Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

right - correctness .

[Ben Kenobi]

So right merely means the same as getting the answer correct on a spelling test?

Now that's shallow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again (I'll quote myself):

How is the truth shallow?

[Ben Kenobi]

We don't learn anything from your statement.

That's why I think it's shallow.

You offer no insights.

And you think you've found the truth?

What is right is far more than the correct answer on a spelling test. It has far more significance, of much greater concern.

[Velociryx]

The problem with the whole "turn the other cheek" concept is that it doesn't work unless everybody plays along*. If one side turns the other cheek, and the other side sharpens their swords and axes, at the end of the day, we'll have lots of dead cheek turners.

If this is the "price of peace" (and it is), then the price is too high.

War is justified because force MUST be met with force when all other expedient options fail.

Note that I did *not* say when "all" options fail.

War, and the conditions leading up to it are subjective in their nature, and each side decides when enough is enough.

Might does not make right. Might makes the power of enforcement of one's will possible. That's all.

Sometimes, the enforcement of one's will can be for the greater good, and sometimes it can be purely for gain of one kind or another. In our history, we've seen some of both, though mostly the latter variety.

We are a warrior-race. Killer apes. Evolution did that to us, and a scant few thousand years of relative civility aren't going to effectively counter hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary success.

We scraped and clawed our way from fruit-picking to tool making, to tool using, and wasted NO time in putting those tool-making and tool-using skills to work in perfecting the art of war, which is, by the way, an entirely human endeavour.

Our success cannot be disputed. There are no other races of hominids left alive on planet earth, though there is substantial evidence that there used to be, but we used our two greatest attributes (as mentioned before, success in fighting and success in fvcking), to dominate the planet. If it presented a threat to us, and we could not bend it to our will (ie - the domestication of certain wild animals along the way), we destroyed it or decimated its numbers sufficiently to drive it out of our primary living areas.

We're good at war. We excel at it.

In more recent times, we have shown a certain aptitude toward other, less destructive skills too. We've invented certain fineries....poetry, the arts, splendid archetecture.

But make no mistake....these newfangled inventions we so cherish are *luxuries*, not natural, inborn, given rights that will always be. At the core, we are still very much the killer ape, and should a select population intentionally lower their guard and pretend that they are otherwise is an open invitation to be utterly dominated and destroyed by those who are more comfortable with their baser natures. If you ("you" in this case, being used generically, to represent any group who foolishly believes that here, in today's world) think you can simply declare yourself above the "primitiveness and barbarism" of war, and somehow gain immunity from it, then you are sadly mistaken.

One day, again, assuming we don't kill ourselves off with our exquisitely honed warring skills, the hope is that we can outgrow and move beyond that which has prompted our meteoric rise and success.

But don't count on it in your lifetime.

Or your children's, for that matter.

-=Vel=-

* in much the same way that the communist ideal can't and won't work, cos invariably, someone refuses to play along and grabs power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So right merely means the same as getting the answer correct on a spelling test?

Now that's shallow.

I never said might makes right. war is a method, a means, not a thing in itself. As such, there are times when war is the only means you can use to achieve your goal, be the gol moral or immoral. As such war has no inherent ethical value. It is what you are fighting for that gives the action its morality.

[FrantzX]

"War is war; destruction is destruction. You think this is obvious. But war is not destruction, it is victory. To achieve victory, simply appear to give the opponent what he wants and he will go away, or join you in your quest for additional power."

-- Datatech Sinder Roze
"Information Burns"

[Imran Siddiqui]

You offer no insights.

Only if you close your mind. It's a very descriptive statement of how the world works. Those with might decide what is right and just. That is the way it has always been and how it will continue to be.

What is right is far more than the correct answer on a spelling test. It has far more significance, of much greater concern.

No it doesn't. Because what is 'right' to you, means nothing to the people that are calling the shots. Who cares what you think is right?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

My words exactly. Its the law of the jungle out there. Sure, we have a UN and other charades that put on the illusion of international civilization, but in reality its just a fight for survival.

Some think it would be ideal that the US and others pacify, and completely dump their militaries, but if the US and others did this, some wouldnt and take advantage of it. There are a lot of real jerks out there, who are willing to put many others in pain for their own self-gain. Unless your prepared to accept this pain without a fight, a military, and thus the probablity of war, is necessary.

Kman

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You offer no insights.

Only if you close your mind. It's a very descriptive statement of how the world works. Those with might decide what is right and just. That is the way it has always been and how it will continue to be.

So we should just accept it? There's a book about that same thing going to the extreme. It's called 1984, I suggest you all read it.

No it doesn't. Because what is 'right' to you, means nothing to the people that are calling the shots. Who cares what you think is right?

So we should just shut up then too...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So we should just accept it? There's a book about that same thing going to the extreme. It's called 1984, I suggest you all read it.

Yes, because 1984 actually seems like it will happen in this 'might makes right' world. The people with might will REALLY let the government has that much power? Don't think so.

And you already have accepted it, over and over. If you didn't, you'd go somewhere where there wasn't a government. Even if you revolt, you accept that 'might makes right'. You simply want to see someone else with the might.

So we should just shut up then too...

If that makes you feel better . I don't care if you shut up or not, because it doesn't matter (unless you happen to be an elected representatve). Do what you want.


Oh, and C-Beast!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
And if you read Sun tzu, for him killing in war is secondary, and in fact, usually the result of ones failure to win the "war" any other way.

Absolutely.

Sun Tsu listed 5 ways to win, what the US is doing now (attacking cities) is the lowest.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman


My words exactly. Its the law of the jungle out there. Sure, we have a UN and other charades that put on the illusion of international civilization, but in reality its just a fight for survival.

Some think it would be ideal that the US and others pacify, and completely dump their militaries, but if the US and others did this, some wouldnt and take advantage of it. There are a lot of real jerks out there, who are willing to put many others in pain for their own self-gain. Unless your prepared to accept this pain without a fight, a military, and thus the probablity of war, is necessary.

Kman

The problem is that the US has never stopped for a moment to think about consecuenses of its actions. It acts supposedly to correct a wrongdoing (usually result of a previous stupidity - i.e. bin Laden) yet doesn't go back and analize where the problem started.

Superficial solutions to deep problems aren't worth a thing at all, you're only covering a festering wound with a bandage. US Leaders should sit down and think what has REALLY casued the problems in the middle east and thus find a better solution. War in Iraq, ok so Saddam is toppled and the Iraqui people are "liberated", and all those orfans all those people who had something to lose now have one more excuse to blow up airliners. And soon enough another madman will emerge, maybe not in Iraq but somewhere else and once again the US will be called in to "liberate" the poor souls, and so forth and so forth.

The problems in Iraq and the middle east will not be solved by a few smart bombs (or 10,000 of them). Each problem is the result of a previous problem left unresolved (and don't start saying 9/11 is the root of all evil because it's not).

What's really a shame is that we truly never give peace a chance and when we go to war we do it for less than noble reasons.

-MZ

[Urban Ranger]

My view is, when the US start becoming the receiving end of invasions, the pro-war camp's perspective of war wil fall in line with the rest of the world.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My view is, when the US start becoming the receiving end of invasions, the pro-war camp's perspective of war wil fall in line with the rest of the world.

Yep, suddenly all the warmonger will turn peaceniks. Oh I hope I live to see the day

War is only nice when you're sure to win it, and half-way around the world.