What's so wrong with War, hate, and misunderstanding?

you know..."War and Peace" would not have been NEARLY as successful had the author stuck with it's original title, "War....What is it Good For?"

 

Youre such a Seinfeld junkie.

 

no argument here

 

None here either. We watch it religiously at 5:30, 6:30, 9:30 and 11:00. 4 freakin times a day. I probably have all the episodes memorized by now.

 

War should be used as a last resort. Kind of like a fire axe. But the way we've been using war, it's like using that axe to break down doors without looking for the key or using other methods to keep the door. No matter how far we progress, it's like we will always be paranoid of other peoples or countries.

Or imagine World War 1 not happening because imperialistic rivalries didn't exist. Imagine the nonexistence of all the neighbor wars in S. America and Africa that did nothing but shatter each others economies and sparked arms proliferration. Imagine the US not sending arms to dictators around to world to help fight the Red Menace.

The US can "justify war" because we're on top, we have the most deadly weapons, and there's no real chance of a sustained invasion by another country. The problem is that we justify it too much, and also in times that serve our interests. What happens after war is not always a pretty picture. Post WW2 Europe and Japan were called miracles. China, N. Africa, and the Balkans weren't as fortunate.

So I agree that war isn't totally evil. Probably half of our scientific advancements come from war. Yet, are you sure in reality that war is sometimes the "only way"? As our weapons become deadlier and widespread, war isn't going to be something you open with wide arms.

 

ROX...


There are, IOM, several problems with your main point and the examples you used to back it up...

That war is endemic to our way of life is a probable thesis, although if you were to suggest that anything which is prevelant for most of our history is therefore inevitable, you would have to accept that widespread slavery will always be a part of our lives; it is only a fraction of human experience to not have it in widespread form...But to contend that we are somehow better off by virtue of the fact that we have always done it is, I think, absurd...

Regarding your examples...Re: Third army...uh, I will ignore the geo-centric slant to your depiction of the causes of Hitler's demise and merely point out one salient fact: The allies were marching in response to OTHER acts of WAR...Were there no acts of war to begin with, there would be no needs for opposing acts of war, and therefore the contention that war, as an entity, is justified by the benefit of these second acts is without merit. The same applies to Pearl Harbour, etc..

The South rising would be an act of war...were it not to happen by virtue of there being no war, there would certainly be no need to respond in kind.

Virtually every 'expert' on war, from Clausevitz to Sun Tzu has the same thing to say about war: The vast majority wars are without justification, either from a moral or practical point fo view. Those who engage in war rarely understand the nature of it, nor do they apply it properly...War should be a last resort, and only undertaken in support of an absolute necessity, and only when every other avenue is exausted...World War One is a perfect example...Millions of dead, a continent destroyed, the elimination of our sensitivity to mass violence, and what was the accomplishment? What was better after the war than before it? Almost every expert will tell you that ( by a mile) the greatest ( and only) significant result of World War One was World War Two...The Classic Greek view that war is the noble crucible which best serves to test our nature is now an archaic illusion, and Maltheusian rationale for war as a natural check to our system has been countered by technological progression: The problem is distribution, not production.

And in terms of justifying our own nation's aggressive attitude towards war, remember that virtually every aggressive war-like nation in history, from the Hittites to Hitler's Germany has felt equally justified by what they saw as their own grievances, what they saw as a threat, and by the allure of the might is right argument. If it was wrong for them, it is wrong for us...

 

MacBeth,

In spite of the views of Sun Tzu & Cluasuewitz in regards to the lack of justification for most wars, they still produced research/thought on the concepts & strategies of war.

As long as there are enough humans with pride, jealousy and greed, there will be the urge to:

1) disagree
2) argue
3) escalate to anger
4) threaten conflict/war
5) have war

Take the human element out of the equation, then world peace is a possibility..................but many would consider that type of world as rather boring and monotonous.

 

Can't we just go back to the Seinfeld quotes? Those were more fun.

"Lupus!!! Is it lupus???"

 

Jeff,

<i>"War....What is it Good For?"</i> is regarded as an original phrase from Seinfeld?

Does this predate the Seinfeld usage?

<i>
WAR
(Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield/Edwin Star)

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and meanLife is too precious to be fighting wars
each day
War can't give life it can only take it away

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
War

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
</i>

 

Your conclusion is so generically applied its ridiculous. There should be a specific evaluation of each action, as you indicate Sun Tzu, Clausewitz et al would conclude. That necessarily delegitimizes your generalization that 'its wrong for us' to take action against other countries. In addition, the flip side of your point is also true: namely that there are many historical examples of countries unwilling to intervene in others affairs who were then run over by those other actors, and many examples of what we now call 'crimes against humanity' when outside actors failed to act. As such your point is worthless and misleading.

