Is War Hell?

Sort of a broad question, so let me break it down:

1. Should war be avoided at all costs until everything else has been tried, or if fighting a war will gain you a victory, should you resort first to that?

2. It is well known about the service histories, or lack thereof, of several prominent Government Officials... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc etc. Do you think that a government official would be more willing to fight or take part in a war if they actually experienced the same type of combat as a regular soldier being sent in? (Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

3. When is war justified?

Anything else you wish to add or address, by all means. The questions are just to stimulate a debate and need not be restricted to just those topics on war.

Take care all.

War is justified when there is a job to be done and war is the best answer. As for veterans feelings i have no idea because im not a veteran.

Indeed, but WHEN is war the best answer?

Take care all.

1. I do believe, personally, that war should be avoided at all costs. My heart just feels that way. Logically, though, I believe that diplomatic answers should at least be sought before running off into battle... at least try to solve the problems like human beings, and then if all else fails... to war. Though I cant think of a situation where war is truly truly needed. And I'm sure everyone will point out all these terrible things to prove me wrong... but war just disgusts me. I live everyday with what war does to you.

2. On talking to my dad, a veteran of Vietnam, I can tell you that it's a bit of a duality. For example, there's a lot of reasons a veteran would want to return to battle. Spending so much time fighting, it soon becomes the only thing that makes sense to you. It's home. When you return to normalcy, you feel out of place and lost... not to mention paranoid as all hell. Then there's the high you can only feel in battle... the adrenline rush that pushes so many veterans of Nam (I dunno if any other war has caused this particular reaction) to seek to recreate that high with drugs (not to mention their addiction to the speed the Army handed out to keep the guys awake, that's a whole different story). Then again, I believe my dad would be hesitant to run off to war again, perhaps because it's been too long. He doesnt believe in this war in Iraq right now, I can tell you that. But it is hard to get a serious answer out of the man.

I'd reckon that a bigger deterent to governments sending boys off to die would be if it was their kids going off. Or if they themselves had to fight in whatever they started. Of course that one wouldnt work very well, though.

3. If a country is invading your own home, I would say war is justified them. Like the situation in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were invading and doing horrific things to people, and fighting back is only logical. Another thing I think war would be okay with is a situation like what was happening in the Nazi Death Camps. Say a country knew something like that was happening, then going to war to save them would be alright.

Sending boys to die to fill political agends is not okay.

"3. If a country is invading your own home, I would say war is justified them. Like the situation in WWII. Both Japan and Germany were invading and doing horrific things to people, and fighting back is only logical. Another thing I think war would be okay with is a situation like what was happening in the Nazi Death Camps. Say a country knew something like that was happening, then going to war to save them would be alright."

Hmm, that's a nice answer.

I believe the reason there's such a spilt between those who favor war and those who don't is because: It's tough to see good and evil at the time. In WWII, by the time America had come in, Hitler was obviously evil. What he was doing was wrong no matter how you view it. However, wasn't Stalin equally as guilty of such crimes? Yet, we sided with him... why is that? If you look just at sheer numbers, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, yet his viewed as less evil. Is it because he killed his own people? Who knows really. The point is, it's very hard to pinpoint good and evil, until you have hindsight. When you can actually see good and evil, and find agreement with your assessment, then justifying war becomes easier, I'd warrant.

Take care all.

1. War should be used in self-defense, when self-defense is necessary. Should it always be a LAST resort? That depends on what you consider a last resort. A last resort to preserve a country's very survival? Or just to preserve its well-being? Or just to preserve its right not even to be threatened? Or just to protect against a potential threat? Or just to protect financial interests? There are varying levels of "being threatened". Some, financial interests for example, probably don't necessitate war. Some, defending the very survival of a country for example, probably do. Some in the middle, I don't know. I don't know where the line is drawn.

2. I've never fought a war myself, so my opinion can't matter that much. But I have family who has done so, and we have what we see in the media, and what we can read in books; poor sources though those may be, that's all we have. The President has even more than that; he has the opinion of the most qualified people in the world, namely generals, who presumably HAVE fought wars, and know war inside-out.

Our legislators aren't murderers; can they pass laws regarding murder? Our judges aren't all pregnant females; can they interpret laws about abortion? Our President isn't an immigrant; can he enofrce laws about immigration? The answer is yes; you don't need personal experience to understand something. I don't see any reason a President who never personally served in the military would be more willing to go to war.

3. In self-defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

I believe the reason there's such a spilt between those who favor war and those who don't is because: It's tough to see good and evil at the time.

---

Very good point. JFK said pretty much the same thing when speaking at the graduation of the Annapolis class of 1961:

Quote:

---

"When there is an enemy to fight in open combat... many serve, all aplaud, and the tide of patriotism runs high. But when there is a long slow struggle, with no immediate, visible foe, your choice [to serve in the military] will seem hard indeed."

---

Eerily prophetic of the Viet Nam war, as well as the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. Try to avoid war, but certainly not at all costs. If you risk too much by not fighting, or if the diplomatic route proves too costly, then war is acceptable. That is, unless you're the aggressor. If you decide that you risk too much by not invading, say, Kerplakistan, because you need more living space for your people, then you're clearly in the wrong. But if you wanna save some poor minority from destruction, or protect precious resources from some maniac who wants to control them and try to blackmail the world, or something, then that's fine.

