Do you think its right to go to war?

[Absinthe]

I actually don't think war is something that will eventually peter out. It will exist to the day we die, barring some kind of chemical "self-correction" somewhere down the line.

So long as we are fallible (and we will always be so) and we retain a level of freedom, it's just too high a probability. Conflicts of interest will persist through time in numerous iterations, and while warfare itself may take place on smaller scales (or larger if we decide to go nuts with nukes), it will still exist.

The extinction of warfare would imply the acquisition of utopia, which I find even more unlikely. I simply cannot foresee humanity united under one flag without any malcontent. In fact, the absence of violent conflict in such a scenario would be quite scary to me. More likely than not, that would indicate the suppression and subjugation of the populace rather than universal harmony.

 

[Ennui]

Not to mention that even in the case of a war that's arguably justifiable on moral grounds (such as the second World War) there are often side benefits and whatnot for the victors that muddy the moral clarity of the conflict.

And Absinthe, maybe I'm thinking too science fiction, but it's easy to underestimate the power of social conditioning. We can't think outside of our own social frame of reference, just because it's the only thing - and everything - that we've ever known and ever will know and there is no alternative by which to compare it against. A slow evolution of this could result in an entirely different society - and therefore an entirely different human, as civilized man is a product of society - in which war doesn't exist.

 

[lePobz]

Would Jesus go to war?

 

[Ennui]

More importantly, would Gordon?

 

[Dalamari]

War is ****ing cool, I wish I was in war, be all cool with sunglasses and BADOW!

 

[Absinthe]

Not to mention that even in the case of a war that's arguably justifiable on moral grounds (such as the second World War) there are often side benefits and whatnot for the victors that muddy the moral clarity of the conflict.

And Absinthe, maybe I'm thinking too science fiction, but it's easy to underestimate the power of social conditioning. We can't think outside of our own social frame of reference, just because it's the only thing - and everything - that we've ever known and ever will know and there is no alternative by which to compare it against. A slow evolution of this could result in an entirely different society - and therefore an entirely different human, as civilized man is a product of society - in which war doesn't exist.

Perhaps. But I personally believe that would require nothing short of brainwashing of some kind. Ignoring the severe lagging of places such as the Middle East in terms of civilized conduct (demonstrating the immense amount of time it will take until we're all on equal footing), people can still be all too willing to prop up and push something vile. Dominionists, anybody?
There are thousands of things people can wage war over. God, traditions, money, land, ideology, revenge, retaliation, politics, morality, conversions, egomania, outright insanity... And that's just generalizing. Assuming we do dispose of the common causes of war today, god knows that more can and probably will pop up in the future.
I'm not sure if you caught the last part of my previous post, as I edited in after giving it a bit more thought. I hope that explains my position a bit more.

As for the sci-fi note, I have one of my own. Assuming we do manage to remove warfare from humanity, that doesn't mean conflict couldn't arise with another sentient force. I'm invoking fantasy, obviously. But if we're talking a timespan of thousands or millions of years, it's not at all improbable.

 

[Xendance]

Thanks for your replies. I've now handed in my homework and await the marks
Carry on discussing, I don't care what you do.

 

[repiV]

Even the most ardent pacifist will kill for something.

It only takes one person to start a war.

These two facts will always persist, and thus, so shall war. The only alternative is a world ruled by oppression and subjugation.

 

[JNightshade]

I think this thread is stupid. Everything depends on the situation.

 

[Jintor]

As a general thing I don't like killing.

 

[Xendance]

My teacher said: more detail needed.

WTF!

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Assuming we do manage to remove warfare from humanity, that doesn't mean conflict couldn't arise with another sentient force. I'm invoking fantasy, obviously. But if we're talking a timespan of thousands or millions of years, it's not at all improbable.

Gort removes war from humanity and all other sentient forces.

With Gort, there will be no wars because his supreme laser beam eyes will remove all traces of jealousy, anger, rage, hate.

In Gort we trust.

 

[Shift]

Someone mind explaining to me what the **** clarky and repiV are arguing about, and more importantly why it's in this thread? Stick to the topic and stop squabbling over... whatever the hell it is you're squabbling over.



I am pretty much of the opinion that we should let everyone in the world do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't adversely affect anyone else, and that we need to work towards a society where that is possible. Also, I think you missed my point. I have two opinions: idealistic and realistic. Idealistic is what I feel we as a race should work towards (no matter how distant or hard to imagine), and what I work towards, and realistic is how I integrate that idealism into the real world as effectively as I can without sacrificing the core values behind it. Idealistically, and I do believe this is possible given a different social environment (something that's not going to happen for thousands of years I expect), war would be eliminated entirely. However, that gets into my whole idealistic transcendentalist super-future that I don't want to waste time explaining here, but I think you get the idea as far as it pertains to this discussion.

