Do you think starting a [B]WAR[/B] ever has a net positive effect on the world?

[Tenochtitlan]

War is a very immature act on both sides

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you think starting a WAR ever has a net positive effect on the world?

It all depends on how and what you measure. If you only care about the levels of human pain and suffering during and immediately after a war, then the net positives drop pretty quick.

If you use any othe scale of measure, I think all wars will come out positive. If you try and combine human pain and suffereing with everything else you get a mess that tries to find a way to relate short term human suffering to the value of an improved political order that lasts 100 years. So I would conclude that all wars create suffering and are bad for the people who go through them, but all wars are positive in all the other things they create or change.

 

[Meleager]

I'm sure the results of war can be positive. But the real question is if the end is worth the means.

 

[Verbose]

I would say the american revolution was a good war.

It was the first of britians colonies to secede and was followed by a wave of democratic revolutions.

Such as the french revolution... However that didnt go so well.

Au contraire, it succeeded admirably.

Just check what kind of society it swept away and how completely it did it. In Europe even for people living through these events there was a definite Before and After, and going back to the Before wasn't really an option anymore, depsite political efforts to restore the old order — which meant repeat performances had to be staged in 1830 and 1848 in order to make them get the message. Also meaning the UK incidentally in all this ended up on the wrong side, propping up the traditional authoritarians.

The young US never had to make quite as radical a reboot of their entire society. They could pretty much take their British-colonial make up and go on alone. Britain also didn't need another revolution, having already worked out a lot of problems in their own of 1688 (or was it 89?). Which is why the French Enlightenment philosophers almost to a man were absolutely besotted with British society. Getting France to work like that was their Promised Land.

 

[Sidhe]

It all depends on how and what you measure. If you only care about the levels of human pain and suffering during and immediately after a war, then the net positives drop pretty quick.

If you use any othe scale of measure, I think all wars will come out positive. If you try and combine human pain and suffereing with everything else you get a mess that tries to find a way to relate short term human suffering to the value of an improved political order that lasts 100 years. So I would conclude that all wars create suffering and are bad for the people who go through them, but all wars are positive in all the other things they create or change.

Good god you could justify any attrocity with that logic. There is no inherent benefit in killing for economics or politics in the 21st century, it never works out as economically viable or politically stabalising, so for those reasons it's counterproductive. War will hopefully die as the cost of war escalates out of all proportion with the potential gain.

As for revolution peacefull ones are better.

 

[YNCS]

And if my effort to vote them out of office is unsuccessful? Then everyone else can decide how much of my money is confiscated from me without my permission! If I don't pay I go to prison, again involuntarily.

That's one of the problems with living in a representative democracy.

You talk but you don't listen to my response. I'll restate this for you once more: I am not against paying taxes. Please don't label me selfish and go on some rant telling me "I suppose next you'll say" when you didn't read what I already said:

I pay my taxes and for the most part don't object to where the money is spent. My objection is not to paying, but is that we cloak the involuntary theft with the nice sounding label 'taxes'.

Silly me. Thinking that saying "taxes are theft" actually meant you thought taxes were theft.

I did read what you're written. You've complained about your taxes going to anything that wasn't of benefit to you. You've whined that your taxes support the needy. You say taxes being theft because some welfare bum is supported by you and you don't like that.

I'll explain again because there is a huge difference. It is based on the voluntary or involuntary basis of the payment and upon whether or not I directly benefit in any way from the payment.

Perhaps these examples will help.

1. Voluntary and without benefit (directly) to me: I donate money to build a well for a village in Africa, to help save the whales, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

2. Voluntary and with benefit to me: I voluntarily donate money to the construction of a neighborhood park that I use, I pay my ISP, a restaurant meal, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

3. Involuntary and without benefit to me: A small part of my tax money used for things like corporate welfare, payments to uninjured people simply too lazy to work, people who defraud the government out of unearned money, the "waste and fraud" of government, etc. Involuntary and theft.

