War

[podzol]

The world seems to be largely at war these days.

What are your feelings about war?

Is it ever appropriate?
Never?
If so when?
When is it proper to end a war?
Start one?

In what circumstance and in what capacity would you participate in war?

[trials_uni]

The only question tahat i will answer is the last...The war itself would have to have or have had a direct influence on my family and friends before i would participate.

and war is never good and it never a chieves anything.

[monkeyman]

and war is never good and it never a chieves anything.

To use the cliched answer, would Hitler have stopped killing Jews if we said please?

War is necessary sometimes....in my opinion, the current wars aren't necessary...

War is appropriate when it is the only option....when diplomacy fails, and people's lives are in danger, sometimes there's no other option....I know there's going to be someone who's going to reply to this saying "so wait, it's ok to kill some people to protect other people?". In my opinion, yes. If there are enough innocents in danger, and every other practical option has been tried, I think it is alright to resort to violence.

When is it proper to end a war? As soon as you can without running the risk that the same thing (the reason for warring in the first place) would happen again.

It's alright to start one when there is no other practical choice.


It's a great card game though

[ice_cold_uni6]

i am a real pacifist, and i think you should only use war as a super-duper-really-dont-wanna-do-it last resort. like if a country was being physically attacked, not just threatened or something. and wars should never be waged on immaterial things.

ex. if the US is being physically assaulted by, say, iran, as in official iranian military shooting at US troops, not just iranian civilian wackos.

this would be a time when war is justified, but nontheless, is not something to be glad about.

ex2. if a few certain international wackjobs (ie, al qaeda) not officially associated with any real government or political body are shooting or bombing, say, americans.

this is not a time for war, as there is no establishment to attack, just a terrorist club. the right decisioin is to infiltrate and individually kill or capture members of al qaeda, not make war on a random middle-eastern power, like iraq.

[dudewithasock]

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all

War! huh good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me?

Ohhh? War! I despise
Because it means destruction?
Of innocent lives

War means tears
to thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
and lose their lives

I said - War! Huh Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War! Whoa, Lord ...
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me?

War! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War! Friend only to the undertaker
War! It's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest in the younger generation
Induction then destruction-
Who wants to die?

Ohhh? War Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, Say it, Say it

War! Uh-huh Yeah - Huh!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me?

War! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War! It's got one friend, that's the undertaker
War has shattered many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled bitter and mean
Life is much to precious to spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life, it can only take it away

War! Huh Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War! Whoa, Lord ...
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me?

War! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War! Friend only to the undertaker
Peace Love and Understanding;
tell me, is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

War! Huh Good God y'all
What is it good for?
You tell me
Say it, Say it, Say it

War! Huh Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it.
Nothing!

[skrobo]

uhh i think that the war in Iraq is not all bad, I mean killing people for stupid stuff because of wackos is always bad, but in Iraq the war was stalled out for somewhere close to 10 YEARS as presidents wagered with saddam and tried to work things out diplomatically, so war in this case WAS last resort

but i don't want to go to war
i'd rather not kill anyone

[TheoELind]

War is inevitable when the world is run by inept leaders with Napoleon complexes (no, not Dynamite, Bonaparte). I sincerely wish humans would learn to live together peacefully, but that will never happen.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

War is horrible. It is legalized mass murder. especially the ones happening right now which were "justified" by lies. civilians are being killed for no reason at all, the world is growing more and more dangerous and we have not done anything towards "stamping out terrorism". If "stamping out terrorism" is our goal we should start in the u.s.a.. I would almost never declare war. I believe that the killing of any living creature, big or small, is the greatest evil that can be commited. I would only declare war if people were in a great danger from others. instead of dumping money into making war we should use the money to prevent war. If the politicians who voted in support of war, fought the wars there would be a lot less wars.

[iridemymuni]

if you dont like it, go run you're own country.

[podzol]

if you dont like it, go run you're own country.

If it were that easy, many of us would. :)

[cathwood]

To use the cliched answer, would Hitler have stopped killing Jews if we said please?


This is a modern cliche designed to pull upon our emotions now we know and feel bad about what was happening to the Jews. I'm afraid that at the time most of the rest of the world didn't care. Britain did not go to war with Germany because of anything they were doing to their own people, Britain went to war with Germany because Germany invaded Poland, with whom we had a treaty to join with them if anyone invaded them. I think America joined the second world war because of the bombing of Pearl Harbour (but I stand to be corrected on this if i'm wrong).

In my opinion war is never justified. How can it be OK on a national scale to resort to violence when talking breaks down when it is not OK, even for five year olds to do this on a personal scale? It doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe it is because I don't feel particularly anything 'ish'. I'm Welsh, but my nationality on my passport says 'British'. I don't feel British. When people say British, they are thinking English. So I have no nationalistic feelings. (Is there even such a thing as British, we don't have a British football team for instance). Therefore I do not understand the feelings that others have when they wish to die in defence of thier country. I have no country to die for. Consequently it is absoulutely beyond my comprehension that people believe the properganda that their countries put out at times of war and will be willing to kill people they have never met or who have never done anything to them just on thier country's say so. I would never participate in a war.

I also find it mind boggling that really we all accept without too much argument all the atrocities that are committed by 'our' side in a war (eg the 'recent' behaviour by allied/american troups in Iraq).

Cathy

[podzol]

Here are some folks with similar sentiments:
The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border? ~Pablo Casals

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.
~James Bryce

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
~Albert Einstein

Our hearts where they rocked our cradle,
Our love where we spent our toil,
And our faith, and our hope, and our honor,
We pledge to our native soil.
God gave all men all earth to love,
But since our hearts are small,
Ordained for each one spot should prove
Beloved over all.
~Rudyard Kipling

To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography. ~George Santayana

Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. ~Bertrand Russell

Men love their country, not because it is great, but because it is their own. ~Seneca

Do not... regard the critics as questionable patriots. What were Washington and Jefferson and Adams but profound critics of the colonial status quo? ~Adlai Stevenson

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.
~Charles de Gaulle

[dudewithasock]

Men love their country, not because it is great, but because it is their own. ~Seneca

Blake, that quote right there that you posted basically defines war. You can be proud of your country for being successful in economy, security, stability, whatever the hell you want; but the pure and simple fact that you're French/German/Croatian/Hungarian and France/Germany/Croatia/Hungary is YOUR country, gives people a sense of purpose to defend what is theirs and truly make sure it stays theirs. Of course, the basic human characteristic of greed, which we all share, plays an integral part as well.

Just look at most wars in the past. They were built around the simple of objective of making your own country, your pride and joy, your homeland, bigger and better. Now, that's all well and good for you, but there's limited geography on this earth, and wherever you're traipsing in might belong to someone else's country, land that someone else loves because it is their own territory. Based on the same principle as the attackers, the defenders want to keep their country and their land as their own, and so they fight; not out of a pure desire to harm others (although there are exceptions to this), but merely to defend what is rightfully theirs.

That's why little kids bullying each other is looked down about; it's basically just senseless violence on a knee-scraping scale with no objective, and so older human beings with more experience see no point to it, and try to stop it.

