It's kinda silly for me to write about endorsing war because I've never lifted my hand in anger against anyone and the most violent thing I've ever done is toss a couple of plates against the wall once when provoked beyond all endurance. In fact, I usually have myself well in hand and rarely even raise my voice.I want to set down my feelings about this because I find that I simply can't understand the point of view that war is never justified.
The short version:
One might say at this point that had the clans cooperated and lived peacefully instead of coveting their neighbors goods, there would have been no need for war. Perhaps so, but living in Edenic bliss may have thwarted the spirit of adventure or the thirst for knowledge and with that no organized sports on television 24/7.
12 comments:
I'm glad you picked up on this here, erp. You may have seen that I deleted my post in a panic when I got some frenzied feminist comment.
I expect your prediction of what would happen if no-one stood up to the bullies is correct. However, I decided when I was 9 years old that fighting and quarrelling were futile and nothing has made me change my mind since then. Most wars have been about gaining territorial or commercial advantage and that usually only benefits a few, while the many lose a great deal.
I can understand people fighting to resist an invader or dictator but that, to me, is like the parents who think they can teach a child that hitting is wrong by beating him. WWII is the closest I can get to a justifiable war, in so far as the motivation for most people was altruistic defence of weaker neighbours, but there was also cynical vested interest among the politicians. Perhaps I am the cynical one in always thinking the people are duped into paying the price - in lives and money - for wars to benefit the powerful.
monix, I did see that you deleted your post and I'm glad you weren't offended by my comment. Of course, we must agree to disagree here. The only way to insure the peace, is to always be prepared for war.
Sad, but true.
If we all felt exactly the same, what a dull old world it would be!
It was interesting that the comments about feminism roused such vitriol rather than my pacifist notions.
I can understand people fighting to resist an invader or dictator but that, to me, is like the parents who think they can teach a child that hitting is wrong by beating him.
The parents might not be able to teach the child that hitting is wrong by beating him, but they can certainly teach the child that hitting people will result in a beating.
And what if the kid has psychological or emotional problems, and won't stop hitting other kids, even after it's been explained to him a thousand times that he ought not do that, how would he like it if it happened to him, etc., and further suppose that there were no specialists to help, or institutions to which such a child could be committed ?
That's exactly the state of today's world, if we are comparing nations to children. There's no ultimate authority figure "parent" that will straighten everything out without punishing the hitter.
Leaders, organizations, and governments that start wars are rarely concerned about the morality of their actions, or are unenlighted enough to believe that everyone would act as they do, given enough power, so why not do unto them first ?
Post-WW II, for example, gave us the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein's takeover of Iraq, Idi Amin, and a bazillion civil wars in Africa and Central and South America fueled by Marxism and/or control of natural resources, to name a few of the instigators of conflicts and brutal dictators of the past 60 years.
These people, governments, and movements were totally uninterested in right or wrong, they were only interested in power and weakness.
Trying to stop their butchery by appealing to their conscience was an exercise in futility.
...the people are duped into paying the price - in lives and money - for wars to benefit the powerful.
Sometimes they're duped, but often the interests of the "little people" are aligned with those of the powerful, and often the "little people" derive great emotional comfort and satisfaction from embracing cultural aspirations and mythos, from the sense of "belonging", even if they don't personally and materially benefit much from so doing.
Thus we get Americans dying in North Africa "in the defense of freedom" during WW II, or chanting "Fifty-four Forty or Fight !" in 1844, although the benefits of either were rather marginal to most of those involved.
"Leaders, organizations, and governments that start wars are rarely concerned about the morality of their actions, or are unenlighted enough to believe that everyone would act as they do, given enough power, so why not do unto them first?"
Often, because of territorial or commercial expedience, the western powers have supported or even helped put in power the leaders who later turn against them. Wars are not usually fought on moral grounds but to preserve self-interest. Why else should Saddam be deposed but not Mugabe?