4. Involuntary and with benefit to me: Most of the taxes taken from me that go for legitimate things like roads, police protection, national defense, Route 111 in East Podunk, etc. Involuntary and theft.


Sorry to get so far off-topic but I hope that helped finally clear things up.

Yes, I understand how selfish you are. If taxes go to support anyone other than you, they're theft.

If you don't want to pay taxes, why don't you go to Somalia? The tax rate there is zero percent. Of course, the extortion rate can approach 100%, but paying extortion is voluntary.

 

[YNCS]

P.S. - Your WWI bit was good, but that was an easy example. Do you feel our 'wars' in Panama and Grenada were a net negative result?

Panama and Grenada weren't real wars. They're modern examples of what used to be called "gunboat diplomacy."

Panama was invaded because Bush I decided that he didn't like the U.S. installed and supported dictator anymore. Grenada happened because Reagan wanted to divert peoples' attention away from the 241 Marines killed in Beirut due to his mishandling of a complex situation that turned into a disaster.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Good god you could justify any attrocity with that logic. There is no inherent benefit in killing for economics or politics in the 21st century, it never works out as economically viable or politically stabalising, so for those reasons it's counterproductive. War will hopefully die as the cost of war escalates out of all proportion with the potential gain.

As for revolution peacefull ones are better.

How do you measure a war's impact? Was WW2 a positive war? If so why? Was the Japanese invasion of China positive or negative? Why? If you are going to judge this thing we do called war, how do you do so? What time scale do you use? Should WW1 be looked at only in terms of 1914-18, or from 1914-39, or 1914 to 2000? Or from 1815-1914? Was it a beginning or an end?

Would a peaceful American revolution been better than the one we had? Perhaps, but only if the same result was guaranteed. Would Europe be the same place today if the French Revolution had been peaceful? There would have been less bloodshed, but also, most likely, there would have been less change. Europe without Napoleon would not be the Europe we see today.

It is too easy to judge war one dimensionally and neglect its very broad impact that goes beyond immediate human pain and suffering. And you should keep in mind that war provides unending opportunities for people to do good and offer kindness to others who are in pain. How do you include those kinds of actions in your judgement? Does an act of kindness in war offset an act of hatred or cruelty?

 

[Sidhe]

That's just the opposite of what I believe, war is becoming steadily more pointless as the methods of dealing death increase in potency, I find no rational whereby I could ever condone war in all but the most moral circumstances; defending yourself and overthrowing brutal dictators are probably the only two examples I can think of where war makes any real sense.

Historically we can say 'oh but it brings great technological and economical benefit' but you just can't say that any more, two world wars ruined England we were bankrupt and only the US vast loans saved us from the sort of poverty Germany suffered after the first and second world wars.

War in the 20th and 21st century has been a real bust financially or economically, it's just not practical on any humanist or economic level. And as for overthrowing brutal dictators I think history has taught us that it's best to leave the country to sort that out for itself.

The UN was set up to try to ensure that never again would a country force it's beliefs on another country, an ideal that was soon forgotten and seems likely to remain forgotten especialy when people have some sort of sordid love affair with war, it's like when women give birth, a month later and you can't recall the pain and suffering involved. So what you do is accentuate the positives and dismiss the negatives, a sort of selective memory that replaces any sort of rational thinking.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

War is very simple. "You and I disagree about X so much that we have no option other than to begin killing each other as quickly and efficiently as we can manage." Thats it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's just the opposite of what I believe, war is becoming steadily more pointless as the methods of dealing death increase in potency, I find no rational whereby I could ever condone war in all but the most moral circumstances; defending yourself and overthrowing brutal dictators are probably the only two examples I can think of where war makes any real sense.

I'm not sure what you believe. Has any war not been essentially pointless and all about the ego of the leaders on the side that starts it? It seems you condone violence that might relieve human suffering. Is this a defense of the Iraq war?

Historically we can say 'oh but it brings great technological and economical benefit' but you just can't say that any more, two world wars ruined England we were bankrupt and only the US vast loans saved us from the sort of poverty Germany suffered after the first and second world wars.

