Outlook on War

[dharma_bum]

There are few things in the world that annoy me more than Army advertisements.

I think that war is simply a product of pride, mainly of patriotism. People, no matter how generous or kind or charitable they may be, still have it engraved into their minds that their country of residence is the best one.

Example: My friend made a holocaust joke. I made a 9-11 joke. She gasped and said 'that's horrible!.' I said 'why? more people died in the holocaust.' She replied 'but 9-11 happened to America!!'

In my opinion, all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers, and in absolutely no way can that be justified as the right thing to do.

9-11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack by humans on other humans. America is not an ideal, it is a landmass. There are no Americans, only people born in America.

WWII was not Germans enslaving Jews and fighting America and other countries. WWII was humans enslaving humans and fighting other humans.

We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people.

War can be ended. We just have to stop playing.

My thoughts are all over the place, sorry. Thoughts?

[deepthot]

Dr. Robert S. Hartman's definition of "war" is "Organized mass-murder in the name of a good cause."

I have seen no definition that improves upon this. It says it all.

We know that 'the pen is mightier than the sword.' And the pen is used to mobilize the population for the madness.

A noble cause is proffered and then the propaganda machines (the mass media) go to work and spread the agitation to arouse the people to sanction or endorse the good cause and unquestionably accept that war will be the means to acheive that noble end, never for a moment suggesting that maybe war will not get us there, or that this war will only be the provocation for a future war.

We may well question: Was World War II a separate war, or just the continuation of World War I ?

Was "Project Iraqi Freedom" - the War on Iraq - still continuing - a separate war, or just the continuation of the Gulf War?

Etc.

If anyone want to challenge the concept that war is craziness; just ask any General with battlefield experience! Every war has 'unforeseen contingencies' = events that were not predicted. Every war has "co-lateral damage", a euphemism for the murder of innocent civilians.

Every (recent, and perhaps not-so-recent, war has old men sending young men to be martyrs.

WHO NEEDS IT !!

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people.

War can be ended.

Exactly how might this be accomplished?

It can be easily argued that the human psychosocial makeup will inevitably create war in modern society, because our communal conditions and population right now is far different than during the vast majority of our history as a species. In other words, the human mind did not evolve to be able to handle communities of millions.

Oh, and by the way, yes -- at a certain level the Holocaust (for instance) is humans killing humans. But I can tell you from abundant experience with victims of this event is that they see themselves as Jews who were killed by Germans. Group identity is important to humans, including for survival.

[stew]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

In my opinion, all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers, and in absolutely no way can that be justified as the right thing to do.

So you are saying that not even the allied response to Nazi aggression, was justified? Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

9-11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack by humans on other humans. America is not an ideal, it is a landmass. There are no Americans, only people born in America.

OK, how is this example relevant to the point that war is not justifiable?
Please explicate your argument.

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

WWII was not Germans enslaving Jews and fighting America and other countries. WWII was humans enslaving humans and fighting other humans.

OK, what is your point?

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people.

War can be ended. We just have to stop playing.

My thoughts are all over the place, sorry. Thoughts?

If you think that war is not taken seriously enough, I would agree. If it can be justified in some circumstances, knowing those conditions might go a long way.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 10:22 PM ----------

Originally Posted by deepthot

Dr. Robert S. Hartman's definition of "war" is "Organized mass-murder in the name of a good cause."

Mass murder? Thats a fairly loaded description.

Originally Posted by deepthot

I have seen no definition that improves upon this. It says it all.

war: fighting that involves various belligerent parties.

Originally Posted by deepthot

We may well question: Was World War II a separate war, or just the continuation of World War I ?

From even a historical perspective, this is a misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by deepthot

If anyone want to challenge the concept that war is craziness; just ask any General with battlefield experience!

What would they all say?

Originally Posted by deepthot

Every war has 'unforeseen contingencies' = events that were not predicted. Every war has "co-lateral damage", a euphemism for the murder of innocent civilians.

It's a real consequence of war. One that I would weigh heavily.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Every (recent, and perhaps not-so-recent, war has old men sending young men to be martyrs.

WHO NEEDS IT !!

Soldiers lives should be considered anything but trivial. Same should go for innocent people as well.

How about putting it in a not so loaded way: if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless,

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by stew

So you are saying that not even the allied response to Nazi aggression, was justified? Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?

Greetings, Stew

You write: "Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?"
Those aren't the only two alternatives ...unless one is only capable of thinking in 'black-or-white', 'either-or', terms.
In Value Science the latter is known, technically, as Systemic-Thinking, and is relatively low in value. (See the Chapter on Dimensions of Value, and also Appendix One in the manual, a link to which is available in the signature.)

Originally Posted by stew

OK, how is this example relevant to the point that war is not justifiable?
Please explicate your argument.

The topic of this thread is not "the justification of war" or its non-justification. It is for the majority of the human family to look at war from a novel perspective which is being suggested here. I say "novel" for it is rather different from the prevailing perspectives on the subject.


[QUOTE=stew;105740] OK, what is your point?
His point is given in the very next quotation that you selected, viz., "We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people." We are one human species, one race - the human race. We have a common interest: which is the sustainability of our species and the cultural advancements it has made. [...the planet will survivie...even if the next war we commit is mostly in outer space (a 'star wars' type of battle, that irradiates most of us into genetic mutants, or hurts us by contaminating our air supply.)]

Originally Posted by stew

If you think that war is not taken seriously enough, I would agree....

Thank you.

....

Originally Posted by stew

Mass murder? Thats a fairly loaded description.

