# Everybody's against war, so why does war exist?



## Lavinia.dNP

Here's my little question :

If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.

We all want peace and an end to war.

Then why do wars exist?

Assuming that there are some leaders who initiate war because of their economic interests, why do soldiers abide to that and go to war? because they're obliged to? but if all the people in a country refused war, could the leader who wants to initiate a war put the whole nation in jail?

That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war?

If everybody refused war, the leaders would be left alone duelling like in ancient times, and that would be fair.

What is your idea about this?


----------



## winklepicker

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.
> 
> We all want peace and an end to war.
> 
> Then why do wars exist?
> 
> Assuming that there are some leaders who initiate war because of their economic interests, why do soldiers abide to that and go to war? because they're obliged to? but if all the people in a country refused war, could the leader who wants to initiate a war put the whole nation in jail?
> 
> That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war?
> 
> If everybody refused war, the leaders would be left alone duelling like in ancient times, and that would be fair.
> 
> What is your idea about this?


 
"What if they gave a war and no one came?" - John Lennon


----------



## Fernita

Unluckily, the world is managed by power and people who have power (leaders) take the most important decisions. This does not mean they are right but that's the way it works. Soldiers just obey orders. What would happen to them if they refused to go to war? I wonder.

I'm totally against wars but I'm just a citizen and citizens *can express their opinion *but not stop wars. It's a pity but such is life in this crazy world!

To my mind, we should always express our opinion. It's not only a right but a must.
Regards,
Fernita


----------



## TRG

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.
> 
> We all want peace and an end to war.
> 
> Then why do wars exist?
> 
> Assuming that there are some leaders who initiate war because of their economic interests, why do soldiers abide to that and go to war? because they're obliged to? but if all the people in a country refused war, could the leader who wants to initiate a war put the whole nation in jail?
> 
> That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war?
> 
> If everybody refused war, the leaders would be left alone duelling like in ancient times, and that would be fair.
> 
> What is your idea about this?


 
Vous ne m'avez pas demandé. I guess it all depends on what you are hoping to accomplish by going to war. It is hard to imagine someone who actually likes war, but that's not the same as being willing to commit at this point in time to pascifism. I say, you go first and then I'll agree not to attack you.


----------



## xarruc

Violence is just one method of achieveing what you want. 

If a weak intellectual teases a strong nitwit, is the nitwit right to use his fists to right the situation?

The nitwit cannot compete on an intellectual level.

War is only the same. A tactic for the nitwits.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Fernita said:


> Unluckily, the world is managed by power and people who have power (leaders) take the most important decisions. This does not mean they are right but that's the way it works. Soldiers just obey orders. What would happen to them if they refused to go to war? I wonder.
> 
> I'm totally against wars but I'm just a citizen and citizens *can express their opinion *but not stop wars. It's a pity but such is life in this crazy world!
> 
> To my mind, we should always express our opinion. It's not only a right but a must.
> Regards,
> Fernita


 
That's the question : if all soldiers refused to go to war, what would happen to them? Killed? convicted?
Could a leader kill or imprison the whole nation if no one went to war?

That's the point I don't understand.


----------



## TRG

xarruc said:


> Violence is just one method of achieveing what you want.
> 
> If a weak intellectual teases a strong nimwit, is the nimwit right to use his fists to right the situation?
> 
> The nimwit cannot compete on an intellectual level.
> 
> War is only the same. A tactic for the nimwits.


 
That is a fair statement. Please let me know at what time in the future I can be assured of living in any coutry in the world where the neighboring country is not run by a nitwit!


----------



## Flaminius

Not everyone is against war, apparently.  Peace is most dear to those who have it now.


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:


> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.


... as an ongoing event. Some people, however, see it as a useful strategy to attain some end and are prepared to wage a war to achieve that end.
Never forget that the people who wage the war have, generally, never been the ones to die in it. Others do that for them.

If people _truly_ didn't approve of war there would be nobody enlisting in armies. People often engage in activities of which they do not 'approve' - ask any Roman Catholic about 'guilt' 

So, I dispute your premises.


----------



## natasha2000

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.
> 
> We all want peace and an end to war.
> 
> Then why do wars exist?


 
Obviously, many of those asked are lying. It is a "main stream" (if I may say so), to be "pro-peace". All politicians say: I am for peace. All actors say: I am for peace. Gosh, even all beauty queens say: My onlñy wish is world peace! 
But many of them just say so. So, don't believe everything people say. 




> Assuming that there are some leaders who initiate war because of their economic interests, why do soldiers abide to that and go to war? because they're obliged to? but if all the people in a country refused war, could the leader who wants to initiate a war put the whole nation in jail?


 
There are two kinds of armies in this world. The paid one, and the obligatory one. Countries that have the professional army, they pay their soldiers to go to war. So, the answer here is pretty easy: Those soldiers go to war because it is their job. Period.

The other kind of army is the army is the army of countries that oblige their citizens to go to war. Now, to make someone to go to war on your behalf, you must use tactics: Find the outside enemy for all bad things that happen inside your country, or in multinacional country, stir up a little bit and make them two quarrel while you are reigning. In another words, give them people the reason to get angry and to start to hate "the other side". Perfect example: recent Balcanic civil war.



> That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war?


Se my first answer.



> If everybody refused war, the leaders would be left alone duelling like in ancient times, and that would be fair.


 
This is quite impossible...IMHO. Todays' leaders have no chivallry sense. They prefer sending others to be killed for their own causes.


----------



## Kajjo

Lavinia.dNP said:


> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.


Dear Lavinia,
your statement or assumption is just plain wrong. Thus, your subsequent conclusions and questions have no ground.

Obviously very many people are against war. If you live in a society of peace and prosperity, you usually have the strong hope that this piece will endure. I am against war, too.

However, there are many reasons to favor war. People who feel oppressed by others, are blinded by religious belief, or who convert their own people's failure into hatred towards more successful people and so on. Aggression is part of being human, I am afraid.

Further, you inquired into the soldier's reasoning. I belief there have been a lot of soldiers who were pressured into being soldiers. In many times they did not discuss about putting deserters into jail (how naive!), they just shot them. Shoot some, and the other will obey. Moreover, there are enough people nowadays that are prepared to die for their religious beliefs; and there are quite a lot or professional soldiers and merceneries who obviously do not share our repugnance, but consider fighting and killing as acceptable job. 

Please also realise that for being in war, only one party is necessary. The defending people have no choice (other than being killed or fight back). Many soldiers see defence of their home country as their duty. I can follow insofar as it is very natural to defend what you love, e.g. your family. If you are attacked personally, you would probably defend yourself. If a country is attacked, it has to defend itself equally.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

Lavinia.dNP said:


> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.


I believe no one of us can boast that they have friends and acquantainces in all social classes. 
We can only state that we don't know personally anyone who would approve of war, not that there isn't anyone who would.

It seems to me that neo-nazis in Russia would start a revolution deliberately were they sure that many people would follow them. Luckily, most people are clever enough.


----------



## Thomsen

If we are talking about modern society and not just the paradoxes of humanity, there are a lot of factors that lead to war: ideology, economics, demographics, politics, etc.  Don't even get me started on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex. 

I think the German citizenry approved of the WWII at least in the begining.  I think most Americans approved of the invasion of Afghanistan.  I think most South Americans approved of Simon Bolivar's independence wars.  I think right now there are many people that think we should invade Sudan to prevent further genocide...


----------



## Etcetera

Thomsen said:


> I think the German citizenry approved of the WWII at least in the begining. I think most Americans approved of the invasion of Afghanistan. I think most South Americans approved of Simon Bolivar's independence wars. I think right now there are many people that think we should invade Sudan to prevent further genocide...


Dear Thomsen, you're messing up too different things! 
A war like the WWII isn't the same as a war for independence, you know. I can understand people who fight for their freedom from invaders. So, I strongly disapprove of the French and Russian revolutions, but the great Patriotic War is another matter for me.


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera, I hope you don't mind my asking you a question.

Do you consider then that in France and Russia before respective revolutions, everything was in perfect order and everybody was happy?

Revolutions are not risen because of some whim, but because someone INSIDE the country was oppressed. In both cases, the common people of France and Russia were starving, just to begin. Now, masses by themselves cannot lead any kind of organized resistance, and all depends on who is going to lead them to make right the wrong that was done to them. I think that completely other subject is what happened later after the Revolution was over ("Great Terror" in France and communism in Russia), and that unfortunatelly, those who led people to fight against their oppressors in the end just took their oppressors' places, in both cases, monarchy.

I just want to say that when we talk about the war in general, it is not so simple. There are many kinds of wars, and the same war, seeing it from two, three or four different perspectives, can obtain two, three or four interpretations. Let's see WWII. If we look from German point of view, they fought imperialistic war with pretensions to conquer the world. It was bad war. But if we look from the point of view of Allies, it was fight for freedom and fight against nacism. So it was good war. But We can also see the WWII from the point of view of peoples of ex Yugoslavia. There were three kinds of wars there at the same time: civil war, liberation war, and socialistic revolution, i.e. class war. So, at the same time, the war in the territory of ex YU (if we take your criteria), was bad and good. It was good, because Tito's partisans fought nazis. But it was bad because Tito¡s partisans fought also their own people, since apart from partisans, there were meny other formations and paramilitary formations who collaborated with nazis. And it was also bad because those who won, were communtists. 

I think that no war, although sometimes inevitable, is a bad thing, because war brings anarchy, and anarchy lets the worst scumbag of the Earth to get power and to convert his own ideas and objectives into objectives of the whole nation, abusing the power forhis own benefits. In peace, it is much more difficult to happen.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:


> Etcetera, I hope you don't mind my asking you a question.
> 
> Do you consider then that in France and Russia before respective revolutions, everything was in perfect order and everybody was happy?


Of course I don't think so. 
But I've recently read Anatole France's novel about the French revolution, I read Sabatini's _Scaramouch_, and I am greatly interested in the Civil War in Russia - so I read quite a lot on this subject. I don't believe that the revolution was worth all the terror. I am sure that if people in, say, 1916 could but foresee what would be happening in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s, there would be no revolution. Russia was a fast-developing country in the beginning of the 20th century; we had many educated, clever ministers. God knows where could we have been by now if it weren't for the Revolution.



> I just want to say that when we talk about the war in general, it is not so simple. There are many kinds of wars, and the same war, seeing it from two, three or four different perspectives, can obtain two, three or four interpretations. Let's see WWII. If we look from German point of view, they fought imperialistic war with pretensions to conquer the world. It was bad war. But if we look from the point of view of Allies, it was fight for freedom and fight against nacism. So it was good war.


Yes, exactly. 
From the Russian point of view, it was a good war. There was even a song in which the war was called "sacred". 



> I think that no war, although sometimes inevitable, is a bad thing, because war brings anarchy, and anarchy lets the worst scumbag of the Earth to get power and to convert his own ideas and objectives into objectives of the whole nation, abusing the power forhis own benefits. In peace, it is much more difficult to happen.


I totally agree with you.


----------



## danielfranco

War is not an exclusive downfall of human behavior. Chimpanzees routinely engage in organized skirmishes against other monkeys (I think baboons, not sure) and other chimpanzee groups. I think the difference is that humans are the only ones that seem to find it deplorable.


----------



## Etcetera

danielfranco said:


> War is not an exclusive downfall of human behavior. Chimpanzees routinely engage in organized skirmishes against other monkeys (I think baboons, not sure) and other chimpanzee groups.


But that doesn't mean we have to follow chimpanzees, does it?
On the contrary, I should have thought that it might convince humans not to behave like chimpanzees. Or are some people too fond of Darwin's theory?


----------



## TRG

You might as well ask since *Everybody's against (INSERT THE DEPLORABLE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC OF YOU CHOICE HERE), then why does it exist?* 

I just finished a book called "The Dogs of God", which is an account of some of the things that were happening in Spain in the 15th century. Among the things that were going on was the Spanish Inquisition. It was an awful time for many of the people of Spain. I only mention it because it is fresh in my mind, it is a good example of how far we have come. A lot of moral progress has been made since then and a great deal of progress has been made in the last half century. You should be hopeful that we will continue to make moral progress and someday we may become sufficiently civilized that war will become unnecessary. Don't expect this to happen in your lifetime, but I think, in time, it will happen.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war. *Not true: you'll find a a few people who think that war is the mean through which they can get what they want.*
> 
> We all want peace and an end to war.*Not true: most of us, but not the ones who's got the power.*



War! What is it good for? absolutely nothing!! (if not for people who benefit from it).


----------



## Victoria32

Thomsen said:


> If we are talking about modern society and not just the paradoxes of humanity, there are a lot of factors that lead to war: ideology, economics, demographics, politics, etc.  Don't even get me started on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex.
> 
> I think the German citizenry approved of the WWII at least in the begining.  I think most Americans approved of the invasion of Afghanistan.  I think most South Americans approved of Simon Bolivar's independence wars.  I think right now there are many people that think we should invade Sudan to prevent further genocide...