Gah, I would write more but I have to go to work...give me something to respond too when I get back this afternoon. ;)

[monkeyman]

This is a modern cliche designed to pull upon our emotions now we know and feel bad about what was happening to the Jews. I'm afraid that at the time most of the rest of the world didn't care. Britain did not go to war with Germany because of anything they were doing to their own people, Britain went to war with Germany because Germany invaded Poland, with whom we had a treaty to join with them if anyone invaded them. I think America joined the second world war because of the bombing of Pearl Harbour (but I stand to be corrected on this if i'm wrong).

Alright, but to me, the point you made just reaffirms my point....I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting another country (or protecting your own from further attack, in the Pearl Harbor example)

In my opinion war is never justified. How can it be OK on a national scale to resort to violence when talking breaks down when it is not OK, even for five year olds to do this on a personal scale? It doesn't make sense to me.

So if Five Year Old #1 starts physically abusing FYO #2, and refuses to stop, is it ok for the teacher to intervene and use the necessary physical force to stop #1?



I also find it mind boggling that really we all accept without too much argument all the atrocities that are committed by 'our' side in a war (eg the 'recent' behaviour by allied/american troups in Iraq).
Pardon? We don't "all" accept it...even my friends who support the Iraqi war are against the war crimes.

[Andy912912]

The people did nothing!Why can't the presidents fight themselves instead of sending other people to do it?They're just lazy, man!Anyways, war mens the end of the world!I always believed it was the end of the world!It's true!!!!Somewhere in Relevation it says that even the rocks will talk about Christ.Have you seen the website about stupid e-bay bids?A picture of Jesus naturally formed on a carton!I mean, dude, if that isn't the end of the world, I don't know what is!And there's this song from Avenged Sevenfold that has a part from Revelation.The Bible says:
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."(Revelation 14:8)
The song says:
And makes us drink the poisoned wine to fornicating with our kings.
Fallen now is Babylon the Great.
The Bible says:
He had ten horns and seven heads...(Revelation 13:1)
The song says:
There sat a seven-headed beast, ten horns raised from his head.

See what I mean?It's the end of the world!No one knows exactly when all that mayhem will occur, so...I dunno...ride now behore chaos and mayhem RULE the world!!!Anyways, also a biblial Revelation quote, not direct, says that in the last days, all the news and what will be talked about is war.Don't tell me you've never seen a headline about war!

[podzol]

At a recent international conference on soil science, I listened to a reknowned Israeli soil scientist talk about the history of agriculture in the fertile crescent. The cradle of civilization because of its once bountiful soils, the region is now deforested, inadequate for most crops and grazing. It has undergone what is called "anthropogenic desertification."

I asked why that the lecturer why this long-inhabited region failed in sustainability, and some regions elsewhere on the globe have thrived.

His answer silenced the room.

War.

Even pre-industrialized war has a huge cost to the environment. the Deprtment of Energy here in the states is still trying to clean up the messes made at the Hanford Reservation in WA and the Oak Ridge Lab where Pu and U were refined for warheads.

This cost of war leaves a legacy that is every bit as permanent as the cost of human life. However, it is seldom considered.

[Borges]

War is, ofcourse, never appropriate and never necessary. Unfortunately they're started anyway, and if I was attacked I'd kill and die, not for my country, but in defense of myself and whoever else is attacked.
It's rarely that simple, so there's still plenty of room for dilemma.

So if Five Year Old #1 starts physically abusing FYO #2, and refuses to stop, is it ok for the teacher to intervene and use the necessary physical force to stop #1?
I like the analogy with the five year olds, but I don't think there's any teachers. Just a bunch of five year olds.

[johnfoss]

Britain went to war with Germany because Germany invaded Poland, with whom we had a treaty to join with them if anyone invaded them.
This only happened after Germany had invaded/occupied several other countries and/or parts of countries, signing lying treaties and making lying promises all over the place. The details of all that pre-war history are pretty amazing. Natually the Nazis would have been easier to defeat if someone had stood up to them sooner, leaving more Polands, Czechs, Austrians, etc. under their own power and giving them less time to build (and get experience for) their war machine.

So sometimes if a war seems a little pre-emptive it is because people are thinking about the consequences of not acting before worse stuff happens.

I think America joined the second world war because of the bombing of Pearl Harbour
Pearl Harbor was like the last straw. Everybody pretty much knew we would have to get involved at some point (or face a much stronger Third Reich at a later time). Pearl Harbor removed all excuses for waiting.

In my opinion war is never justified. How can it be OK on a national scale to resort to violence when talking breaks down when it is not OK, even for five year olds to do this on a personal scale? It doesn't make sense to me.
Five year olds have parents. Or teachers. Or even nearby adults, to pick each one up by their collars and tell them to stop and apologize to each other. All we have is a United Nations that's big on talk but extremely slow to take decisive action. Instead of bolster the UN, the US govt. decided to go around it and do its own thing. This may be necessary if circumstances warrant it, but this has not necessarily been the case so far.

Since countries have no higher authority above them, there is nothing to make them stop if they don't want to. All you need is one egotistical leader with lots of hardware to create a war. If they are determined to have a war, no amount of talking will stop it. So war can be justified, though it should always be a last resort of course.

Therefore I do not understand the feelings that others have when they wish to die in defence of thier country. I have no country to die for.
Do you own any property? Perhaps it starts there. I also do not fully understand *why* many people do what they do. A good example is a fireman who runs into a burning building without knowing how close it is to collapsing. But there is enough evidence to show that all firemen are not insane, so it's something some people do. Same as signing up for military service. They're not signing up to die, but if they do they hope it will be for a good and honorable cause.

Consequently it is absoulutely beyond my comprehension that people believe the properganda that their countries put out at times of war and will be willing to kill people they have never met or who have never done anything to them just on thier country's say so.
You have never been to Basic Training. I believe this helps a lot. As a soldier, one must realize that they don't make the political or military decisions; but they are a cog in the machine that exercises their nation's will. Their nation may not always be right, and this is, I guess, an occupational hazard of being a soldier. But the soldier's duty is to the country, not to the "rightness" of their particular orders that day or to the conflict in general.

I also find it mind boggling that really we all accept without too much argument all the atrocities that are committed by 'our' side in a war (eg the 'recent' behaviour by allied/american troups in Iraq).
I find none of that acceptable. When the Abu Graibe prison atrocities came to light, high-ranking heads should have rolled very quickly, and they didn't. This to me suggests there is something to hide, or that the powers-that-be didn't have enough of a problem with that. A sign of a broken or damaged system.

So, to address the original questions:

Is it ever appropriate? Yes. The invasion of Kuwait was pretty straightforward. We went in, after many months of diplomacy, to give it back to the Kuwaities. Talking to Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, or many other determined leaders, ony gets you so far. If both sides can't agree, one side is likely to do something naughty. Either let them, or fight back.

When is it proper to end a war? As soon as possible. But you can't end it too soon, or the "end" may undo itself. The victor in a war declares the new state of affairs. With Kuwait as a simple example, we handed the country back to the Kuwaitis. Iraq today is a much messier example. There's the question of whether we should have gone in at all, and if we walk out now, what will happen? Is it better to let Iraq fall into anarchy, undoing any positive progress we've made so far, or try to stick it out until the Iraqis can safely take over everything on their own? Not an easy one.

