. In the early 1930's, the US was in the Great Depression. In the early 1940's, the US was in WW2 and had a booming economy. I also agree that war benefits science (Look at the Manhattan Project.) However, I am opposed the drafts and needless rationing.

War is God's way of telling us that we shouldn't be here because we're too stupid.
The last resort of the mindless, desperate or a homicidal people's is war.

I think a bigger question is time, if there were more time to think war would not be necessary, thus we must all invent time-machines to prevent wars.

So War involves;
P1) People killing to survive
P2) People dieing from weaponry
P3) People working toward a larger goal
C) War is people trying to move themselves to a better place

So another interesting question could be do all people desire to survive? suicide statistics say otherwise. Or perhaps, if we are predetermined in our goals an objectives would war occur?

War? Huh! What is it good for?


Reducing population ;)

War is obsolete.

For every war, all of the ends at least one of the belligerents would seek to achieve are either no longer achievable through war, or are more readily achieved through other means.
.

I don't know. What happens if the goal of the belligerent is the extermination of the other side? How would that be achieved by means other than war?

(and if it was, would the other side then be justified in using war to prevent this?)

For example, the stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel, and their charter documents name violence as the only means of accomplishing this. Supposing they decided to drop that part. How would they set about destroying Israel by "other means"?

And if you happen to be on the Palestinian side of things, reverse it. What if the Israelis came up with some sort of technical wizardry that would remove all the Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank, without ever actually hurting anyone or firing a single weapon? Would the Palestinians be justified in using violence to stop this?

Can you bring your own aircraft carrier?

Sadly, I can't. My nation is landlocked.:(

Er, yeah, he was actually. He's on record as saying the Jews should not have resisted the final solution programmes.

What a fucktard.

Oh, it had a relatively positive outcome - but the underlying problem (the division of the penninsula and peoples of Korea) remained. There is nothing to prevent the exact same war, for the exact same reason, starting all over again.
.

Other than the fact that now, a half century later, South Korea is a prosperous capitalist nation, one of the wealthiest in the world, with one of the strongest industrial bases in the world with very modern infrastructure, twice the people and ten times the food and would easily thrash primitive, medieval communist north Korea, nukes or no.

War is good for: stopping oppression by foreign power (American Revolution)
ending internal political oppression (French Revolution)
ending slavery (Haitian Revolution, US Civil War)
stopping aggressor powers (WW2, Gulf War)

I'm not giving war a blank check, and lots of wars are fought for profit or selfish gain, but the fact that some leaders and countries sometimes act like assholes does not in itself make all war wrong.

Other than the fact that now, a half century later, South Korea is a prosperous capitalist nation, one of the wealthiest in the world, with one of the strongest industrial bases in the world with very modern infrastructure, twice the people and ten times the food and would easily thrash primitive, medieval communist north Korea, nukes or no.

I dont think they would "easily thrash" them without aide from the US military. North Korea spends all that money its not spending on its people on its military, and last time I checked had the 3rd largest standing army in the world.

War is good for: stopping oppression by foreign power (American Revolution)



Oh gawd the oppression:rolleyes:


I dont think even Corny would argue that the American colonists were oppressed by the Birtish crown...

A society in which there would be no war would be incredible, but that is with the assumption that there would be no mass acts of violence by one group of people against another (for example, a terrorist organization that operates without endorsement/not exclusively in one country cannot commit an act of war). Peace is not just the absence of war; Peace is the absence of all types of violence, cruelty, and oppression.

Oh gawd the oppression:rolleyes:


I dont think even Corny would argue that the American colonists were oppressed by the Birtish crown...

Maybe not by today's standards, but I personally would like no part of taxation without representation.

The arms industry. Also good for getting rid of excess young men with nothing much to do, and a great way to create some national unity, and also make scathing attacks on anyone who backs the wrong pony after the whole thing is over.

If it weren't for war, we wouldn't have this song.

Damn.

Oh gawd the oppression:rolleyes:


I dont think even Corny would argue that the American colonists were oppressed by the Birtish crown...

In fact, I think it could be argued that even the State governments of the Articles created from the husks of the royal colonies were at least as bad as George III, with tariffs, inflation, debt, and corruption concerning public lands. And let's not even get started with Hamilton and the present weight of the Federal heel, with ~40% of national income being taxed and the suspension of habeas corpus. (At least George III only took 1% of the north's income and 2.5% of the south's.)

