Why do people pretend wars have "good guys" and "bad guys?"

[NNadir]

How the fuck does it get into a ridiculous charade of "the other guy started it!" or "It's their fault!"

How come everybody is claiming to being engaged in "defense" while nobody is the aggressor?

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows immediately that everyone who makes war is in the wrong. There is nothing good or noble about war. It is always a tragedy and a crime involving all of the people who perpetuate it.

I suggest that anyone who has a side in any of the wars going on the planet could easily show their devotion to war by going to participate in this great moral exercise of war.

Speaking only for myself, people who want to justify war in any terms make me want to vomit.

[LiberalPartisan]

1. You're right

And Hitler was just misunderstood.

Sorry - some wars are just.

[brmdp3123]

3. I'll second that opinion.

[NNadir]

4. Um, if you know history, you know what created Hitler. Let me clue you

in: WAR!

Without World War I, Hitler would have remained a useless crazy tramp.

Every fucking war that has ever existed is a rote explication for more war. Not one war now being fought is being fought for the reasons first advanced for it. Every single war now being fought will result in guess what? More war.

If however you think war can be noble and pure, you are invited to go participate.

[cigsandcoffee]

63. Why Hitler came to power is academic.

The reality was that it took a war to depose him, and that was better than letting him do his damage.

[NNadir]

75. It is not academic at all. It is an experimental demonstration of how

war leads to more war.

There was a way to prevent Hitler. Simply saying that the minds of those who appealled to war - even though they won - are so primitive and confused as to create conditions ideal for a Hitler, is again, a case in which arsonists want to be applauded for putting out the fire they started.

I note that within 20 years of the end of World War II, the entire planet came with a whisker of a vast nuclear weapons exchange, an exchange which would have killed the greater fraction of humanity. This suggests that even the biggest war in scale in history hardly created much security.

I also note that one of the victors in World War II was a vicious murderer on the scale of tens of millions of people. (That would be Stalin.) So the question of whether morality was really involved in this war is somewhat dubious.

[cigsandcoffee]

80. But we're not talking about the morality of war. That's academic.

Hitler existed and was in power - this is the reality. Germany was expanding. Should we have not gone to war to stop him, or should we have said "well, damn it, we created the conditions that led to his rise because we agreed to France's punitive demands after WWI, so we'd better just let him be." The latter appears to be what you are saying.

[DYouth]

16. Here come the Israeli hawks out to make Nazi analogies

I was waiting for when this would happen.

[NNadir]

31. In general it takes two to tango.

I think everyone who participates in war is pretty much the same.

The Isrealis in my mind are no more guilty than their antagonists. Both are morally stained - not stained really, "rotted" would be a better word - by what they are doing. The only people for whom I have sympathy are those who are caught in the crossfire. All of the people who are creating the crossfire - everyone who is firing - has surrendered their humanity.

One would not be totally misconstruing events to assert that every war involving Isreal has a connection to the events of the Holocaust. It is yet another justification of the statement that "the cause of war is war."

No matter what happens in the current invasion of Lebanon, which by the way is not the first invasion of Lebanon, I predict there is one certainty: This war will cause yet another war.

[davekriss]

49. Check.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead.
-- Arundhati Roy

[patrice]

38. There those for whom WWII is the be all and end all of everything. n/t

[LiberalPartisan]

39. I could have said Stalin

Or Pol Pot, or Nasser, or Mugabe or Castro or Mussolini or Franco or Ahmadinejad.

The point being some people are intent on making war and war is the only thing that will stop them.

[patrice]

40. Only?

Nothing else is ever seriously committed to.

[LiberalPartisan]

41. Yes...only n/t

[patrice]

46. Sounds very much like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. n/t

[NNadir]

57. So your theory, and the theory of your fellow soldiers, is that Kissinger

had nothing to do with the creation of Pol Pot?

What would your response have been if China had bombed Washington because of Kissinger's actions in Chile and in Laos and Vietnam and Cambodia? Ethical in your imagination?