Start one? When diplomacy and pretty much every other form of avoiding it fails. If you keep drawing lines and a rival power keeps walking its army over them, if you're a pacifist you might as well hand over all deeds and receipts for all your property right then and there. Because they're going to take it no matter how much you hate war. As long as there are Bin Ladens and Hitlers, we're going to need to be ready for war. We humans have a long, long way to go before we'll be ready to *all* behave ourselves....

[MrBoogiejuice]

uhh i think that the war in Iraq is not all bad, I mean killing people for stupid stuff because of wackos is always bad


...Exactly.

[monkeyman]

And there's this song from Avenged Sevenfold blahblahlblah....


Stay out of intelligent discussion threads until you learn to make your own points, and use the space bar. It's your friend.

I like the analogy with the five year olds, but I don't think there's any teachers. Just a bunch of five year olds

Yeah, it's a slightly flawed analogy, but I was thinking of the teachers as the government, and the 5 year olds as the civilians...all that means is that as it is the teacher's job to protect the 5 year olds, it's the government's job to protect us.

Even pre-industrialized war has a huge cost to the environment. the Deprtment of Energy here in the states is still trying to clean up the messes made at the Hanford Reservation in WA and the Oak Ridge Lab where Pu and U were refined for warheads.

This cost of war leaves a legacy that is every bit as permanent as the cost of human life. However, it is seldom considered.

Sadly, there is rarely a perfect option. But I have to say that I would rather bomb an enemy country's forest then have them bomb and kill my children.

If we could all get along, that'd be great. But sadly, it often comes down to a "him-or-me" situation when everyone refuses to compromise.

[BillyTheMountain]

The people did nothing!

Too many are neglecting the fact that this violence is the result of
cowboy diplomacy.

Bush just gives the greenlight to killing.

Clinton would have been on the phone all the time to EVERYBODY involved in these conflicts, trying to wrangle them to the table to TALK!!!

That's the only route to PEACE.

Please.

Billy

[bugman]

Clinton would have been on the phone all the time to EVERYBODY involved in these conflicts, trying to wrangle them to the table to TALK!!!


Billy


ROTFLMAO Are you serious? That is when he wasn't busy wrangling with someone under the table.:D

There is no talking or Diplomacy with unreasonable people. You are projecting your own ability to be reasonable onto others that are unable. I am not talking of those in Iraq only, but many of the worlds conflicts.

What would I do? What was needed. Nothing more, nothing less. War is an unfortunate reality. Not something I would want to be involved in again, but in the right circumstances, I would do what was needed.

As for war crimes... I hope that the allegations that have been comming to light as of late are untrue. It certainly doesn't reflect well on our soldiers or the good things that they are doing over in Iraq.

[dudewithasock]

I don't get what there is to debate. Few people enjoy killing others, but we all see war's benefits. If the world can't get along, can't we at least?

[Zzagg]

You may call me an utopist, but if making war was considered by everyone as, for instance, frying living babies, there would be peace on earth. That way, nobody would follow our presidents/kings/queens as they would be seen as completely mad and be cured or put in jail.
war wouldn't exist if nobody thought that in certain circumstances, war can be good, or war is the best thing to do.
I wanted to translate the Georges Brassens's song "Mourrir pour des idées" (http://www.paroles.net/chansons/18810.htm) but I gave up (he doesn't deserve a poor translation) .... so you'll have to read french, sorry:o
I know there are still people ready to make war (as this thread clearly shows) but I try to believe in humankind and in our ability to become wiser. And for my son and future children, I prefer being a tiny but peacefull drop in the ocean.

Ain't it Sting who sings "there's no such thing as a reasonable war" (or something like that:o ) I agree 100%... then he sings :"it's a lie we don't believe any more" I wish it was true!

I just watched Farenheit 911 a few days ago... I know Micheal Moore is clearly left winged and displays his own vision (wich happens to be close to mine as well) but I was glad not to live in the US nor in Irak after seeing this "movie".
I also thought that if France had been attacked the way the US were on 11/9, our troops would probably be in the same mess.... Because it's too easy to manipulate people when they are still shocked. that made me feel really sad:(

[phlegm]

War is never good but sometimes it is the lesser of evils.

While riding my unicycle to the video store last night, some guys in a car decided to call me a fag and whip a bottle of water at me. I thought to myself, "I should wave them down and have a reasoned discourse about their preconceived notions and the potential danger of their actions." ;)

So, you tell me, why are wars necessary?

[Mikefule]

Of course war is justifiable. Every war is justifiable. I say that because nobody does anything at all that they do not feel is justified in the circumstances. That is a basic viewpoint of philosophers from Socrates to Sartre.

The choice is often between on the one side, going to war, and on the other side:

Being called a coward
Submitting to an oppressive regime
Being ecomomically disadvantaged
Losing a privileged economic position
Being bored
Having to make grown up decisions like forgiving the great grandchildren of your great grandfather's enemies.


These are not the only options. However, countless millions of people over countless centuries have chosen to follow the drum rather than accept the less glorious alternative.

Our ideas of war are bound up in what Cathwood would call "social constructs" - like honour, heroism, noble sacrifice, glory, destiny... and so on.

In reality, war is an unpleaant, grubby, nasty, stupid and pointless affair.

See The Iliad to read how generations of Greeks interpreted stupidity, pride and bloodthirstiness as destiny, honour and necessity.

Read Spike Milligan's war memoirs for an account of how uneducated young men went along with WW2, not understanding, but making the best of a bad job, rather than refusing to participate. Don't forget, they didn't know about the gas chambers until after the war had finished.

Read The First 100 000 for a similar tale of the pointless slaughter of innocents in the Great War.

And I know I've posted them once before, but read these words:

When I was a young man I carried my pack
And I lived the free life of the rover.
From the Murray's green basin to the dusty outback
I waltzed my Matilda all over.
Then in nineteen fifteen the country said, "Son,
It's time to stop rambling, there's work to be done."
And they gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun,
And they marched me away to the war.
And the band played Waltzing Matilda
As our ship pulled away from the quay,
And amidst all the cheers, flag-waving and tears
We sailed off to Gallipoli.

And how well I remember that terrible day,
How our blood stained the sand and the water.
And of how in that hell that they call Suvla Bay
We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter.
Johnny Turk he was waiting, he primed himself well,
He showered us with bullets, and he rained us with shell,
And in five minutes flat he'd blown us all to hell,
Nearly blew us right back to Australia.
But the band played Waltzing Matilda,
As we stopped to bury our slain.
We buried ours, and the Turks buried theirs,
Then we started all over again.

Now those that were left, well, we tried to survive
In that mad world of blood, death and fire.
And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive,
But around me, the corpses piled higher.
Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head,
And when I woke up in me hospital bed
And saw what it had done, well, I wished I was dead.
Never knew there was worse things than dying.
For I'll go no more Waltzing Matilda
All around the green bush far and free,
To hump tent and pegs, a man needs both legs,
No more Waltzing Matilda for me.

So they gathered the crippled, the wounded, the maimed,
And they shipped us back home to Australia.
The armless, the legless, the blind and insane,
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla.
And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where me legs used to be,
And thanked Christ there was nobody waiting for me,
To grieve and to mourn and to pity.
But the band played Waltzing Matilda
As they carried us down the gangway.
But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared,
Then they turned all their faces away.

