Kolya on 12/4/2007 at 04:15
Everyone has a bad day or two sometimes. If you feel you damaged your reputation on the forums a bit too much: Just post a halfhearted apology!
Don't worry, you don't have to change your fucked up views for this or aim the apology at anyone you threw in with Nazi lot last night. Heck, you don't even have to remember what you are supposed to apologize for or you can make it as general as you like! Write about your emo problems and stuff that annoyed you instead! You'll get cheered for this! :thumb:
scumble on 12/4/2007 at 07:56
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
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".
Does it preclude discussing round the issue? I'm interested in what people think about the subject, not reiterating a past phase in my posting history. It's possible for a person to learn a lesson and move on you know...
The main point is illustrating how people with power have rather more scope for making rather damaging mistakes, and that without quite so much power, war is less likely on the scale that we've seen in the last hundred years.
Quote:
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 suppose if you're going along those lines you have to think about scale again. It's possible some wars can't be avoided, but they may not have involve the deaths of millions of people, if it is rather more difficult for a small group of individuals to start one and manipulate public opinion to support, while also being in command of an entire army.
I certainly
hope it's possible to evolve into a situation where war is a lot less likely.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I also have to apologise for ranting about Nazi Germany again. It's an emotive subject for me; combined with the fact that a load of pacifists had annoyed me elsewhere, I'd just been watching Schindler's List, and that this was the third anniversary of a weekend I'd rather just forget, I wasn't in the most reasonable of moods, as you might well have noticed. So sorry.
It might help if you could calm down a bit before posting, or go out for a run or something. Invest in a punchbag and boxing gloves? You just seem to be always ready to pick a fight.
*Zaccheus* on 12/4/2007 at 08:00
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
On second thoughts, I think what I meant to say was that once you start doing bad foreign policy it's hard to stop.
Yes, I'd go along with that.
Matthew on 12/4/2007 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Kolya
You'll get cheered for this! :thumb:
My, we are so magnanimous today. :D
Chimpy Chompy on 12/4/2007 at 09:40
Quote Posted by scumble
The main point is illustrating how people with power have rather more scope for making rather damaging mistakes, and that without quite so much power, war is less likely on the scale that we've seen in the last hundred years.
Whilst I agree that people with power can make mistakes with a huge impact, can we really expect a situation where no-one has that capability? I fear that maybe power abhors a vacuum...
Martlet on 12/4/2007 at 10:51
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Can someone give me an example in the last 100 years where
starting a war resulted in more good than harm?
Sierra Leone..... though does that count?
scumble on 12/4/2007 at 10:54
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Whilst I agree that people with power can make mistakes with a huge impact, can we really expect a situation where no-one has that capability? I fear that maybe power abhors a vacuum...
The theory that someone will always step in and "take" power tends to assume that there is a power stucture to step into, as well as general popular acceptance of that structure. Ultimately nobody has power if most of the rest of society doesn't go along with it.
Your position does seem to be fairly resigned on the issue though, are you a bit skeptical about things improving much in the present system?
*Zaccheus* on 12/4/2007 at 12:07
Quote Posted by Martlet
Sierra Leone..... though does that count?
What do you mean by 'Sierra Leone' - which inital action are you talking about ?
Chimpy Chompy on 12/4/2007 at 12:50
Quote Posted by scumble
Your position does seem to be fairly resigned on the issue though, are you a bit skeptical about things improving much in the present system?
I do think a more peaceful world is going to require major changes - but I don't see disbanding the concept of government as we currently understand it to be one of them. I understand the problem you outline, I just think that if we reduce governments too much, others will step in and gain influence over our lives instead. Not sure what you mean about structures - I'm sure priests, corporations or warlords could build their own.
Martlet on 12/4/2007 at 14:25
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
What do you mean by 'Sierra Leone' - which inital action are you talking about ?
The intervention - though I'm not sure that can be construed as an act of war