Was it wrong to act against Milosevic? Would it have been wrong to act in Rwanda? Would it be wrong to stop human sacrifice in another country? You would say 'yes its wrong because might doesn't equal right,' while almost no one else on the planet would. 'Might does not mean wrong' either. You'll find your moral compass somewhere over the Bermuda Triangle.

 

the song definitely predates it....that's part of the humor of Elaine saying that to the Russian writer in that episode.

 

Note, Hayes, that I never said it was always wrong...I said it was always 'justified', wrong or right. In other words, a feeling of moral justification about an act of war is no argument for said act...it is inherent. There has never been, nor will there likely ever be, a nation that declares war on another nation for the fun of it, or while acknowledging that they have no moral justification. My point is, when people say some version of " It is right to invade Iraq because we are in the right, and they are in the wrong" you are just parroting what every governement has told every populace throughout history as a means of justifying it's actions to come...including all those we now deem as 'wrong'...

My point is exactly what you went on to clarify: If the standards of Sun Tzu and Clausevitz are to be applied, we need to look well beyond the fact that our government is telling us it is the right thing to do; They have now given us a series of reasons why invading Iraq is the correct move, in a sort of throw it all against the wall and see what sticks kind of bombarding us with rhetoric campaign...Remember when it was about 9-11 and the 'secretly known' connection to Hussein? Remember the information that contradicted the CIA declaration of no connection to which Balir was supposed to be privy? Where is that 'lin' now? Those were reasons which the automatically pro government people chose to infer as justification...and now the government has moved on...to human rights issues...didn't really fly..Hey, let's try the good old WMD argument..Hmmm..some are scared, this is working a bit better...Oh, the UN isn't playing ball? We'll give them the old With Us or Against Us Ultimatum...

Neither Clausevitz, Tzu nor even I suggest that war is never the right answer...only very rarely, only for something exceptionally important, and only when all other avenues have been exhausted..and the rest of the world and myself seem to differ with Bush about whether this is that important, and whether all other avenues have been exhausted.

In terms of whether we have the right, or indeed the record to support your claim that we can be the arbiter of human rights for the world, we have had this argument before; I doubt either of us will ever agree with the other about this. I feel that there are many problems with it, most notably the fact that we only intervene when it suits us, which is just another extension of power politics, not moral rectitude, and what is more we have been both guilty of similar acts ourselves, and have supported others/suppressed their opposition when it suits are interest. This makes me wary of when and where we use the Big Stick, and suggests to me just another tyrant in very thin Peacekeeper's clothing...You feel that this is an academic argument, and that past wrongs don't make current ones, and moreover that we have an inherent need to act in our own self-defense even if the cause for that need is abroad...You have stated your belief that, right or wrong, it is necessary for 'responsible' governements to keep WMDs out of the hands of those they feel are 'irresponsible'...You know my response to that too...We can dance again if you want to, but isn't it getting a little stale?

 

Fair enough. Thanks for the delineation.

Agreed, although I'll point out that you are rapidly losing your 'rest of the world,' and that the US could take action independent of public opinion elsewhere and still be making the correct decision.

Yes, it is. I agree that we are not going to convince one another. I would prefer you stop with the 'since we're the only country to nuke someone' stuff, since I feel the need to retort to make a balanced picture, but I doubt you'd be amenable to that.

 

Lol! Agreed that I am not going to be able to do that, because I feel my point in that regard is itself a response to statements like ' We can't let that madman get nukes...He's just nuts enough to use them...' Like the only guy in town who's shot anybody arguing that he should be the only guy allowed to have a gun cause other people might not be as responsible as he is with them...

 

I didn't think so ...

Except in this case the guy is the police and the opponent is Al Capone (while he may not have used his Tommy gun yet, he's definitely whacked some people).

 

I was waiting for the 'police' analogy, I swear...I almost pre-empted it, but didn't want to assume ( Note, in my summary of your position earlier, I feel that I was very fair and represented your POV without prejudice or making it seem ridiculous...agreed?)

It is the very assumption of whether we should be world cops to begin with, let alone world judges and juries, that I am arguing against, as I feel we have mostly used our badge to fill our own pockets or eliminate our potential enemies...If we are the cops, just like in Capone's Chicago, we're on the take...


P.S...Like old dance partners, we are apparently going through the motions out of habit after all...

 

As fair as you can be with your warped worldview ...

I don't know, man. I think you're the one on the take looking the other way. We're more like Elliot Ness in the Untouchables. "Now let's do some good!" A little corny, I know....

And always fighting over who gets to lead...