And so now every April I sit on my porch
And I watch the parade pass before me.
And I see my old comrades, how proudly they march,
Reviving old dreams of past glory.
And the old men marched slowly, all bones stiff and sore,
They're tired old heroes from a forgotten war,
And the young people ask,"What are they marching for?",
And I ask meself the same question.
But the band plays Waltzing Matilda,
And the old men still answer the call.
But as year follows year, more old men disappear,
Someday no one will march there at all.

Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me ?
And their ghosts may be heard as they march by the billabong,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me ?

[johnfoss]

If "stamping out terrorism" is our goal we should start in the u.s.a..
But the USA has this policy; Never fight a war on American soil if you can fight it someplace else. As a "defense strategy" it works great... as long as you're an American.

[johnfoss]

Yeah, it's a slightly flawed analogy, but I was thinking of the teachers as the government, and the 5 year olds as the civilians...all that means is that as it is the teacher's job to protect the 5 year olds, it's the government's job to protect us.

In your scenario the little kids represent citizens, and the teachers represent the police or national guard. In those situations there is an overriding power to enforce its will over the situation. But to me the five-year-olds are national leaders. Who is the higher authority to send them down to the principal's office? If none, we have a problem. We have a United Nations, but it "don't get much respect." An organization of its type can only work if everybody agrees to abide by it. We're getting there, but many countries, and the UN, aren't there yet.

What we need is a Klaatu to come down here and get certain people to shape up and behave themselves. Don't know who Klaatu is? Read up on The Day The Earth Stood Still. He's a very powerful robot of sorts, that enforces agreed-upon interstellar law. If your leader/country/planet doesn't comply with those laws, he has the power to do whatever's necessary to stop you.

But until we have one of those, we'll have to use more crude methods to protect innocent peoples from the crazies, or over-ambitious.

[johnfoss]

You may call me an utopist, but if making war was considered by everyone as, for instance, frying living babies, there would be peace on earth. That way, nobody would follow our presidents/kings/queens as they would be seen as completely mad and be cured or put in jail.
war wouldn't exist if nobody thought that in certain circumstances, war can be good, or war is the best thing to do.

You could call yourself a utopist (not sure if there is such a word in English), but I think a more accurate description would be wishful thinker. "All we need is for nobody to have bad ego problems, or too much ambition, or no crazy tendencies, or any ability to get worked up into a rage." If we just had that, everything would be great!

Yup, it's true. But it's wishful thinking. Even though, sometimes war *is* frying live babies. Until human nature changes, a lot, the seeds of war will exist. Something like the United Nations is possibly our best hope to minimize wars around the world, but it can't be effective unless nearly everyone agrees to abide by it.

[GhettoSmurf]

To use the cliched answer, would Hitler have stopped killing Jews if we said please?

War is necessary sometimes....in my opinion, the current wars aren't necessary...

War is appropriate when it is the only option....when diplomacy fails, and people's lives are in danger, sometimes there's no other option....I know there's going to be someone who's going to reply to this saying "so wait, it's ok to kill some people to protect other people?". In my opinion, yes. If there are enough innocents in danger, and every other practical option has been tried, I think it is alright to resort to violence.

When is it proper to end a war? As soon as you can without running the risk that the same thing (the reason for warring in the first place) would happen again.

It's alright to start one when there is no other practical choice.


It's a great card game though



On the other hand there would of not been a WWII, if we didn't take part of germany in WWI, leaving it in termoil. the jews were the scapegoats for the finacial problems that arose after WWI.
Does that make killing jews right, no. But it wouldn't of happened if it wasnt for us.

[JJuggle]

Two interesting books on the subject:

War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400034639/sr=8-1/qid=1153157820/ref=sr_1_1/102-0961296-6107366?ie=UTF8) by Chris Hedges

Blood Rites: The Origins and History of the Passions of War (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805057870/qid=1153157932/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0961296-6107366?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Barbara Ehrenreich

[maestro8]

If two factions want to go to war, I say let them. Just strip them of any technological developments after, say, the 17th century. That'll make them reconsider their decisions to war... and when they do war, it'll make for some great entertainment.

[JJuggle]

If two factions want to go to war, I say let them. Just strip them of any technological developments after, say, the 17th century. That'll make them reconsider their decisions to war... and when they do war, it'll make for some great entertainment.
Perhaps you find bar fights to be entertaining, but given the abundance of violence outside of the high tech world of modern warfare, do you really consider it even remotely likely that a lack of access to high tech weapons would in any way affect the decision of whether to go to war or not?

[dudewithasock]

Sometimes I wish technological warfare was much less...well, technological, for lack of a better word. It doesn't seem nearly as honorable to blast a massacre at someone from thousands of miles away, as opposed to using strength and dexterity with a sword, or accuracy and years of practice with a bow, or gallarantly charging across a bloodstained, corpse-ridden battlefield and trampling enemy infantry, splitting the phalanxes in two and hacking away at each side alternately with a hefty, yet cleverly weighted axe.

But then again, I'm always transfixed by movie magic, so go figure.

Damn, I need to get my LotR DVD's back from my dad...

[GhettoSmurf]

it still is not verry technological, just only on the other side

[maestro8]

do you really consider it even remotely likely that a lack of access to high tech weapons would in any way affect the decision of whether to go to war or not?
it's arguable... would we have been so quick to invade Iraq without all our point-and-click killing machines? would we stand a chance if the playing field was levelled and we just walked onto their home turf and started throwing rocks? do you really think our "military superiority" had no influence on our administration's hasty decision to go to war?

[monkeyman]

What we need is a Klaatu to come down here and get certain people to shape up and behave themselves.

Yeah, that, and get the people to agree on laws in the first place

You may call me an utopist, but if making war was considered by everyone as, for instance, frying living babies, there would be peace on earth. That way, nobody would follow our presidents/kings/queens as they would be seen as completely mad and be cured or put in jail.
war wouldn't exist if nobody thought that in certain circumstances, war can be good, or war is the best thing to do.


I might call you a utopianist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopianism).

Anyway, until you become God and rework human nature to be rid of greed, selfishness, ambition, and emotions (specifically jealousy, anger, and bloodlust), you might want to have a little more realistic view of the world.


JJuggle, I have to disagree with you...if I was forced to go to war, for the sake of my life, or the lives of the men I was commanding, I'd rather have the guns and leave my enemy with the long piece of sharp metal.

[BillyTheMountain]

Bugman: After I steal your home, then it's time to insist everyone be reasonable.....

Most of the civilized world sees it as a problem when anyone, sovereign nation or terrorist, attacks civilian targets, like airports, neighborhoods, babies trying to flee the nation. Once it was the definition of terrorism to attack civilian targets. And lots to innocent people are gettting killed. I don't know if any military targets have actually been hit yet. There are 20,000 USA citizens living in Lebanon.

You might think that if some terrrorist group started rocketing Canada from the USA, Canada would be justified in bombing the USA, just to pressure us to get our terrorists under control. But I would hope soemone would pick up the phone. And Bugman missed everything but the BJ in Clinton's 8 years, but the guy had great diplomacy and great international relations and savvy.

You may think the other side is being unreasonable, or is incapable of reason, but odds are they are human, and have understandable motives, like White Man did when he genocided the Native Americans and stole their land. [Has White Man ever really been reasonable, or are they they unethical scourge of the Western Hemisphere?]