Do you give a shit about the Chilean dead? Do you have a remote clue about how many people that might be? Nicauragan? El Salvadoran?

Ronald Reagan armed many people to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some of those people became Al Queda. Others became the Taliban. This is another excellent example of how moral certainty (the Soviets were bad guys, while the Taliban/Al Queda were "good guys.") is a complete exercise in self congratulation coupled with a healthy dollop of a capacity for self delusion and denial.

Personally I think you're a poor excuse for a moralist. You won't know decency if it bit you in the face. I'll bet too, that some of the other soldiers in your unit are not so generous in their assessment as I am.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. But you would be wrong with some of your list

For instance, it seems much more likely that Castro will be 'stopped' by old age than war. And the major war that Castro was involved in was a civil war getting rid of a corrupt government. Since then, the US has interacted with him mainly by economic sanctions and a blockade, rather than war.

What war is Ahmadinejad intent on? If you're going to prejudge him like that, you will end up with a war. When did his country last start a war?

Are you also saying the USSR under Stalin should have been invaded (by someone other than Hitler - I presume you're not trying to justify his invasion as "the only thing that would stop Stalin")? That Zimbabwe should be invaded now?

[Jade Fox]

36. Hitler could have and should have been stopped early....

but because of the stupidity and destruction of WWI, Europeans were reluctant to start it up with Germany again.

Thus, one stupid war made another war far deadlier and destructive than it needed to be. Had Europe united against Hitler early on, he could have been stopped with relative ease and lack of bloodshed.

[raccoon]

77. But hindsight is always 20/20. nt

[OneBlueSky]

67. some wars may be just . . . what Israel is doing to Lebanon is not . . n/t

.

[crim son]

2. Black/White. It appeals to the simpler minds

and often works just as well for the overburdened ones. Critical thinking is...just...so.......t-i-r-i-n-g..... :yawn:

[LiberalPartisan]

34. I'm sorry - some things are worth fighting for

And some things are worth going to war over.

[patrice]

42. Ask any of the Dead, especially those with "honors", whether

they'd rather be alive or dead.

[NNadir]

47. They won't answer, though lots of people will pretend to speak for them.

[patrice]

48. I meant, of course, if you could, and if they could answer. n/t

[NNadir]

50. I know.

;-)

Lot's of people speak of the dead as if the dead could speak. In the case of soldiers, lots of people say that the reason to continue War A or War B, is so that the soldiers "will not have died in vain."

I have no idea why people get so romantic about this notion.

I suppose that I could have been killed in Vietnam under the right circumstances - circumstances that did not come close to arising thankfully. I often reflect that my father - who in spite of my love for him, disagreed vociferously on the subject of the nobility of that war - would have certainly in that case would have made a fetish my death and made loud representations about what my putative death would have meant. Probably my existence would have been reduced to a portrait in uniform with little flags attached to the frame.

None of these representations would even remotely represent the nature of my thinking about war.

[patrice]

54. That bugs me too.

As if more dying can justify dying. As if whatever is "accomplished" by the dying is so permanent, so enduring that it balances the eternity of death.

To me, each action must stand (at least as much as possible) on its own merits, not justified by a reward, not justified by other people nor other actions, not justified by the past nor the future.

Too often, later generations are expected to proove to previous generations that what previous generations sacrificed was not sacrificed in vain, when (like Jesus) our sacrifices should be simply "thrown into the void" no reward expected.

I wonder why this dependency is glorified this way and can only think that there is a surfeit of certain types of energies: anger, or boredom, or wander-lust without opportunity, or resources, or some object to define them, when along comes War and . . . .

[NNadir]

45. "Worth it" for whom? In your unit, do all of your fellow soldiers agree?

Not one among them questions the nobility of war?!?

Are there no soldiers in your unit who might be disturbed by the confusion between the "evils" of the enemy and their own high moral ethical standards that include "letting God sort it out?"

[Jade Fox]

5. I do believe there are times when armed defense is necessary.....

I also believe they are VERY rare.