Oh Thomsen, I truly hope you are wrong about that! How many Iraqs does the USA need? 

As for Afghanistan - I know I am not alone in thinking that bombing seven hells out of Afghanistan was an illegitimate response to 9/11!

War is good for nothing, all right, and I look forward to the day when people aren't so easily manipulated  to hate and fear 'The Other', and support their leaders starting wars!

Vicky  (a literally card-carrying Christian Pacifist - yes!)


----------



## Etcetera

Paulfromitaly said:


> War! What is it good for? absolutely nothing!! (if not for people who benefit from it).


In the 1990s, when people wondered why the Chechen war still was going on, they would hear in response: "Because some people benefit from it". 
"Some people" weren't named, but everyone knew who was meant.


----------



## Aruba-chan

If there are wars is because there are people that want them to be and they will exist unless those people go away. Only a great power could achieve to make them disappear and this power is called "human bravery": just the one who have created it, can destroy it.

I hope you could understand me ;p


----------



## LV4-26

To try to answer to Lavinia's question.
There are basically two kinds of people *
1) Those who say "there should be no war, ever, under any circumstances"
2) Those who say "Ah, war! What a misery! So awful! It should not exist..........................yet, we have to make it, believe me, sonny, it's inevitable"

So in a way you're right, Lavinia. One might get the impression that "everyone" disapprove of it.

Therefore wars exist because people in #2 seem to outweigh (either in  number or in power) people in #1.

* Feel free to correct if you think I've omitted one or more categories.

EDIT : There's another way of putting the above division
2) those who believe that "the end justifies the means"
1) those, like Gandhi, Thoreau, Coleridge and others who believe that "the end *is in *the means".


----------



## Kajjo

LV4-26 said:


> There are basically two kinds of people *
> 1) Those who say "there should be no war, ever, under any circumstances"
> 2) Those who say "What a misery! It should not exist, yet, we have to make it..."


3) Those who say "I hate war, but I am ready to defend my home, my family, my country if attacked by someone else."

4) There are cultures in which a single life is not rated as high as in our society. Where higher goals easily justify sacrificing some people. Religion and ideology can make people behaving like that. There really are women who send their own 10-year-old sons in a battlefield to trigger mines. I cannot follow such notions, but obviously there are different views about the value of life in different cultures and religions.

Kajjo


----------



## Bonjules

Hello everybody,

War, as somebody said, is an event in which people who
don't know each other and generally have nothing against each other kill each other for people who mostly know each other quite well and wouldn't think of killing each other.....

Yes, in a 'traditional' war fought by soldiers, these don't have much of a choice. It is the fate of the soldier to have to follow orders; he can only wish for wisdom in his leaders. But there is hope: God is usually (well, almost always) on his (that would be our - I mean your) side.
saludos


----------



## Thomsen

Etcetera said:


> Dear Thomsen, you're messing up too different things!
> A war like the WWII isn't the same as a war for independence, you know. I can understand people who fight for their freedom from invaders. So, I strongly disapprove of the French and Russian revolutions, but the great Patriotic War is another matter for me.


 
That was just my point! There are many different motivations to war. None of which sit well with me, but to date I have not been consulted on it.



Victoria32 said:


> Oh Thomsen, I truly hope you are wrong about that! How many Iraqs does the USA need?
> 
> As for Afghanistan - I know I am not alone in thinking that bombing seven hells out of Afghanistan was an illegitimate response to 9/11!


 
Um, I don't think I need to go into Iraq (er pardon the pun) because Im sure it's been covered by people in this forum much cleverer than me.  But I think quite objectively, yes a lot of people around the world did think that Afghanistan at the time was a danger to world peace.  Whether or not that was a good judgement I will leave up to history, but I think it is perhaps the most modern example of relatively uncontested war.  Iraq is a totally different story, and faced strong opposition from the beginning.


----------



## Bonjules

Seriously,
that everybody is against war is a liberal misconception
of rather recent origin. War has fascinated Man on an existential level for a long time. In fact, just like there are those who feel only 'really' alive in front of the casino-table, there are many who will seek the excitement of leading men into battle, of putting their own lives at risk.
An ancient saying goes:'War is the father of all things'.
Think of it: In war, you get tested (more so in 'traditional war'), heroes emerge, and cowards (sometimes the heroes are the ones who don't go). Heroes who die young stay so, god-like(meaning immortal), forever.
In war (truly existential war, not the the kind of war that is merely a side show in society and far removed from it), a nation counts its resources, shows its will to survive or give up (It helps if it is a 'just war', think of the Brits under the 'Blitz').
War has defined human existence from time immemorial,
it is in our genes as firmly as anything.
This is why our(Man's) outlook is bleak: The nature of war and the possibility for destrucion has changed so fast that it must doubted that we will gain the 'new conciousness' to cope with that change fast enough.


----------



## TRG

Victoria32 said:


> Oh Thomsen, I truly hope you are wrong about that! How many Iraqs does the USA need?
> 
> As for Afghanistan - I know I am not alone in thinking that bombing seven hells out of Afghanistan was an illegitimate response to 9/11!
> 
> War is good for nothing, all right, and I look forward to the day when people aren't so easily manipulated to hate and fear 'The Other', and support their leaders starting wars!
> 
> Vicky (a literally card-carrying Christian Pacifist - yes!)


 
You connect pacifism and Chrisianity which is not uncommon. Did Jesus have anything to say about war?


----------



## Victoria32

TRG said:


> You connect pacifism and Chrisianity which is not uncommon. Did Jesus have anything to say about war?


Not that I can think of right now, but the early Christian church was strongly pacifist (within the first 3 centuries) and my reference was to a group in New Zealand, called the Christian Pacifist Society... 

Jehovah's Witnesses are still pacifist, and are required to resist conscription, as a result there are JWs all around the world who are currently in prison for doing so. I respect them for that!

The previous Pope, John Paul II was known for his statements against war, and even went so far as to counsel Tony B Liar against involvement in Iraq. Of course His Tonyness took no notice, and look what a mess Britain is in now as a  result? 

I strongly believe that Christians *should* be pacifist. 

Vicky


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> You connect pacifism and Chrisianity which is not uncommon. Did Jesus have anything to say about war?



Indirectly, yes…
MATT 19
16 Behold, one came to him and said, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
17 He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "*You shall not kill*. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not offer false testimony.​
Now, if you can wage a war without killing, then I take it you might have his blessing, otherwise I'd caution prudence.


----------



## TRG

Victoria32 said:


> Not that I can think of right now, but the early Christian church was strongly pacifist (within the first 3 centuries) and my reference was to a group in New Zealand, called the Christian Pacifist Society...
> 
> Jehovah's Witnesses are still pacifist, and are required to resist conscription, as a result there are JWs all around the world who are currently in prison for doing so. I respect them for that!
> 
> The previous Pope, John Paul II was known for his statements against war, and even went so far as to counsel Tony B Liar against involvement in Iraq. Of course His Tonyness took no notice, and look what a mess Britain is in now as a result?
> 
> I strongly believe that Christians *should* be pacifist.
> 
> Vicky


 
Jesus basically said nothing about war, so you are relying on the pronouncements of mere mortals, but that is ok, and you are more than entitled to your opinion. It is to be respected even if it seems impractical right now. 

I always try to note when people slip some polemical remark into their posts that is irrelevant to the subject at hand, as you have done by misspelling Mr. Blair's name. I think you should fix it.


----------



## maxiogee

Today, 08:55 PM


TRG said:


> Did Jesus have anything to say about war?



Today, 09:13 PM


TRG said:


> Jesus basically said nothing about war,






That's a novelty - answering your own questions here.
I don't imagine you did a full check through of the Gospels and the associated scriptures in the less than 20 minutes between your posts.

Are you seriously suggesting that war is excluded from "You shall not kill."?


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> Today, 08:55 PM
> 
> 
> Today, 09:13 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a novelty - answering your own questions here.
> I don't imagine you did a full check through of the Gospels and the associated scriptures in the less than 20 minutes between your posts.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that war is excluded from "You shall not kill."?


I have sitting on my desk something called a "Ryrie Study Bible", which has everything spoken by Jesus in red and it is very well annoted so you can actually do what you might have thought impossible! However, that is not in fact what I did. Having read the Gospels not long ago, I was fairly sure Jesus said nothing about war. I also did an internet search to confirm this was the case. Yes, I am saying that the passage you refer to is not speaking of war. In fact, in the Bible I mentioned it says, "You shall not murder." To reiterate the point, it is fine to be a pacifist and a Christian, but to suggest that being a Christian is incompatible with war is not consistent with the generally accepted view of Christianity. There are pacifist sects, but they are a small minority.


----------



## Victoria32

TRG said:


> Jesus basically said nothing about war, so you are relying on the pronouncements of mere mortals, but that is ok, and you are more than entitled to your opinion. It is to be respected even if it seems impractical right now.
> 
> I always try to note when people slip some polemical remark into their posts that is irrelevant to the subject at hand, as you have done by misspelling Mr. Blair's name. I think you should fix it.


 


TRG said:


> I have sitting on my desk something called a "Ryrie Study Bible", which has everything spoken by Jesus in red and it is very well annoted so you can actually do what you might have thought impossible! However, that is not in fact what I did. Having read the Gospels not long ago, I was fairly sure Jesus said nothing about war. I also did an internet search to confirm this was the case. Yes, I am saying that the passage you refer to is not speaking of war. In fact, in the Bible I mentioned it says, "You shall not murder." To reiterate the point, it is fine to be a pacifist and a Christian, but to suggest that being a Christian is incompatible with war is not consistent with the generally accepted view of Christianity. There are pacifist sects, but they are a small minority.


I disagree very strongly, TRG! I think translating 'thou shalt not kill' as murder is a rationalisation... which is used to justify war and Capital punishment.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115
Do you consider the Reformed church a marginal sect?

Then there is this:
http://www.christianpacifism.com/

Vicky


----------



## Bonjules

Vicky and TRG,
I don't know if there are more pacifists among Christians
than in the non-Christian population. However, I'd think it is a safe assumption that the great majority of folks that consider themselves Christians do not cosider themselves pacifists.
The fact remains that the big, 'organized' Christian churches have almost always cooperated in war efforts,
blessed weapons and soldiers and so on.
Needless to say, political leaders going to war regularly
invoke the Almighty.
What the historical Jesus maybe or maybe not said and in what context is pure conjecture. Whatever is written down is second/third/forth hand hearsay screened and edited much later by others who decided what was 'official'.


----------



## Victoria32

Bonjules said:


> Vicky and TRG,
> I don't know if there are more pacifists among Christians
> than in the non-Christian population. However, I'd think it is a safe assumption that the great majority of folks that consider themselves Christians do not cosider themselves pacifists.
> The fact remains that the big, 'organized' Christian churches have almost always cooperated in war efforts,
> blessed weapons and soldiers and so on.
> Needless to say, political leaders going to war regularly
> invoke the Almighty.
> What the historical Jesus maybe or maybe not said and in what context is pure conjecture. Whatever is written down is second/third/forth hand hearsay screened and edited much later by others who decided what was 'official'.


The fact remains, Bonjules, that in my opinion and not mine alone, Christians should be pacifists! 
This is from the first link I gave to TRG...
". Tertullian and Origen—church fathers....each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military.
A profound change in the Christian attitude toward war occurred at the time of the emperor Constantine, ."

Please note Mods, that's four lines, even though I had to cut it a bit to make it fit!

Vicky


----------



## TRG

As someone once said, "We are all intitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts!", bonjules is correct on the facts.

Here are some other things to consider. After 1989 when the so called Cold War ended, the US begain downsizing its military. People were very optimistic that civilization had reached a major turning point. Some said it was "the end of history". US defense spending dropped from 5.6% of GDP in 1989 to 3.0% by the year 2001, nearly a 50% reduction in those terms. People had begun to think of a large military as unnecessary. Unfortunately, this dream state was rudely interrupted in 2001 with the attacks of 9/11. There had been other attacks, but no one really saw them as requiring much of a military response. An opportunity for a more peaceful world was lost. I suppose the pacifist view would be to have done nothing; just rebuild and wait for the next and presumeably bigger attack. In an age where tens of thousands of people can be killed at once, no one really wants to wait to see if that is going to happen. That's pretty much the state of the world today. Some may even argue that the attack was provoked by misguided US foreign policy. Even so, when are we going to have leaders and governments who are incapable of aggravating anybody? We may one day reach the point where all countries are ready to abandon solving the problems with war, but we are a long way from it.

If you don't like that example consider this one. Let's suppose the Israeli government decided unilaterally to disarm and competely remove its defenses. They would all be killed or run off. People are eagerly awaiting to do this. Israel would, in fact, be wiped off the map. It would be suicidal. Interestingly enough, this was Gandhi's suggestion to the Jews on how the should deal with the Nazi extermination campaign. He said they should bare their throats to the Nazi butchers or jump off a cliff if necessary. In doing so, they would demonstrate their moral superiority and presumeably cause the world to look on Hitler with contempt, or something. Fact is, the Jews did not resist very much, and as Gandhi sagely observed, they all got killed anyway. Gandhi is recognized as perhaps the leading advocate for non-violence of all time, but his advice to the Jews does not look any better today than it did 70 years ago.


