Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Peaceful human societies have existed for thousands of years without wars (North America).

That's utterly riduculous, Sava! There were plenty of wars in North American. The Iriquois and Hurons fought a number of wars before the white man came in. The Creek and Cherokee, the same.

--

As for the question. Yes, war is justified, all the time actually, by the winner of the war. When the political costs of negotiation and diplomacy are greater than the poltical and economic costs of warfare, then warfare is even more justified.

[Sava]

Again... comparing a few native warriors killing each other to the utter civilian loss of life in modern wars is wrong.

[Velociryx]

GePap: When did I ever say that war was the natural state of human affairs, though?

Yes....the world has seen periods of relative calm and peace, but that does not speak to the question that spawned this thread...IS war justified.

My answer is still yes, for the reasons I have given.

I would contend that my "analysis" is not shallow at all, but directed to the question at hand.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Sava - War is war. Nothing in war's definition speaks to technology levels, or the scale of the conflict.

If you regard the native american tribal wars as being "too small to count" then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

(but it won't change what they were....wars)

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again... comparing a few native warriors killing each other to the utter civilian loss of life in modern wars is wrong.

Because one group of people had superior technology (Europeans) and others didn't (Natives) you can't compare them both as warfare?

You're nuts.

[GePap]

But the question at hand is very vague:

Is war ever justifiable? yes, just like Genocide. are there alternatives? There are always other choices.

That is a totaly complete answer, no?

but it does not explain much, now does it?

Sava:

Again... comparing a few native warriors killing each other to the utter civilian loss of life in modern wars is wrong.

Natives many times took hostages, so forth and so on. Native Americans had organized violence. they ahd rules of engagement, taboos, so forth and so on. Was their method of war different than the western method? Yes, but only because they had very different aims which they wanted to achieve.

The Inca waged war just like europeans, for empire. The aztecs waged war incesently, but a very different kind of war, a ritualistic war meant to gather sacrifices to keep the world working. As I have said, war (roganized political violence) is a tool sued to ahcieve an aim, just like a hammer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the question at hand is very vague:

But that is why makes it fun!

If it was specific this thread would have been threadjacked or died a long while ago .

[Sava]

I never said they weren't wars. "Assumptions make an ass out of you and me" I forget who said this.

By saying the societies existed without wars, I mean, large organized nations weren't murdering each other. Sure conflict occurred. But not on the scale that they have occured in the last 300 years.

None of us know for sure, because the civilizations were wiped out, but IMO, most of the native conflicts were isolated, small, and didn't have large civilian losses. Warriors fought warriors. It wasn't a peaceful Utopia, but it sure was a hell of a lot better than living in Europe during the late 30's/early 40's.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When the political costs of negotiation and diplomacy are greater than the poltical and economic costs of warfare, then warfare is even more justified.

I presume you are factoring in the loss of life as a political and economic cost, but I wonder how you can quantify it. How much is a human life worth?

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


I presume you are factoring in the loss of life as a political and economic cost, but I wonder how you can quantify it.

Well... we can compare the US/UK/Iraq war here. We'd have to go to some great lengths to "catch up" with the kind of genocide that Saddam has been practicing for a generation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I presume you are factoring in the loss of life as a political and economic cost, but I wonder how you can quantify it. How much is a human life worth?

Honestly, it is pricelss....which is why it can so easily be ignored.

25 million people at least died between the Elbe and the Volga btween 1939 and 1945. does that tally really change at all the inherent morality, or immorality, of what happend there?

It si easy to be moralistic, very easy. But as of today man is not ready, or willing, to actually live under the full implications of the moral doctrine you espouse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I presume you are factoring in the loss of life as a political and economic cost, but I wonder how you can quantify it. How much is a human life worth?

Whatever you want it to be worth. Depends on who's in charge.

It wasn't a peaceful Utopia, but it sure was a hell of a lot better than living in Europe during the late 30's/early 40's.

If the Native civilizations had the tech of Europe in the 40s, I assure you, they'd rack up similar death counts as a percentage of their population.

[Velociryx]

Doesn't matter that the question was vague, it WAS the question asked.

As to the rest, in the periods of relative peace and calm that we have seen, what has come of it? Are we more apt to talk about Athens as the birthplace of philosophy and democracy, or are we more apt to talk about the war between Athens and Sparta?

And further, did the marvels of Democracy and Philosophy save Athens from Spartan might?

Was it poetry that stopped the Persian army at Thermopalye, or was it men with nerves of steel, hopelessly outnumbered, and yet more than willing to hold the line, *warring* on their enemies to deny them passage?

Do we remember the glory of the Great Library of Alexandria, or its sacking?

Our entire history has been made up of conflict.

We were born in it, and it is in us.

One day, we'll grow out of it....assuming we don't kill ourselves off along the way, but until then, we ARE war. We invented the term, and we perfected its execution.

It is in everything we do, and everything we touch.

Wanna know what the best selling business book of all time is?

It's not "Who moved my cheese" or "The seven habits of highly effective people" or "Chicken Soup for the Soul"

Nope.

None of those.

It is: "Sun Tzu's - The Art of War"

I find that....compelling and revealing in the extreme.

-=Vel=-

(edited to remove my stutter at the end...lol)

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sava
Again... comparing a few native warriors killing each other to the utter civilian loss of life in modern wars is wrong.

