[un]Holy smoke! Is Rush still doing drugs?

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by wade-w

War sucks. Big Time. I really wish that there was a way to get rid of it all together. However, very occasionally there is such a thing as a just and necessary war. WW II comes to mind. It could be argued that if the aftermath of WW I had been better handled, WW II would not have been necessary, and there is a lot of truth to that. But it doesn't change the fact that the generation that waged WW II had no real choice in the matter, it was fight or be subjugated and for many, massacred. Pacifists often then point to Ghandi and his successful non-violent resistance. his method works only when your opponent has a conscience. If you try and employ such tactics against a Stalin or a Pol Pot, then all you will accomplish is a staggeringly high death toll. And it'll be entirely one-sided.

Yep. War happens, and it will continue to happen. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. In my opinion, war is an inherent feature of human civilization (not of all societies or cultures, but of civilization itself).

Incidentally, Ghandi had this to say about Adolf Hitler (I am not invoking Godwin's law; this happens to be on point):

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.

--Mohandas K. Gandhi, May 1940, The Experts Speak, p. 283, Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky, Pantheon Books, New York, 1984.

Those are interesting words from history's best known pacifist.

wade-w said:

Someone once said: "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, as long as wolves remain of a different opinion." I think that pretty much sums it up for me. I really do wish it weren't so. Nor am I claiming that all or even most wars are justifiable.

It was William Ralph Inge.

Pacifism can be very dangerous. We can transplant the same primary objection so many persons have to our most recent invasion of Iraq from 2003 Iraq (essentially, "War is never justified, except in self-defense") to late 1930s Europe. It fact, many did at that time, culminating most infamously in the Munich Pact of 1938.

Here's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain speaking to his countrymen on September 30, 1938, immediately after he and French Premier Edouard Dadalier entered into the Munich Pact with Hitler. In it, they granted Hitler the authority to occupy the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia without reprisal, but promised to insure Poland's security:

For the second time in our history, A British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

Ibid. at 106.

President Franklin Roosevelt said this in response to Chamberlain's signing of the Munich Pact. "Good man."

Here's part of Dadalier's speech about the occasion, from the Le Bourget Airport on the same day:

I am ... certain today, that, thanks to the desire to make mutual concessions, and thanks to the spirit of collaboration which has animated the action of the four Great Powers of the West, peace is saved.

Ibid. at 107.

The Daily Express in London, La Liberte in Paris, and The New York Times in New York each expressed similar opinions that the Munich Pact was indicative that Germany wanted peace in Europe, and that peace would be sustained.

Of course, we know that less than 6 months later, Germany seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. Further, on September 1, 1939, less than a year after the Munich Pact, Germany invaded Poland. That invasion forced Great Britain and France to declare war on Germany in order to keep their promises to insure Poland's security, and to save face on the international world stage.

Few would have predicted just how far-reaching Hitler's plans for world domination actually were at the time, and few would have predicted just how close he would come to conquering all of Europe.

The painful memory of just how easily nearly all the European nations tumbled, one by one, and fell under Nazi occupation and control was the basis for the "Domino Theory" to contain Soviet and Chinese Communism during the Cold War. It's why we fought the Korean War, why we fought the Chinese-sponsored North Vietnamese in Vietnam, why we supported Afghanistan in its war with the Soviets in 1979, and why we supported rebel insurgents in South American uprisings against Communist supported regimes in the early and mid-1980s.

Inge understood that decisions to engage in armed conflict are often difficult and not binary. It's often not a choice between simply War: bad, and Peace: good. I wish so many persons would stop trying to reduce it to such black and white terms.

I'm not trying to compare the circumstances leading to WWII to those in 2002 or 2003 Iraq. Obviously, they are very different. Nevertheless, the primary objection I keep hearing--war is never justified, except in self-defense--is too simple to apply across the board.

There are many circumstances other than self-defense of a sovereign nation in which persons can justly engage in armed conflict. An uprising against oppression is but one such circumstance. The American Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia are but three examples of that one circumstance.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Yes, that's the trouble with tribles.

LOL. Thanks. (insert same smilie here)

Cool Hand

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Scotty

So, basically, we knew Iraq had WMD's because we sold them to them, right?

Just curious how this all works.

I guess they were really surprised not to find them. Makes sense.

What a convenient way to make terrorists so you can go kill them later.

-Scott

well,

if you are serious, I would like to point out that first we gave saddam chemical weapons when we liked him, then he decided to start making them when we didnt like him anymore iirc.