Lately I feel like I'm living in a world run by adolescent boys, whose lack of social skills, maturity, and self-esteem cause them to view the smallest slight as a Threat that must be dealt with by mindless ass-kicking.

It's an odd source, but one of my favorite thoughts about war is from the book "Gone With the Wind" when Ashley Wilkes reacts to war-fever by saying, "Most of the miseries of the world were caused by wars. And, when the wars were over, no one ever knew what they were about."

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

13. I disagree, I know several adolescent boys who could run the world better

even those with a lack of social skills, maturity, and self-esteem

[Cleita]

6. I think it comes from the military.

Soldiers are trained to consider the enemy as less than human so it's not so hard to kill them. It rubs off on the civilian population. I remember during WWII, Japanese were called Japs openly even on radio news and newspaper headlines. Anything Japanese was considered foul. Germans didn't fare much better and after the war was over we had those Russians and communists to hate. That's why war can be justified as long as there are "bad guys".

I'll never forget the first Russians I met in a plant that produced parts for the defense department for what I never knew when I worked there as a temp. The cold war wasn't quite over and here I was sharing an office with the enemy. Well they turned out to be very warm and friendly.

[NNadir]

20. It happens that famous generals have made pacifist speeches.

Some of them have been US Presidents: US Grant taking office, and General Dwight David Eisenhower leaving office.

Eisenhower:

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

Grant:

"Although a soldier by profession, I have never felt any sort of fondness for war, and I have never advocated it, except as a means of peace"--Speech in London.


"I never liked service in the army. I did not wish to go to West Point. My father had use his authority to make me go. I never went into a battle willingly or with enthusiasm. I never want to command another army. It was only after Donelson that I began to see how important was the work tht Providence devolved upon me. I did not want to be made lieutenant-general. I did not want the presidency, and have never quite forgiven myself for resigning the command of the army to accept it."--In a conversation.


"It has been my misfortune to be engaged in more battles than any other general on the other side of the Atlantic; but there was never a time during my command when I would not have chosen some settlement by reason rather than the sword."--In a conversation.


"The one thing I never want to see again is a military parade. When I resigned from the army and went to a farm I was happy. When the rebellion came, I returned to the service because it was a duty. I had no thought of rank; all I did was try and make myself useful."--In a conversation with the Duke of Cambridge.

"It is probably well that we had the war when we did. We are better off now than we would have been without it, and have made more rapid progress than we otherwise should have made. Now our republic has shown itself capable of dealing with one of the greatest wars ever made, and our people have proven themselves to be the most formidable in war of any nationality. But this war was a fearful lesson and *should teach us the necessity of avoiding wars in the future.*"


"Let us have peace."--From a letter in which he accepted the nomination for the presidency.

http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/bygrant.html#service


And then of course, there is General Washington's farewell too:

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.

http://wilstar.com/holidays/farewell.htm

In general the people with the most enthusiasm for war are precisely the people with the least experience with it.

That statement is obviated by the shitheads now ordering war on behalf of our country.

[Cleita]

26. And this has nothing to do with how the military trains their

infantry. Sure the generals turned statesmen probably have a good reason to abhor war as a solution because they have seen first hand the horror.

But this has nothing to do with bootcamp. When those kids go over there to kill, that's what they do and their trainers make it easier for them by teaching them to hate the enemy.

When they come home they pass that hate on to their relatives and friends and so it goes until the war is over. Then we learn to love our enemy. I remember some talk about Gooks going on during Vietnam. Now our new Vietnamese immigrants have become some of our more outstanding citizens, my doctor being one of them.

[theoldman]

7. Wars are started for different reasons and sometimes there are

good guys and bad guys. A group of people may work hard and become prosperous. Another group becomes jealous and attacks them. These are the bad guys. Sometimes a group is very prosperous but is not satisfied with what they have. They then attack smaller groups and make them slaves or servants. Again, here the attacker is the bad guy. These situations are totally different from a situation where suppressed people rise up against those who control them. In this case the attackers are the good guys.