----------



## emma42

TRG, "the jews did not resist very much" - this is off-topic, but I can't let this go  by, as it is patently untrue.  There are many, many well-known accounts of resistance by Jews.  Further, most did not know what they were going to when they were herded onto trains etc.

Edit:  Thank you, TRG, for your response by pm.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> IYes, I am saying that the passage you refer to is not speaking of war. In fact, in the Bible I mentioned it says, "You shall not murder."



Murder and "kill", or even "kill in a war" are differentiated only by human use of semantics.

If I in the course of an afternoon, lie in wait and shoot dead the first person to come over a certain hill, someone I do not know and against whom I have no personal enmity, I have killed that person and most courts, and most people, would deem it murder. The facts that we are both wearing differently coloured clothes, and that our political leaders are at odds with each other don't change the basic set up.

At a point when arms could have been taken up Jesus instructed he follower "52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword." (Matt 26). Now that "for" is a strong indication, at least to me, of a negative attitude.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

maxiogee said:


> Murder and "kill", or even "kill in a war" are differentiated only by human use of semantics.
> 
> If I in the course of an afternoon, lie in wait and shoot dead the first person to come over a certain hill, someone I do not know and against whom I have no personal enmity, I have killed that person and most courts, and most people, would deem it murder. The facts that we are both wearing differently coloured clothes, and that our political leaders are at odds with each other don't change the basic set up.
> 
> At a point when arms could have been taken up Jesus instructed he follower "52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword." (Matt 26). Now that "for" is a strong indication, at least to me, of a negative attitude.


 
I totally agree with you, Maxiogee.
I cannot understand the forero who said that killing in a war is not included in "thou shalt not kill", otherwise it would have been "thou shalt not kill but in war"


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

TRG said:


> Unfortunately, this dream state was rudely interrupted in 2001 with the attacks of 9/11. There had been other attacks, but no one really saw them as requiring much of a military response. An opportunity for a more peaceful world was lost. *I suppose the pacifist view would be to have done nothing; just rebuild and wait for the next and presumeably bigger attack. *In an age where tens of thousands of people can be killed at once, no one really wants to wait to see if that is going to happen.



You _suppose_?  If it's only a supposition, why in the world are you bringing it into discussion?

Doing nothing has nothing to do with pacifism.  Deliberately acting in a peaceful manner has everything to do with it.  

Another interpretation of this quote of Jesus is that in killing a fellow human, we kill part of ourselves.  There is more than one way to die by the sword.  

Active pacifists can die by the sword without ever wielding one; and many have done so, knowingly and deliberately putting themselves at risk.  The most recent example who comes to mind is the American Friend (Quaker) Tom Fox (wiki link), who was murdered in Iraq.  

The reason we continue to work for peace:  the seeds that are planted, even when the outcome of our pacifist work is our death, produce a far different harvest than the seeds planted with the sword.  It gives a new meaning to the biblical reference to turning swords into ploughshares, doesn't it?


----------



## emma42

How very well put, Chaska.


----------



## Kajjo

Lavinia.dNP said:


> I cannot understand the forero who said that killing in a war is not included in "thou shalt not kill", otherwise it would have been "thou shalt not kill but in war"


Well, the Old Testament certainly meant "Thou shalt not murder!" and was not talking about killing. It is a matter of translation and context. Directly after this commandments follow several commandments actually requiring killing ("if you see a witch, kill her / if a man lies with a man, kill them both" and many other). Killing opponents in war, killing certain sinners and murderers and obviously killing animals is not forbidden by Moses law. 

Certainly, the New Testament has set stricter boundaries, but you should not argue with chapters that are meant differently!

Kajjo


----------



## TRG

Chaska Ñawi said:


> You _suppose_? If it's only a supposition, why in the world are you bringing it into discussion?


 
You are suggesting that my supposition (opinion) is not allowed in the discussion?????



> Doing nothing has nothing to do with pacifism. Deliberately acting in a peaceful manner has everything to do with it.


 
To me and I suspect to most non-pacifists, pacifism seems like doing nothing.



> Another interpretation of this quote of Jesus is that in killing a fellow human, we kill part of ourselves. There is more than one way to die by the sword.
> 
> Active pacifists can die by the sword without ever wielding one; and many have done so, knowingly and deliberately putting themselves at risk. The most recent example who comes to mind is the American Friend (Quaker) Tom Fox (wiki link), who was murdered in Iraq.


 
It is difficult for me to see where the death of Tom Fox has accomplished anything.



> The reason we continue to work for peace: the seeds that are planted, even when the outcome of our pacifist work is our death, produce a far different harvest than the seeds planted with the sword. It gives a new meaning to the biblical reference to turning swords into ploughshares, doesn't it?


 
To the extent that the Jews followed Gandhi's advice or are perceived to have followed it, how has that helped them. It seems to me a large portion of humanity would still like them dead and there is an equally large portion that would be willing to stand by and watch it happen. So I don't agree that there is any new meaning as you suggest.

Finally, it is fine to argue that pacifism should be a central doctrine of Christianity, but it is absurd to suggest that it is now or ever has been such a central doctrine.


----------



## LV4-26

> *Directly after* this commandments follow several commandments actually requiring killing ("if you see a witch, kill her / if a man lies with a man, kill them both" and many other).


(my emphasis)
The passage you're quoting is in the Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). The ten commandments are in the Exodus and the Deuteronomy. Are they also quoted in the Leviticus?


----------



## Kajjo

LV4-26 said:


> (my emphasis)
> The passage you're quoting is in the Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). The ten commandments are in the Exodus and the Deuteronomy. Are they also quoted in the Leviticus?


Just as example (in the translation of "English Standard"):
(Exo 20:13)  "You shall not murder."
(Exo 22:18)  "You shall not permit a sorceress to live."
(Exo 22:19)  "Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death."

Just to remind you, LV: I do _not_ argue with biblical chapters. I just expect that those who do, know what they believe in. Many do not. 

Kajjo


----------



## Poetic Device

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.
> 
> We all want peace and an end to war.
> 
> Then why do wars exist?
> 
> Assuming that there are some leaders who initiate war because of their economic interests, why do soldiers abide to that and go to war? because they're obliged to? but if all the people in a country refused war, could the leader who wants to initiate a war put the whole nation in jail?
> 
> That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war?
> 
> If everybody refused war, the leaders would be left alone duelling like in ancient times, and that would be fair.
> 
> What is your idea about this?


 
I have thought about this a few times.  The only conclusion that I can come up with is that no one wants to lose what they have, and by stepping foot outside the box they are risking their comfortable lives.  Then there is also the thought of "on the count of three we all__________" and no one does it for fear of being the only one.


----------



## Poetic Device

Kajjo said:


> Well, the Old Testament certainly meant "Thou shalt not murder!" but wouldn't killing another in battle without them doing anything to you or that you know about murder? Just a question, although I agree with the fact that the Bible says/means murder. and was not talking about killing. It is a matter of translation and context. Directly after this commandments follow several commandments actually requiring killing ("if you see a witch, kill her / if a man lies with a man, kill them both" and many other).  Are you talking about the Christian Bible or the Torah here?  I'm not sure about the Torah, but the Bible does not say that in the commandments.  (But that was already covered.) Killing opponents in war, killing certain sinners and murderers and obviously killing animals is not forbidden by Moses law. (Not to get off topic.)  And yet, Jesus preached to love thy neighbour, turn the other cheeck, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
> 
> Certainly, the New Testament has set stricter boundaries, but you should not argue with chapters that are meant differently!
> 
> Kajjo


 
No disrespect meant...


----------



## Kajjo

Dear Poetic Device, please consider proper quoting the next time, because it is very tedious to reply to double-quoted text. Thanks!



Poetic Device said:


> Well, the Old Testament certainly meant "Thou shalt not murder!" but wouldn't killing another in battle without them doing anything to you or that you know about murder? Just a question, although I agree with the fact that the Bible says/means murder.


It depends on the cause of war. For example, defending one's family, home or property might be fair. Waging war out of greed is not.


Poetic Device said:


> Are you talking about the Christian Bible or the Torah here? I'm not sure about the Torah, but the Bible does not say that in the commandments. (But that was already covered.)


Yes, I cited from the Christian Old Testament. See my previous post. "The commandments" refers to a larger section than just the "Ten Commandments", but the cited chapters are in direct context of the Ten Commandments anyway.



Poetic Device said:


> Killing opponents in war, killing certain sinners and murderers and obviously killing animals is not forbidden by Moses law. (Not to get off topic.) And yet, Jesus preached to love thy neighbour, turn the other cheeck, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


You are right. I covered this aspect with the sentence you did not comment on: "Certainly, the New Testament has set stricter boundaries"


Poetic Device said:


> No disrespect meant...


None taken.

Kajjo


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

TRG said:


> You are suggesting that my supposition (opinion) is not allowed in the discussion?????
> 
> I am saying, not suggesting, that opinions that are offered with nothing to back them up will probably not be taken seriously in this forum.
> 
> To me and I suspect to most non-pacifists, pacifism seems like doing nothing.
> 
> There's another opinion with no backbone.  If you had finished your sentence with "because ....." it might be an argument instead of an opinion.
> 
> It is difficult for me to see where the death of Tom Fox has accomplished anything.
> 
> As above.
> 
> To the extent that the Jews followed Gandhi's advice or are perceived to have followed it, how has that helped them. It seems to me a large portion of humanity would still like them dead and there is an equally large portion that would be willing to stand by and watch it happen. So I don't agree that there is any new meaning as you suggest.
> 
> When are you going to stop saying "It seems to me..." and say something like "Evidence to suggest X is as follows:...."?
> 
> Finally, it is fine to argue that pacifism should be a central doctrine of Christianity, but it is absurd to suggest that it is now or ever has been such a central doctrine.
> 
> Who here did?



I stand by my case until you can come up with better ammunition than "It seems to me...".


----------



## TRG

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I stand by my case until you can come up with better ammunition than "It seems to me...".





> I am saying, not suggesting, that opinions that are offered with nothing to back them up will probably not be taken seriously in this forum.


Given that this is a cultural forum, it would be rather difficult to have much discussion absent people expressing opinions and personal ideas. You evidently think that ad hominem is a suitable response to things that I have expressed as opinion even when expressed in a polite and unabusive manner. If my argumentation is weak, you'll just have to take it in stride.


> I said:
> To me and I suspect to most non-pacifists, pacifism seems like doing nothing.
> You said:
> There's another opinion with no backbone. If you had finished your sentence with "because ....." it might be an argument instead of an opinion.


This is making a mountain out of a molehill; it is still my opinion whether I say because or not. In the context of war, passivism or pacifism is, in my opinion, a bad strategy. More importantly, it is a strategy which has never achieved broad acceptance in the world in general


> I said:
> It is difficult for me to see where the death of Tom Fox has accomplished anything.
> You said:
> As above.


Please enlighten me as to what the death of Tom Fox has accomplished. I can't find it anywhere.


> I said:
> To the extent that the Jews followed Gandhi's advice or are perceived to have followed it, how has that helped them. It seems to me a large portion of humanity would still like them dead and there is an equally large portion that would be willing to stand by and watch it happen. So I don't agree that there is any new meaning as you suggest.
> You said:
> When are you going to stop saying "It seems to me..." and say something like "Evidence to suggest X is as follows:...."?


It seems to me you should stop troubling yourself with the peculiarities of my writing, pathetic though it may be, and address the matter of the folly of Gandhi's advice to the Jews, which you have scrupulously chosen to avoid.


> I said:
> Finally, it is fine to argue that pacifism should be a central doctrine of Christianity, but it is absurd to suggest that it is now or ever has been such a central doctrine.
> You said:
> Who here did?


Someone, I forget who, ended a post by announcing that they were a Christian pacifist which was a cue to me to explore the relationship between Christianity and war or the antithesis of war which I take to be pacifism. Along the way there have been several attempts, including yours, to interpret the Bible as supporting the idea of pacifism. While no one actually said that pacifism has always been a central doctrine of Christianity, citing Bible passages is strongly suggestive of that view.


----------



## Poetic Device

Not to be a party pooper or a hypocrite, but isn't this a teeny-weeny bit off topic?  

I'll try to get it back....  

I've been thinking about the other side of the coin.  I know that war is a terrible thing, but could it AT TIMES be necessary?  Maybe not so much in defense as kajjo pointed out (because that is obvious) but for another reason (I don't know what).  Wouldn't that constitute as a sort of "necessary evil"?  Like yelling at your kid or, depending on your child-rearring (no pun intended), giving your child a light spank on the tush?