I was listening to Real Radio, and this guy, Phil something or other, was interviewing this woman who said that she appreciated the troops because their sacrifice allows her and all other Americans to live in luxury, and that's what they're there for. It was such a ridiculous caricature that I think it was a set up, but, if toned down, it shows one of those grey areas where you have to weigh the pros and cons. I mean, if, what was it, OPEC, decided to raise the price of oil to astronomical levels, say, ten bucks a gallon, I think we'd be forced to go to war. But if it's just because we're a bit paranoid about possible future fluctuations, eh, we'll see what happens.

2. I wouldn't know, not being a veteran or anything, but I don't think it should. The President, or whoever, MIGHT hate war a good deal more than someone else if they fought in one, but that doesn't mean he (or she) will shy away from it if they feel the war needs to be fought. And someone with no war experience won't necessarily rush into a war just because they didn't shoot Viet Cong in the jungle. Maybe I feel this way because I only know the horrors of war in my imagination, but hey, who knows.

3. When there's a good reason, of course. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, and various other Constitution-soundin' things.

War is just a tool for a leader to get what s/he wants. It's not the only tool, but one of many. Just like you can't fix a car with only one sized wrench (and I know, as I'm always the wrench fetcher), you can't fix a country with only one type of diplomacy. Sometimes talking will work, and if it does, then that's a good thing. However, talking to some people is like talking to a wall. The world has no shortage of idiots, and with so many countries, some of them are bound to become leaders. Time is as precious a commodity as oil or gold, and shouldn't be wasted. If talk doesn't work, there are economic sanctions and trade embargos - not to mention a cold war situation with a lot of posturing and bluffing. If you can intimidate and coerce the villain without violence, then kudos to you. However, some leaders don't get the point. That's when war is useful.

Quote:

---

If talk doesn't work, there are economic sanctions and trade embargos - not to mention a cold war situation with a lot of posturing and bluffing. If you can intimidate and coerce the villain without violence, then kudos to you. However, some leaders don't get the point. That's when war is useful.

---

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... :mog:

1. Should war be avoided at all costs until everything else has been tried, or if fighting a war will gain you a victory, should you resort first to that?

Yes, everything should be tried out first. And if it does not work, then war it is.

2. It is well known about the service histories, or lack thereof, of several prominent Government Officials... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc etc. Do you think that a government official would be more willing to fight or take part in a war if they actually experienced the same type of combat as a regular soldier being sent in? (Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

Well, Bush was in the Coast Guard, and Kerry in Vietnam as a soilder. I dont really know. Sometimes people from war, people change, sometimes they think it was right in a way. Some people have to understand that ''to do good, some evil must be done'' like war. Then some of them resent it, because it was bad. Vietnam on the other hand was bad, 1000s of dieing everyday, and that was a un winnable war. Iraq on the other hand is not a vietnam. But it can turn in to one.

3. When is war justified?

War is justified, when it makes sense to do somthing, then not to do nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

Well, Bush was in the Coast Guard

---

Texas Air National Guard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

(Basically, I'm attempting to figure out why people who've actually experienced war seem so much more likely not to support a future war upon their return).

---

It seems that way because those in opposition are more vocal. What you don't see is the soldiers that are re-enlisting, extending, and silently heading back out for additional deployments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talus

It seems that way because those in opposition are more vocal. What you don't see is the soldiers that are re-enlisting, extending, and silently heading back out for additional deployments.

---

It depends on the circumstances. My dad served two and a half tours (he only left when his division was stepped down as a combat division because of heavy losses in Cambodia) not because he supported the war, but because when he came home he felt lost. The only place he felt at home was in Vietnam, which is odd to say because of all the horrific things going on, but that's the way it went. It varies from person to person, and while they may redeploy, it doesnt mean that they'll support whatever war the country chooses to go to. My father never supported Vietnam in the first place, he merely went to make his own dad proud, and to serve his country. So being a veteran of actual war (and not just serving in the military) gives one a different outlook on war... as a whole maybe, or gives them cause to look deep into each individual war. It's too broad a question to really come to a flat conclusion.

I would love to be able to solve every situation with diplomatic measures to be honest killing isn't a great idea. Yet what do you do when the other side just wont listen whilst people or countries are ignorant or have free will there will always be a need for war

So, essentially, war is a part of human nature?

Take care all.

Yes, it is. It's right up there with "tool-making" and "language-using" as our defining characteristics. Society imposes monogamism and marraige on us, but we keep war around by choice.

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.

Hmm I remembered something said to the general of Japan incharge of their fleet for the bombing of Pearl Harbour in world war two they commended him calling him a "Brilliant man to be able to plan such an attack on the American navy" his response stayed with me after learning it he replied "A brilliant man would have found a way to avoid a war" think of that next time you call a general or government leader Brilliant for their decision of war

Is war Hell?


Can I suggest Homer's Illiad ... Men have known that hell was an element of war since the ancient times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besimudo

Is war Hell?


Can I suggest Homer's Illiad ... Men have known that hell was an element of war since the ancient times.

---

Ah, yes, and yet, the Illiad glorifies some barbaric warrior rituals.

Yes, because the very element of human truth emerged in battle.
When Hera instructs the Greek Hero Achilles to fight - He rallies the troops with divine hope. This shows how hope can push a dying army from despair and march forward into battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besimudo

Yes, because the very element of human truth emerged in battle.
When Hera instructs the Greek Hero Achilles to fight - He rallies the troops with divine hope. This shows how hope can push a dying army from despair and march forward into battle.

---

I like the scene where Ajax starts killing sheeps as if they were Greeks, it is a very good image of alienation in front of hate. Although I am not sure if that was in the book or in the Odyssey. A classic one, thats for sure.

Classic literature has so much to teach us! It's sad to see that after all those centuries, we still forget the past and refuse to save the future.