[KansDem]

8. It's an extension of "conflict resolution on the playground"

We did this when we were children. We really don't "grow up..."

[Jade Fox]

14. Actually.....

according to the book "A History of Warfare" by John Keegan, war as we know it (large-scale destruction of both people and things) is only about 6000 years old. For most of the history of the human race, violent conflict was closer to playground rows, with a few blows exchanged by the designated warriors from each side followed by mutual retreat. The change came when humans advanced enough to replace hunting and gathering with farming and domestication of animals. This lead to permanent cities for some tribes. The still transient tribes made the deadly discovery that it was easier to rob the cities of their stores than to hunt and gather. This marked the beginning of large-scale destruction type wars.

[KansDem]

30. Interesting...

I read Civilization Before Greece and Rome by H. W. F. Saggs and was intrigued at how certain families rose to power. Apparently (if I recall correctly--I read it some 12 or 15 years ago) when humans moved from "hunting and gathering" to "farming and domesticaton of animals," the groups nearest the water supplies tended to prosper while the groups furthest away failed. In order to survive, the failed groups moved into the communities headed by the properous families to look for work. Thus begain the cities.

This would coincide with your observation "The change came when humans advanced enough to replace hunting and gathering with farming and domestication of animals. This lead to permanent cities for some tribes."

It appears access to water still seems to be a problem...

[Dead_Parrot]

33. I would have to disagree

There are cave-paintings at Bhimabetaka around 25,000 years old, that show groups of men fighting (and in other places - I'll have to refresh my memory and try to find a link for you): You could even extend it to the Neanderthals - we have remains with spear tips still embedded in them, although this could be down to plain old murder.

[Jade Fox]

35. The difference.....

according to Keegan, is in the severity . (Re-read my post). The sort of conflict you are describing was limited to only the tribal warriors, and was often largely symbolic (lots of war paint and threatening gestures) with a few blows exchanged, maybe even a person or two killed, before a winner was decided and both sides retreated to brag about their exploits around the camp-fire.

The point is: the massively deadly destruction of war as we know it has not been around long (in terms of the human race's 150 thousand year existence), and not only because of the advances in technology.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. These have a dozen or so on each side...

...which is probably about as big as you'd get given the population at the time. Some of them even seem to depict maneuvers like out-flanking, so I think it's as close to outright war as circumstances allow...

Although art of this period is very symbolic, so I'll conceed it's possible to read too into them. Like the Neanderthal "flower graves" show, it's easy to get carried away. :)

(I still maintain we're an evil bunch of apes, though :D)

Edit - Minor correction: My date is out on the previous post, it's closer to 15,000 years ago.

[rman]

68. "fighting" vs "large-scale destruction of both people and things"

"large-scale" in numbers of people, cost, time span, area, and destructive power.

There's no comparing that to the skirmishes of ancient cave-dwellers.

Nobody is saying that "fighting" is only 6000 years old.

[Dead_Parrot]

70. "large scale" is relative

A Full mobilisation of China might field 350,000,000 men: more than the US population.
A US mobilisation might yield 70,000,000: more than the UK population.
A UK mobilisation might yield 10,000,000: more than the Belgian population.
A Belgian mobilisation might yield 2,000,000: more than the Slovienian population.
A Slovienian mobilisation might yield 100,000: more than the Grenaden population.
A Grenaden mobilisation might yield 20,000: more than the Anguillan population.
An Anguillan mobilisation might yield 4,000: more than the Svalbard population.
A Svalbard mobilisation might yield 1,000: more than the Vatican population.
A Vatican mobilisation might yield a couple of dozen Swiss Mercs: Isn't this where we came in?

[rman]

71. Full mobilization of any nation was not possible until 6000 years ago

(at least) because nations did not yet exist.

Back then mobilization did consist of a few tribes or villages at most.
Basically there were only battles, not wars.

[Dead_Parrot]

72. so we still get to scale

Did tribes exist? Did Tribes try to wipe each other out?