----------



## TRG

Poetic Device said:


> Not to be a party pooper or a hypocrite, but isn't this a teeny-weeny bit off topic?
> 
> I'll try to get it back....
> 
> I've been thinking about the other side of the coin. I know that war is a terrible thing, but could it AT TIMES be necessary? Maybe not so much in defense as kajjo pointed out (because that is obvious) but for another reason (I don't know what). Wouldn't that constitute as a sort of "necessary evil"? Like yelling at your kid or, depending on your child-rearring (no pun intended), giving your child a light spank on the tush?


 
Good enough try, but the question of why we have war is just the flip side of why aren't we all pacifists. Most people in the world think that there are circumstances where war is justified. History is full of examples. To paraphrase Mr. Clausewitz, "War is politics by other means." He also said this, "No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it." , which is still good advice.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I've been thinking about the other side of the coin.  I know that war is a terrible thing, but could it AT TIMES be necessary?  Maybe not so much in defense as kajjo pointed out (because that is obvious) but for another reason (I don't know what).  Wouldn't that constitute as a sort of "necessary evil"?  Like yelling at your kid or, depending on your child-rearring (no pun intended), giving your child a light spank on the tush?



A totally apposite analogy, that of yelling at the child.
I would see beating the child as akin to war.
Yelling at them, depriving them of some routine treat, or even sending them either to their room or "to Coventry" would all be more appropriate behaviour with an errant child - and, by the same analogy, with an errant state.


----------



## Poetic Device

True, but for the sake of being a smart ass, the yelling threat could be a "cold war" maybe?


----------



## Victoria32

TRG said:


> You are suggesting that my supposition (opinion) is not allowed in the discussion?????
> 
> 
> 
> To me and I suspect to most non-pacifists, pacifism seems like doing nothing.


TRG, did you read the links I posted? The one from the Reformed Church actually deals with that question, in a much better way than I could! 







TRG said:


> Finally, it is fine to argue that pacifism should be a central doctrine of Christianity, but it is absurd to suggest that it is now or ever has been such a central doctrine.


Er, yes it has! Please do read the links!


----------



## I.C.

Well, sadly your premise is wrong.


Lavinia.dNP said:


> That's the question : if all soldiers refused to go to war, what would happen to them? Killed? convicted?
> Could a leader kill or imprison the whole nation if no one went to war?
> 
> That's the point I don't understand.


   But in case you were really asking a question here, I’ll try to address it as I understood it:

Something Hermann Göring supposedly said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary

 Some quotes by Hannah Arendt (the ones from “Eichmann in Jerusalem:A Report on the Banality of Evil”): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt

The Stanford Prison Experiment (of course there is criticism concerning the validity):
http://www.prisonexp.org/

From PBS, interviews regarding “The impact of killing and how to prepare the soldier”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/themes/prep.html

I tend to think humans carry the potential for violence, but killing members of our own species may not be in our genes, the sane instinctively shying away from it. Yet our instincts are weak and overcoming this threshold can be trained. I believe it is a culturally learnt skill. Coincidental in propaganda the enemy often is dehumanised, frequently has been portrayed as some sort of dangerous animal?
Some more or less soak this up with their mother’s milk. I met a few people for whom violence was a way of life, even all moral and legal aspects as well as the health hazards aside, I wouldn’t want to be like them already for the quality of life that as it seems (and as I observed it) comes with the mindset. 
Among others, the military trains to overcome the in-built taboo, but furthermore the structure of the military is specially set up such that members function within the hierarchy, do not fall out of line. At least according to my observation, the majority of people does not have the backbone it takes to speak up in front of the others against the code of conduct of just about any group they are part of, anyway. So I guess you could ask yourself (I really do not expect an answer to this) if you think deeply about the ethics and practices of the company you work for and about the overall impact its dealings have, if you do or would speak up boldly to challenge these when or if you think something may not be quite right with them. (You’ll not be court martialed.)

On the side: 
I’m not quite sure where I read this, but I believe it was in Ernst Jünger’s diaries: Women hate war, yet love the victors.


----------



## LV4-26

Kajjo said:


> Just to remind you, LV: I do _not_ argue with biblical chapters.


I know. But I don't know the Bible by heart and could not bother to read the whole of Leviticus or Exodus. You've answered my question, thanks.

Just to avoid any confusion, Exd chapters 21 and *22 *are not part of the decalogue. They're supposed to be guidelines, for the judges to work out their sentences. 21:1-->_Now these [are] the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
_Just a clarification, not a contradiction to your point.


----------



## Thomsen

I.C. said:


> I tend to think humans carry the potential for violence, but killing members of our own species may not be in our genes, the sane instinctively shying away from it. Yet our instincts are weak and overcoming this threshold can be trained. I believe it is a culturally learnt skill. Coincidental in propaganda the enemy often is dehumanised, frequently has been portrayed as some sort of dangerous animal?


 
Interesting point.  But from a wider biological point of few, it seems that there isn't an overwhelming majority of species that don't compete among themselves over resources, mates, etc.  Outbreeding or killing your rivals seems to be the way that successful organisms propogate.  Of course that doesn't predispose that some species don't organize themselves into groups or colonies that work together against other groups.

Now, I think we could argue perhaps that culturally we are taught that working together in modern societies is more productive than fighting for the most part, hence the existence of police and military to protect economic activity.


----------



## I.C.

Thomsen said:


> Interesting point. But from a wider biological point of few, it seems that there isn't an overwhelming majority of species that don't compete among themselves over resources, mates, etc. Outbreeding or killing your rivals seems to be the way that successful organisms propogate.


 I didn’t write I think humans are not naturally inclined to compete. Individuals co-operate and they compete. They compete within groups, different groups compete between each other and those competitions may not all be quite so friendly – may even become ultra-violent because humans have weak instincts and think ahead. Yet I tend to think on some instinctive level there also is an in-built instinctive reluctance to kill or maim other creatures recognised as human.
(I'm a layman, but to my knowledge there are quite a few species whose males fight for territory or rank and hence procreation, but even despite the potential to inflict great damage may do so without much bloodshed.)


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> Someone, I forget who, ended a post by announcing that they were a Christian pacifist which was a cue to me to explore the relationship between Christianity and war or the antithesis of war which I take to be pacifism. Along the way there have been several attempts, including yours, to interpret the Bible as supporting the idea of pacifism. While no one actually said that pacifism has always been a central doctrine of Christianity, citing Bible passages is strongly suggestive of that view.



Seeing people making various points about the "Christian" view of the issues of war and pacifism, I have to point out that Christianity is not just about the Bible. Every particular Christian denomination has its body of doctrine covering (among other things) these issues, and there are many differences between the doctrines of different denominations. Quakers, for example, would certainly disagree with the Catholic doctrine of just war. Thus, it makes no sense to argue that there exists a "Christian view" of these issues; there exist merely mutually contradictory views of different Christian denominations. 

As for the Bible quotes, Christianity is not merely about the Bible, unless one takes the point of view of radical _sola Scriptura_ Protestants, which account only for a minority of the Christians in the world. In fact, in non-Protestant Christian churches (and even some Protestant ones), trying to prove a point by directly resorting to Bible quotes is highly disapproved of, unless one is in the position of an official Church authority.



> To paraphrase Mr. Clausewitz, "War is politics by other means." He also said this, "No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it." , which is still good advice.



Unfortunately, in the real world, the majority of wars are started without this condition being true. (I say unfortunately, because if this weren't the case, wars would be both less numerous and less bloody.) If Clausewitz really said that, he was very naive about the way political decisions are actually brought in practice, regardless of the type of the political system.


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> A totally apposite analogy, that of yelling at the child.
> I would see beating the child as akin to war.
> Yelling at them, depriving them of some routine treat, or even sending them either to their room or "to Coventry" would all be more appropriate behaviour with an errant child - and, by the same analogy, with an errant state.



But here you're sneaking in the assumption that the misbehaving party is so relatively powerless that its behavior can be influenced by such tame measures. In many wars, an accurate analogy would not be an errant child, but rather a grown up delinquent bent on inflicting some serious harm. In both cases, the only choice is between suffering serious harm and engaging in some violent action against the misbehaving party.


----------



## TRG

Athaulf said:


> Seeing people making various points about the "Christian" view of the issues of war and pacifism, I have to point out that Christianity is not just about the Bible. Every particular Christian denomination has its body of doctrine covering (among other things) these issues, and there are many differences between the doctrines of different denominations. Quakers, for example, would certainly disagree with the Catholic doctrine of just war. Thus, it makes no sense to argue that there exists a "Christian view" of these issues; there exist merely mutually contradictory views of different Christian denominations.
> 
> As for the Bible quotes, Christianity is not merely about the Bible, unless one takes the point of view of radical _sola Scriptura_ Protestants, which account only for a minority of the Christians in the world. In fact, in non-Protestant Christian churches (and even some Protestant ones), trying to prove a point by directly resorting to Bible quotes is highly disapproved of, unless one is in the position of an official Church authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, the majority of wars are started without this condition being true. (I say unfortunately, because if this weren't the case, wars would be both less numerous and less bloody.) If Clausewitz really said that, he was very naive about the way political decisions are actually brought in practice, regardless of the type of the political system.


This leaves the impression that the pacifist and non-pacifist or just war camps of all of Christendom are more or less in balance in terms of the number of adherents. This is not true now and has not been true for a very long time. I don't think this fact is contested even by pacifists. They may argue that is shouldn't be or that it should never should have been true, but that is a totally different argument.


----------



## Poetic Device

Are we talking about wars, religion or holy wars here?


----------



## Victoria32

Poetic Device said:


> Are we talking about wars, religion or holy wars here?


Any and all wars, as far as I know... given especially that many 'holy' wars are politically motivated ones in disguise...

Vicky


----------



## Poetic Device

Victoria32 said:


> Any and all wars, as far as I know... given especially that *many 'holy' wars are politically motivated ones in disguise...*
> 
> Vicky


I agree with you on the bold text....

And then there is my OTHER question, mostly rhetorical...

What God would tell you to destroy the infedels?  Why not try to peacefully convert if you must do anything?  Wouldn't that give you bigger brownie points because you caused that God to become more powerful in numbers?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> And then there is my OTHER question, mostly rhetorical...
> 
> What God would tell you to destroy the infedels?



Any God who wanted to!



Poetic Device said:


> Wouldn't that give you bigger brownie points because you caused that God to become more powerful in numbers?



As we say in Ireland, God's ways are not our ways. 

Assuming that there is a God.


----------



## Poetic Device

True......


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> What God would tell you to destroy the infedels? Why not try to peacefully convert if you must do anything? Wouldn't that give you bigger brownie points because you caused that God to become more powerful in numbers?


This is a logical question about religion and is therefore likely to consume its own tail.

.,,


----------



## ireney

*Mod note: I see a tendency toward a religious conversation.  Any comment that addresses the question "If everybody's against the war, then why does war exist?" is welcome.*


----------



## Bonjules

We didn't talk about a deeper, more sinister reason for war, on the anthropo/psychological level.
I think societies can get sick of themselves. Here is my thought: It seems to me that everytime we have a period of 'peace' (i.e. absence of war that threatens you directly, existentially, not 'distant' war fought by a few)
we engage in pursuit of hairraising superficiality, greed, sensless accumulation of wealth, consumerism, celebrity cult(I could go on for a while..) while, naturally, destroying the planet 'peacefully'(this a more recent problem); in short, behavior that makes the late Roman Empire look more like the Salvation Army.
'War is the father of all things'. It changes all that. It teaches you quickly, at a terrible price, what counts; all those things you have come to take for granted: Life, sanity, love, health, a family, a roof.....Could it be that we are asking for that lesson from time to time?
Take it from someone who has lost all males in the family to various wars, lived in a place that had all its cities destroyed.
To sharpen the point even more: Is it the paradox of our existence that we need to be existentially threatened in order to save us from ourselves?
This time around it might happen without war, of course, but via a climate catastrophe. Maybe this homo
sapiens is not so sapiens after all.


----------



## Grobar

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Then why do wars exist?


Its the monster that lives in everybody of us.
Sometimes it comes through.


----------



## .   1

Grobar said:


> Its the monster that lives in everybody of us.
> Sometimes it comes through.


According to Desmond Morris and Richard Leakey this is a misconstruction of our hunting behaviour.  Morris is especially strident in pointing out that we are actualy a very non war like species or we would not have survived.
Civilisation and dense population levels are routinely exploited by a vanishingly small minority of people who obtain positions of influence within our society and then sway public opinion to cause enough hatred or fear to get that little dweeb of a politician elected.

I base my assertion that war is not instinctive with one easily checked observation.
Has any society ever initiated a war after having been told the truth about the situation?
To put the question another way.
Are all wars initiated with a series of ever increasing lies?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> I base my assertion that war is not instinctive with one easily checked observation.
> Has any society ever initiated a war after having been told the truth about the situation?
> To put the question another way.
> Are all wars initiated with a series of ever increasing lies?
> 
> .,,



The British 'initiated' their participation in WWII when they knew exactly what Germany was doing - admittedly they didn't know _all_ that Germany was doing. What they didn't know would not have stopped them going to war, vut it might have brought in more countries to help in the fight.


