War Is Naughty
-
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
-
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
Chris Losinger wrote: ummm. it's a f***ing quote. my comment on the matter was "i don't know". So you randomly picked a quote that you didn't agree with just for the hell of it?!?!? I knew you didn't write that quote - but it came from your post and I was responding to my (apparently incorrect) assumption that you agreed with it. Do you have any opinion on the subject yet perchance? Or are you one of the clueless few that has no opinion on whether or not our invasion of Iraq was illegal under "international law"??? Have you ever expressed an opinion on this forum that might possibly lead one to believe that you agreed with the quote you posted?
-
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
I agree with you that war may have been a good thing. Today it seems like a pointless act of aggression. Of course, one should fight back if attacked. But attacking? That's a fruitless project. Ask Saddam.. :) Every path to victory is beset with terrible losses. The trick is to chose the one way with least losses. -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
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
KaЯl wrote: but can't we agree on a middle term? Nope, because then we wouldn't have this discussion to begin with.. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
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
Oh, absolutely, but again, define "fair". I'm not arguing whether War is moral or immoral, legal or illegal. Unlike many others, I see nothing in terms of black and white. We live in a world of greys. As I said earlier, I really don't have a definitive point, per se. I'm just trying to get people to think about it a bit differently :) Judging by the activity of this thread, maybe I've succeeded Jeremy Kimball
-
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
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? Jeremy Kimball wrote: 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. Or the way the U.S. Military is blatently attack Al Jazeera, or any disenting news medium. A guided missile hits Al Jazeera's office in bagdhad? Ok I understand the need for the fog of war - but that to me is clear signal that if the military does not like what you say and cannot muzzle you in any other way - they resort to extremely direct methods. J. ----------------------------
-
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
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Regardless of the reasons for allowing France a seat on the Council, they occupy that seat. We have to heed their words. OK. So if Al Queda nukes New York but France vetoes taking action against the nation that gave them the bomb then the USA must do nothing. Jeremy Kimball wrote: 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. Of course! I was merely defining civilized since you asked about it. Jeremy Kimball wrote: 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. I agree with your take on local media bias. But when it comes to "rewriting history", I don't think this is possible anymore. In the past, the media was tightly controlled - only trained scribes could even write - so the official givernment policy became historical fact. With the advent of the printing press, revisionism became more difficult. How could the government take back 10,000 copies of a historical book once it got out? Now with the internet, CDs, DVDs, online libraries, etc. it is impossible to suppress facts and thus it is impossible to rewrite history.
-
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. Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. Terry O`Nolley wrote: A culture is said to be civilized when [...] whether a society is civilized or not All what you said is true but is related to a limit, a "civilization level", which is totally subjective and generally fixed to define two teams, "us" and "them". IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
-
Oh, absolutely, but again, define "fair". I'm not arguing whether War is moral or immoral, legal or illegal. Unlike many others, I see nothing in terms of black and white. We live in a world of greys. As I said earlier, I really don't have a definitive point, per se. I'm just trying to get people to think about it a bit differently :) Judging by the activity of this thread, maybe I've succeeded Jeremy Kimball
Self-defence seems fair to me. Also preventive wars could be, in certain conditions. But I'm sure the guys on the other side of the Front Line would probably think the same. Jeremy Kimball wrote: We live in a world of greys Welcome in the club! And good luck to explain that point of view to some of the dichromic CPians we have there! :-D
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
-
I agree with you that war may have been a good thing. Today it seems like a pointless act of aggression. Of course, one should fight back if attacked. But attacking? That's a fruitless project. Ask Saddam.. :) Every path to victory is beset with terrible losses. The trick is to chose the one way with least losses. -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Today it seems like a pointless act of aggression It doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to fight.Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum[^] Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The trick is to chose the one way with least losses. Agreed, but if it is compatible with what we want to defend.
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
-
Chris Losinger wrote: ummm. it's a f***ing quote. my comment on the matter was "i don't know". So you randomly picked a quote that you didn't agree with just for the hell of it?!?!? I knew you didn't write that quote - but it came from your post and I was responding to my (apparently incorrect) assumption that you agreed with it. Do you have any opinion on the subject yet perchance? Or are you one of the clueless few that has no opinion on whether or not our invasion of Iraq was illegal under "international law"??? Have you ever expressed an opinion on this forum that might possibly lead one to believe that you agreed with the quote you posted?