We didn't have the megadeath wars we have now. But if the "dead_parrot" people try to wipe out "rman" people tomorrow, it would involve just a few well placed arrows. nothing of worthy note in the Chronicles.

[rman]

74. Megadeath vs no megadeath is a substantial difference

regarding the impact that armed conflicts have on entire generations of people.
That's the basis for the idea that although aggression and violent conflict are part of human nature, "war" is relatively new.

Another example to show that in general, "scale" can make a substantial difference beyond just being "more of the same":
A single hydrogen atom is just a single hydrogen atom, a lot of them together can make a cloud of hydrogen, more still causes nuclear fusion. A star is significantly more than just a lot of hydrogen; there is more than only a difference in scale.

[Dead_Parrot]

78. chuckle...

...An interesting analogy to use against an astrophyicist... :D

I get your point, but I still disagree - I guess it depends very much on what you class as "war": I would define it as a group of people vs. another group of people: it matters not if there are 10 people vs 10 people, or 10,000,000 vs 10,000,000: if the objective is to defeat their social structure and seize thier land and belongings, does it make a difference?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. Wars are started by governments

Not by everyday people. You don't just wake up one morning and say " Gosh Martha I think into the next country and conquer it".

[Poppyseedman]

25. Is Hizbollah a government?

[Poppyseedman]

10. Theoretically if your neighbor took potshots at you with his 12 gauge

shotgun every time you stepped out your door to take your garbage out and there was no local law enforcement to stop him

You finally get to the point of armed response to stop him.

Who is at fault?

[Cleita]

15. So why would there be no law enforcement?

Even way out in the woods where the sheriff is hours away if there is an incident, people generally band together to solve their problems. A nutjob like you described would probably get a visit from a few of the locals living nearby after you went to the local and mentioned that BobbyJo keeps trying to shoot you.

This is what nations should do before they escalate the situation. If you decided to shoot it out with BobbyJo on your own, probably you both would end up dead. I used to live way up in the woods near the Canadian border in Idaho. This is how a situation like this would be handled. Oh yes the sheriff had over a hundred miles to cover in his district so he often couldn't get there for hours.

[Poppyseedman]

23. Int he context of the current events in the ME

there is no law enforcement, unless you consider whatever the UN is doing enforcement.

[Cleita]

27. If the cops are corrupt then there really is no law enforcement.

This is the situation in the ME. We were supposed to be the cops and we are very corrupt. What's Condi doing anyway? Shopping in Beirut? It is supposed to be the Paris of the ME, or was.

[Poppyseedman]

28. In reality, the UN is supposed to be the law enforcement

Of course, that is only in theory.

Personally, I think the UN is about the most useless organ on this planet.

[Cleita]

44. Absolutely not.

The Pentagon is the most useless organ on the planet. They just can't seem how to figure out how to tell our very own Tamerlane how to go to Hell.

I think the UN will get it done in the long run.

[Jade Fox]

17. See post #9

[NNadir]

22. You are assuming that "I get to the point of armed response."

In your theoretical case, is it not theoretically possible that my neighbors attitude might derive from some cause?

No?

Please let me know of your personal experience with this kind of case.

[porphyrian]

11. Because you don't have to do anything about it while you're blaming.

In the mean time, civilians on both sides remain pawns to destroy.

[Baclava]

12. Why do the black ant armies fight the red ant armies?

Territory

Until the human ants figure out we all live on the same earth and forget about all those little dotted lines on the map it will never end.

Unless the aliens attack, then I want a breeding pen of my own on the mothership...screw all ya'll.

[lonestarnot]

18. because the ant gona take it no more!

But seriously, the poster is right. If everyone just decided we aren't having any more waging of war, the world would be a benefactor.

[ComerPerro]

19. simplistic, black and white thinking.

some people grow out of that when they become adults.

Those who don't, vote Republican.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. People don't like to think

I tend to take it as a given that a lot of people are vicious, violent and hungry for power: That we have had wars since before recorded history, and will probably have them past the end of it, is an unfortunate consequence of being human.