----------



## I.C.

Bonjules said:


> We didn't talk about a deeper, more sinister reason for war, on the anthropo/psychological level.


  Before I reply to this in substance, I’d like to ask whether you have participated in a war, have killed up close yourself or know people who have.


. said:


> According to Desmond Morris and Richard Leakey this is a misconstruction of our hunting behaviour.


  That’s exactly what I in my feeblemindedness have come to believe. There may be a hunting instinct, a fight or flight defence mechanism and an instinctive competition for rank, but I really doubt the killer instinct some revere so much exists. I think killing humans and showing no mercy is learnt behaviour. 
 But I’ve given a link, so it’d be pretty pointless to elaborate in my own dimwitted way.


> I base my assertion that war is not instinctive with one easily checked observation.
> Has any society ever initiated a war after having been told the truth about the situation?
> To put the question another way.
> Are all wars initiated with a series of ever increasing lies?


Your definition of war may be a little more narrow than might be useful. For example, according to my fallible memory Tim Flannery in his book “Throwim Way Leg” relates a how a Papua belonging to a tribe living in an area with very high infant mortality told him he participated in a raid of another tribe, which had been carefully planned for a long time before and had involved the building of a bridge. When this bridge was finally completed, a group went the other tribe's settlement, killed  some of its members, carried the bodies away for later consumption of the meat and abducted children of the murdered to adopt as members of their own tribe (old age insurance - rational). From what I recall, the tribesman according to Flannery pointed to the person he said he robbed thus, who was present then and there, whose mother or father (one or the other, I think, might have been the mother) the man had chopped up and carried away together with the small child. (How this supposedly was done to make transport convenient is described. This is all from memory, I read the book years ago, so I can’t vouch for content.)


----------



## emma42

I.C. said:


> Before I reply to this in substance, I’d like to ask whether you have participated in a war, have killed up close yourself or know people who have.


      No rudeness intended, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask for such personal information.


----------



## Bonjules

emma42 said:


> I.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I reply to this in substance, I’d like to ask whether you have participated in a war, have killed up close yourself or know people who have.
> 
> 
> 
> No rudeness intended, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask for such personal information.
Click to expand...

 
Aside from whether such a question would be appropriate, I.C., I am not sure what an answer would contribute to the discussion. I put forth a general observation; it might be responded to in a general
manner.


----------



## TRG

One memorable quote about war is from General Sherman of the American Civil War era who said, "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." Reading through the various posts, it occurred to me that if war is in fact something to be avoided at all costs, then the most ardent advocates for avoiding war should be ex-soldiers. It is my impression that this is not the case, but I admit to having done no research on the matter. Is there an informed opinion out there?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> The British 'initiated' their participation in WWII when they knew exactly what Germany was doing - admittedly they didn't know _all_ that Germany was doing. What they didn't know would not have stopped them going to war, vut it might have brought in more countries to help in the fight.


It has always been my impression that a bloke named Adolf initiated that particular war by employing, among other things, the theory of the Big Lie.  He utterly demonize the opponents in the minds of his constituants and war resulted.



I.C. said:


> Your definition of war may be a little more narrow than might be useful. For example, according to my fallible memory Tim Flannery in his book “Throwim Way Leg” relates a how a Papua belonging to a tribe living in an area with very high infant mortality told him he participated in a raid of another tribe, which had been carefully planned for a long time before and had involved the building of a bridge. When this bridge was finally completed, a group went the other tribe's settlement, killed some of its members, carried the bodies away for later consumption of the meat and abducted children of the murdered to adopt as members of their own tribe (old age insurance - rational). From what I recall, the tribesman according to Flannery pointed to the person he said he robbed thus, who was present then and there, whose mother or father (one or the other, I think, might have been the mother) the man had chopped up and carried away together with the small child. (How this supposedly was done to make transport convenient is described. This is all from memory, I read the book years ago, so I can’t vouch for content.)


I am stumped.  This convoluted story sounds like so many myths that have come out of that area in recent times.
Just last year an Australian tabloid tv program made outrageous claims relating to similar practices and it was revealed to be a total media beatup with utterly no evidence to support it.  Just google wa-wa and Naomi Robson and you'll probably find out why Ms. Robson immediately decided to retire from tv.  This is the same moron who turned up outside Steve Irwin's family Zoo within hours of his death.  She was dressed in Steve Irwin type clothes and had a lizard on her shoulder.
I am very surprised that people are still making claims like this.  It defies logic to think that humans could survive in an area that already has high infant mortality if they actively kill more babies.  This sounds to be so counter productive that extinction must follow within a very few generations due simply to the 'pay back effect'.
It is my contention that revenge killings would immediately ensue and that any person who had a baby killed in such a manner would probably kill the murderer and anyone associated with them if for no other reason than to ensure that no more babies were killed.



TRG said:


> One memorable quote about war is from General Sherman of the American Civil War era who said, "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." Reading through the various posts, it occurred to me that if war is in fact something to be avoided at all costs, then the most ardent advocates for avoiding war should be ex-soldiers. It is my impression that this is not the case, but I admit to having done no research on the matter. Is there an informed opinion out there?


Charlie (Lionel Charles) Mance, may he rest in peace, was the most highly decorated Australian soldier from the First World War.
Mr. Mance was a private soldier and is famously and extensively quoted in Australia and I would postulate that there would be few large memorials to war in Australia that did not contain his immortal words that should be engraved on the forehead of every mongrel war mongering politician,
*A man that wants war is not right in the head* ... Nobody won the First WorldWar*. *Both sides were flat out. We were glad to finish it.

.,,


----------



## emma42

I have never met a soldier or former soldier who thought that war was desirable.  Most of them do not want to talk about it at all.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Has any society ever initiated a war after having been told the truth about the situation?
> To put the question another way.
> Are all wars initiated with a series of ever increasing lies?
> .,,





. said:


> It has always been my impression that a bloke named Adolf initiated that particular war by employing, among other things, the theory of the Big Lie.



It could be argued the the British 'initiated' the war by setting down a marker and threatening Hitler should he cross it. He had already crossed previous markers without punishment. The British administration warned him that they would go to war and they did when he dared them to.
I am not saying that they shouldn't have done what they did, or that what they did was unnecessary.


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
WWII offers a much clearer picture as to the motivation of it's leaders - from the criminal, clearly pathological to the maybe sly and devious- for getting into it (Hitler and his cronies clearly were the driving factor) and an overall explanation(consequences of WWI etc).

WWI seems a lot more confusing and unclear. It is a good example for what I meant of societies 'getting sick of themselves': There was relative prosperity and fairly stable societies - at least in western Europe. While the Balkans were smoldering a little, even there nobody was
laying great territorial claims on anybody. Germany certainly was among the leaders scientifically and industrially. But underneath all that, I believe the Germans knew that the Kaiser-Reich was a pompous and hollow structure, full of self-congratulatory hypocyrisy, authoritarian, which would eventually(did already) smother innovation and change.
When war was declared- for no good, apparent reason-
how do you explain the cheering men, women and children throwing flowers on the men who were -elatedly- marchig towards their death? 
The callous mass murder that followed and who everybody participated in made this in the eyes of many historians the most significantly disturbing event of the century (which indeed had more than its share of mass murder and genocide) - in the sense of, for the first time, making mass killing 'acceptable'.


----------



## I.C.

emma42 said:


> No rudeness intended, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask for such personal information.


No rudeness intended, but if someone writes something like the above, then I’d consider that the most normal question there is. I don’t recall demanding an answer. 


Bonjules said:


> Aside from whether such a question would be appropriate, I.C., I am not sure what an answer would contribute to the discussion. I put forth a general observation; it might be responded to in a general
> manner.


I think that would have changed everything. Judging from what you wrote, I doubt you have. At least to me what you wrote sounded quite romantic. So not to misjudge you, I asked. I haven’t participated in a war and I haven’t killed – I also have a strong desire to keep it that way. Doesn’t mean I’d advocate unconditional pacifism. 


> I think societies can get sick of themselves. Here is my thought: It seems to me that everytime we have a period of 'peace' (i.e. absence of war that threatens you directly, existentially, not 'distant' war fought by a few)
> we engage in pursuit of hairraising superficiality, greed, sensless accumulation of wealth, consumerism, celebrity cult(I could go on for a while..)


Every time, historically? When was that? When did more than just a few ever live in abundance before? I may share part of your sentiment regarding today’s consumerism and the plastic bubble, but I find this unrelated to the issue on hand. 
I’m getting the impression you’re picking up pre-WWI sentiments, like comments by Georg Heym who wrote he hoped for a war, and mix it with a personal disenchantment with consumerism. I for instance have a photography of two relatives of mine, one look at their hands suffices to tell they did not have any share of the fin de siècle decadence, the splendour some effete who were bored with their privileged lives liked to put down while enjoying it, but mostly made no effort to escape from. 
I doubt factory workers or peat cutters went to war because they were fed up with consumerism. 
(Besides, war is still high time for greed. As I mentioned WWI already – there’s “Die letzten Tage der Menschheit”.)

I’d rather say if all those who didn’t experience how war come to town – and I really mean how war came to their town – are buried, and so there consequently is no living memory any longer, people grow blasé and they take freedoms and amenities for granted. I include myself.
After the earthquake in Bam I talked to my next-door neighbour who was in her nineties then and I know she remembered how war came to her town in WWII. She was trembling. “We cannot know how these people feel like, we cannot know…” When I met another old man during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and he brought up the topic, he was shaking with fright. Unless war comes to the homes of those who can effectively hold the ones accountable who have the power to begin and end wars – literally to their own homes -, and threatens to come back again to wipe out their lives, privileges or profits, I see little chance for there to evolve a structure that may end all wars. Well, I see none.
In general, I'd say someone who has never hungered, not gone to bed with cramps, does not have the faintest idea what hunger is and he who has not spent nights out in the cold, cannot grasp the meaning of shelter, what it means to have it (I’d say he therefore cannot understand the Odyssey , but not that relevant.) In my opinion such a complete detachment also is a loss, but war (or conflicts of a warlike nature commonly not called war) disappearing from the face of the planet wouldn’t be one at all.


> 'War is the father of all things'. It changes all that. It teaches you quickly, at a terrible price, what counts; all those things you have come to take for granted: Life, sanity, love, health, a family, a roof.....Could it be that we are asking for that lesson from time to time?


If you’re asking yourself that question, you could sign up for one. According to your theory, one might expect Swedes should be full of desire for war – much more than Germans are-, while Pashtuns should be most weary of it. 
According to the German Wikipedia, Heraclitus wrote “conflict is the father of all things, king of all things” Conflict is not quite the same as war. I can’t verify this as I belong to hoi polloi. (Which also is one more reason for me not to look forward to war. Regardless of my own priorities, chances are low that I’ll get five deferments. In fact, considering that I’m still part of the reserve, they probably are zero.) Either way, just because Heraclitus wrote this, doesn’t mean it’s true. 


. said:


> It has always been my impression that a bloke named Adolf initiated that particular war by employing, among other things, the theory of the Big Lie.  He utterly demonize the opponents in the minds of his constituants and war resulted.


The soil was fertile. 


> I am stumped.  This convoluted story sounds like so many myths that have come out of that area in recent times.
> Just last year an Australian tabloid tv program made outrageous claims relating to similar practices and it was revealed to be a total media beatup with utterly no evidence to support it.


Please note I was careful enough not to claim the story is true and I  think Flannery did neither, I claim I remember reading Tim Flannery wrote a tribesman told him this story and I think that’s a little different than a tabloid writing the same.
Whether the story is true is yet another matter, though if a tribesman did tell it to Flannery, I fail to see why that man would lie. Then again, it is a culture I have no understanding of, so there could be reasons I do not understand. I’d not even know whether it could be a joke of sorts. Either way, considering that their life is or was pretty damn harsh and further considering how Europeans have behaved throughout many centuries, including the age of imperialism, the settlement of foreign lands and regarding slavery, I fail to see how someone could honestly consider European culture as a whole to be morally superior. Such a  thought had not occurred to me. (I’m letting aside Nazi Germany unless someone forces this upon me simply because Germany is just one nation.)
I didn’t mention this for shock value. I simply intended to use a story about tribal warfare that can be found in an English book I read, written by a guy who has some standing and deals with a rather recent past. Pick any other culture you like, for instance European ones, there are plenty of examples of organised raids. 


> I am very surprised that people are still making claims like this.  It defies logic to think that humans could survive in an area that already has high infant mortality if they actively kill more babies.  This sounds to be so counter productive that extinction must follow within a very few generations due simply to the 'pay back effect'.