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So you randomly picked a quote that you didn't agree with just for the hell of it?!?!? pretty much. i thought it was interesting to see what the mood of the country was like after WWII. maybe that's too deep for you. i dunno. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You actually think this is possible with the current state of the art in telecommunications/mass media/internet?!?!?!? Jeremy Kimball wrote: 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. Or the way the U.S. Military is blatently attack Al Jazeera, or any disenting news medium. A guided missile hits Al Jazeera's office in bagdhad? Ok I understand the need for the fog of war - but that to me is clear signal that if the military does not like what you say and cannot muzzle you in any other way - they resort to extremely direct methods. J. ----------------------------
JWood wrote: A guided missile hits Al Jazeera's office in bagdhad? Ok I understand the need for the fog of war - but that to me is clear signal that if the military does not like what you say and cannot muzzle you in any other way - they resort to extremely direct methods. Are you saying then that the Nazi propaganda minister should have been allowed to continue spreading his propaganda? Or do you think propaganda has no effect on the morale of the enemy? I wish instead of just "accidentaly" blowing away the Al Jazeera vipers in baghdad they "accidentaly" blew up every Al Jazeera building in the world. I hope Al Jazeera executives continue to have "accidental" car crashes and heart attacks. If you beleieve that Al Jazeera is anything other than a terrorist propaganda organ then you are deluded. And the enemies propaganda infrastructure has always been a valid military target.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So you randomly picked a quote that you didn't agree with just for the hell of it?!?!? pretty much. i thought it was interesting to see what the mood of the country was like after WWII. maybe that's too deep for you. i dunno. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe that's too deep for you Way too deep. Way too subtle.
-
I agree with you that war may have been a good thing. Today it seems like a pointless act of aggression. Of course, one should fight back if attacked. But attacking? That's a fruitless project. Ask Saddam.. :) Every path to victory is beset with terrible losses. The trick is to chose the one way with least losses. -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Ah, but in the interests of arguing other points of view - Who says that any current nation has the "right" to exist or not exist? Some examples: 1. The current Israeli/Palestinian turmoil 2. The various splinter republics of the former USSR 3. North vs. South Korea 4. China vs. Taiwan 5. United States vs. The Combined Commonwealths of the United Kingdom :) 6. The Northern States vs. The Southern States (United States, that is) 7. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc., vs the former Ottoman Empire 8. The various splinter nations of the former Yugoslavia In the above cases, either a former nation has been split up (generally by someone else) arbitrarily, thereby giving a national cause to "reunite" the pieces, or a former rebellion has "stolen" land from the original entity, or any number of other reasons. The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Jeremy Kimball
-
Ah, but in the interests of arguing other points of view - Who says that any current nation has the "right" to exist or not exist? Some examples: 1. The current Israeli/Palestinian turmoil 2. The various splinter republics of the former USSR 3. North vs. South Korea 4. China vs. Taiwan 5. United States vs. The Combined Commonwealths of the United Kingdom :) 6. The Northern States vs. The Southern States (United States, that is) 7. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc., vs the former Ottoman Empire 8. The various splinter nations of the former Yugoslavia In the above cases, either a former nation has been split up (generally by someone else) arbitrarily, thereby giving a national cause to "reunite" the pieces, or a former rebellion has "stolen" land from the original entity, or any number of other reasons. The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Jeremy Kimball
Jeremy Kimball wrote: The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Good question. I believe that war is the only option when you find yourself (as a nation) powerless. Just like someone fighting back in self defence - you have to because there's no cop around to help you. Based on this assumption I feel that there's a need for an international cop. And by that I do not mean the US alone. Imagine yourself if a single individual claimed to be the bringer of justice - could you trust that single individual? Probably not, if it's a total stranger. US would just be looked upon as a bully, not someone there to serve and protect. And this is, I believe, what we see today. What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. We need better international polices and judicional systems. An international society instead of an international anarchy in order words. We're not there yet, and probably won't be there for a long time, but here's one hoping anyway. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: - but they have abrogated their relevance by allowing nations like France to prevent justifiable military action. Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. Terry O`Nolley wrote: A culture is said to be civilized when [...] whether a society is civilized or not All what you said is true but is related to a limit, a "civilization level", which is totally subjective and generally fixed to define two teams, "us" and "them". IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?
