| Author |
Topic:
Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
IceHawk-181
Registered:
Mar '04
|
Date Posted:
1/21 9:22pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
ReviewGod posted:
We all know wars are a terrible thing. The result of poor governmental decisions or just pure jealousy, they cause millions of innocent lives to be lost for no darn good reason. But are all things resulting from war so terrible?
Interesting assumptions proffered herein, first of all war is not necessarily a “terrible thing,” if it produces a superior reality, more secure, than the previous alternative I would count that a highly beneficial event. Second of all, the notion that war is simply the result of “poor decisions” or “pure jealously,” seems to employ a third-grade understanding of geopolitics.
Wars are often the result of convergent, mutually exclusive national interests, and less the result of foolish leaders incapable of seeing the “obvious” path to peace.
DroidGeneral posted:
WWI did not give women freedom.
Obviously; wars are not entities capable of agency. World War I did however provide both the impetus and the opportunity for women to assert themselves in both the workplace and society through a morally-irreproachable act, supporting the war-effort, allowing them to challenge the classical subservient roles they were relegated to.
The Civil War did not end slavery in America; it did however serve the military necessity of creating a militant group in the South and marrying morally superior claims to the North to bolster their morale.
GAP posted:
Nazi Germany wouldn't have existed if it weren't for war, and it' s not like anybody attacked them, they attacked first.
Interesting supposition, though the Nazi’s would argue otherwise and Nazi Germany itself would still exist if it were not for war.
Freedom is interesting. I would posit it can only exist in the absence of aggressive coercive force, and therefore requires the support of its own coercive capabilities. In other words, war is the extension and protection of freedom from oppositional and restrictive forces.
War serves a deliberative purpose, and often helps to produce positive ends.
-----signature-----
Proof is an interesting phenomena; there is seemingly always an abundance of it when it need not be presented.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/22 2:57pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
IceHawk-181 posted:
Interesting assumptions proffered herein, first of all war is not necessarily a “terrible thing,” if it produces a superior reality, more secure, than the previous alternative I would count that a highly beneficial event. Second of all, the notion that war is simply the result of “poor decisions” or “pure jealously,” seems to employ a third-grade understanding of geopolitics.
Wars are often the result of convergent, mutually exclusive national interests, and less the result of foolish leaders incapable of seeing the “obvious” path to peace.
Yes, it's true that wars do not result just from foolish leaders with an incapability of seeing the "obvious" path to peace. More of ten than not, it is wanted by them, that does not make it a "good" action.
IceHawk-181 posted:
]
Obviously; wars are not entities capable of agency. World War I did however provide both the impetus and the opportunity for women to assert themselves in both the workplace and society through a morally-irreproachable act, supporting the war-effort, allowing them to challenge the classical subservient roles they were relegated to.
The Civil War did not end slavery in America; it did however serve the military necessity of creating a militant group in the South and marrying morally superior claims to the North to bolster their morale.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that there were nations that already gave these rights to women before WWI, so it is not necessarily the ultimate impetus, you're also ignoring that a lot of nations waited with doing so until after WWII, and for example in Belgium, that had a lot to do with keeping the communists from power. Not to mention that there are still nations that do not recognise these rights. The USA and England are not the only two nations on earth, thank you.
IceHawk-181 posted:
Interesting supposition, though the Nazi’s would argue otherwise and Nazi Germany itself would still exist if it were not for war.
Freedom is interesting. I would posit it can only exist in the absence of aggressive coercive force, and therefore requires the support of its own coercive capabilities. In other words, war is the extension and protection of freedom from oppositional and restrictive forces.
War serves a deliberative purpose, and often helps to produce positive ends.
Nazis that argue it still would have existed are a bunch of morons that know nothing about history. It would *not* have existed if not for WWI, period, end of story.