No, according to the story they didn’t kill their own healthy babies, they killed the parents of other children and took these children as their own. The story is about people whose babies died of diseases and who allegedly abducted and adopted kids of another tribe who already had survived some time in an area where the chances for that were better. When these kids became members of that other tribe, they were not infants any longer, therefore would stand a higher chance of growing up into adults. The alleged story was meant to have happened in the past, not recently.
If it were true, then for how many generations and how often would be yet another question. From what I recall, building this bridge was supposed to have been a feat and the areas had supposedly been disconnected before (reason the others were caught unawares), were again so afterwards. Both supposed to be difficult terrain, too, I think staking this out was supposed to have taken considerable time and effort. I guess it is thinkable that due to some reason this tribe either had to move into an area which was disadvantageous to live in or that conditions within the region they settled in deteriorated and for some reason they couldn’t move into a new one. Or it’s all bunk – I certainly concede that possibility. 


> It is my contention that revenge killings would immediately ensue and that any person who had a baby killed in such a manner would probably kill the murderer and anyone associated with them if for no other reason than to ensure that no more babies were killed.


If this were a compelling argument, then one might be tempted to conclude cultures which know blood feuds must either be peaceful or cease to exist pretty quickly. To my knowledge not the case. 


Bonjules said:


> When war was declared- for no good, apparent reason-
> how do you explain the cheering men, women and children throwing flowers on the men who were -elatedly- marchig towards their death?


Not with consumerism. See my link to an alleged quote by Göring.
I’d say a nationalistic inferiority complex might have played a role. Platz an der Sonne. Großmannssucht. Wilhelm II’s  moronic pre-war speeches are scary. Maybe some English folks should not have blackballed him when he tried to become a member of their yachting club.

On a general note, I could recommend watching La Haine (or Hate), with particular reference to the scene in which Hubert challenges Vinz to shoot a nazi. It is a good movie.


----------



## emma42

I.C. said:


> No rudeness intended, but if someone writes something like the above, then I’d consider that the most normal question there is. I don’t recall demanding an answer.
> 
> Indeed, and I did not say that you demanded an answer.  I think the question is inappropriate because a) it is very personal, and out of place in this Forum, and b) it propounds the idea that one may not have a valid opinion on a topic unless one has had direct experience of it.


----------



## ireney

Just a note on what Heraclitus said about war: He didn't say that war is good, he merely stated a fact.


----------



## I.C.

emma42 said:


> Indeed, and I did not say that you demanded an answer. I think the question is inappropriate because a) it is very personal, and out of place in this Forum, and b) it propounds the idea that one may not have a valid opinion on a topic unless one has had direct experience of it.


a) You do not even write you think it is out of place, you write it is. Unless you are a moderator who is enforcing laid down rules, I would suggest you do not attempt to lecture me as if your judgement were an objective benchmark. To me it is a little questionable whether you would try to do so in person. Furthermore, but on the side and on a lighter note, you are English and notions of privacy which you might consider cast in stone (and which are the butt of jokes, just the day before yesterday I read some made by a Hungarian) may apply to others in a slightly different fashion or some may care very little about them (and I am a pretty discrete person, myself). Sometimes, without establishing certain information communication is simply meaningless. That said - you recall I didn't demand an answer?
b) I do indeed think with the opinion in question personal experience matters greatly. 


ireney said:


> Just a note on what Heraclitus said about war: He didn't say that war is good, he merely stated a fact.


So did he write “war” or “conflict”?


----------



## emma42

One does not have to  be a moderator to make attempts to uphold the rules, guidelines and spirit of these forums.  Furthermore, I wonder why you find it necessary to write such a thing as "To me it is a little questionable whether you would try to do so in person".  Do you think such a remark is appropriate in this forum or anywhere else?  I certainly do not, and I am sorry you do.


----------



## I.C.

emma42 said:


> One does not have to  be a moderator to make attempts to uphold the rules, guidelines and spirit of these forums.  Furthermore, I wonder why you find it necessary to write such a thing as "To me it is a little questionable whether you would try to do so in person".  Do you think such a remark is appropriate in this forum or anywhere else?  I certainly do not, and I am sorry you do.


I'd like to especially point out my comment does not contain any trace of any hint at unfortunate consequences should you have tried to do so in person - I do not do such -, I just doubt you would have found it appropriate to act like you did and I do not take kindly to your comment. This is one of the shortcomings of the internet. I have nothing more to say.


----------



## emma42

One presumes this is the closest to an apology one will receive.  I accept.


----------



## .   1

I.C. said:


> Before I reply to this in substance, I’d like to ask whether you have participated in a war, have killed up close yourself or know people who have.


I am not a moderator and do not wish to be one but I consider myself quite within my rights as a simple member of these forums to tell you that that is a boorish question and does not deserve a response from the person to whom it was directed.



I.C. said:


> No rudeness intended, but if someone writes something like the above, then I’d consider that the most normal question there is. I don’t recall demanding an answer.


If you've never been executed are your views on capital punishment less valid?





I.C. said:


> Please note I was careful enough not to claim the story is true and I think Flannery did neither, I claim I remember reading Tim Flannery wrote a tribesman told him this story and I think that’s a little different than a tabloid writing the same.


I fail to see the difference between the publication of unsubstantiated heresay that fails to meet the requirements of logic to be any different to tabloid writing.



I.C. said:


> Whether the story is true is yet another matter, though if a tribesman did tell it to Flannery, I fail to see why that man would lie. Then again, it is a culture I have no understanding of, so there could be reasons I do not understand. I’d not even know whether it could be a joke of sorts. Either way, considering that their life is or was pretty damn harsh and further considering how Europeans have behaved throughout many centuries, including the age of imperialism, the settlement of foreign lands and regarding slavery, I fail to see how someone could honestly consider European culture as a whole to be morally superior. Such a thought had not occurred to me. (I’m letting aside Nazi Germany unless someone forces this upon me simply because Germany is just one nation.)
> I didn’t mention this for shock value. I simply intended to use a story about tribal warfare that can be found in an English book I read, written by a guy who has some standing and deals with a rather recent past. Pick any other culture you like, for instance European ones, there are plenty of examples of organised raids.
> No, according to the story they didn’t kill their own healthy babies, they killed the parents of other children and took these children as their own. The story is about people whose babies died of diseases and who allegedly abducted and adopted kids of another tribe who already had survived some time in an area where the chances for that were better. When these kids became members of that other tribe, they were not infants any longer, therefore would stand a higher chance of growing up into adults. The alleged story was meant to have happened in the past, not recently.
> If it were true, then for how many generations and how often would be yet another question. From what I recall, building this bridge was supposed to have been a feat and the areas had supposedly been disconnected before (reason the others were caught unawares), were again so afterwards. Both supposed to be difficult terrain, too, I think staking this out was supposed to have taken considerable time and effort. I guess it is thinkable that due to some reason this tribe either had to move into an area which was disadvantageous to live in or that conditions within the region they settled in deteriorated and for some reason they couldn’t move into a new one. Or it’s all bunk – I certainly concede that possibility.


I do not really know where you are coming from with your repeated embelleshments of an almost certain falshood.
Native people were well advised to tell white invaders fairy stories to try to frighten them away or to keep the secrets of the tribes just that, secret.
Aboriginal people told the white invaders the most stupendous whoppers about yowies and such like.
You seem to be clinging to the belief that some obscure tribe moved into an area that was difficult to concieve and raise babies in so they solved the problem by completely eradicating their genetic stock by murdering neighbouring villages to steal the children to raise as their own.
My contention is that if a tribe moved into such an area they would be so weakened by the failed attempt to raise their own children that they would not have been able to devote any energy to building a bridge and murdering to steal babies. They would have just died out.
Even if the story was true I am certain that neighbouring villages would have erradicated that particular mutant society to ensure that their own babies were not stolen.
It really does sound like a local variation of the Boogy Man myths.
The baby stealers will get you if you don't watch out.

I do not believe it for a moment and if it is being told as some form of parable I wonder at the intended message.

.,,


----------



## I.C.

. said:


> I am not a moderator and do not wish to be one but I consider myself quite within my rights as a simple member of these forums to tell you that that is a boorish question and does not deserve a response from the person to whom it was directed.


 As far as I’m concerned you’d be entitled to call me names, as well. I don’t mind. I noticed before I don’t necessarily always like your style, either. Hardly relevant for either of us.
I used to know someone who killed and who wasn't a bad person, but a bit wrong in the head and misguided. This might make me a little more touchy. 


> If you've never been executed are your views on capital punishment less valid?


Depends a little depends on what precisely I’d like to state about it and not having witnessed any I might be careful how and what I’d say about the process.


> Native people were well advised to tell white invaders fairy stories to try to frighten them away or to keep the secrets of the tribes just that, secret.


From what I recall, Flannery wasn’t intending to invade, but it might have looked different from another point of view. You certainly have a point. 


> You seem to be clinging to the belief that some obscure tribe


No. Do you mean to misconstrue what I wrote?


> if it is being told as some form of parable I wonder at the intended message.


Good question.


----------



## cuchuflete

I.C. said:


> Before I reply to this in substance, I’d like to ask whether you have participated in a war, have killed up close yourself or know people who have.



What a strange remark, disguised as a question.  It seems to imply that one must have paraticipated in a war,  "killed up close" (though the comment doesn't specify if such killing must have been in a war setting) or have been the recipient of second-hand comments, in order to be qualified to offer a worthy opinion.   

Most every citizen of a nation at war feels some consequences of that war, and 'participates' for better or worse.  Not all generals have had combat experience at the level of the foot soldier, and some have never taken a life.  Does that mean that they lack the ability to direct troops?  
I have had personal conversations with high ranking military officers who have killed.  Some thought war was glorious, and others thought it was the lowest depth to which human behavior could sink.  Do I therefore qualify to offer an opinion about killing or war?  

I sat next to a friend the night before the World Trade Center in New York was demolished by
murderous acts of war.  He died in that attack.  Does that make me qualified to comment on killing, or must I have participated in the attack to hold an opinion worthy of consideration? Does sifting body parts from the rubble qualify one to offer a comment?

"Killed up close" would seem to exclude bomber pilots and crew.  Do they become qualified to offer their thoughts if they have been shot down?  Wounded? How about artillery crews?

I value Bonjules's thoughts because he is thoughtful.  I don't need to check his other 'credentials' to consider those thoughts, nor to consider them worthy of consideration.


----------



## .   1

I.C. said:


> Good question.


And the answer from the story teller is?

.,,


----------



## John Mirra

Everyone _is_ against war, but only in the same manner as they are against having surgery; no one likes being sliced open, but they sometimes approve of the operation if it removes an inoperable and malignant tumor.

In any event, I'm surprised to find myself arguing against pacifists, as their role is more often my own, but in some of the cited instances (e.g. French and Russian revolutions, etc.) I can only find myself thinking that conflict was entirely justified.

Speaking with the greatest possible concinnity, everyone is against war, but everyone is against injustice as well.


----------



## emma42

Welcome to the Forum, John!

But then, who decides what is and what is not a "malignant tumour"?  As it's a metaphor, it becomes entirely subjective.  Jews, Tutsis and Kurds have been considered as such by some.


----------



## I.C.

cuchuflete said:


> What a strange remark, disguised as a question. It seems to imply that one must have paraticipated in a war, "killed up close" (though the comment doesn't specify if such killing must have been in a war setting)


It does not. The logical connection between all parts is meant to be “or”. I'm a little unsure now whether common use of English would have demanded I use one "or" more to make that clear. Seeing it now, I'm thinking that if it is not compulsory, then in writing it might still be helpful to do so.
Bonjules wrote “In war (truly existential war, not the the kind of war that is merely a side show in society and far removed from it), a nation counts its resources, shows its will to survive or give up” and “'War is the father of all things'. It changes all that. It teaches you quickly, at a terrible price, what counts”. I actually find it odd not to inquire whether that is said on the basis of personal experience or not before addressing it in reply. As there was the question of war being “in our genes” and as wars used to be fought up closer till recently, I also find it obvious to add the question about close-up. I tend to think it might make a difference. 


> Most every citizen of a nation at war feels some consequences of that war, and 'participates' for better or worse. Not all generals have had combat experience at the level of the foot soldier, and some have never taken a life. Does that mean that they lack the ability to direct troops?


The talk was about war as an existential experience, I believe, not fitness to direct troops.


> I have had personal conversations with high ranking military officers who have killed. Some thought war was glorious, and others thought it was the lowest depth to which human behavior could sink. Do I therefore qualify to offer an opinion about killing or war?


Anyone is entitled to an opinion. 
I quoted Ernst Jünger before, he loved WWI. 


. said:


> And the answer from the story teller is?


Well, the thought that this could be an allegory had not occurred to me before you mentioned the possibility, I do not have one. For an allegory I find the story rather odd - I in particular mean the added details. But then again I have no insight into the culture.