"A few native warriors"? Tell me, Sava: who destroyed the Huron tribe?

(Hint: it wasn't any people with white skin.)

[Az]

You all know my views on an ethical "worthness" of something, so I'll spare you.

[Az]

I have a hard time believing Saddam would refuse aid. Not only does it improve Iraq, but refusing it would utterly destroy him in world opinion.

replace "refuse aid" with "use chemical weapons".

[GePap]

And if you read Sun tzu, for him killing in war is secondary, and in fact, usually the result of ones failure to win the "war" any other way.

If "history" is made in conflict, t is because that is what sells papers. Who would listen to a story about 400 years of no war? What action occurs in it? what tension? what suspense. 90% of man's time on earth is not written down, yet the most important achievement of modern man, agriculture, the one thing that made all those things you metionned, including Sun Tzu having the time to write a book, is not written down.

was agriculture the result of war and strife? How could it?

We were born in it, and it is in us.

One day, we'll grow out of it....assuming we don't kill ourselves off along the way, but until then, we ARE war. We invented the term, and we perfected its execution.

We are born in it? Hardly. as for it being in us: many thigns are within us, love, hate, cowardice, courage. None of those things lone make us human: all of them together do.

Man has the capacity for war, but man also has the capacity for peace. Yes, we hav found incredible new ways to desroy, but we have found equally incredible ways to build. What last is not war, war is destruction. The loss of the Great Library is a stain on hisotry, something notable only for its senselessness. Look at the Pyramids. they are the result of ambition and pride, faith and arrogance, but not war. They have lasted 4500 years and see wars come and go, and they will probaly remain there for 4500 years more.

Man is verything within him, the good and the bad and the good and the evil, the ehtical and unethicl, and the majority of utterly amoral stuff in between. that is man. To pigeon holes us into war is just as deluded and absurd as how you view pacifists.

[Velociryx]

You just made my piont for me.

Yes....I have read Sun Tzu, and killing is secondary.

But then...killing is not war, is it? Again....the question is....is war justified?

The question is not "is peace, love, and poetry justified" and so I choose not to bring them into the discussion, since that's not what the question at hand is about.

One sided? Yes.

As is the question asked.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

The question is not one sided, it is vague. There;s a difference.

Obviosuly, it was aksed in the context of Iraq, and I think my firt post was the best answer yet to it

[Velociryx]

The question is both. It's not a question about peace and love AND war....it's a question about war alone, and whether it's justifiable. The singular nature and topic of the question posed makes it....well...one-sided.



-=Vel=-

[Az]

Yes....I have read Sun Tzu, and killing is secondary.

But then...killing is not war, is it? Again....the question is....is war justified?

nice maneuver

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


He has been "accepting" aid and reselling it for 11 years now, Osweld. We have 11 years of history for your plan.

Those 11 years have been SANCTIONS I clearly said that is not what should be done, and that the oil for food scheme is nothing at all like what I am proposing, and also something that should not be done.

[General Ludd]

Do all these semantics matter? Talking about whether war is justified, is it ethical, blah blah... means nothing. War is war. Your time would be better spent talking about it's causes and effects then spliting hairs about it's meaning.

[Az]

actually, for me, effects of war, just like of anything else, are the things by which I measure the ethical value of an act, so it doesn't contradict itself.

[Velociryx]

Thanks man!

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

A nice evassive manuever, yes..

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, but so very true....

-=Vel=-

[Ben Kenobi]

Pretty shallow points, except for BC's.

Mostly might makes right.

First off, there are several ethical concerns inherent in war. The first are the justifications, the cause for war, and the second are how to best go about war in order to cause the least amount of damage.

For me, the biggest concern with war is that war kills people, modern war will always result in the deaths of innocent people.

Stemming from this point, we can get two very opposite doctrines, the first, that war is never justified, and the second, that war is justified in certain cases, such as mass genocide resulting in the deaths of thousands of people.

Both of these are positions espoused by Christians, and both have long traditions behind them.

As a Mennonite, I'll argue for the first point, that war is never justified, and let one of the Catholics on the board argue a just war theory, describing the circumstances in which war is justified.

Do note that both theories do not try to balance human life with any other concerns, only human life can ever be balanced with human life.

BC made an excellent point in saying that there is always another option to war. The problem is not that the option does not exist, but the cost of the option, the cost of maintaining the peace. We tend to get wars when the cost of maintaining peace grows to a point perceived by one side or the other as too expensive.

Velociryx is also right that the world is not quite ready to do without war. This is a significant observation, because this indicates that he knows of a higher standard, that the world is not as it should.

What is this higher standard? One of peace. Peace is very costly, look at what Christ said, in the sermon on the mount, that rather than retaliating, we should turn the other cheek. It is not that the standard is wrong, but that the world cannot live up to the standard.

There are two responses to this position, the first, that we must go with the rules of the world, in greek the kosmos, the second that we should try to live according to the standard.

This is the beauty of pacifism, is that once everybody buys into the game, the system should support itself.
The devil though, is in the cost borne by those who start first.

Secondly, what has war ever accomplished, that peace could not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mostly might makes right.

How is the truth shallow?

[Ben Kenobi]

Define 'right' Imran.