This is in no way an analogy to the Middle East situation. However, if the Native Peoples requested their land back, and then started attacking to achieve their ends, you might think they were unreasonable. But if someone stole your home and moved in, and you demanded it back, then resorted to violence to get it back, I wonder if you'd be unreasonable. Maybe we could talk. maybe you and I could come to some agreement. Or maybe after several of your children got killed, you decide to talk, and maybe be happy getting the garage to live in. In peace.

[johnfoss]

On the other hand there would of not been a WWII, if we didn't take part of germany in WWI, leaving it in termoil. the jews were the scapegoats for the finacial problems that arose after WWI.
WWII was about Germany trying to take over the world. Your theory above is interesting, but it is not a fact and there's no way to know if that would have been the case or not. Surely Hitler would not have been able to raise up the people as he did under other circumstances, but that's what happened. It's like saying if it weren't for WWI none of this would have happened. And the stuff that started WWII had little or nothing to do with German Jews.

Or maybe you're trying to say Germany was just trying to get it's former land back? Read up on all their conquests before the "official" war started. Austria, Czechoslovakia and others. Was he trying to get back something that belonged to the German people? Sheesh.

[Zzagg]

Anyway, until you become God and rework human nature to be rid of greed, selfishness, ambition, and emotions (specifically jealousy, anger, and bloodlust), you might want to have a little more realistic view of the world.You talk about god, but tell me wich of those two statements is the more realistic:
-I believe God is among us and prevents the world from going to its end
-I believe that, with "wishfull thinking" (as John said;) ) and time, Man can grow up.
Of course I know we are animals (especially you, monkeyman:D ;) ) but hiding behind "human nature" seems like the easy way to me.
I'm not a "extremist pacifist" and don't live in wonderland either. I wouldn't let anyone hurt my family, doing nothing because I'm a pacifist. I just say that the more people think about war as a solution, the more war we'll have to "deal" with.
When I hear the amount of money "my" country earns every year by selling weapons it chills my bones. Politics who decide wether their country will get involve in a war, or businessmen who make money out of war, should be constrained to take active part of it. War is still a excellent way to keep "social order": the rich/mighty send the poor/weak to the frontlines. Actually war has it's benefits... but not for those who would really need them.
Well I'm gonna stop there because, while rereading my post, I feel like an idealist teenager and I wouldn't want to use too much cliches:o ...
...though I wish I could still be an idealist teenager:(

[cathwood]

Zzag, I agree with you. (Well, apart from the God bit). Perhaps I put a bit more faith in psychology.

Cathy

[Zzagg]

Zzag, I agree with you. (Well, apart from the God bit).
-I believe God is among us and prevents the world from going to its endActually I don't (it was a multiple choice question, I forgot the "?") I tend to believe in our ability to get "wiser".
You and I can now start a big old crusade:D

[JJuggle]

it's arguable... would we have been so quick to invade Iraq without all our point-and-click killing machines? would we stand a chance if the playing field was levelled and we just walked onto their home turf and started throwing rocks? do you really think our "military superiority" had no influence on our administration's hasty decision to go to war?
It is arguable, yes, and your point did give me pause. But in the end even in a less technologically sophisticated world, I don't believe this president would have hesitated to send our troops over to Iraq. That is an easy thing to say, I know, but history is full of the sacrifices leaders are more than willing to impose on their brave boys in uniform.

Though in a less technologically sophisticated world it would have been significantly more difficult to make the argument that Iraq posed a threat. That would have been a neat challenge.

[GILD]

Only the dead have seen the end of war. — P (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/War)lato



And the young people ask,"What are they marching for?",
And I ask meself the same question.
But the band plays Waltzing Matilda,
And the old men still answer the call.
But as year follows year, more old men disappear,
Someday no one will march there at all.

Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me ?
And their ghosts may be heard as they march by the billabong,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me ?

Reminded me of this.

They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMB (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7334.htm)ER THEM.

http://www.toppun.com/Great-Quotes/Peace-Quotes/Peace-Quote-Peace-Sign-97_small.gif

[johnfoss]

You talk about god, but tell me wich of those two statements is the more realistic:
-I believe God is among us and prevents the world from going to its end
-I believe that, with "wishfull thinking" (as John said;) ) and time, Man can grow up.
I much prefer the second one, though neither is close to what I think.

It would be hard for me to accept the idea that God is among us; preventing the world from "ending" while allowing everything else to go on apparently without any tampering.

The second choice is less about wishful thinking, but optimism; believing we can better ourselves. This I also believe, but I don't expect it to happen fast. People in power still seem to be driven by the same "weaknesses" that have plagued leaders throughout history; lust for power, loss of perspective, ego and greed. We are born with these flaws, so it will probably require many generations for us to all get "on the same page" and agree to police ourselves.

But we can; we must. I guess that's what being a Humanist is, believing in the human race and its power to get better. Having faith that we humans can reach the level of maturity we show in the Star Trek series'. Just as 23rd century Vulcans learn to supress their emotions, humans learn to behave themselves much better than we do today. The flaws are still there, but there is a society-wide desire to better ourselves. This does not currently exist.

[Mikefule]

would we stand a chance if the playing field was levelled and we just walked onto their home turf and started throwing rocks? do you really think our "military superiority" had no influence on our administration's hasty decision to go to war?

There was a time when the most sophisticated tactic available was to walk onto the enemy's home turf and start throwing rocks. People enjoyed it so much that they learned to sharpen the rocks, tie them to sticks and use cunning means to propel them further. Then they discovered how to use metal instead of rocks...

The one thing they didn't do was say, "Hey, that's stupid, walking onto their turf and throwing rocks. Let's be friends instead."

War will never end while taking is easier than making, while fighting is more fun than farming, and while hating takes less commitment than loving.

[monkeyman]

-I believe God is among us and prevents the world from going to its end
-I believe that, with "wishfull thinking" (as John said;) ) and time, Man can grow up.

I agree with the second one from a perspective of I wish it would happen. I don't think it will happen while we are on the Earth, or for a long time after, but I think eventually, something huge will happen, and it will cause the world to become united, or at least amicable towards each other. I hope it happens, but I don't think it'll happen soon....situations in the world would either have to escalate extremely fast, or vanish.

War will never end while taking is easier than making, while fighting is more fun than farming, and while hating takes less commitment than loving.

If you were famous, you'd be very often quoted. Well said.

[dudewithasock]

I'm starting to think about this more, and it occurs to me...would complete peace be all that great? I mean, think about it...the one thing that truly makes humans stand out from other creatures is amibition to do things. If there were no war, there just wouldn't be any ambition...I mean, it just wouldn't work...we'd all be mindless robots stuck in the homo erectus stage for eternity.

[bugman]

Bugman: After I steal your home, then it's time to insist everyone be reasonable.....

Most of the civilized world sees it as a problem when anyone, sovereign nation or terrorist, attacks civilian targets, like airports, neighborhoods, babies trying to flee the nation. Once it was the definition of terrorism to attack civilian targets. And lots to innocent people are gettting killed. I don't know if any military targets have actually been hit yet. There are 20,000 USA citizens living in Lebanon.

You might think that if some terrrorist group started rocketing Canada from the USA, Canada would be justified in bombing the USA, just to pressure us to get our terrorists under control. But I would hope soemone would pick up the phone. And Bugman missed everything but the BJ in Clinton's 8 years, but the guy had great diplomacy and great international relations and savvy.