----------



## I.C.

I’ll add that also to my knowledge the Wilhelminic era was pretty suffocating for some, with young people attempting to appear old in their manners to gain more recognition, measuredness being more valued than youthful exuberance. There of course were cultural streams linked to the reception of Nietzsche (whose philosophy Alfred Baeumler characterised as heraclitic, not dionysic, but that was in the 1930s ), the Lebensphilosophie, the Wandervogel and so on. Also, those of the working classes who volunteered might simply have thought they’d now get their chance to do heroic deeds as their forefathers before them, do something memorable, may have signed up for honour and adventure. I assume those who shouted “Jeder Stoß ein Franzos’!” rather expected another Sedan, not Verdun - Germany had had good experiences with war quite recently before. I still find it highly unlikely that these feelings had a considerable influence in causing the war. I think the causes were sh…  ill-thought out, irrational politics and nationalism channelled an energy that by its nature is not necessarily linked to war and killing into this unfortunate direction – as has been done frequently. Well, some folks climb mountains or engage in drag racing. 
(As far as accounts are concerned, I remember reading criticism that All Quiet on the Western Front was written with an ex-post mentality that did not reflect how many had thought at the time. Then again, there are plenty of others, for instance In Stahlgewittern.)


----------



## ireney

Since Heraclitus gets to mentioned a few times let's clarify two (or three) things:

a) in the quote people allude to, Heraclitus talked about "war" not conflict. THis particular quote however is just an observation of what happens and as such "objective". In other words, Heraclitus is not saying that war is good or bad.

b) Heraclitus in general, believes in conflicting powers, in the duality of the universe. The conflict between the opposing ends/powers/thingies is what makes the world (nothing's missing here, I meant to end the sentence this way ). Light and dark, up and down etc. He also talks a lot about how what we see as one thing has to do with our perspective (what you see as uphill is downhill for me).

c) (there are three things after all see?)While we only have fragments of his works and subsequently his philosophy, we know enough; Taking his quote out of the context of his overall thought is wrong. However, even if he actually thought that war is good or an inescapable fact it doesn'tt mean that he was right. He was and is considered a wise man, not an all-knowing, infallible one (and he would probably find such an idea laughable)


----------



## I.C.

ireney said:


> a) in the quote people allude to, Heraclitus talked about "war" not conflict. THis particular quote however is just an observation of what happens and as such "objective". In other words, Heraclitus is not saying that war is good or bad.


Thanks for clearing that up. The German Wikipedia (already by its nature not an infallible source, I realise this...) claims Heraclitus used πόλεμος and this would not necessarily only mean war. So they are dead wrong, at least in this context?


----------



## ireney

While πόλεμος could mean conflict instead of war, it's a stretch. I have to read the whole thing in the original (which I don't have around) to give you a positive answer, but πόλεμος in general is used with the meaning of armed conflict and, given the acuracy of the Greek language and how it was used by philosophers (who coined new words when one giving the exact meaning of what they meant didn't exist) I tend to interpret it (not just me) as "war".

However I think we are getting a bit off topic here


----------



## I.C.

ireney said:


> I tend to interpret it (not just me) as "war".
> (...)
> However I think we are getting a bit off topic here


Yes, I'm sorry, but this did indeed interest me principally. The quote continues such that war (particularly in a broader sense) certainly fits well.


----------



## .   1

I.C. said:


> Well, the thought that this could be an allegory had not occurred to me before you mentioned the possibility, I do not have one. For an allegory I find the story rather odd - I in particular mean the added details. But then again I have no insight into the culture.


I was asking you why you rasied this 'allegorical' story.  
Could you please clarify your point as your parable is so complex and contains so many bizarre coincidences and plot flaws that I am at a loss to find a focus?
I have read many stories in many books by many authors but I only repeat as being true those stories I believe to be true.

.,,


----------



## I.C.

. said:


> I was asking you why you rasied this 'allegorical' story.
> Could you please clarify your point as your parable is so complex and contains so many bizarre coincidences and plot flaws that I am at a loss to find a focus?
> I have read many stories in many books by many authors but I only repeat as being true those stories I believe to be true.


 Terrific idea! I am delighted at this wonderful opportunity, your wish is my command. With great pleasure I will attempt to repeat and clarify for you what has been written by me.
  I meant to relate a story in which for some reasons individuals who full well know of the possible consequences of their actions voluntarily form a party and initiate an act of violence that could be classified as war, with no one duped. 
  I chose an example that I estimated to be accurate, taken from a book written in English. Firstly, because I consider the author to be reputable, so I assume someone did tell him this and he did not try to fatten up the story, I also assumed you’d have heard of the author and therefore could come to your own assessment of his reputability. Secondly, because while the story was not backed up with facts, it did not sound to me like anyone would ever want to invent such a story about themselves, least with the details given – this of course may have been a crucial misjudgement. 
  In hindsight it may have been a poor choice as I have no knowledge of the culture in question (and as my reading of aforementioned book also happened years ago, but I still tend to think I got the details narrated right). 
  I related the story as a quick example, trying not to obscure its basis in the process – it is hearsay. I still don’t think all hearsay amounts to the same. I generally reserve some scepticism towards accounts of human endeavours, I tend to think unquestionable information about small scale conflicts present or past generally can be hard to come by. So that is a general caveat I’d have with any story about such, whether it comes from an almanac, the local paper or elsewhere. I’m not sure whether a quick scan for information about some small scale conflicts in the news recently would have resulted in unquestionable information. 
  Now regarding the question whether the story is an accurate account of  true events – I do not know this. You say it clearly is bunk – after rethinking the issue it looks to me the degree of likelihood for this may be higher than I originally thought. For someone with sound knowledge of PNG it may even appear very high. On the other hand, even if you had sound expertise on PNG, I so far have had no possibility to assess that, either, and I estimate Flannery to certainly have some, he lived with the people in question. I (hopefully correctly) recall he didn’t really know what to think of it, considered it possible. But be that as it may (and the book had been published years ago, if F. had thought this possible, he could have changed his mind in the meantime), as mentioned above I’m thinking I probably should have chosen a different example.


----------



## .   1

Tim Flannery was a _wanda (_white fella_) _being told fairy stories by the amused people.
He should have exercised more discretion and used his university education to allow himself to understand that at best he was being told a parable.
It is not possible that he was being told the story by decendants of the alleged baby snatchers. As you said yourself this is not something that would be advertised with any degree of pride.
I reckon that the story of the gullible _wanda_ is still being passed around with the kava. Koori people have spun stories of hoop snakes and drop bears and yowies and min mins and terrified _wandas_ for years.
Many, many cultures have shibboliths and I suspect that this is a form of Tim Flannery being asked to go and find a left handed hammer. The fact that he fell for the story hook, line and sinker was duely noted by the story tellers and I am sure that he was offered the equivalent of the opportunity to purchase shares in The Syndey Harbour Bridge.
Not all white fellas are smarter than all black fellas.
The problem with stories such as these is that they become a form of primitive myth similar to urban myths. Little pieces of them are regurgitated over and over with no real critical analysis because of the tabloid aspect of primitive cannibals stealing babies.
The bloke living in the PNG highlands is quite capable of living my life and many do.
PNG highlanders are not intrinsically warlike. Most disputes are solved with posturing and the exchange of pork not human flesh.
Societies need to find ways to co-exist in order to exist and the fact that we exist is proof that we more readily co-exist than dominate.

.,,


----------



## Cache

Why do wars exist if everybody is against them?

Personal interests account for the existence of wars, in my personal opinion. Unfortunately, nobody see the distressed look of children losing their family . 

My conclusion is that the poor are imprisoned into wars


----------



## emma42

Re post 105.  Wow, R, that is well interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Cache

Cache said:


> Why do wars exist if everybody is against them?
> 
> Personal interests account for the existence of wars, in my personal opinion. Unfortunately, nobody see the distressed look of children losing their family .
> 
> * My conclusion is that the poor are imprisoned into wars*



Is my last sentence correct?


----------



## .   1

I agree heartily with your emotion but I think that the word 'imprisoned' may be slightly out of place.
I am not willing to try to change it or try to 'correct' it because I do not believe that it would be possible for William Shakespeare to express it with more eloquence than you.

.,,
Waiting for the grammar experts to tell you how to say it for a test.


----------



## emma42

I, too, like the phrase "imprisoned into wars", but it is poetry, rather than grammatically correct English prose.  I would suggest, "The poor are forced into war", but this is nowhere near the eloquence of your words.


----------



## John Mirra

emma42 said:


> But then, who decides what is and what is not a "malignant tumour"?  As it's a metaphor, it becomes entirely subjective.  Jews, Tutsis and Kurds have been considered as such by some.


Thank you for the kind welcome. 

In any event, I concede that most "tumors" are absolute misdiagnoses, and while it could be true that it's always preferable to err on the side of peace, injustice can't be ignored in doing so.

Logically speaking, it shouldn't so much lie in the hands of an individual as it should in a culmination of ideals: natural rights, social contracts, general will, and so on. Assuming those rules are followed, there would be no war or injustice in the world. Hell, if everyone simply followed natural rights philosophy, there would never be war or injustice, but who am I kidding? All of us should be fully aware that it's just a big pain in the neck to respect rights to life, liberty or property; there isn't a day that passes when I don't come close to killing, subjugating, or stealing --- how do I ever resist?


----------



## .   1

John Mirra said:


> All of us should be fully aware that it's just a big pain in the neck to respect rights to life, liberty or property; there isn't a day that passes when I don't come close to killing, subjugating, or stealing --- how do I ever resist?


Dear John,
Is there any chance that you would like to elaborate on this statement?
As this is only your second post I have not had the opportunity to meet you and I find this to be an extremely odd choice of 'ice-breaker' to use to introduce yourself to a new group of people.
Some things are inherently funny and others require a deft touch to extract humour whereas certain things including killing and subjugation are simply not used by most comedians because most people do not find them to be the slightest bit amusing but perhaps you are clever enough to have found a way.  

I await with baited breath.

.,,


----------



## El Torero

I think that existence of war is an effect of egoism - we don't want to be hungry, we don't want to be poor, we all want to have a beautiful woman (or two) and a good job. What would we do to get all this? 
When our life or $ is at stake, we turn into animals and we are ready to kill each other just to satisfy our ambitions. 
War starts in a single human mind, do you think that you're not at war? We're all at war with our family, with our religion, with our law sometimes, even with ourselves


----------



## Victoria32

El Torero said:


> I think that existence of war is an effect of egoism - we don't want to be hungry, we don't want to be poor, we all want to have a beautiful woman (or two) and a good job. What would we do to get all this?
> When our life or $ is at stake, we turn into animals and we are ready to kill each other just to satisfy our ambitions.
> War starts in a single human mind, do you think that you're not at war? We're all at war with our family, with our religion, with our law sometimes, even with ourselves


(Except for those of us who *are* women!  )

All this is true, El Torero, luckily 99% of us, lacking the opportunity or the will to fight in an illegitimate way for what we want, are not swayed by our desires.
The question is - why are so many of us so easily swayed by our leaders when _they_ want a war? 
I wanted to comment earlier on the attitude of soldiers to war, I think it was Emma who said that most former soldiers are very much against the idea. This is certainly true of my father, who had both mental and physical scars from his service in WW2... 

Vicky


----------



## emma42

I must just clarify that I meant that most of the soldiers and former soldiers _to_ _whom I have spoken_, did not want to talk about it.


----------



## AngelEyes

Lavinia.dNP said:


> Here's my little question :
> 
> If you ask anybody, you won't find anyone who would approve of war.
> That's a thing I don't understand : if everybody is against war, why do they go to war? What is your idea about this?


 
Lavinia,

Here is my opinion. I think there are a lot of people in the world who _live_ to fight wars. Who only have known war in their entire lives, and whose entire existence depends on them fighting in and winning a war. Any war. If not one already in progress, then the next new one that comes along.

Don't you ever wonder how all these terrorists even find the time to fight with everybody? I mean, don't they have jobs, and obligations that keep them so busy, they don't have the time for a silly old war? Well, for a lot of people, war IS their job, their occupation, their paycheck. Who has time for a personal life when you want to blow up a person? When that is your first priority? They enjoy it. They're good at it. It's how they define themselves and why they have the desire to keep going the way they do.

Peace is not an option for some people. They thrive on a hostile and violent environment. 

I think there are a lot of people whose specific goal in life is to dominate or annihilate as many people as they possibly can.

There are some who, for them, a "holy war" is a calling, a religious initiation that grants them entrance into a glorious eternal afterlife.

There will always be war precisely because there will always be people who not only seek war, but embrace it.

As I said, this is just my opinion.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Bonjules

Victoria32 said:


> they[/i] want a war? .
> 
> Vicky


That, of course is a good and central question. Why do we so easily 'rally around the flag', even when it does not make any 'sense'. Mass psychology can explain some of it; we also have that magical belief that our leaders must know more than us and be wiser.