Silence Means Death Stand On Your Feet Inner Fear Your Worst Enemy
KaЯl wrote: Except UK and US, no one would have voted the resolution authorizing war. So I suppose that by France you mean the Rest of the World. That's flattering, but really unfair for all the other countries. They had already authorized war in UNSCR 1441. They also authorized war at the end of the first gulf war - a war that ended in a conditional sieze-fire. Conditions which were violated by Iraq. KaЯl wrote: Outside the US, we are not convinced at all the goal was to oust a dictator, You don't believe that the goal of invading iraq was to remove Saddam? It may not have been the *only* goal, but you would have to be crazy to think the US didn't want to remove him. KaЯl wrote: but to seize an important strategical part of the World, ousting the dictator being a side effect. After all, there are many dictatorships around the world, some of them really connected to terrorism, making really WMD and exporting weapons all around the world, and that's the one (nonetheless an ugly, dirty one) who wasn't involved in all the activities mentioned above who was invaded. I agree - our ultimate aim in removing Saddam was to get US troops on the ground in the heart of the Middle-East so that we can prepare our troops for land invasions of Syria and Iran if necessary and to be able to begin turning the screws on Saudi Arabia to democratize. All of you guys that share the opinions of the terrorists (they don't want the US spoiling their fun either) will need to find something new to complain about when the middle-east is fully democratized and organized terrorism has been eliminated. KaЯl wrote: IMO you forgot the concept of Law, "civilized" countries would then be the ones guaranteeing some basic rights (always this limit) to their citizen. Welfare could also be a criterion, could a country letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized? That is a personal opinion. If you want to define civilization as having x% under the poverty level then I agree. But if you are trying to say that the US is therefore uncivilized, I would ask that you use the WHO's definition of "poverty". Believe me - there are teeming millions in China that are starving to death who would LOVE to make $10,000 a year. Nice try.
-
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
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Diplomacy and Warfare are intrinsically linked Exactly. In many "diplomatic" instances there would be no incentive for one side to negotiate or negotiate in good faith without the ultimate threat of military action against them. And the flip side is that unless you have the military power to back up diplomacy, no one is going to give your diplomats the time of day. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: The root question remains: Who decides? When does "reclaiming stolen land" or "surpressing a rebellion" become simple agression? Good question. I believe that war is the only option when you find yourself (as a nation) powerless. Just like someone fighting back in self defence - you have to because there's no cop around to help you. Based on this assumption I feel that there's a need for an international cop. And by that I do not mean the US alone. Imagine yourself if a single individual claimed to be the bringer of justice - could you trust that single individual? Probably not, if it's a total stranger. US would just be looked upon as a bully, not someone there to serve and protect. And this is, I believe, what we see today. What's needed is a lot better cooperation between nations, to make sure smaller and poorer countries feel that they are protected, and bigger and richer countries won't bully the smaller and poorer. In order to make that possible, all nations must have a say. Today we have something called the U.N. It's working, but perhaps not as good as we'd like. Perhaps it's time for the U.N. to step forward in its progress. Make it stronger and more able to punish those who do not play fair. We need better international polices and judicional systems. An international society instead of an international anarchy in order words. We're not there yet, and probably won't be there for a long time, but here's one hoping anyway. :) -- Must I be the meat in an imbecill sandwich?
Yes, but when nations of the world delegate authority to a unifying governance, the individual nation-state's authority to self-govern (their "power", per se) is impacted. Where do you draw that particular line? What you are suggesting is a blend of a (forgive me) Star Trek-ian ideal utopia and a confederation. The problem with a utopia is they are unrealistic. The problem with a confederation is it is essentially a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. There is nothing preventing a complete secession occurring if a particularly power nation (or block of nations) decides that the UN has stepped too far into the self-will of those governments. Ah well...nice idea, tho :) Jeremy Kimball