It even needed a freakin' depression to get into power. No Soviet Union, No Spartakist rebellion, no uprising in Münich, coupled with a lack of WWI veterans, a lack of the "dagger" story and a different reality as far as the Great Depression goes, means no Nazi Germany. It would be sort of impossible to produce the chaotic circumstances in Germany without the enormous reparation-payments and the American loans that were to facilitate those.
War has rarely produced "positive" ends, other than those wanted by the victor, but aggressors that start a war most of the time, have no positive interest in mindfor their victims, positive ends are purely circumstantial most of the time.
-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
1/22 11:36pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this...
GrandAdmiralPelleaon posted:
Nazi Germany wouldn't have existed if it weren't for war...
You know what else wouldn't exist if it weren't for war? The United States of America. As a patriotic American, I cannot condemn war, as it has been a major force for the development of my nation. If my forefathers didn't wage rebel against the British, there would be no United States. If they didn't fight the Indian Wars, the nation could not have expanded West so easily. And if we didn't fight a war of conquest against Mexico, we wouldn't have the entire Southwest.
I'm sitting in California as I type this. I've seen a fair amount of the state. It's a very nice place, and I'm glad it's part of the US. But how could I possibly have that position, and at the same time decry the very means we used to win it? How can I claim to be a patriot and be against the very event that allowed my nation to exist as it does today?
Yes, we invaded a sovereign nation, killed 25,000 of their patriotic citizens, and took about half of their land. But if we hadn't, than a huge piece of the United States--which happens to be the home of my college, a lot of my friends, and a lot of my extended family-- would currently be Mexican land now. It was very good for my nation; that's because my nation had the military strength to win.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
1/23 1:28am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Beneficial for Californians, perhaps, but thats a subjective idea of good, rather than an objective one that demonstrates a clear 'good' of a war having been fought. It also assumes that the standard of living in California would be lower under Mexican rule, which one can't really speculate at as, if Mexico had kept more territory, its course may have been different and it might be a decent country instead.
In general, I don't think that there is such a thing as good wars. Wars are never a good thing, however, I would also argue that they are frequently a neccessary evil.
"There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars trilogy"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
1/23 4:38am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
- Date Edited:
1/23 4:42am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
You know what else wouldn't exist if it weren't for war? The United States of America. As a patriotic American, I cannot condemn war, as it has been a major force for the development of my nation. If my forefathers didn't wage rebel against the British, there would be no United States. If they didn't fight the Indian Wars, the nation could not have expanded West so easily. And if we didn't fight a war of conquest against Mexico, we wouldn't have the entire Southwest.
Canada came into existence without having to fight any wars against anyone (except on behalf of Britain against the Boers and Germany). We've been doing pretty well, thanks for asking.
Nazis that argue it still would have existed are a bunch of morons that know nothing about history. It would *not* have existed if not for WWI, period, end of story.
It even needed a freakin' depression to get into power. No Soviet Union, No Spartakist rebellion, no uprising in Münich, coupled with a lack of WWI veterans, a lack of the "dagger" story and a different reality as far as the Great Depression goes, means no Nazi Germany. It would be sort of impossible to produce the chaotic circumstances in Germany without the enormous reparation-payments and the American loans that were to facilitate those.
Most of all, relevant to Germans at the time, no treaty of Versailles.
Methinks you need to redo those calculations, IceHawk.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/23 5:30am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Gonk posted:
You know what else wouldn't exist if it weren't for war? The United States of America. As a patriotic American, I cannot condemn war, as it has been a major force for the development of my nation. If my forefathers didn't wage rebel against the British, there would be no United States. If they didn't fight the Indian Wars, the nation could not have expanded West so easily. And if we didn't fight a war of conquest against Mexico, we wouldn't have the entire Southwest.
Canada came into existence without having to fight any wars against anyone (except on behalf of Britain against the Boers and Germany). We've been doing pretty well, thanks for asking.
That's a bit different, though.
At the time that the US won its independence, no colony had ever successfully broken away from its parent country and become an independent nation. Without the precedent set by the US, there's a good chance that Canada would not have been able to gain independence the way it did.