One thing we have not talked about yet, I believe, that makes (or made) wars more 'acceptable' is the 'Biology of War'. Before wars killed massive amounts of civilians (sometime during the last cent.) or genocidal campaigns to wipe out ethnic populations, wars affected mostly the 
male population. True, horrible things were done to women by the enemy in most wars, but women and children were seldom killed( long ago they might have been abducted or sold into slavery).
Men, in the harsh laws of biology, are rather 'expendable'(Is that why we march so enthusiastically into battle?). While it might take a village to raise a child, it only takes one man to populate one as long as the women are there. Populations recover quickly under these circumstances; rulers, governments know that. 
They also usually don't care so much about the hardship and emotional catastrophe the loss of the father can pose for a family.


----------



## CrazyArcher

In most cases the cause for a war is a desire of a certain population to expand its demographic niche, or in other words, hunger.  It's quite natural that people that live in prosperity won't put their lives and property at the stake, on the contrary to someone who has nothing to lose. The role of the leader is only to consolidate the nation and to raise the flag. In the past, the areas with high demographic pressure were the source of invasions (The Great Steppe, woods of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia). In present, someone would find an enemy for the nation and point the finger.
I support the principle _"Si vis pacem, para bellum"_. Wars are not nice, but it's better to spend some money and have a strong army than be overrun by an enemy.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

CrazyArcher said:


> I support the principle _"Si vis pacem, para bellum"_. Wars are not nice, but it's better to spend some money and have a strong army than be overrun by an enemy.



I can't agree with this. Surely having a grand army only perpetuates a willingness to engage in violence, not diminishes it. Would the U.S. have been so foolhardy to go into Iraq had their army been less powerful and/or influential, would Israel have done the same in Lebanon?

No, to me it seems to the only way to prepare for peace is to live it.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Pedro y La Torre said:


> No, to me it seems to the only way to prepare for peace is to live it.


  


My addendum:  integrating it fully into all levels and interactions of society.


----------



## AngelEyes

CrazyArcher said:


> Wars are not nice, but it's better to spend some money and have a strong army than be overrun by an enemy.


 
If the world were only filled with people who were all pacifists, seeking nothing but peace for all their fellow men, wouldn't it be wonderful? I think so. 

But it's not. It's got a whole big group of people who want to wipe Israel off the map. The only reason they don't do it, is because Israel has lots of big, nasty bombs that would wipe them off the map, too. 

Our world has got lots and lots of people willing to blow up anything that's red, white, and blue. The only reason they don't is because they know we can make them a tiny little blip on what would be left of them if they really came after us.

Do you think they'd stop at America's borders?

They'd keep marching into Canada. They'd love to take over it all. It's their holy war. Their holy calling. To kill, and kill, and kill.

They'd kill all of England, if they could. They'd march through Europe and capture it. They wouldn't stop there and you all know it.

There's evil in this world. You may think it's me. I may think it's you.

Isn't that sad that we can't trust each other?

But in this equation, I'd want the strength of a strong military base. 
In our world today, we don't have the option of having no defense structure at all.

It's not happiness...but it is reality. 


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Re the supposed need for a defense structure:  if the American military had not first extended itself into so many areas of the world, fewer areas of the world would be producing the sort of people who are perceived to threaten the U.S. or its interests.  

To borrow an English expression regarding immigrants from the Commonwealth:  "They are over here because we were over there."



> Do you think they'd stop at America's borders?
> 
> They'd keep marching into Canada. They'd love to take over it all. It's their holy war. Their holy calling. To kill, and kill, and kill.
> 
> They'd kill all of England, if they could. They'd march through Europe and capture it. They wouldn't stop there and you all know it.



Rhetoric.  Very tedious.  If you support these statements, I'd be more interested.


----------



## AngelEyes

I don't have to make up words. The terrorists tell us everyday they want all American Infidels dead. They want to see the death and destruction of Israel. I don't have to look for reasons to fear them. They give me plenty everyday. 

And placing blame for where we are right now in history is futile. We're way beyond who caused what and why. They're here now. They want to kill us all now. That's what we have to deal with now.

Do you really believe they'd stop at my Michigan border and not continue into Canada once they'd killed all of us? 

If Canadians all put down their weapons, in the hopes that THAT would begin a cycle of healing and peace, they'd laugh in your face while they were shooting you in the back.

They don't want to talk to any of us. They want to see us dead, if we're not one of them.

Where is the anger, and the willingness to stand against the Terrorists?

Why is it all directed at the Americans?

Do you all believe this is all OUR fault?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

This is fear-mongering, ill-informed rhetoric.

"We're way beyond who caused what and why" - terrorism, war - these things do not come out of a vaccum.

"They're here now"- gross exaggeration.  Why are there not, then, for example, suicide bombings every day in Michigan?  Suicide bombing is easy, but very rare in the US.  This fear-mongering is dangerous and deceptive.

Where is the anger, and the willingness to stand against the Terrorists? - I believe Mr Bush, ably supported by Mr Blair has shown us his way.  Very effective, I don't think.  And why "Terrorists" with a capital "T"?  Another example of rhetoric.

"Why is it all directed against the Americans?" - do you read any news about London?


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> But it's not. It's got a whole big group of people who want to wipe Israel off the map. The only reason they don't do it, is because Israel has lots of big, nasty bombs that would wipe them off the map, too.


This is a staggeringly simplistic view of a most complex situation. There are all sorts of pressures involved and I suspect that your major source of intelligence on these matters is the mass media that, in your country, is filtered by your government so you get to see what your government allows and sometimes this is the truth and sometimes it is not an election year. Were it a simple matter of bombs brokering peace and should Israel actually possess enough bombs to destroy the nasty people then, by your logic, then as, night follows day, Israel would use these bombs. 
That this has not happened displays the faulty logic in your argument.

.,,
Thanks Emma, we crossed yet we didn't cross words.  I agree with every thing you wrote.


----------



## AngelEyes

My comments below in *bold*:




emma42 said:


> This is fear-mongering, ill-informed rhetoric.*Well, that's YOUR opinion, which you're entitled to. Ask the Jews living in Israel if they think it's all just nasty talk.*
> 
> "We're way beyond who caused what and why" - terrorism, war - these things do not come out of a vaccum. *At this point now, it does no good to spend time trying to decide who's to blame for where we are today. *
> 
> "They're here now"- gross exaggeration. Why are there not, then, for example, suicide bombings every day in Michigan? Suicide bombing is easy, but very rare in the US. This fear-mongering is dangerous and deceptive. *Fear-mongering? Deceptive? Tell that to the 3,000-plus dead people whose ashes now rest in a hole in the ground.*
> 
> Where is the anger, and the willingness to stand against the Terrorists? - I believe Mr Bush, ably supported by Mr Blair has shown us his way. Very effective, I don't think. And why "Terrorists" with a capital "T"? Another example of rhetoric. *One of the reasons that we haven't been attacked again is because President Bush is doing a good job of thwarting them. This is what I believe. Because I think they're that evil. Are you saying you think the reason we haven't been attacked again is because the Terrorists haven't tried? Right.*
> 
> "Why is it all directed against the Americans?" - do you read any news about London? *You're correct. I should have written why is it all directed at the Americans and the British?*


 
In two years, maybe all you Bush-haters will finally have what you've been waiting for: new leadership that will not promote military action, but will instead encourage more conversation and debate with these foreign countries. 

I think you believe we can talk to these people and diplomatically work things out. I don't, which doesn't mean I wouldn't support an initial try at it. My fear is that another party in power doesn't have a back-up plan in place if talking does no good.

The consequences of a destabilized Middle East, which I believe will happen if we militarily pull out of the region now, will allow Iran to grow in power and domination. Since I believe they want to control not just western interests, but their entire region as well, the long-term effects could be devastating. Plus, I think one of their objectives is to gain control of as many of the oil fields over there as possible, so the Saudis aren't too happy about them, either.

But, once again. Why isn't this thread flooded with posts denouncing Terrorists against the US? Why aren't *they* our number one target of anger and will to defeat them? 

Why is Bush the bad guy?

Is there nothing left over for them?

*And Emma, one thing*: I'm not attacking you and your personal views and feelings. We are debating ideas and opinions here. I'm not into attacking the person, just because I might disagree with them. I want you to know that. If I get heated in my words, it's just passion from my feelings, not trying to injure and debase someone else.



*AngelEyes*


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: I hope this does not turn into yet another thread about the current foreign policy of the USA, the situation in Iraq, the situation in the Middle East or any other hotly debated subject for which there are already more than enough threads about.


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> But, once again. Why isn't this thread flooded with posts denouncing Terrorists against the US? Why aren't *they* our number one target of anger and will to defeat them?


There are too many posts to go back over the whole thing so would you direct me to all the anti American posts made on this subject. In fairness you should limit your search to the posts prior to you coming on all hurt and defensive about perceived anti 'red, white and blue' sentiments. By the way may I point out that America does not own the copyright on the tricolours on their flag.
Australia, France, Britian, Croatia, Serbia so many more 'red, white and blue' flags than you can poke a stick at and you do seem to enjoy your stick poking.

.,,


----------



## AngelEyes

ireney said:


> Moderator's note: I hope this does not turn into yet another thread about the current foreign policy of the USA, the situation in Iraq, the situation in the Middle East or any other hotly debated subject for which there are already more than enough threads about.


 
This thread's about war. We've got a big one going on right in front of us. If you talk about war, it seems pretty logical that's the one that would come up in the discussion. It's kind of difficult to ignore.

But, don't worry. I'm done.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## .   1

AngelEyes said:


> This thread's about war.


Yes it is. War in general but not a specific war.



AngelEyes said:


> We've got a big one going on right in front of us. If you talk about war, it seems pretty logical that's the one that would come up in the discussion. It's kind of difficult to ignore.


Everybody else seemed to be going along great guns until your incoming contributions upset the apple-cart



AngelEyes said:


> But, don't worry. I'm done.


Why am I not surprised? Rhetoric is vary difficult to substantiate.

.,,


----------



## emma42

AE, I know that your words are not  _ad hominem_ attacks. We are debating. Don't worry.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

AngelEyes said:


> In two years, maybe all you Bush-haters will finally have what you've been waiting for: new leadership that will not promote military action, but will instead encourage more conversation and debate with these foreign countries.



Good, the world and especially America, sorely needs such a policy.



AngelEyes said:


> I think you believe we can talk to these people and diplomatically work things out. I don't, which doesn't mean I wouldn't support an initial try at it. My fear is that another party in power doesn't have a back-up plan in place if talking does no good.



Please don't try and start lumping everyone into the same cart. Iran, Iraq and Al-Qaeda (amongst others) are very different things. I don't think anyone is in favour of "negotiating" with terrorists (whatever that may mean). What people are against is this wholly misguided "I have bigger guns than you" policy which perpetuates ignorance and tit-for-tat violence throughout the region.



AngelEyes said:


> The consequences of a destabilized Middle East,



The Middle East IS destabilized.



AngelEyes said:


> which I believe will happen if we militarily pull out of the region now, will allow Iran to grow in power and domination.



*Yawn* I fear you've been watching too much Fox News. Iran SHOULD be a power in the region, look at it's size, it's population and it's history. What no-one wants is for Iran to become a _threat_ in the region. The current war-like U.S. policy is only perpetuating mistrust and hate between both sides leading to Iranian beligerency and the Bush counter of "I told you so".

The respected Baker-Hamilton commission recommended engaging Iran and Syria instead of leaving them outside the loop and so more prone to take belligerent action. What did the Bush administration do? Ignored them.



AngelEyes said:


> Since I believe they want to control not just western interests, but their entire region as well, the long-term effects could be devastating. Plus, I think one of their objectives is to gain control of as many of the oil fields over there as possible, so the Saudis aren't too happy about them, either.



How do Iran want to control _western_ interests? Sure, they want influence in the region (who dosen't) but I fail to see how they're following this jihadi line of we want to destroy everything western. It's simply untrue.

The Saudis and the Iranians have never had a good relationship partly because one's Arab and one's Persian, partly because one's militantly Sunni (Wahhabi) and one's Shia and partly because they have differing interests.

Read here for some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Iranianism#Other_Arab_states



AngelEyes said:


> I don't have to make up words. The terrorists tell us everyday they want all American Infidels dead.



Which terrorists? Al-Qaeda? Al-Aqsa Martyrs? Who is telling you this? I must ask again is your sole news source Fox News? Because if it is, I'd advise you to try another for a while, perhaps you might get a less tilted view of the world.



AngelEyes said:


> But, once again. Why isn't this thread flooded with posts denouncing Terrorists against the US? Why aren't *they* our number one target of anger and will to defeat them?



This thread has nothing to do with terrorists and the U.S. It concerns the reasons why (unfortunately) war continues to exist. So let's get back on topic.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Yeah, let's get on topic, and look at the not-so-distant past.
During the Cold War, both US and USSR had enough weapons to wipe each other from the world's map (together with the rest of the world, but that's another issue), and that mutually assured destruction DID prevent a real war. True, there were a couple of moments when someone was just about to push the red button, but it was the mutually assured destruction that made everyone think twice, and then maybe fifty times more. I don't say that it was a good time, or that people didn't die in local conflicts, but clearly the readiness of the other side to fight was the preventing factor.


----------