You may think the other side is being unreasonable, or is incapable of reason, but odds are they are human, and have understandable motives, like White Man did when he genocided the Native Americans and stole their land. [Has White Man ever really been reasonable, or are they they unethical scourge of the Western Hemisphere?]

This is in no way an analogy to the Middle East situation. However, if the Native Peoples requested their land back, and then started attacking to achieve their ends, you might think they were unreasonable. But if someone stole your home and moved in, and you demanded it back, then resorted to violence to get it back, I wonder if you'd be unreasonable. Maybe we could talk. maybe you and I could come to some agreement. Or maybe after several of your children got killed, you decide to talk, and maybe be happy getting the garage to live in. In peace.

Tha's not entirely true. I saw Clinton pull out of Mogadishu, Somalia after a minor scuffle in October 1993. If I remember correctly we were completely out of there by March or April of 1994. I was embarrased and ashamed and glad to be out of the Military soon after. Not everything has to do with his propensity for extra curricular activity. Just makes him somewhat ammusing. Sorry, but I couldn't continue to serve under a CIC that retreats when things get a little messy. We have been trying to recover from military misteps in the Clinton administration ever since. People talk about our Military being spread to thin, how did that happen?

They may try to take my home, I'm ready. Are you? Will you just try to understand their point of view, and hand it over? Or will you make the decision to stand your ground?

[ice_cold_uni6]

I'm starting to think about this more, and it occurs to me...would complete peace be all that great? I mean, think about it...the one thing that truly makes humans stand out from other creatures is amibition to do things. If there were no war, there just wouldn't be any ambition...I mean, it just wouldn't work...we'd all be mindless robots stuck in the homo erectus stage for eternity.

not true. we'd still have financial and cultural and athletic competition. there is still great competition between the countries in the developed world who are no longer fighting one another, isnt there? not to mention science, medical and computer science and technology specifically. computers have a long way to evolve before transistors are go beyond the scope of current machines, and there are a series of huge revolutionary developments that are ready to sweep medicine (eg, stem cell research). whichever country holds the scientists and companies that develop these will be ever more powerful.

[bugman]

not true. we'd still have financial and cultural and athletic competition. there is still great competition between the countries in the developed world who are no longer fighting one another, isnt there? not to mention science, medical and computer science and technology specifically. computers have a long way to evolve before transistors are go beyond the scope of current machines, and there are a series of huge revolutionary developments that are ready to sweep medicine (eg, stem cell research). whichever country holds the scientists and companies that develop these will be ever more powerful.


That is until they start beating us in those areas, then they'll find out that us dumb rednecks can still build one hell of a bomb.

[Mikefule]

not true. we'd still have financial and cultural and athletic competition. there is still great competition between the countries in the developed world who are no longer fighting one another,

Israel is pretty "developed".

[GILD]

If you were famous, you'd be very often quoted. Well said.
That comment should make him famous.

[GILD]

This might just be a really silly id (http://www.worldjumpday.org/)ea, but at least it will be a bunch of people from all over the world, doing that same thing at the same time and it won't include killing one another.

[Zzagg]

...and it won't include killing one another.True, but earthworms genocide at earth scale might cause me some conscience problems:D...
joke apart, humans would probably stop fighting one another if they found a common non-human ennemy but there will still be war (if this enemy is mightier than us) or genocide if it's a "weak" species.
We'll know that when the invasion of the spaceworms comes;)

[GILD]

humans would probably stop fighting one another if they found a common non-human ennemy
That sounds frightfully Orwellian, but I hear what you're sa (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/)ying.

[monkeyman]

not true. we'd still have financial and cultural and athletic competition. there is still great competition between the countries in the developed world who are no longer fighting one another, isnt there? not to mention science, medical and computer science and technology specifically. computers have a long way to evolve before transistors are go beyond the scope of current machines, and there are a series of huge revolutionary developments that are ready to sweep medicine (eg, stem cell research). whichever country holds the scientists and companies that develop these will be ever more powerful.


Now, what's that famous quote about power and absolute power? Hmmm....
So what happens when other people want that power? Or when the people with the power refuse to share it with others? What happens then.

Human nature is too flawed for us to go without war...from a biological standpoint, war makes perfect sense for population control.

joke apart, humans would probably stop fighting one another if they found a common non-human ennemy

that's actually one of the possibilities that I was talking about there...one of the big things that could unite all the humans

[dudewithasock]

that's actually one of the possibilities that I was talking about there...one of the big things that could unite all the humans

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why would we want to unite all humans?

[primus]

it sucks

[Mikefule]

Human nature is too flawed for us to go without war...


from a biological standpoint, war makes perfect sense for population control.


Ther eis no such thing as human nature. It's a concept based on careless thinking. If you take Stalin, Schindler, St. Francis, Buddha, Nelson Mandela, Pete Doherty, and Michaelangelo, you will notice they are/were very different indeed. Which ones had more human nature, and which ones had less?

War makes perfect sense for population control? No. War is a phenomenon which acts to reduce the population, but typically by disproportionately removing young males from the population. That leaves the elderly and the very young uncared for, and a large percentage of fertile young women unable to mate. The effects on population can be long term, but in an unstable, chaotic way.

Perfect sense for population control would approach the problem constructively from two angles:

Maximising the capacity of the environment to cope with a large population, by sustainable land use, and fairer distribution of resources.
Managing the birth rate to maintain a balanced and sustainable demographic profile.


Killing lots of people is not "controlling" the population; it is reducing it in an uncontrolled way. It is like tending the rose bed with a chain saw.

[johnfoss]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why would we want to unite all humans?
Watch the movie Independence Day for an example. In that story it was "unite or be exterminated."

[johnfoss]

That is until they start beating us in those areas, then they'll find out that us dumb rednecks can still build one hell of a bomb.
...A great example of why the human race isn't ready to get away from war. :D

[monkeyman]

War makes perfect sense for population control? No. War is a phenomenon which acts to reduce the population, but typically by disproportionately removing young males from the population. That leaves the elderly and the very young uncared for, and a large percentage of fertile young women unable to mate. The effects on population can be long term, but in an unstable, chaotic way.

Perfect sense for population control would approach the problem constructively from two angles:

Maximising the capacity of the environment to cope with a large population, by sustainable land use, and fairer distribution of resources.
Managing the birth rate to maintain a balanced and sustainable demographic profile.


Killing lots of people is not "controlling" the population; it is reducing it in an uncontrolled way. It is like tending the rose bed with a chain saw.

It seems to me like you thought I meant that the world leaders got together and said "our countries are too populated...let's go to war". I meant that the control thing was wired into us. This is also based on my opinions on basic human nature, but I think that part of our basic psyche includes the propensity for war for a population control method. I don't think nature could make us distribute resources better, or just change the birth rate suddenly.

Back to the human nature point, I think that there definitely is a human "nature". There are exceptions to just about everything, but I think that most humans have basic characteristics wired into them. The question is just how well they have control over them. For instance, if I see something I like, my basic human urge would be to take it. However, both because I was raised as such, and because society doesn't want me to, I restrain myself.


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why would we want to unite all humans?

Isn't half the thread about avoiding war? If I'm on your side, I'm not gonna turn around and shoot you

[bugman]

...A great example of why the human race isn't ready to get away from war. :D

:D I do what I can.