[Scotty]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

well,

if you are serious, I would like to point out that first we gave saddam chemical weapons when we liked him, then he decided to start making them when we didnt like him anymore iirc.

I think I was being slightly non-serious, but it just seems so ludicrous, you know, our foreign policy. Whatever it is today.

-Scott

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Scotty

I think I was being slightly non-serious, but it just seems so ludicrous, you know, our foreign policy. Whatever it is today.

-Scott

Serious or not, forming and implementing a coherent foreign policy is difficult in the post-Cold War era we are in at the moment.

Foreign policy towards whom? There's really no such thing as a blanket, generic foreign policy, especially when you are a (or the only remaining) world superpower. Relations with each other nation are going to be different, for a variety of reasons, including geography, culture, trade, past relations, history, alliances with other nations, etc. Also, relations with any given nation change over time.

Cool Hand

[Scotty]

I understand it is very complex, not just one thing. But, oh heck, I don't want to continue on this, it is too depressing.

-Scott

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Inge understood that decisions to engage in armed conflict are often difficult and not binary. It's often not a choice between simply War: bad, and Peace: good. I wish so many persons would stop trying to reduce it to such black and white terms.

This is the crux of the matter, to me. Yes, war is bad. And it's always bad. However, there are times when the alternatives are even worse. Not often, but it has happened in the past and I have no doubt that such circumstances will again occur.

Oh, and thanks for giving me the source for that quote, Cool Hand.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by wade-w

This is the crux of the matter, to me. Yes, war is bad. And it's always bad. However, there are times when the alternatives are even worse. Not often, but it has happened in the past and I have no doubt that such circumstances will again occur.

Do you mean war is always bad in that casualties always result and that cities, towns, and countrysides get damaged? Isn't that a trivial observation that all of us can agree on? I don't mean "trivial" in the sense that it's foolish or insignificant, but rather that it isn't controversial or contentious.

What about whether undertaking to wage war is justified in some circumstances? In that sense is war always bad?

What revolutions to overthrow oppressive governments?

What about to prevent or to stop genocides and similar atrocities?

What about coming to the aid of allies who have been attacked?

What about to stop the exploitation and depletion of a precious natural resource by a unilateral actor in contravention of the desires of the rest of the world?

Oh, and thanks for giving me the source for that quote, Cool Hand.

You are very welcome.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Scotty

So, basically, we knew Iraq had WMD's because we sold them to them, right?

I'm sure that's where the idea originated.

I guess they were really surprised not to find them. Makes sense.

It shouldn't have been a surprise if they would've paid attention to the reports from the UN weapons inspectors, who had supervised the destruction of many a ton of chemical weapons since 1992.

What a convenient way to make terrorists so you can go kill them later.

Or they can kill us like Osama bin Ladin's 19.

Cool Hand, I was serious in my "sharpened sticks" comment. I believe it is in human nature to be violent if provoked, some even just to get what they want, but I also think we humans should rise above the reverse golden rule oft applied, "Do unto others before they do unto you."

I reserve the right to respond to someone attacking me or my family, but I will not shoot my neighbor, his family and his dogs, just because he has expressed extreme dislike for me and I merely think he's stockpiling ammunition and guns. What I will do is lock my doors (defense by barricade), train the dogs to bark when someone comes around (warning systems), maybe even install security cameras and motion detectors (vigilance, not vigilantism) and be ready to respond in the event of an attack (self-defense). Anyone messing with me or my family, will get fucked up or dead (I'm a Democrat with guns) but I'm not going out looking for trouble by abusing others or flaunting my arsenal or even my economic status. I will not seek personal revenge on someone that does harm me or my family, but I will make sure they pay for their crime via any legal means possible.
[/bad analogy]

[wade-w]

What did Sherman mean when he said "War is Hell?" Somehow I doubt that he meant just the casualties and associated property damage. I'm not articulate enough to be able to frame my thoughts on this in a coherent manner, so please forgive me for not being clearer. But as I said, there are times when the alternatives to war are worse than war itself. I'm also not claiming that war is only justified in cases of self defense of a sovereign nation. But even when justified, war is still most emphatically not a good thing. It's just, at times, the lesser of two (or more) evils.

As an aside that is not necessarily apropos of anything, I am a veteran as well, Cool Hand. I spent my time in the military preparing for WW III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and if the bubble had gone up, I most likely would have been on the front lines of the Third Battle of the Atlantic.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by wade-w

What did Sherman mean when he said "War is Hell?" Somehow I doubt that he meant just the casualties and associated property damage. I'm not articulate enough to be able to frame my thoughts on this in a coherent manner, so please forgive me for not being clearer. But as I said, there are times when the alternatives to war are worse than war itself. I'm also not claiming that war is only justified in cases of self defense of a sovereign nation. But even when justified, war is still most emphatically not a good thing. It's just, at times, the lesser of two (or more) evils.

