War Is Naughty
-
i don't know. but here's what one guy thought: Statement by USSC Justice Jackson on Nuremberg War Trials Agreement, August 12, 1945:
"There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed. "For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace. "Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts."
Ah yes...have read that before... A very insightful interpretation by Robert Jackson, and he is right: never before that time had there been a drive to acheive anything other than alliances against war, or, to be more precise, alliances created such that outbreak of hostilities would be extremely detrimental to the agressor. But think a bit further on the actual statement: what we have done, in essence, is replace one set of military based alliances with a set of legal based alliances. Is it really so different? Hypothetically: The US, UK, Russia, and France (the co-signatories of the agreement, if I'm not mistaken) decide that Zimbabwe just has to go. No good reason, they just don't like the country anymore. The combined force of those political powerhouses either use their hefty weight in the International Courts at the Hauge(sorry if I misspelled that) to force a decision in the UN that war against Zimbabwe is legal, or they aschew the courts temporarily, invade and humble Zimbabwe, and then perform legal and political maneuvering to escape prosecution. Are our current alliances really so different that the Tripartite Pact or the alliances created by Bismarckian diplomacy that led to World War I? On the face, in name, they are, but if the survival (read:dominance) of a world power was at stake, do you really think that situation would remain? Of course, I'm just being argumentative. I have no real point. I'm not really sure what my stance is on many of these issues. Jeremy Kimball
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of discussing the "legality" of something like war utterly laughable? Legislating something as primal to human instinct as war is a lesson in futility. Who decides when war is legal? Do tribal leaders who have decimated opposing tribes for millenia have a say? Or do we restrict the right to say when war is justified to the millieu of the "civilized" nations of the world? Define "Civilized". How do we reach a consensus of the legality of war? Does it cover situations where the livelihood of a state's inhabitants are threatened? If so, it is relatively simple to create a situation where the appearance of that exact situation is present. I hate to say it, but we will never achieve a "warless" society. Simply put, we are too damned good at it as a species (we've had a lot of practice), and it is, in my opinion, a mere extension of the competitive nature that brought us here in the first place. Civilization as a whole is just another exercise in grand-scale evolution. Unfortunately, those civilizations who tend to be very good at stomping on other civilizations tend to continue onward. Hell, look at the Roman Empire, and you can see, even though the core Empire collapsed, elements of that ideology remain in current (for example)US governmental practices. Looking back across history, you can see how civilization cycles effortlessly through differing dominant forms of government: Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, etc., are all ideals that have had their time of dominance and recede only to rise again "next cycle". And all of these forms of government have inherent clauses within the contexts of their definitions that war is, at some times, vital for the survival of said society. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... Jeremy Kimball
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of discussing the "legality" of something like war utterly laughable? Legislating something as primal to human instinct as war is a lesson in futility. Who decides when war is legal? Do tribal leaders who have decimated opposing tribes for millenia have a say? Or do we restrict the right to say when war is justified to the millieu of the "civilized" nations of the world? Define "Civilized". How do we reach a consensus of the legality of war? Does it cover situations where the livelihood of a state's inhabitants are threatened? If so, it is relatively simple to create a situation where the appearance of that exact situation is present. I hate to say it, but we will never achieve a "warless" society. Simply put, we are too damned good at it as a species (we've had a lot of practice), and it is, in my opinion, a mere extension of the competitive nature that brought us here in the first place. Civilization as a whole is just another exercise in grand-scale evolution. Unfortunately, those civilizations who tend to be very good at stomping on other civilizations tend to continue onward. Hell, look at the Roman Empire, and you can see, even though the core Empire collapsed, elements of that ideology remain in current (for example)US governmental practices. Looking back across history, you can see how civilization cycles effortlessly through differing dominant forms of government: Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, etc., are all ideals that have had their time of dominance and recede only to rise again "next cycle". And all of these forms of government have inherent clauses within the contexts of their definitions that war is, at some times, vital for the survival of said society. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Who decides when war is legal? It used to bt the UN - but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. Jeremy Kimball wrote: Define "Civilized". A culture is said to be civilized when it has progressed beyond the city-state/warlord model and spawns art, literature and science which are employed at the nation level. Other characteristics of civilized societies include monetary systems and a specialization of livlihoods. Warfare does not determine whether a society is civilized or not. Jeremy Kimball wrote: Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? But you are right - the USA would have to be pretty stupid to allow a bunch of dickweeds at the UN to stop her from fighting terrorists and despotic maniacs and liberating millions of oppressed victims.