[wobbling bear]

Watch the movie Independence Day for an example. In that story it was "unite or be exterminated."
Aye: I'll have to disagree there: I found the film so "kitsch" that I could not buy the argument.
this said:
- there are arguments over "justified" wars ... the problem being that often both sides feel "justified" (example: Israel/lebanon/palestine and many others)
- then there is the Ulysses Grant's theory: knock hard that will shorten the misery of war .... except for the victims of collateral damages.
- then there is the "glory": some actions are really prowess of courage ... but this is also a psychological compensation for a really bad business.
- ....
Can you be a pacifist without being a surrender monkey:p ?
definetely yes.
There is a really fine line for appreciation of what should be efficient when dealing with "continuation of politics by other means" if you start knocking hard, because you feel it is justified you'd better not run after emotions, hate, glory :(
The art of arm twisting without your opponent being aware of it is the ultimate war genre!

[JJuggle]

Watch the movie Independence Day for an example. In that story it was "unite or be exterminated."
I preferred Signs where you just had to squirt some water at them.

[cathwood]

Back to the human nature point, I think that there definitely is a human "nature". There are exceptions to just about everything, but I think that most humans have basic characteristics wired into them. The question is just how well they have control over them. For instance, if I see something I like, my basic human urge would be to take it. However, both because I was raised as such, and because society doesn't want me to, I restrain myself.


Well, Freud reckoned we are born with basic instincts and drives, but this was not based on research.

Attachment theory suggests that we are born with the need to be safe and so are programmed to seek safety and engage in behaviours which will enduce adults (parents) to keep us safe eg crying, clinging etc.

Evolutionary theory suggests that we evolved into social beings and this was concurrent with our growth in brain size. So, far from being greedy grabing selfish beings, our human insintinct is to be social.

A guy called Chomsky (I think) suggested that we were also pre-programmed to develop language. Most linguistic work is based on this premis.

And most of all, we are all born with the need to learn.

Nothing there about war though.

Cathy

[musketman]

yes we need war

[johnfoss]

yes we need war
Your current avatar says "America - love it or leave it." What do you mean by that? Does this mean America is right in whatever it does, and to criticize America means one is not worthy of living here? Because that wouldn't be a democracy, would it?

Does it mean you believe America is above reproach, and never makes mistakes that aren't forgivable? Like official slaughter of native peoples and other ethnic groups?

Does it mean your view of America is not comfortable with constructive criticism? That would put us on a downward spiral, wouldn't it?

How about "America - love it AND make it better?" Oh, maybe we don't all agree on what will make it better. Hmm. Should we all tell each other to get out? Or maybe we should understand that we can be good Americans and disagree with each other? Ah yes, the founding fathers thought of that. Good for them!

[musketman]

Your current avatar says "America - love it or leave it." What do you mean by that? Does this mean America is right in whatever it does, and to criticize America means one is not worthy of living here? Because that wouldn't be a democracy, would it?

Does it mean you believe America is above reproach, and never makes mistakes that aren't forgivable? Like official slaughter of native peoples and other ethnic groups?

Does it mean your view of America is not comfortable with constructive criticism? That would put us on a downward spiral, wouldn't it?

How about "America - love it AND make it better?" Oh, maybe we don't all agree on what will make it better. Hmm. Should we all tell each other to get out? Or maybe we should understand that we can be good Americans and disagree with each other? Ah yes, the founding fathers thought of that. Good for them!

no,no,yes,no,no and no

[monkeyman]

- there are arguments over "justified" wars ... the problem being that often both sides feel "justified" (example: Israel/lebanon/palestine and many others)

Of course war is justifiable. Every war is justifiable. I say that because nobody does anything at all that they do not feel is justified in the circumstances. That is a basic viewpoint of philosophers from Socrates to Sartre.

yes we need war

Care to, I don't know, support your points? That wouldn't be too much to ask, would it?

no,no,yes,no,no and no

Pardon? Did you just say America was above reproach, and then disagree with Johnfoss saying that we can't all be good Americans and disagree with each other, or am I matching up the answers wrong?

For being so pro-America, that sounds remarkably totalitarian.

[BillyTheMountain]

There is no such thing as human nature. It's a concept based on careless thinking.

Prolly no such thing as animal nature either.

Prolly no such thing as nature either.

Nature is a concept based on careless thinking.

[BillyTheMountain]

Attachment theory suggests that we are born with the need to be safe and so are programmed to seek safety and engage in behaviours which will enduce adults (parents) to keep us safe eg crying, clinging etc.

Evolutionary theory suggests that we evolved into social beings and this was concurrent with our growth in brain size. So, far from being greedy grabing selfish beings, our human insintinct is to be social.

A guy called Chomsky (I think) suggested that we were also pre-programmed to develop language. Most linguistic work is based on this premis.

And most of all, we are all born with the need to learn.

Cathy

What is NEED? It suggests that if the NEED is not provided, the organism dies. So, if no learning opportunities, organism dies, even if fed, kept warm, etc? Need to be safe? What is that? [That's not exactly what attachment theory says--and note that not all the orphans Bowlby studied died....]

KYLA » Human Nature Lyrics
Looking out
Across the night-time
The city winks a sleepless eye
Hear his voice
Shake my window
Sweet seducing sighs
Get me out
Into the night-time
Four walls won't hold me tonight
If this town
Is just an apple
Then let me take a bite

If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way
If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way

Reaching out
To touch a stranger
Electric eyes are ev'rywhere
See that boy
He knows I'm watching
He likes the way I stare

If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way
If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way
I like lovin' this way
I like lovin' this way (instrumental section)

Looking out
Across the morning
Where the city's heart begins to beat
Reaching out
I touch his shoulder
I'm dreaming of the street

If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way
If they say -
Why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature
Why, why, does he do me that way
I like lovin' this way
I like lovin' this way

[johnfoss]

no,no,yes,no,no and no
Thanks for clearing that up. :confused:

I think you said yes to the one about constructive criticism. But then you said no to the downward spiral. As if this country stays "great" without dissent, debate and compromise. It doesn't.

Anyway, too bad, I'm not leaving. Uh, Except for Unicons and such. Not that I don't love America, but it's far from perfect. It can be better.

[BillyTheMountain]

Does it mean you believe America is above reproach, and never makes mistakes that aren't forgivable? Like official slaughter of native peoples and other ethnic groups?

Now 100 people a DAY are being killed in Iraq, 3,000 +/month!!

Innocent Lebanese Christians and others are being killed with USA made weapons, and Bush is expediting another shipment of deadly missiles to Israel, to use to kill more innocent people.

Can the next attack on USA soil possibly be seen as unprovoked?

It seems Bush could negotiate with Iran and Syria, the foundation beyond Hezbollah, as well as with Israel. Can you imagine UN peacekeepers being sent to Lebanon? UN Peacekeepers fighting Israel?!! Oy vey!

Peace out!

[Mikefule]

Care to, I don't know, support your points? That wouldn't be too much to ask, would it?


Apparently partly referring to this snip from my earlier post:
<<Of course war is justifiable. Every war is justifiable. I say that because nobody does anything at all that they do not feel is justified in the circumstances. That is a basic viewpoint of philosophers from Socrates to Sartre.>>

I think there is a justification within the snip itself, but as you asked, let me expand on it.