That said, we try to rationalise our actions: like a child explaining why they skipped school, or a drunk explaining why they had to drive, we cook up one-line excuses for our actions - "We had to declare war on Japan because they bombed pearl harbor" or "We had to bomb Pearl Harbor because the US was aiding China against us", etc. etc. Wars usually blow up because of years of simmering resentment between two peoples, and it's a life-long exercise in history to understand all the reasons on both sides.

That's far too much like hard work. Let's face it, a species that invented the remote control to avoid walking across the room is hardly inclined to spend 5 years getting the slightest notion of the origins of a conflict.

So we take the one-liners without question. We'll accept as fact that these people are "good" and these people are "bad", and get on with the killing.

We could look a bit deeper, and understand that these people are just people, and those people are just people, and they probably fall in love, watch TV, sometimes go out to nice restaurants or catch a movie, have kids and dream of being younger again like everyone else...

But that's hard work. Let's see what's on the Discovery channel.

*click*

[Jade Fox]

24. See post #14

[KoKo]

29. It's MEDIA SPEAK...gearing to 18 to 30 who Max their Credit Cards........

Video Generation who only think about words as "Good Guys and Bad Guys."

There aren't NUANCES for Brain Dead Media News Addicts........:-(

[NNadir]

32. Actually most of the people ordering these wars are Baby Boomers.

Our attitude toward war in this generation changed markedly when our draft cards disappeared from our wallets.

[KoKo]

52. Media needs support for WAR from 18 to 30 Generation...They've given

up on Boomers 'cause they suckered them long ago with the debt and the easy life hooked on the ads and the rest of it....

Oldie Boomers they think are heading off to retirement and concerned about SS Benefits and Young Boomers have already "made it" by investing in other things out of their home equity.

It's the YOUNG they are after to sucker...gotta always keep after a new audience or things get stale. :shrug:

[raccoon]

79. Speak for yourself, Jack.

The ones who ordered this war don't represent this baby boomer.

[patrice]

37. Check on the relationship between body-count and outcome.

I've read that in Viet Nam at least, it was not cause and effect. In other words, dying and killing did not result in winning or losing. I wonder how common that is to War in general and to this War in particular.

[NNadir]

51. At Hue, the NVA took close to 90% casualities.

One in 20 Soviet citizens were killed in the Second World War fighting against the Germans, often billed in the USSR and now Russia, as the "Great Patriotic War."

The NVA was on the winning side, as was the Soviet Army.

Killing one's enemies in large numbers doesn't always work out so well. In fact it almost never works out well.

Lots of Lebanese, both Muslim and Christian, were killed in the 1980's during a time when the company was partially partitioned by the Isreali Army. Some of the people killed were of course warriors themselves, but some were citizens of places like Sabra and Shatilla. It doesn't seem to have resulted in peace.

Lots of Palestinians and other Arabs have blown up people on the streets of Tel Aviv. This has also not resulted in peace.

Of course these people don't give a fuck about peace, since they have deliberately discarded their humanity.

[patrice]

55. It would bother me a lot, if I were in the military, to know that neither

my death, nor the killing I do, has anything, necessarily, to do with winning whatever is "won".

[Cocoa]

53. too much sports

when you watch sports, you root for one team or the other.

[Sparkly]

56. Are you saying they're all "bad guys?" Just askin'..... nt

[NNadir]

58. I believe that war makes bad guys out of everyone.

War is murder. Murderers are bad guys.

[Sparkly]

59. So...

War makes them bad, and being bad causes war, which causes them to be bad, etc...

How do you propose stopping it?

[NNadir]

60. Well my own little effort is to point out continuously that those who

appeal to war are liars. Of course those who lie about war are not limited to those in goverment; many people - almost none of them actual fighters themselves - spread the lies in common space. I confront these people.

Can I stop war? Realistically no. But if I shame one proponent of war, just one, the cause of war is all that much weaker.