Is England better off now than in 1939? If your answer is yes, then how much of the beneficial changes can be attributed to what happened from 1939 to 1950?

 

[Eukaryote]

I'm sure the results of war can be positive. But the real question is if the end is worth the means.

All you did was just restate the question in diffrent words.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm not sure what you believe. Has any war not been essentially pointless and all about the ego of the leaders on the side that starts it? It seems you condone violence that might relieve human suffering. Is this a defense of the Iraq war?

Is England better off now than in 1939? If your answer is yes, then how much of the beneficial changes can be attributed to what happened from 1939 to 1950?

There are some positives in the Iraq war and I've yet to come down on a decision of whether it was entirely pointless.

Frankly England was a lot better off in 1914 than it is now. And I can't answer that anyway since I have no idea what not having two hugely expensive wars would of had.

Negative and positive I'd weigh the negative more mighty than the positive in most wars since 1914 personally, I dont buy the technology argument as grounds for slaughter.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There are some positives in the Iraq war and I've yet to come down on a decision of whether it was entirely pointless.

Yes the perspective is too short to make an evaluation that is based on something other than pain and suffering. If pain is the only scale, then the war runs negative.

Frankly England was a lot better off in 1914 than it is now. And I can't answer that anyway since I have no idea what not having two hugely expensive wars would of had.

Is Europe better off since 1914? Is the world? Every time you change the context of the discussion the answer is likely to change. If WW2 is considered to have ended the colonial Empires of European powers, were the the 50 million lives lost worth something? Worth it to whom? Africans and Indians have an opinion, Brits and Frenchies another.

Negative and positive I'd weigh the negative more mighty than the positive in most wars since 1914 personally, I dont buy the technology argument as grounds for slaughter.

What counts toward the negative and what towards the positive? Technology is just one part of the progress war brings; it is not surprsing that internet geeks see it as important.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That's one of the problems with living in a representative democracy.

So you have a problem with living in representative democracy? Does that make you selfish? Someone on this thread seems to thinks so and even suggests a (stupid and childish) solution for everyone who doesn't think the system is perfect:

...why don't you go to Somalia? The tax rate there is zero percent. Of course, the extortion rate can approach 100%, but paying extortion is voluntary.

Come now, was your above comment really necessary? Did it contribute to the discussion? I'm a Navy vet just like you and have earned my right to be a US citizen, to have my own opinion, and to voice my concerns about my imperfect government just as you have.

>>> My opinion, which I am entitled to without being told I should leave my country, is that taxes are necessary, that I don't mind paying them, that the money is largely spend wisely, that every penny I pay in taxes need not benefit me directly as it benefits society at large which is still a net good thing (I have kids that will live their lives here too) and that the label/word 'taxes' is a PC way to make the word 'theft' more palatable to the masses.

--------

You say taxes being theft because some welfare bum is supported by you and you don't like that.

No, you didn't read my post (again). The voluntary/involuntary payment status is the variable that makes it theft or not. The benefit to me/no benefit to me status has no effect on whether it is theft and was included for illustration purposes to help clear up this exact misunderstanding.

1. Voluntary and without benefit (directly) to me: I donate money to build a well for a village in Africa, to help save the whales, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

2. Voluntary and with benefit to me: I voluntarily donate money to the construction of a neighborhood park that I use, I pay my ISP, a restaurant meal, etc. Voluntary and not theft.

3. Involuntary and without benefit to me: A small part of my tax money used for things like corporate welfare, payments to uninjured people simply too lazy to work, people who defraud the government out of unearned money, the "waste and fraud" of government, etc. Involuntary and theft.

4. Involuntary and with benefit to me: Most of the taxes taken from me that go for legitimate things like roads, police protection, national defense, Route 111 in East Podunk, etc. Involuntary and theft.

Please take a moment and read what I said above before continuing to comment on my beliefs.

With regards to your comment, do you like it when some welfare bum is supported by your hard work?

--------

Silly me.

