fett on 11/4/2007 at 04:08
War.
Huh.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
Gestalt on 11/4/2007 at 04:36
Good god, y'all.
scumble on 11/4/2007 at 08:06
Quote Posted by Stitch
War can do terrible things. War can do wonderful things. War is fucking war.
I suppose my angle is that the "good" things are usually far outweighed by the level of destruction, and the side effects that hang around long after. I have to ask whether the "good" results really needed such an explosion of violence to acheive.
The more I read about war, the more I think that what we consider "good" outcomes are just what we pick out as being vaguely positive from the general human wreckage.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
That makes sense. The argument against, as I see it, is that war shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Ie we shouldn't allow circumstances that bring about terrible aggressors, against whom war is the only option, to arise in the first place. Thus war is just damage control that we have to apply after we have failed.
I suppose you have to ask who the "we" is - in practice it tends to be a small bunch of people that the rest of the population has given too much authority to drag them into war. Leaders and politicians have the scope to make very big mistakes that are amplified by the fact that they have so much influence. When it's decided that war is the only option, out comes the propaganda machine to get everyone mobilised. It always helps to consider who has the power to guide events rather than lumping everyone in the same boat. Who made the mistakes and who gets to pay for them?
Chimpy Chompy on 11/4/2007 at 08:59
Thing is, given your past posting history, I suspect the message behind that is something like "there shouldn't be a government that can declare war in the first place".
Matthew on 11/4/2007 at 09:51
Quote Posted by Jonesy
You're just in the cockpit reveling as your GAU shots blow the turret off and not thinking about the cooked sausage that was once the crew.
Warthog driver?
*Zaccheus* on 11/4/2007 at 12:21
Can someone give me an example in the last 100 years where starting a war resulted in more good than harm?
Chimpy Chompy on 11/4/2007 at 12:26
What are you defining as starting? Nation A who formally declares war or nation B who created the situation that made A decide war was necessary?
See, I still think the more useful argument here is not "does the good of war outweigh the bad" but rather "is war an inevitable part of the human condition, or can we realistically hope to create a better world where it doesn't happen?"
Rogue Keeper on 11/4/2007 at 12:35
Anybody else enjoys to admire the amazing details of that picture with magnifying lenses?
*Zaccheus* on 11/4/2007 at 12:52
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
What are you defining as starting? Nation A who formally declares war or nation B who created the situation that made A decide war was necessary?
I don't think it was beneficial for Germany to invade Poland, for Argentine to invade the Falklands, for Iraq to invade Kuwait, for the UK to take part in invading Iraq. All those wars had reasons, but I certainly do not think that any of those examples brought about an overall positive outcome.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
See, I still think the more useful argument here is not "does the good of war outweigh the bad" but rather "is war an inevitable part of the human condition, or can we realistically hope to create a better world where it doesn't happen?"
I think there has been a big attitude change in the last few decades, because (for the first time ever) we had become capable of completely exterminating our own species. Finding an alternative to all out war was not only beneficial, it was vital for humanity's survival.