-
i don't know. but here's what one guy thought: Statement by USSC Justice Jackson on Nuremberg War Trials Agreement, August 12, 1945:
"There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed. "For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace. "Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts."
Chris Losinger wrote: Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal I guess all of the police departments in the world need to stop kicking down murderers doors and committing "aggression". If we apply this altruistic maxim literally the way you have perverted it, then maybe the police should merely ask the criminals nicely to turn themselves in. While they are at it, the police should disarm themselves. God help you if you want to live in a world where the US allows diplomatic dickweeds at the UN to castrate it. I wish you could live in that world for a while and see how you like it when only the terrorists have the weapons.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal I guess all of the police departments in the world need to stop kicking down murderers doors and committing "aggression". If we apply this altruistic maxim literally the way you have perverted it, then maybe the police should merely ask the criminals nicely to turn themselves in. While they are at it, the police should disarm themselves. God help you if you want to live in a world where the US allows diplomatic dickweeds at the UN to castrate it. I wish you could live in that world for a while and see how you like it when only the terrorists have the weapons.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: you Terry O`Nolley wrote: you Terry O`Nolley wrote: you Terry O`Nolley wrote: you Terry O`Nolley wrote: you ummm. it's a fucking quote. my comment on the matter was "i don't know". ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of discussing the "legality" of something like war utterly laughable? Legislating something as primal to human instinct as war is a lesson in futility. Who decides when war is legal? Do tribal leaders who have decimated opposing tribes for millenia have a say? Or do we restrict the right to say when war is justified to the millieu of the "civilized" nations of the world? Define "Civilized". How do we reach a consensus of the legality of war? Does it cover situations where the livelihood of a state's inhabitants are threatened? If so, it is relatively simple to create a situation where the appearance of that exact situation is present. I hate to say it, but we will never achieve a "warless" society. Simply put, we are too damned good at it as a species (we've had a lot of practice), and it is, in my opinion, a mere extension of the competitive nature that brought us here in the first place. Civilization as a whole is just another exercise in grand-scale evolution. Unfortunately, those civilizations who tend to be very good at stomping on other civilizations tend to continue onward. Hell, look at the Roman Empire, and you can see, even though the core Empire collapsed, elements of that ideology remain in current (for example)US governmental practices. Looking back across history, you can see how civilization cycles effortlessly through differing dominant forms of government: Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, etc., are all ideals that have had their time of dominance and recede only to rise again "next cycle". And all of these forms of government have inherent clauses within the contexts of their definitions that war is, at some times, vital for the survival of said society. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... That's very easy to do when you're backed with the world's most powerful army.. :rolleyes: -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Ah yes...have read that before... A very insightful interpretation by Robert Jackson, and he is right: never before that time had there been a drive to acheive anything other than alliances against war, or, to be more precise, alliances created such that outbreak of hostilities would be extremely detrimental to the agressor. But think a bit further on the actual statement: what we have done, in essence, is replace one set of military based alliances with a set of legal based alliances. Is it really so different? Hypothetically: The US, UK, Russia, and France (the co-signatories of the agreement, if I'm not mistaken) decide that Zimbabwe just has to go. No good reason, they just don't like the country anymore. The combined force of those political powerhouses either use their hefty weight in the International Courts at the Hauge(sorry if I misspelled that) to force a decision in the UN that war against Zimbabwe is legal, or they aschew the courts temporarily, invade and humble Zimbabwe, and then perform legal and political maneuvering to escape prosecution. Are our current alliances really so different that the Tripartite Pact or the alliances created by Bismarckian diplomacy that led to World War I? On the face, in name, they are, but if the survival (read:dominance) of a world power was at stake, do you really think that situation would remain? Of course, I'm just being argumentative. I have no real point. I'm not really sure what my stance is on many of these issues. Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Hauge(sorry if I misspelled that) Haag. :-D -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of discussing the "legality" of something like war utterly laughable? Legislating something as primal to human instinct as war is a lesson in futility. Who decides when war is legal? Do tribal leaders who have decimated opposing tribes for millenia have a say? Or do we restrict the right to say when war is justified to the millieu of the "civilized" nations of the world? Define "Civilized". How do we reach a consensus of the legality of war? Does it cover situations where the livelihood of a state's inhabitants are threatened? If so, it is relatively simple to create a situation where the appearance of that exact situation is present. I hate to say it, but we will never achieve a "warless" society. Simply put, we are too damned good at it as a species (we've had a lot of practice), and it is, in my opinion, a mere extension of the competitive nature that brought us here in the first place. Civilization as a whole is just another exercise in grand-scale evolution. Unfortunately, those civilizations who tend to be very good at stomping on other civilizations tend to continue onward. Hell, look at the Roman Empire, and you can see, even though the core Empire collapsed, elements of that ideology remain in current (for example)US governmental practices. Looking back across history, you can see how civilization cycles effortlessly through differing dominant forms of government: Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, etc., are all ideals that have had their time of dominance and recede only to rise again "next cycle". And all of these forms of government have inherent clauses within the contexts of their definitions that war is, at some times, vital for the survival of said society. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... Jeremy Kimball
5 I'm just waiting for the Dark Age to come. Remember, it's in the cycle too. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... That's very easy to do when you're backed with the world's most powerful army.. :rolleyes: -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Iraq blah blah blah.... Is anyone else tired of hearing this same old argument over and over? It is like a fad to "be against" or "be for" the war. Can't wait till this hip cause passes and we can talk about something else. I feel I am not the only one who is as fatigued by it?
-
Iraq blah blah blah.... Is anyone else tired of hearing this same old argument over and over? It is like a fad to "be against" or "be for" the war. Can't wait till this hip cause passes and we can talk about something else. I feel I am not the only one who is as fatigued by it?
Ah, but you see, we have deviated somewhat from the original argument. What I am challenging are our current world's view on the practice of nation on nation agression in general. The backdrop of the current Iraqi situation merely provides a backdrop for comparison. The heart of the matter has been an issue since the beginning of time. Jeremy Kimball
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Who decides when war is legal? It used to bt the UN - but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. Jeremy Kimball wrote: Define "Civilized". A culture is said to be civilized when it has progressed beyond the city-state/warlord model and spawns art, literature and science which are employed at the nation level. Other characteristics of civilized societies include monetary systems and a specialization of livlihoods. Warfare does not determine whether a society is civilized or not. Jeremy Kimball wrote: Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? But you are right - the USA would have to be pretty stupid to allow a bunch of dickweeds at the UN to stop her from fighting terrorists and despotic maniacs and liberating millions of oppressed victims.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. While I am no fan of the Frogs, the fact that they are a member of the UN (and a Security Council member) is justification enough. Regardless of the reasons for allowing France a seat on the Council, they occupy that seat. We have to heed their words. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Warfare does not determine whether a society is civilized or not. Yes, but look at every major civilization in history, and you will see the reason why they became civilized is because of a hefty amount of bloodshed. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, English, ad infinitum. Terry O`Nolley wrote: You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? Yes I do. The media is far from incorruptible or impartial. Observe the take on the exact same event as reported by American, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic news sources. Simply because there are alternatives does not neccesarily dictate that every individual (or nations) will listen to them if they are in conflict with a more "local" point of view. Jeremy Kimball
-
Yet, how many "wars" have there been worldwide (worldwide as a scope not "world wars") since 1945. Dozens? Maybe even a hundred? Face it, mankind is cruel and illogical. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Exactly. It does not appear that the Agreements have been very effective in halting the course of conflict - my original point.