A society in which there would be no war would be incredible, but that is with the assumption that there would be no mass acts of violence by one group of people against another (for example, a terrorist organization that operates without endorsement/not exclusively in one country cannot commit an act of war). Peace is not just the absence of war; Peace is the absence of all types of violence, cruelty, and oppression.

Peace is when each has been rendered their due.

War is the health of the state. Its sole purpose is to consolidate central power, enrich cronies of the state, and restrict liberty.

/facepalm

War is one means among many which, given proper preconditions and sufficient force, one state uses to make another state do as it wishes. War in that case has no valuable purpose only if there is never a valuable reason to make one state do as another wishes. Anthropologically, the above sentence is the height of stupidity; normatively, I would say equally so although there is more dispute on the question of how absolutely one should value another state's autonomy. I myself find nothing in a state inherently worth valuing, although multiculturalists often disagree at a functional level.

"War. War never changes. [...] The details are trivial and pointless, the reasons, as always, purely human ones."

I don't know. What happens if the goal of the belligerent is the extermination of the other side? How would that be achieved by means other than war?That's not a rational motivation, so the alternatives may not be as ready, but I would say Plague, sterilization through contamination of homelands, genetically-tailored viruses (near future), paid abortions, or depending on what it means to exterminate a people: intermarriage-assimilation, exposure to certain elements of other cultures, psychological domination to deflate ethnic morale, introducing drugs or gangs, foment ethnic tensions with a more powerful proxy ethnicity, incite revolutions, etc.

(and if it was, would the other side then be justified in using war to prevent this?)Perhaps, although there may be other means.

For example, the stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel, and their charter documents name violence as the only means of accomplishing this. Supposing they decided to drop that part. How would they set about destroying Israel by "other means"?Good question. I suppose I should clarify by saying that guerrilla warfare may be the best option for the traditionally weaker belligerent, but if the traditionally stronger belligerent is rational, that situation should be avoidable. If Hamas were to totally suck up to Israel and bring about peace, they might be able to simply infiltrate their culture and introduce their own values over time, but that doesn't seem likely.

And if you happen to be on the Palestinian side of things, reverse it. What if the Israelis came up with some sort of technical wizardry that would remove all the Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank, without ever actually hurting anyone or firing a single weapon? Would the Palestinians be justified in using violence to stop this?Maybe.

But I'm not saying that any participant in a war should be able to avoid it, just that if there's a would-be war, at least one of the belligerents has the ability to prevent the war by using more productive means to achieve their objective (provided that objective isn't intrinsically connected to the nature of warfare, such as genocide, and even then there may be other means).

So more to the point, I think that the traditional military is obsolete, in the face of technology-empowered guerrilla/terrorist tactics.

Other than the fact that now, a half century later, South Korea is a prosperous capitalist nation, one of the wealthiest in the world, with one of the strongest industrial bases in the world with very modern infrastructure, twice the people and ten times the food and would easily thrash primitive, medieval communist north Korea, nukes or no.

Er, no. While I would expect the final outcome to be in South Korea's favour, it would not in any sense be easy.

And that fifty years of development? Most of it would be gone in a day. The capital of South Korea is within artillery range of the North Korean emplacements on their edge of the treaty zone. Seoul would be flattened to rubble in a matter of hours. Fifty years of construction, development and design gone...because the war fifty years ago solved nothing.

Er, yeah, he was actually. He's on record as saying the Jews should not have resisted the final solution programmes.

He was not against resistance per se. He was against armed and violent resistance.

It worked for Indians...there are several reasons why...and though I am an admirer of him, I doubt if it would have worked with Nazis.

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine 'that violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.
RAH

War is regretably necessary sometimes. :(

A large scale war can greatly assist the economy.

...so the "war on terrorism" isn't a big war, then? I mean, it's pretty much destroyed the US economy and the only reason the world economy hasn't already keeled over is that US is no longer that important in the large scale of things. Important, yes, but not _that_ important.

1 € is now, what, 1.5 $?

War expands Empire.

That's a good reason.