War persists, in part, because few people challenge it on its obviously flawed premises. If the Palestinians thought they were going to force the Isrealis by denotating bombs in Isreali cities, they have obviously failed. If the Isrealis thought they were going to make their country safe by bombing the fuck out of the infrastructure of Lebanon, they will surely also be proved wrong, just as they were a short while ago. It's not like this is the first time Isreali soldiers have killed people in Lebanon, after all. They should know better, but apparently they are subject to a rather odious form of national stupidity.

Similarly, it was immediately absurd to anyone with a brain to think that George W. Bush could invade Iraq and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons that turned out not to exist. Since appealing to that feeble excuse, he has changed the reason for the war so many times, that no one has a count. Mostly though the war has met none of these objectives and the currently stated objectives would have never justified the war in the minds of the people in this country who so applauded it.

My little part is to attempt to persuade people that war never accomplishes the goals originally stated. War is theft. War is murder. War is the destruction of resources. But mostly war is a lie, a practical lie, and a moral lie.

All of these things should be obvious. They're not some how, but they should be.

[Sparkly]

61. What do you think of the US involvement in WWII?

What's a way to create peace in Darfur?

Was there another way to deal with Afghanistan?

[NNadir]

62. I think the US involvement in World War II was too little too late.

The time to stop World War II was in the 1920's.

One unique thing about World War II was not how it was fought, which was with criminal brutality on all sides but how in its aftermath the path of peace was demonstrated experimentally.

I am of course, referring to the Marshall Plan. The Marshall plan was an experimental demonstration of how to make peace, through genorisity and magnamity. If there had been a Marshall Plan in 1920, World War II would have been prevented.

Of course, one doesn't normally cheer firemen who are arsonists:

If you expect me to cheer for the US participation in World War II, which included the carpet bombing of cities all over the world, events in which hundreds of thousands of people were burned to death in single nights, you really should go elsewhere.

There was a very obvious way to deal with Afghanistan, but also the time to do that was long before the war came about. Again, Cold War Politics - the result of World War II, which was the result of World War I which was the result of the Franco-Prussian War... - lead to the arming of militias that ultimately became the Taliban and Al Queda. If you fail to arm these militias, there would be no war there today.

As for Dafur, I don't know how to make peace there, because frankly I don't understand the culture or the origins of the war. If however, you are trying to make an argument that the situation can be improved by bombing the shit out of the people you are allegedly trying to save, you're engaged in an intellectual and moral fraud. You don't "save" people by killing them.

You seem to think that since I cannot solve a problem, I must accept that war is the answer. By this argument, since I cannot cure cancer, I should accept that taking massive doses of plutonium is the answer. This is completely crazy. War has never lead to peace. War doesn't work. Isreal has already invaded Lebanon, decades ago. Now they are back.

I think a rational approach would be reject approaches that are known with thousands of years of historical experimental evidence to fail. Albert Einstein, pacifist, is often quoted as defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. War has been tried again and again and again as a means of producing peace. It is, indeed, insanity to think this approach, launching in vicious war with arbitrary victims, could work, since in thousands of trials it has always failed, sometimes more spectacularly than others.

[Sparkly]

64. "You seem to think..."

I was just askin'.

But according to your theory, the time to stop things was before they began. But even before they began, there were other conflicts that led to those conflicts. Plus, you say being in wars makes people bad, and when people are bad they make wars. So it sounds like a vicious circle.

I was just wondering if you had any way out of that circle.

[NNadir]

65. Gandi had a way out.

Let's not kid ourselves. The British in India could be quite brutal.

After the Amritsar Massacre, it might have been easy to justify violence against the British.

It didn't happen.

[Sparkly]

66. Well, when you find a way to make that work to end genocide,

slaughter, territorial invasions, religious wars, etc. -- let the whole world know.

I wish it could.

[NNadir]

73. And when all these wars fail to do the same, at least admit it.

[Sparkly]

81. As General Clark has said, war itself represents failure.

War is the result of failed diplomacy.

[raccoon]

76. Because lots of people view events the way little children do.

It's called "black and white thinking."

Being from a dysfunctional family is a risk factor for this, but it's not a requirement.