Realistically, war is unavoidable - not a necessity, but not something we can get away from at the moment, pay attention to that distinction - in our current state, but that doesn't mean we should just accept that and resign ourselves to it. We obviously still have plenty of room for improvement given the enormous amount of frivolous, mindless bloodshed happening around the world right now that has nothing to do with any sort of good cause.

As for 'getting somewhere', circumstances change. We've come a long way since we were monkeys. Let's go a little further. War has no place in the pinnacle of human existence... which is why I fear that we'll never make it, though that's for a lot of other reasons as well.



Without your anti-capitalist twist, this is quite true. However, I don't particularly think that communism lends itself as a feasible socioeconomic alternative, either, so I don't want it construed that way - perhaps advanced global communism to the point where leadership evaporates and it really just becomes a true blanket anarcho-communist society, but that's just Marx's wet dream.



All you're doing is making the cement dry and harden faster by blowing on it like that.



Again, this is where I disagree. How can anyone deign to authoritatively state axiomatical facts about the human race like that? It just makes you look stupid because no-one is capable of making that sort of judgement. We live in an infinitely small portion of time; you cannot make ANY statements about the future of our race.

Hell, look at what people 50 years ago thought this new century would be like? They were rather off in their ideas, weren't they? That's only 50 years... that's nothing. What about 300? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? I'm not speaking in any small scale here... I merely believe that war can be eliminated at some future stage in human social and individual development, and we should do as much as we can to usher that point in faster rather than stave it off for as long as we can, as we seem to be doing right now. We'll never see it either way, but we could at least marginally improve our own lives while we're working to help the future.

As far as war today is concerned, I think Hemingway said it nicely - some of you may recognize this from Call of Duty 2's death quotes:

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."

We were giving our opinions as you did, just because you say that we are wrong and you are right, doesn't make it so. Respect others opinions because if you cant you shouldn't be on public forum

 

[Danimal]

If we were invading, I wouldn't.

If we were defending, I would.

I suppose it depends on the circumstances.

Age: 16

($10 says you have 10 people already and I obviously haven't read the thread.)

 

[Kyorisu]

Hell, look at what people 50 years ago thought this new century would be like? They were rather off in their ideas, weren't they? That's only 50 years... that's nothing. What about 300? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? I'm not speaking in any small scale here... I merely believe that war can be eliminated at some future stage in human social and individual development, and we should do as much as we can to usher that point in faster rather than stave it off for as long as we can, as we seem to be doing right now. We'll never see it either way, but we could at least marginally improve our own lives while we're working to help the future.
"

As long as there are people with differing thoughts and opinions on any particular subject that brings up some form of hate. There will be wars. How about that?

 

[Shift]

If we were invading, I wouldn't.

If we were defending, I would.

I suppose it depends on the circumstances.

thats pretty much my philosphy, i would defend, but attack only if i beleived and understood what i was fighting for, i dont think any of the soldiers in iraq have a clue what they are doing there, they are just ordered to go.

 

[gick]

If we were invading, I wouldn't.

If we were defending, I would.

I suppose it depends on the circumstances.

This.

 

[Ennui]

Perhaps. But I personally believe that would require nothing short of brainwashing of some kind. Ignoring the severe lagging of places such as the Middle East in terms of civilized conduct (demonstrating the immense amount of time it will take until we're all on equal footing), people can still be all too willing to prop up and push something vile. Dominionists, anybody?

Well, honestly, society is nothing more than a complex, evolving, self-sustaining cycle of brainwashing. I imagine that there could be other humans in the universe having been seperated 100,000 years ago or something that would be just as alien to us as if they were little green Martians, but we'd still be the same in form and probably mostly in inner workings too.

There are thousands of things people can wage war over. God, traditions, money, land, ideology, revenge, retaliation, politics, morality, conversions, egomania, outright insanity... And that's just generalizing. Assuming we do dispose of the common causes of war today, god knows that more can and probably will pop up in the future.
I'm not sure if you caught the last part of my previous post, as I edited in after giving it a bit more thought. I hope that explains my position a bit more.