I forgive your being silly.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Panama and Grenada weren't real wars. They're modern examples of what used to be called "gunboat diplomacy."

Panama was invaded because Bush I decided that he didn't like the U.S. installed and supported dictator anymore. Grenada happened because Reagan wanted to divert peoples' attention away from the 241 Marines killed in Beirut due to his mishandling of a complex situation that turned into a disaster.

I understand the politics behind the actions but was more interested in if they can ever have a net positive effect as I see both Panama and Granada as being a good thing, much the same way as when the police SWAT team breaks in a door and arrests a gang leader.

How many people need to die before it is a real war?

Can a "gunboat diplomacy" ever have a net positive effect on the world?

 

[Sidhe]

What counts toward the negative and what towards the positive? Technology is just one part of the progress war brings; it is not surprsing that internet geeks see it as important.

OK I'll bite

negative from 20th-21st century conflicts

1)loss of human life, totals either side
2)financial loss, loss against investment if you want to be mercainary
3)Misery caused by starvation, poverty, disease and lack of housing, knock on effects
4)Hatefull relations between the two countries for the next x years
5)propaganda especially racism and attempted genocide
6)Religous hypocrisy
7)world opinion of invading country suffers
8)stalemates result in nuclear proliferation
9)escalation in terrorism

Positives

1)topling of dictatorships
2)lack of military build up in defeated countries resulting in prosperity in the long term
3)technological advancement
4)the UN
5) people become fiercly partisan against war and governments lose face

 

[Birdjaguar]

OK I'll bite

I have no point other than to understand how you are evaluating wars. No Pearl Harbor in the wings . Can you rank them? Worst first etc. (Or best first for part 2)? I've added some comments in bold.

negative from 20th-21st century conflicts

1)loss of human life, totals either side
2)financial loss, loss against investment if you want to be mercainary
3)Misery caused by starvation, poverty, disease and lack of housing, knock on effects
4)Hatefull relations between the two countries for the next x years
5)propaganda especially racism and attempted genocide
6)Religous hypocrisy always there with or without war
7)world opinion of invading country suffers
8)stalemates result in nuclear proliferation stalemate in nukes is a bad thing?
9)escalation in terrorism

Positives

1)topling of dictatorships
2)lack of military build up in defeated countries resulting in prosperity in the long term
3)technological advancement
4)the UN
5) people become fiercly partisan against war and governments lose face Isn'this just #9 above dressed up to look good?

 

[Sidhe]

Religous hypocrisy used to justify war is what I meant.

When North Korea has nukes and South Korea doesn't yes.

And I was referring to the Vietnam war, I don't see hippies as being likely terrorist suspects

I could rank them but it'd be entirely subjective, tell you what you rank them and I'll disagree or agree, based on your ideas.

 

[Babbler]

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool. Events were cleverly manipulated by the Austrian foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, who didn't factor in the simple fact that his country lacked the power to achieve what he wanted. It didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was an intelligent but superficial man who didn't consider the effects of his actions. Austria-Hungry and Germany started that war. They both lost. In World War II Germany and Japan took on the entire world. It never occurred to them that the rest of the world was stronger. This was particularly true of Japan. The American Civil War was started by the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost. The Franco-Prussian war was started by France. France lost. Almost every war since the Industrial Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost. Going to war is not a rational act.

War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. It's always about economics, one of the few ideas that Marx had gotten right. It's always started by a nation that wants something some other nation has. The terms may be couched in terms such as Manifest Destiny or Lebenstraum or other political slogans to grab the attention and ardor of the masses, but what it comes down to is "They have it. We want it. Let's get it."

An unprovoked war is as immoral as an unprovoked murder. There is a significant difference between self-defense and murder. And I can guarantee you that a defense of "I killed him because I thought he might attack me at some unspecified time in the future" will not get you very far in your murder trial.

Well writen.

It is a bad thing for everbody; the money, energy, time and lives fougt in a war could have used more preductively in peace. But people make good with what they got, which explain the "good" that comes from war.