War is necessary, no?

I really dislike it when people say things like, "Good is subjective". If someone ties you up and kills someone in front of you, you're going to KNOW that isn't good. People KNOW what the good thing to do in certain situations. The only things that prevents someone from doing good is crazy ideologies/extreme views, and lack of courage to enact the good deed.

Anyway, no, war isn't necessary at all. Necessary for what exactly? People may always have wars, but don't expect me or any level headed human being to step in and only CREATE MORE conflict. Fighting back only downgrades your own principals... you essentially turn into the very thing that you are fighting against. If you don't fight, then you are free from that contradiction. If no one went to war, then there would be no war. I personally won't hold my breath and wait for everyone to convert to a pacifist. But if everyone did, there would be no serious conflict.

Favorite MASH quote:

Colonel Flagg: (Talking about draft dodgers, people going AWOL, et al) I've got to nip this guy in the bud. This sort of behavior is contagious, you know. One guy decides he's not gonna fight anymore, it catches on, and pretty soon you know what we've got?
B.J.: Peace?

 

it depends on what the problems are. is it just someone's ego saying "hmm well they're not like us so lets bomb them and kill them all just so we have no enemies." doesn't it take more strength to just accept. granted, i know you're probably going to throw out a nuclear scenario or something. hit me.

 

Well considering the lack of context in which it was seemingly being asked, "state one good thing" was like asking me to call out "ice cream" or "volley ball". Both are subjective in whether or not they are "good".

Fighting back downgrades your principles? If I knock you down and start stomping on your face you'd feel less of a man for fighting back?

Let's go crazy hypothetical since I feel it's now necessary. Iran invades Canada and Canada, who decided war was completely uncalled for in any circumstance, immediately surrenders and negotiates the terms of their surrender. A change of that magnitude requires attention. You ask for a world council to take part in the negotiations to make sure no third party gets screwed in the process. Iran says, "No. We are taking over all resources and distributing them as we see fit. All current trade and peace agreements are suspended until further notice."

You ask nicely again for them to be team players. You really think that to avoid war we should sit back and watch it happen?

This is the world I see when people talk about eliminating war. I guess you all see Utopia?

 

Nuclear? Naw. I'd rather demoralize an image of warless times. As I did above.

 

There is a huge difference between defending one self and being aggressive.

What I meant by good wasn't a desire for a certain product or a sport, but of human values, and whether or not reaching these values contradicts itself.

Basic human values:

Justice/injustice, death/life, love/hate, etc.

No matter what political st or religious/philosophical stance you take, you're going to embrace these values in your own way, and yes people will enact these things subjectively, obviously. But I believe that there is an underlining mathematical value for us to strive for if we want these values carried out with as little contradiction as possible; enacting goodness is based on logical and intuitive values. We will always try to find what is MOST good, but what truly matters is how we can reach what is most good, and this takes a lot of work and thought.

I am not comfortable with hypotheticals because there is a lot to really think about and talk about.

NO ONE WANTS WAR, that is ironically why we have war. Example:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who
determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a
democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

Than you are having a different discussion than we are.

What's the difference in agression and defense if it all results in war. You're still not validating your argument that there is absolutely no necessity for war as we know it.

 

Maybe we should just surrender

 

No.

War is the adult version of fighting over a toy. If your kids are screaming and attacking each other over a toy do you look the other way? No. Unfortunately human nature does not allow us to live in peace. There will never be a Utopia simply because we all want what another person has. War is not necessary but it is a reality.

 

Or maybe "they" should just surrender. That's the problem, IMO.

 

Maybe we only have war because we believe that it is a reality. "Just accept it" mentality.

Why do people even start conflict in the first place? Why would N.Korea, for example, rally up troops and fight S.Korea, for what purpose? There would be no conflict in the first place if the people just said, "No, I don't want war", then there would be nothing to defend yourself against.

In order for there to be war, you need soldiers. And in order to have soldiers you first need to convert people into believing that war is a necessity. Do you see where I am going with this?

Maybe I don't want to believe in what Maka is saying as true, but me going against what he is saying may be the very thing that can bring about peace...

If we DON'T defend ourselves and 'take it up the rear in' as it were, then at least we aren't committing the same crimes as those that are fighting us.

Maybe I am just talking out of my ass, or maybe I am just not explaining myself correctly, oh well.

 

Both sides think this, and war just continues on. If one side just gave up, then what would happen? They would die... but wouldn't they have died anyway? Why kill someone else and commit the same wrong that someone else committed? I think it's a lot more brave to give up then to fight back. Perhaps that belief is too extreme, but I see this playing out in my head and I see it as a better alternative. At least we don't become our enemy.

 

Here is a scenario:

It is the cold war, and Soviet Russia decides to send out a nuke to Manhattan. Our defense department find out, and decides to only fire at the war head, but chooses not to send out a nuke to Russia.

Why, if we are going to be destroyed, send out a nuke to destroy others? It makes no sense and it seems so childish. Why commit another atrocity? Why add an atrocity on top of another atrocity? What does it accomplish other than revenge? The nuke that USA sends out will kill millions of innocent bystanders that absolutely hate the war and want nothing to do with it... but now they're dead, for what... mutually assured destruction? What BS.

Apply the same logic to war.

 

Again It"s My Penis Is Bigger Than Yours!!!!

 

lol, you're probably right

 

Surprisingly little talk of human nature.

The state of nature is a war of all versus all.

That is the fundamental premise that all our modern democracies are based on. It has become so unquestioned that it has become unquestionable. It is no longer a matter of truth, it is true. It is no longer simply a premise leading to a conclusion, it is the reality of things.

It is not true.

All talk about what would happen to people if war was eliminated .... either a utopia or a single and powerful oppressor taking over with force ..... without a discussion of whether man is by nature in a state of war in the hobbesian and lockean sense is like asking "apples or oranges?" when the question ought to be "fruit or veggies".

War is not necessary, unless man is in conflict with every other man, as Hobbes says he is.

 

hmm nice attempt. you failed.

 

Man must be in conflict with every other man though that is not inherently in his nature. Everybody has different ideas of what's for the best. Without pitting those ideas against each other progress would never be made. We'd all be complete sheep(as opposed to the partial sheep we are now). Never thinking or questioning. Never testing and advancing. Man's desire for something more is the biggest beast sleeping within us all. That same trait is what leads to the conflict of man vs man. Only one person can be right at a time.

If two men have different visions and each think their vision is better they must take action to ensure that their vision becomes reality and not the vision of the other man. It is our inherent need to be right and progress that ultimately leads to these conflicts. Thus, while it is not in our inherent nature to have conflict, it is other traits inherent to our nature that lead us there.

 

Your intellect and ability to state your point factually or with valid opinion leave me humbled.

 

its lonely at the top.

 

umm it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll...........