I did miss it, thanks for tipping me off about that. I'll respond to it here:

The extinction of warfare would imply the acquisition of utopia, which I find even more unlikely. I simply cannot foresee humanity united under one flag without any malcontent. In fact, the absence of violent conflict in such a scenario would be quite scary to me. More likely than not, that would indicate the suppression and subjugation of the populace rather than universal harmony.

Quite; and, as usual, I agree with you. I'm proposing an ideal possibility that I feel we should strive for, and I'm only trying to argue that it's possible, if unlikely, and not probable. I'm more inclined to think that we'll wipe ourselves out before we get the chance to even start down the path to such a thing... but utopia - and I think saying 'universal harmony' works fairly well here - is possible, just not for a very long, long time - we're talking the most remote of the remote future, beyond anyone's imagination. If I were arguing on your side, I'd be bringing up Huxley and Orwell and all the other utopic/dystopic writers, but the point I'm trying to make is that this is not nearly that close on the scale.

As for the sci-fi note, I have one of my own. Assuming we do manage to remove warfare from humanity, that doesn't mean conflict couldn't arise with another sentient force. I'm invoking fantasy, obviously. But if we're talking a timespan of thousands or millions of years, it's not at all improbable.

Yes, and they'd probably annihilate us if that were the case, given that we wouldn't know how to make war and our own instincts towards violence would be dormant after millenia and millenia of suppression and tampering.

Getting killed by aliens is a pretty cool way for the human race to go, though... better that than us nuking each other into oblivion, or damaging the planet to the point where it can't support us any longer.

Even the most ardent pacifist will kill for something.

It only takes one person to start a war.

These two facts will always persist, and thus, so shall war. The only alternative is a world ruled by oppression and subjugation.

I refer to what I said above about making axiomatical statements that one couldn't possibly be justified in making. Also, that's far too simple of a 'proof' to really even begin to cover it.

We were giving our opinions as you did, just because you say that we are wrong and you are right, doesn't make it so. Respect others opinions because if you cant you shouldn't be on public forum

I feel I was quite respectful, but I could be wrong... where do you feel I wasn't (other than being a bit rude towards repiV and clarky, but they were way off topic)?

As long as there are people with differing thoughts and opinions on any particular subject that brings up some form of hate. There will be wars. How about that?

Unconditional positive regard, I think the term is, as a conditioned social behavior... and also the fact that hatred doesn't necessarily lead to war or even violence. I hate plenty of people but that doesn't mean I'd do wrong to them, because I respect their pure fact of existence. I'm not offering solutions, only suggesting that there are solutions that might still be over the horizon and as such not visible yet. I'm also only asking you guys to entertain the possibility, not to accept it as fact, because I don't either.

 

[15357]

Yes.


If you are on the side of freedom, that is.


BURN WITH FREEDOM!(or NAPALM!)

War is a nessecity of humanity, without it, the economy won't run straight, overpopulation would be destructive, and you won't have yippies. Which might not be a bad thing, but still.

Age: 17.

 

[99.vikram]

War is a nessecity of humanity, without it, the economy won't run straight, overpopulation would be destructive, and you won't have yippies. Which might not be a bad thing, but still.

War is the bane of human existence and will be wiped out eventually - either by resolution or by oppression. Disagreements can be resolved in many ways.

Age: 18.

 

[15357]

"We'll save you all a place for America's next unresolvable conflict!"

 

[CookieCuttah]

Do I think it's right to go to war?

Since the question is so open-ended (as others have mentioned) I'll add more detail to my answer just to mess with your teachers mind.

If someone threatened my family, my children, my parents or my country, is it ok to try to stop them from harming them or harming others? Absolutely.
So in that particular case, it's right.

If there was proven justification of evil (as in an intent to harm others) or a significant history of hurting others? Absolutely.

However, there are many things such as not liking a persons religion, colour, sex, age, or even their face that is certainly not motivation to fight a war. That's not to say that wars haven't been started over less. Just that I believe those wars were started in error.

Follow up with us when you find out what your teachers point is, I'd love to know what s/he's trying to illustrate with this exercise.


Mark - Age 32.

You're a prime example of why the Iraq war began.

 

[Qonfused]

It is never okay to say: "Hey, I don't agree with your way of life, morals or culture, so we're going to bomb you."

It is okay if you're attacked first.

 

[Xendance]

As one of my peers said, "we have to stand our ground and keep our region." so yeah.

 

[Absinthe]

It is never okay to say: "Hey, I don't agree with your way of life, morals or culture, so we're going to bomb you."

I believe it is okay when the way of life or culture is pretty much pre-meditation for an attack.