Is War Hell?

War is the continuation of diplomacy, through other means... some dude with a freaky name said that. I keep on forgetting his name... it appeared in a book, about international affairs.

Yes, war is a part of human nature - just like conflict and violence are. War serves the purpose of leaders, or of the people. It can be waged for a good cause, or for foul evil causes. I don't think it should be avoided at all costs - impotence is just as bad, and can ultimately lead to terrible things (WWII, anyone?). However, since war is usually very costly - money, lives, and values - it should not be waged over every single affair.

As for today's leaders - I don't think they should take active part in wars. This isn't ancient times, when a king used to march into battle along with his men. It simply cannot work with the social and political physics of the modern world.

War is justified whenever someone says it is. Hopefully, most sane leaders avoid it as much as possible - but war is started by the least... diplomatic side of any party.

There's war in all nature. Sure, it may be at a small scale, with, say, two hippos, or lions, or wolf packs, but it's there. No matter how evolved we get, there's always gonna be the instinct to kick that guy's ass because he said something about your mother. Nations are like big animals. When countries start givin' each other the bird, fists are gonna fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

War is the continuation of diplomacy, through other means... some dude with a freaky name said that. I keep on forgetting his name... it appeared in a book, about international affairs.

---

Niccolo Macchiaveli?

Anyway, here's another interesting quote to think about - the late British philosopher John Stewart Mills once said:

Quote:

---

"War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that feels that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free, unless made, and kept so, by the exertions of better men than himself."

---

OOC:

Quote: Yeah like the Oil for Food for program that the U.N. had on Iraq several years ago, but it sadly failed. Some members of the U.N. profited off it by taking bribes from Saddam, and it just shows the U.N. is corrupted and is a failure. Im pretty sure, soon there will be no U.N... Riiiight... Actually, the US was a huge supporter (and beneficiary) of 'oil for food', a policy that was useful in principle but not wholly effective due to Hussein's regime selling supplies on the black market rather than giving them to the people they were intended for. There has been infinitely more corruption in the US government than in the UN; the United Nations continue to pursue human rights, the enforecement of international law, treaties, peaceful concerns and universal standards. They do far, far more good than most other international bodies; the only problem is that US politicians can't handle the UN refusing to back illegal acts of aggression, and discriminatory and hypocritical policies, such as "free trade for everyone but we can still charge tarrifs". Are you aware of the WTO and WHO? The World Health Organisation has saved countless lives, and it's a UN body. The UNHRC, UNACO and other groups have achieved beneficial results, without violence and without killing innocents. Please, please understand at least a bare minimum about something before reciting sweeping generalisations.

War should be avoided, of course, but only within reason. If a country is attacked, they're justified in going to war in self-defence; however, wanton violence against "potential threats" is ridiculous and murderous. Then again, intervening in foreign conflicts can be justified, too - where military action can end a genocidal conflict, for instance; provided intervention doesn't reduce one country to a stone-age and vulnerable pile of rubble. Peace-keepers, such as the UN soldiers in East Timor and elsewhere, are a good use of military presence in a non-war situation: having them there to forestall conflict should it appear to arise (again).

It's a tough thing to judge, when one should actually go into a country to help its people when there's no threat to the country coming in. As for the case in Iraq, I still hold out that the initial justification was false, but eventually, a right justification was sort of reached: Getting rid of Saddam. However, planning what to do in Iraq after Saddam's regime fell is a whole other story, and should have been thought out a lot better.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Niccolo Macchiaveli?

---

Machiavelli or however it's written in English is quite a...um...well, Rousseau said he was in fact being ironic in "The Prince", maybe because he could not believe such filthy opinions could be serious. I believe, though, he said that just to critizize Voltaire, who seemed to hate Machiavelli a lot. Don't make me go into it...but saying war is "human nature" as dogma is something I do not share.

Kant has a very interesting book about war, "For perpetual peace", that book Condolezza Rice seems to hate so much, yet I wonder if she has actually read it.

Anyway, however, as my personal opinion, war justified? In self defense, yes, of course, get attacked and awnser back. Of course, attacking a country is for me like declaring war. Another justification? I guess it really depends on the situation, I cannot really say, but most of the times it is done in the interests of a few, and is far from noble.

However, I defend revolution. DocFrance's quote on Stuart Mill is interesting, I can't say I agree with it 100%, but it's truth it's quite sad to see a person not willing to fight just for their security. Well, I must say I admire Antigona (Whatever her name is in English) a lot, but of course, then it depends on the fight you defend. I can't say I can find a side I can be with in this modern struggle of patriots and terrorists. I have my own fight though.

Quote:

---

Niccolo Macchiaveli?

---

No, no... some east-European dude... long, crazy name. :-\

I don't think that a war is ever justified, i refer to starting a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

No, no... some east-European dude... long, crazy name. :-\

---

Carl von Clausewitz?

I think war should always be used as a last resort simply for the fact that it's basically sentencing thousands of lives to death, including civilians, so there better be a bloody good reason for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Carl von Clausewitz?

---

That is correct.

Awesome. I know my military history.

well war is part of our nature yes and it sounds wierd but everything about the human body screams at us "Predator!" if an alien species were to look at us as just animals they would put us as the top predator in the world that means our only other predator is other humans in general. See every other creature on the planet has a natural predator that they are prey for many it's us but hey were top dogs so to speak. We call it war or genocide but in reality it's population control, (don't flame me it's not my choice of words it was put this way by a proffessor at my college in human geography and he also teaches sociology for some reason) which means it is our nature but still we deny that it is a not so pretty or wanted part of it but it is we say it's not in our nature to kill, which is quite pathetic really.

Quote:

---

Carl von Clausewitz?

---

That's the bugger. Thanks.

Obviously, there has to be a good reason for starting a war. However, war isn't something to be avoided at all costs.Sometimes not fighting a war when war is justified and necessary can lead to more suffering and death than fighting one would cause. Sometimes it can even cause a bigger war later. I'm not going to sit here and list all the times war is the best possible action, but in some rare circumstances it is.