Remember, the American Revolution was a very costly affair for Britain. This increased the incentive for Britain to avoid such conflicts in the future.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
1/23 10:08am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
|
There is a reason Mexicans are flocking to the United States rather than vis-versa. There isn't a huge difference between the natural resources of California and the rest of the terroritory we took from Mexico, and most of Mexico. The economic disparity has far more to do with culture and political systems. In the long run it benefited Mexico because now they are benefiting from the economic prosperity Americans created.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
1/23 6:24pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Beneficial for Californians, perhaps, but thats a subjective idea of good, rather than an objective one that demonstrates a clear 'good' of a war having been fought.
Not just for Californians; for the United States as an entity. In addition to the direct benefits of more land and a better shape on the map, there's economic and strategic benefits. For me, the good of the nation is good enough.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/24 2:43am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
"Manifest destiny was good because now we have more land" ... That didn't make the war right, you can't predict how history would have run if the US hadn't expanded the way it did. Either way, that doesn't make the methods right, just because the consequences ultimately might have been slightly positive ...
On the other hand, I loath patriotism, so yeah, bad argument to convince me.
-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
1/24 9:28pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
LtNOWIS posted:
For me, the good of the nation is good enough.
But what is a nation if not its people?
By your 'reasoning' we should go ahead and conquer the rest of North America. Then kids born 75 years from now in Tijuana and Ontario can talk about how it was okay that we killed the people who currently live in those countries, because Tijuana and Ontario are better off in the U.S.A. than in Mexico and Canada.
[facepalm]
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
1/24 9:51pm
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:
LtNOWIS posted:
For me, the good of the nation is good enough.
But what is a nation if not its people?
By your 'reasoning' we should go ahead and conquer the rest of North America. Then kids born 75 years from now in Tijuana and Ontario can talk about how it was okay that we killed the people who currently live in those countries, because Tijuana and Ontario are better off in the U.S.A. than in Mexico and Canada.
[facepalm]
I don't think it would take 75 years to say that! 
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
1/25 2:40am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Oh yes it would. Longer.
Quebec would go nuts on you guys.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
1/25 3:48am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
Who said we would keep Quebec? Like we want another Lousiana.
Look, if we hadn't taken over all of Northern Mexico, all the poor Mexicans wouldn't have a place to go because their economic, political, and cultural systems were simply not able to create the kind of wealth we have been able to create using those lands. There isn't that much difference geographically between northern Mexico and the southwest United States, but all the people in Mexico still want to come to the US. It might sound a little harsh, but if you do a cold hearted cost/benefit analysis, the annexation of Northern Mexico did good to a lot more people than it did bad. I don't know if that is a justification for doing something wrong in the first place, I just think you need to realize that overall it was probably a very good thing for the world for the US to be in charge of that area rather than the Mexicans. Perhaps the Americans should have just invaded and then started protesting in the streets of LA.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Omega
Title: Forum Feud Winner
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/25 4:28am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
'Without war this thread wouldn't exist', honestly if you guys are going to use that argument shouldn't you start with the history of human kind. For example: 'Without war Nazi Germany would still exist' I'd like to point out that without war Germany would not have existed in the first place.
Espaldapalabras posted:
Look, if we hadn't taken over all of Northern Mexico
And if Mexico had won the war it might have had a stable 19th and 20th century history (and perhaps even an higher standard of living) instead of what it has now and U.S. might not have been a patriotic war nation.
Darn, sounds almost like a win-win scenario, ah well you can't change history.
Regarding the thread topic, war is and always will be bad. Just ask the victims, not the winners.
-----signature-----
How do you like my drill bra?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
1/25 8:01am
Subject:
RE: Wars -- Not all Terrible
|
What's that quote from AJP Taylor -- paraphrased: "The defining feature every world power is it's ability to fight a major war. The destruction of every world power occurs from actually getting into one."
(and he wasn't just talking about winning or losing it, either)
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
