Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 12, 2013 at 3:34pm

It's easy to be against war, but being against war is meaningless unless there's some way to nullify the causes of war. 

I've seen numbskulls walking around with placards proclaiming "No More War." Okay. Fine. But think about what that means. Oppressed people would have to resign themselves to eternal oppression. People whose land is occupied by a foreign force would become an instant colony. 

Negotiation instead of war? You can only negotiate when there are common perceptions and values, which is never going to happen.

Resign yourself: war is with us to stay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 12, 2013 at 3:58pm

"Resign yourself: war is with us to stay."

Certainly our civilization has the potential to evolve past the caveman mentality of 'might makes right' and that bloodshed is the correct response to conflict. Your attitude of war's acceptance is just as much a part of the problem as discovering peaceful resolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 12, 2013 at 4:24pm

It has nothing to do with "Might makes right." Where did that come from? Not from anything I have said here.

It has to do with real differences and disagreements. It has to do with differing perceptions, for instance, which will only go away with a homogenized world, but if the price of peace is homogeneity, a lot of us think that's too high a price to pay.

You want to end war? First of all educate yourself about its causes. "Might" may win wars, but it usually isn't the cause of the conflict. Even a mighty nation doesn't want to risk war unless the goal is somehow important to it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 12, 2013 at 4:29pm

To continue with Clausewitz:

War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means
We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.

And in a variation of confirming the consequent, policy is merely war by other means.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 12, 2013 at 4:31pm

But conflicts are often about real differences between groups. Because these differences often are differences over attitudes and not facts, they are intractable and not really subject to rational discussion or negotiation. The Palestinian-Israeli thing for example.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 14, 2013 at 2:13pm

I am not so concerned about the differences or disagreements between peoples (actually it is in reality the differences between governments/those in power) but how one or both sides comes to the conclusion that bloodshed is necessary. I don't believe a state of homogeneity is necessary to ensure peace but rather an equal appreciation of ideals like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we were to eliminate religion and systems of government that covertly (America) or overtly (North Korea) disregarded the best interests of humankind we would move much closer to eliminating this messy affair of war.

The outcome of war is at best a temporary solution as history has demonstrated.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 14, 2013 at 3:07pm

I am not so concerned about the differences or disagreements between peoples (actually it is in reality the differences between governments/those in power) but how one or both sides comes to the conclusion that bloodshed is necessary.

It's not so much that bloodshed is necessary as it is that they reach an impasse over an issue neither side can see a way to compromise on. Or else one side has decided to take an action (example: Hitler deciding to claim Poland, France, and Russia). Those people decided bloodshed was necessary to stop Hitler. In the end, it took the willingness of first Britain and then the United States to shed their people's blood. This despite neither one actually having a dog in the fight, as the saying goes. They just looked further down the road and asked themselves "What's next if we don't do something?"

Like I said before, interests and desires and needs are often in conflict, and thus war will always be with us. 

If you want nations to take into account the interests of humankind, how do you think that will ever happen when even a freely and democratically elected leader's #1 task is to guard and further the interests of HIS folk, not humankind's?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 14, 2013 at 6:00pm

The 9-11 hijackers were all well-educated children of privilege. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page