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Hauge(sorry if I misspelled that) Haag. :-D -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Is that the "international" spelling? *shrug* Not sure myself, and I'm too lazy to look it up :) Jeremy
-
Yeah - I think these legalities that apply to countries are a bit of a joke. What are they going to do? Apply sanctions to the United States ... or China. HA. They will only apply them to weak countries. So what we have is a system that basicly picks on the weakest countries sending the message: Might is Right. J. ----------------------------
Which emphasises my point that the current state of affairs is nothing more than a continuation of the alliance making that heralded the beginning of the First World War (and, by casuality - the Second World War, and again by casuality - the Cold War) Jeremy Kimball
-
Is that the "international" spelling? *shrug* Not sure myself, and I'm too lazy to look it up :) Jeremy
Event better, it's the dutch! :-D -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... That's very easy to do when you're backed with the world's most powerful army.. :rolleyes: -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
lol! :laugh: Actually, I'm a military history and theory nut. I am a firm believer that Machiavelli and Clausewitz were correct in saying that Diplomacy and Warfare are intrinsically linked. Although I do have to subtract points from ol' Nicolo, as he basically wrote The Prince to kiss the Borgia's collective asses... Jeremy Kimball
-
5 I'm just waiting for the Dark Age to come. Remember, it's in the cycle too. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
A VERY good point, unfortunately....
-
A VERY good point, unfortunately....
Jeremy Kimball wrote: A VERY good point, unfortunately.... I have done some research into the turning point for Rome and how it is just about that same point of no return, but it is not to late imo. Destroy the two-party despotism monopoly:cool: Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of discussing the "legality" of something like war utterly laughable? Legislating something as primal to human instinct as war is a lesson in futility. Who decides when war is legal? Do tribal leaders who have decimated opposing tribes for millenia have a say? Or do we restrict the right to say when war is justified to the millieu of the "civilized" nations of the world? Define "Civilized". How do we reach a consensus of the legality of war? Does it cover situations where the livelihood of a state's inhabitants are threatened? If so, it is relatively simple to create a situation where the appearance of that exact situation is present. I hate to say it, but we will never achieve a "warless" society. Simply put, we are too damned good at it as a species (we've had a lot of practice), and it is, in my opinion, a mere extension of the competitive nature that brought us here in the first place. Civilization as a whole is just another exercise in grand-scale evolution. Unfortunately, those civilizations who tend to be very good at stomping on other civilizations tend to continue onward. Hell, look at the Roman Empire, and you can see, even though the core Empire collapsed, elements of that ideology remain in current (for example)US governmental practices. Looking back across history, you can see how civilization cycles effortlessly through differing dominant forms of government: Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, etc., are all ideals that have had their time of dominance and recede only to rise again "next cycle". And all of these forms of government have inherent clauses within the contexts of their definitions that war is, at some times, vital for the survival of said society. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Since history is written by the victors, any victor can, with enough effort and craftiness, convince the remainder of the world that they were justified in waging their "legal" war against their neighbor. Since I've deviated a bit from the original post, I'll cut this off...although I'm feeling inclined to write up an essay outlining why war, in general, is a good thing... Jeremy Kimball
I globally agree with your post. However, can we say that some wars are "fairer" than others? Of course, we used our moral frame, local and temporal, to decide what "fair" means, but can't we agree on a middle term?
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: A VERY good point, unfortunately.... I have done some research into the turning point for Rome and how it is just about that same point of no return, but it is not to late imo. Destroy the two-party despotism monopoly:cool: Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: research into the turning point for Rome I actually wrote a paper on that very topic...basically outlined how every major reason for the downfall of the Empire is currently occurring as we speak. Jeremy Kimball