It is required for the very reason you mentioned in your last observation that "war is not taken seriously enough." What you call 'loading' is emphasis - being emphatic !! - on the point that every human life (from the point of view of Ethics) is of indefinitely-large value, an infinum, in Lattice Theory, and thus is rather precious.

Originally Posted by stew

war: fighting that involves various belligerent parties.

Your definition would claim that a bar-room brawl is a "war." Any melee becomes a war under your inadequate definition.

Dr. Hartman's definition captres the essence of it. There is (often manufactured) malice aforethought in a war. The participants are taught to kill, and to first de-humanize their victims by regarding them as "monkeys", "gooks", "scum", "ragheads," etc. This commits ethical fallacies. Ethics ought to be imporatant to members of this Forum, I would venture to say.

Historians have made a good case that The Treaty of Versailles, after World War I, led directly to Hitler's being able to mobilize Germans to wage World War II. It is a persuasive argument they make.

From my point of view each war is a prelude to the next one; it sows the seeds for a future violent conflict by setting an example that "violence is legitimate, and can solve problems" ...which from an Ethical viewpoint is a whopper if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by stew

Soldiers lives should be considered anything but trivial. Same should go for innocent people as well.

Again, thank you. This shows enlightenment.

As I have written in several posts here, we largely operate from self-interest. There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is enlightened.

Enlightened self-interest is the awareness that what helps you helps me; what hurts you (eventually) hurts me. ...No matter who "you" are.

Originally Posted by stew

How about putting it in a not so loaded way: if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless,

I agree with you when you say, " if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless". And would add that war, indeed, is a social invention that we are ready to outgrow. We need only become aware of this. The media can spread the word ...IF we demand it of them. First we must care; then we must mobilize for action. Nonviolent Direct Action can serve as an alternative. It starts locally with conflict resolution in the immediate family; then in the neighborhood; then in the city. We need more people to go into the profession of Mediator; and that of Negotiator.
War really is unnecessary.

The arts of diplomacy really have not been tried in a timely fashion, i.e., long before a war is waged.

The Afghans today would welcome us if we came as civilians to construct, to feed and nourish, to build, to teach engineering, etc. If we invade and/or occupy as soldiers, or as armed combatants, in or out of uniform, they feel they must drive us out. They see us as they did the British, the Russians, etc. And we will get nowhere. End war now.

[HybridPhilosophy]

First post, new to forums.
I agree with Aedes.
War is caused by many factors and although warfare has many negative effects on society it also has positives such as technological drive and innovation. Many societies in history have been devoted primarily to martial prowess most namely the Spartans of ancient Greece and the Vikings. Who’s war craft brought them great innovation such as seafaring abilities, advancements in metal works, increase in social dependency ect..

So to make such a blanket statement that "all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers, and in absolutely no way can that be justified as the right thing to do." Seems to me to be ignorant.

Conflict in general although often unpleasant fuels human competition and human progression. Weather it’s a conflict of ideas- the mere process of vigorously debating your point of view with another individual advances your abilities.
So be it a mental or physical conflict the outcome can often be beneficial, it being pleasant or not is irrelevant. Conflict is deeply ingrained into humanity and is a great tool for advancement.

However i do agree some wars are not worth the price in human collateral.

[xris]

I am against war in principle but can not find a viable alternative to an aggressive action. The threat of an aggressive response larger than the initial aggression appears to me the only method of control. The problem arises when the aggressor thinks his army is bigger than yours. This results in larger and more active responses and eventually ends in war, rather than posturing. We are base animals who need adequate politicians who can modify our responses.

Could anything have been done in 1939 to stop Hitlers aggression? The fear of a combined action by Russia , the US and other European countries, might just have delayed his attacks on Poland.

[dharma_bum]

Firstly, thanks to everyone for replying

And to those of you who say "calling all soldiers murderers is ignorant," I will admit that I hate the way I worded that sentence, but I still hold it to be true.

To those who say "So fighting the Nazis to stop genocide was a bad thing?" perhaps using WWII was a bad idea, because if a war can be justified, WWII was the most noble cause.

But I still say that yes, it was a bad thing.
Nazis are not bad people. They are people with bad beliefs. Beliefs can be changed.
It is harder to change someone's beliefs than it is to murder him, so most people go for the latter option.

Finally, to those who say "How can war possibly be ended?"
By not seeing my views as outrageous and drastic.

War is unacceptable in a society of our progress. Our scientific prowess is far too advanced to fit our spiritually and philosophically dead society.
If we can go to the moon, build supercomputers, use nuclear power, or find it necessary to have 700 channels, we CAN find an alternative to war.

[xris]

A soldier, once and I never considered myself murderous. The fear of killing is no less worrying for many soldiers than getting shot. One in ten soldiers have been found to shoot at the enemies legs or miss altogether. There are killing machines in any army but in general they are not what they are perceived. We are all soldiers when the enemy is knocking on the door and we are all responsible for their actions, in our name.

[dharma_bum]

Originally Posted by xris

A soldier, once and I never considered myself murderous. The fear of killing is no less worrying for many soldiers than getting shot. One in ten soldiers have been found to shoot at the enemies legs or miss altogether. There are killing machines in any army but in general they are not what they are perceived. We are all soldiers when the enemy is knocking on the door and we are all responsible for their actions, in our name.

Yeah, I really don't mean to give the impression that I dislike soldiers or think they are bad people. That would be highly ignorant.

I think the best way I could put it is that in a civilized society, there should be no need for soldiers, and there should be no politicians to force them into situations where they must kill.