We all have complex and mixed motives for every complex thing we do. As you get older and look back, you attribute different motives to your own past actions from the motives you would have described at the time. "It was a phase I was going through." "I suppose I was on the rebound." "It was my midlife crisis." "I was jealous." Etc.

We all have complex emotions and feelings. Hence we have people continuing in dysfunctional relationships "because I love him, and you don't see how lovely he is when he isn't beating me..." and so on.

Socrates, Sartre and many other philosophers considered these things from slightly different angles, but came to broadly similar conclusions: it doesn't matter what you say you think, or even what you think you think, or what you'd like to think you think. The only thing that really demonstrates what you really think (or believe, or feel) is what you actually do.

Do you love your wife more than life itself? You might say so, but you will only know if you have to risk your own life to save hers, and you do.

Are you honest? Wait until you find a wallet full of cash and see if you hand it in or "justify to yourself" that you are entitled to keep it.

So, what you do is the only reliable guide to what you really believe. If you do something, then you are demonstrating that at that moment you believe that in those circumstances it is justifiable to do it. You wouldn't do it if you did not believe it was justifiable in those circumstances.

So, faced with a choice between going to war and being called a coward; being imprisoned; being beaten or executed; appearing weak and unmanly; being bored; having to make difficult emotional concessions; having to make economic sacrifices; etc. most people end up choosing to go to war.

They are demonstrating that in those circumstances (i.e. being threatened with being called a coward, etc. etc.) they are justified in going to war as the "lesser of two evils".

Likewise, national leaders make decisions that going to war is "justified".

Later, they might change their opinions (Nelson Mandela was first a terrorist, then a terrorist leader, then a moral leader, then a democratically elected political leader, then a world ambassador for peace and reconciliation, for example). Others might simply say they have changed their opinions.

The simple fact is that whatever any person does, they believe they can justify it in those circumstances.

I spend my working life investigating fraud. All of the fraudsters I come across, if asked, would say something like,

Everybody does it, so why shouldn't I?
I've paid enough premium over the years, so I'm entitled to something back
Insurance companies will rip you off anyway, so they're fair game
It's victimless theft - it's not like really stealing


These are rationalisations which they use to justify committing a dishonest and criminal act. The fact that they commit the act is enough proof that even if they can't properly articulate their beliefs, at least they do believe they are justified.

[monkeyman]

You misunderstood me. I agreed with what you said, and I was borrowing it to reply to wobbling bear. I asked musketman to support his point, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

[cathwood]

You misunderstood me. I agreed with what you said, and I was borrowing it to reply to wobbling bear. I asked musketman to support his point, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah but it was worth it to read Mikefule's post.

Mikefule I love it when you talk philosophy :eek:

Cathy

[monkeyman]

Ah but it was worth it to read Mikefule's post.

Mikefule I love it when you talk philosophy :eek:

Cathy

Quoted just so it can be said again.

[BillyTheMountain]

[B] I say that because nobody does anything at all that they do not feel is justified in the circumstances.

We all have complex and mixed motives for every complex thing we do. As you get older and look back, you attribute different motives to your own past actions from the motives you would have described at the time. "It was a phase I was going through." "I suppose I was on the rebound." "It was my midlife crisis." "I was jealous." Etc..

These look like the AVOIDANCE of attributing a motive. They are so diffuse because they contain no explanation, just the most vague impressionistic statement which conceals the lack of thought.

[The only thing that really demonstrates what you really think (or believe, or feel) is what you actually do..

Since ambivalence is the mode, we have a variety of thoughts and feelings about our actions. So our behavior isn't what we ACTUALLY feel, it's perhaps some function [the easiest given everything?] of the many internal and external forces impeling us to action.

[I spend my working life investigating fraud. All of the fraudsters I come across, if asked, would say something like,

Everybody does it, so why shouldn't I?
I've paid enough premium over the years, so I'm entitled to something back
Insurance companies will rip you off anyway, so they're fair game
It's victimless theft - it's not like really stealing
.

A bit off topic, but my sense is that new age health fraud is often committed by people who may actually be misinformed themselves, people who just don't know how to evaluate science vs quackery.

Anyway, the world (maybe even the USA) is now pushing more strongly and in one voice for some negotiated settlement to end this violence.

Billy

[wobbling bear]

You misunderstood me. I agreed with what you said, and I was borrowing it to reply to wobbling bear.
I see no contradiction between Mikefule's point and mine.
just that many wars (not all) seem justified to both sides :mad: now what do we do? start a war to stop the fighting .... Well sometimes you're so cross as to consider the option ...
When people quarrel there is justice followed by enforcement. we do not have both at international level ... yet. (but some certainly do not want THAT to happen!)

[musketman]

with war comes peace. Most things can be talked out, but not all(that's where war comes in).There will probably always be war. It's just a fact of life

[JJuggle]

with war comes peace. Most things can be talked out, but not all(that's where war comes in).There will probably always be war. It's just a fact of life
Candidate Bush: I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. - 1st Presidential Debate, October 3, 2000.

You and the president are of a similar mind, it appears. I'll leave it for someone else (GILD?) to throw out the popular saying that applies here.

[GILD]

Two minds are better than one?

Birds of a feather...?

Two more of them...?

There is no way to peace, peace is the way?
http://www.toppun.com/Great-Quotes/Peace-Quotes/Peace-Quote-Peace-Sign-97_small.gif

http://www.flangbgscifiart.org/Index/Peacering.jpg

[JJuggle]

Two minds are better than one?

Birds of a feather...?

Two more of them...?

There is no way to peace, peace is the way?
Yeah, that'll do, O disingenuous one.

[GILD]

I was only being that big word cause I let this thread run to 3 pages, waiting for you to post the quote.
Eventually I couldn't help myse (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=544075&postcount=44)lf.
So when you mentioned a popular phrase, I had to imagine it was something else as I couldn't imagine you would want me to repeat myself.

[BillyTheMountain]

daniel gilbert wrote a nice op-ed piece in today's ny times, called: he who cast the first stone probably didn't.

in it, he covers numerous psyhcological and social experiments, leading to facts we should keep in mind:

1. Punching back is morally and legally different the a punch thrown first. BUT: People think of their own actions as the consequence of of what came before, but they think of other people's actions as the causes of what came later. Ie, he hit me, that caused me to hit him. Everyone thinks this.

2. The second principle of legitimate punching is that the punch back should not heavily outweigh the punch you received. That's why the world criticized Israel for disproportionate bombing of Lebanon Christians and Muslims.

In an experiment where volunteers tried to touch another volunteer with just the same intensity they had been touched, they actually touched back with 40% more force. So our own reasons and PAINS are more palpable and bovious and real than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.......

Peace!

[monkeyman]

I see no contradiction between Mikefule's point and mine.
just that many wars (not all) seem justified to both sides :mad: now what do we do? start a war to stop the fighting .... Well sometimes you're so cross as to consider the option ...
When people quarrel there is justice followed by enforcement. we do not have both at international level ... yet. (but some certainly do not want THAT to happen!)

I want that to happen, yes.

About your's and Mikefule's post, I was adding onto yours...using his point, there can be no unjustified war. Even if the leaders are staging it all because they think it's fun, that's still justified to them...it's a reason.