"Why else should Saddam be deposed but not Mugabe?" Short answer: Mugabe didn't conspire to send his minions to bomb our buildings and kill our citizens.
I can't remember the title, but there was a fairly recent novelization of the Congo's decline since Belgium was ousted.
Feminists gone mad? Sadly that's their fate because their notions and arguments are irrational, so there can be no reasoned debate on the subject. I find it amusing that pacifism doesn't extend to, as Rush (a popular talk show host) has dubbed them, Feminazis.
Often, because of territorial or commercial expedience, the western powers have supported or even helped put in power the leaders who later turn against them.
But the major conflicts of the 20th century - WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, the Chinese civil wars, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Russian/Chechnyan conflict, the Congolese civil wars, the Cambodian Civil War and Khmer Rouge Regime, the Rwandan massacres, the Mozambique Civil War - didn't feature the Western powers vs. impudent puppet governments, nor did the majority of the many hundreds of conflicts that occurred during the 20th century involve the West.
Wars are not usually fought on moral grounds but to preserve self-interest.
Or to advance self-interest, which is why so few wars get settled diplomatically.
Why else should Saddam be deposed but not Mugabe?
That is an excellent tangential illustration of what I was getting at when I wrote, above, "what if the kid has psychological or emotional problems, and won't stop hitting other kids".
There was no need at all for a war to be fought to depose Saddam. Any sane person in his position would have maneuvered up to the last minute, hoping for a break, and then decamped to Paris to live out the remainder of their life in luxury, on the billions stolen from the people of Iraq.
Saddam made the war a necessity, because he didn't behave rationally.
He wasn't behaving rationally when he attacked Iran, either. By my reading of your earlier comments, your suggestion to the Iranians would have been to let Saddam and the Iraqis take over their nation and society.
How, exactly, would that have led to less suffering then was experienced in the long Iran/Iraq war, given what we know about how the Iraqis suffered under Saddam ?
Another example is that of Slobodan Milošević. Why didn't he make nice before America took out most of his nation's infrastructure ?
Because he was nuts, and could only be stopped by the clenched fist, not the kind word and patient example.
I accept all that you say, Oro. I know that world peace is an impossible dream but I still think that each generation should have the dream. The fact that you can list so many wars from the last 50 years shows that war doesn't settle much. The voice of opposition doesn't harm democracy, does it? You wouldn't really want all the peaceniks to go away!
Peaceniks caused many many more to die mainly because they gave aid and comfort to the enemy in Vietnam, just like terrorists are waiting out Bush because they think/hope the next administration will withdraw our troops and leave the field to them.
The 50 odd wars large and small fought in the last 100 years more or less kept the world free for the good guys. The alternative would have had us speaking German or Russian or even maybe Chinese.
I think there were quite a few anarchists posing as pacifists in the 60s.
I know that world peace is an impossible dream...
To the contrary, it's entirely possible that the 21st century will be one of the most peaceful ever.
Technological advances will make it fairly cheap and easy for advanced nations to stop stuff like Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge, or the Congolese civil wars - we'll simply send in the robots.
Also, no nation is currently involved in the kind of military buildup that preceded WW II in both Europe and Asia, not even today's China, which tells us that there isn't likely to be any kind of global conflict in the next decade, at least.
The fact that you can list so many wars from the last 50 years shows that war doesn't settle much.
Except for the defeat of both fascism and communism, the importance of which cannot be overstated.
But set that aside for the moment. The ultimate point that I've been ineptly trying to make is that IT DOESN'T MATTER if wars don't settle anything permanently.
So long as there are influential people who see at least a short-term gain from undertaking warfare, there will be wars, just as there have always been thieves and raiders.
We need police forces ready to do violence on our behalf for the criminals, and we also need to be prepared to deliver lethal force to deter those for whom the only question is "can I get away with it ?"
Oro, Charmingly said.
Post a Comment