I suspect that he meant also that those who fight wars undergo a heavy emotional burden during and after war, as do non-combatants who are affected. That's indisputable.

We don't have any disagreement here, as far as I can tell. It's just not the source of much controversy.

As an aside that is not necessarily apropos of anything, I am a veteran as well, Cool Hand. I spent my time in the military preparing for WW III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and if the bubble had gone up, I most likely would have been on the front lines of the Third Battle of the Atlantic.

Thank you for that. I have little doubt that it was tense and hardly a source of glee. I hope no one has gotten the impression that I think killing people is fun. I'm sure you haven't.

Cool Hand

[Adam]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I think that you can prevent and prepare for war.

At first, I thought I agreed with you and, like others, the Cold War era MAD policy leapt to my mind, but after giving it some more thought while driving tonight, I think I may disagree, or only partially agree, so, just to play devil's advocate...

It occurs to me that. while MAD was a success in that it was (arguably) responsible for preventing a nuclear conflagration, it wasn't by any means successful at preventing war in general. It simply prevented the powers from confronting each other directly, and caused them to confront each other, instead, in a series of bloody and destructive proxy wars, the figurative fallout which are still being seen today (Taliban, anyone?). So I get to thinking about other situations in which the preparation for war was supposed to prevent it and settled upon what, I assume, prompted Einstein's comment in the first place, the genesis of the first World War. The idea was that the European powers would act as balances to each other, and war would be prevented because rational leaders would see the futility in attacking their neighbors when everyone was evenly matched. unfortunately, when the balance did tip, the extensive preparations for war simply meant that all hell broke loose.

At any rate, I think what I'm trying to say is that, while it seems thatpreparing for war is a useful tool for delaying war in certain circumstances, or diverting aggression into laternate avenues (i.e. proxy wars), it may not be an effective long term solution.

Thoughts?

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Adam

At first, I thought I agreed with you and, like others, the Cold War era MAD policy leapt to my mind, but after giving it some more thought while driving tonight, I think I may disagree, or only partially agree, so, just to play devil's advocate...

It occurs to me that. while MAD was a success in that it was (arguably) responsible for preventing a nuclear conflagration, it wasn't by any means successful at preventing war in general. It simply prevented the powers from confronting each other directly, and caused them to confront each other, instead, in a series of bloody and destructive proxy wars, the figurative fallout which are still being seen today (Taliban, anyone?). So I get to thinking about other situations in which the preparation for war was supposed to prevent it and settled upon what, I assume, prompted Einstein's comment in the first place, the genesis of the first World War. The idea was that the European powers would act as balances to each other, and war would be prevented because rational leaders would see the futility in attacking their neighbors when everyone was evenly matched. unfortunately, when the balance did tip, the extensive preparations for war simply meant that all hell broke loose.

At any rate, I think what I'm trying to say is that, while it seems thatpreparing for war is a useful tool for delaying war in certain circumstances, or diverting aggression into laternate avenues (i.e. proxy wars), it may not be an effective long term solution.

Thoughts?

Playing Devil's Advocate is a very useful tool. I think you make some very good points. I agree with you about the Cold War era's wars by proxy and its unintended fallout, as you say. I never thought of Einstein's comments in the context of the first world war, but you may be right. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that he had nuclear proliferation and a possible WWIII in mind.

If you will allow me to play your foil for a moment, I see a difference in being prepared for war, as in maintaining a sufficiently trained and equipped defensive force, and actually preparing for it, as in making solid plans to undertake aggressive action, as Hitler's Germany did in the 1930s. Not being prepared for war, in some instances, can actually encourage other nations to take advantage of your unpreparedness and invade or attack.

What do you (or any others) think?

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I see a difference in being prepared for war, as in maintaining a sufficiently trained and equipped defensive force, and actually preparing for it, as in making solid plans to undertake aggressive action, as Hitler's Germany did in the 1930s. Not being prepared for war, in some instances, can actually encourage other nations to take advantage of your unpreparedness and invade or attack.

What do you (or any others) think?

Cool Hand

I agree that there is a difference.

One word: Switzerland

godfry

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by wade-w

What did Sherman mean when he said "War is Hell?" Somehow I doubt that he meant just the casualties and associated property damage.

The full quotation (as cited by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in "On Killing") is most revealing:

"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

Cheers,

Michael