War brings out the best in people. I don't mean the few bloodthirsty people who manage to get themselves in charge, I mean primarily the people supporting the war at home. Competition always makes people work harder, and war is the ultimate form of competition. The atomic bomb was a direct offspring of WWII (well, maybe the work done around the time, but if it weren't for pressure that Germany and Japan might get a working bomb first, the bomb would not have been developed when it was). Yes, it is a terrible weapon and its use probably wasn't justified, but we got so much more out of it. Besides the pure science aspect of furthering chemistry and physics, we get nuclear energy, nuclear engines (subs), and a lot more out of it.

Just about every war is the same way. Millions lose their lives, but those who survive come out stronger. Even the Cold War, with next to zero casualties (unless you want to count proxy wars) furthered technology. Huge jumps in just about every area of military technology, a lot of which can be applied for civilian use. Hell, even NASA comes out of the Cold War, which has done a TON for civilians.

Well, war did stop the spread of Nazism...........

War cannot be justified, people can only attempt to justify it and people are led to believe those justifications.
War in Europe could have been avoided if the treaty Versaille was not as rapacious as it were towards Germany, the whole momentum behind the rise of nazism and the horrors of the second world war could have been stopped before it had begun with a bit of common sense instead of greed and pride on behalf of the allied leaders.

War cannot be justified, people can only attempt to justify it and people are led to believe those justifications.
War in Europe could have been avoided if the treaty Versaille was not as rapacious as it were towards Germany, the whole momentum behind the rise of nazism and the horrors of the second world war could have been stopped before it had begun with a bit of common sense instead of greed and pride on behalf of the allied leaders.

And, pray tell, how wouldst thou stoppest the Great War?

Hadst thy peoples of Europe been all stuck on Islandeths we shouldst all be muchly better advanteged.

He was not against resistance per se. He was against armed and violent resistance.

It worked for Indians...there are several reasons why...and though I am an admirer of him, I doubt if it would have worked with Nazis.

I actually feel much the same. I admire the man...but I would not be like the man.

War is for the survival of the fittest, a tool of evolution. Sadly humans have overdone it and soon propably face extinction.

War is for the survival of the fittest, a tool of evolution. Sadly humans have overdone it and soon propably face extinction.

You make that sound like a bad thing...

No offense, but you're an idiot. In an ideal world, there would be no war. But as this world is not ideal, we all need an army. If we didn't have an army, some other country with an army would move in and take over.

No offense taken, I know I´m not an idiot.;) And I stand by my point. The whole world should be army-free.

No offense, but you're an idiot. In an ideal world, there would be no war. But as this world is not ideal, we all need an army. If we didn't have an army, some other country with an army would move in and take over.
No offense taken, I know I´m not an idiot.;) And I stand by my point. The whole world should be army-free.
You're both idiots. War is a form of competition between countries, which is good. War is not necessary, Costa Rica's doing fine without it.

You're both idiots. War is a form of competition between countries, which is good. War is not necessary, Costa Rica's doing fine without it.

:rolleyes:
How does me not believing in the military and in war make me an idiot? You obviously believe in it, to you is a competition, which let me correct you, it isn´t always a good thing, and I´m not calling you an idiot. So explain to me, how am I an idiot? And for the matter, how is that believing in war doesn´t make you an idiot?
(And for the record, I´m not calling you one.)

War, bad is it is, is a necessity to live in a decent world.

Explanation:

For the world to be decent and interesting there must be a heterogeneous mixture of cultures that will mingle with each other. If all the cultures of the world are homogenous, then the world would become an utterly boring place, however, the flipside of this is that there will be extremists, there will always be crazy folk, and therefor there will always be conflict.

I admit, many people need to just get over it, and if we could lead to truly cooperate and tolerate each other we could certainly end a great number of wars, but it is so hard to overcome the arcane xenophobia of many cultures.

There is no short way to stop the cycle of wars in the world, though good judgment can slow it, but the fundamental changes that are needed to truly make the world less prone to war would only arise from a major WWIII esque conflict that would kill BILLIONS. So, I'm happier with a series of small wars than one big war that might really end them all...for a while at least.

Eventually, people will begin to tolerate each other more (I hope...) and perhaps some shifts will take place in the balance of power and wealth in the world, making it more evenly distributed. This would also slow the cycle of war, especially in regions like Africa and the Middle East.