Uglier than War

[SewerStarFish]

cgannon64 wrote:
I beleive the story of Gandhi and India proved you wrong here.

I could try to argue that example is the exception. However you may be viewing war in the classic occidental way. Indian culture is also influenced by Oriental philosophy. Gandhi apapted Sun Tzu's art and used the strengths of his people against the weakness of Britian's. That is, Britian's unwillingness to sustain the effort of killing those believed to be subjects of the crown.

It also is true that there were Indians who did kill for the cause. It might also be argued {though it sounds a bit of a stretch},that the seperate independence wars in the America's and Africa could be extended to include this episode;i.e. Britian was more prepared to abandon colonial rule over India in exchange for the trade and ease of allowing autonomous rule.

Gee,all I wanted to do was relay a quote that would be thought provoking,sit back and watch. Now I've connected Sun Tzu to the Boer Wars,American Independence,The French Revolution and today.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
I could try to argue that example is the exception. However you may be viewing war in the classic occidental way. Indian culture is also influenced by Oriental philosophy. Gandhi apapted Sun Tzu's art and used the strengths of his people against the weakness of Britian's. That is, Britian's unwillingness to sustain the effort of killing those believed to be subjects of the crown.

Gandhi did not approve of those riots. He had amazing control over his people; he told them to stop, the stopped. You are right; Britain did not want the trouble that India had become. But that is a victory for Gandhi, is it not?

It also is true that there were Indians who did kill for the cause. It might also be argued {though it sounds a bit of a stretch},that the seperate independence wars in the America's and Africa could be extended to include this episode;i.e. Britian was more prepared to abandon colonial rule over India in exchange for the trade and ease of allowing autonomous rule.

Very true. BUT - Gandhi's efforts, his troublemaking, his civil disobedience - all made Britain reconsider the pros and cons of owning India. Gandhi's "homespun" phenomenon proved how much peaceful protest can do. Sure the riots and fighting in India affected Britain's mind; but all they did was inflame the Brits more. Gandhi proved that a little protest here, a march there, shutting down an entire industry, all where peaceful, and all acheived the goal.

Reading about Gandhi really made me beleive that even revolutionary wars (wars that used to fall under my 'just' category) can be avoided. Gandhi was a very large thorn out of several in Britain's side; sure there were other thorns, but he was the largest. And he didn't advocate any killing.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better persons than himself." — John Stuart Mills

Fine, but don't use this to justify unjust wars. There are cases for war but those cases are few and far between, and the eagerness among agressive leaders to wage war for material gains or personal reasons is high, and statements such as the above are often used by these leaders to justify their unjust wars to the common citizen.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The reason for Gandhi's success was the foe he faced, and their morality, and limits on what they would do. There is a fine short story which points out what may have happened had Gandhi pulled his tactics on an occupying Nazi force apres WW2.
Thus, the case of Gandhi and India was the exception rather than the rule, and a case where early recognition and action would have countered the problem.

Anyway, the doings of the dear little man were not as significant as the simple factor that Britain could not afford the Empire any longer, particularly after the cost of WW1. With or without Gandhi, things would have happened.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Diseases are not the fault of humanity, however.

How do you think Hitler, etc, came to power? As I said, through the manipulation of nationalistic feeling to their own ends.

True, but not what you initially said. As for Hitler you are correct, but Stalin and Mao traded less in nationalistic feelings until later, after their rise to power. Not sure about Mr. Pot.

Cgannon: About Ghandi, I would ask you to consider how his tactics would have worked with a different foe. Would Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany have accepted and been defeated by these tactics?

Wonderful if they work, but like everything else, they are not the answer to every situation.

 

[Richard III]

It's a fine quote, but only relevant if you assume that all of those who question a particular war under particular circumstances are also as likely to criticized any war.

I said it to AoA, I'll say it to you, Sewer: be careful with those generalizations, they might come back to haunt you. As somebody who is representative of those who be persuaded on this, the kind of attitude those generalizations display is the kind of attitude that builds my skepticism...

R.III

 

[MrPresident]

How do you think Hitler, etc, came to power?

Great Depression (and government attempts to deal with it), proportional representation, article 48, establishment's fear of Communism, underestimation of Hitler, death of Streseman and the Versailles treaty.

"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." - Niccolo Machiavelli

"The purpose of all war is ultimately peace." - Saint Augustine

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry March 23,1775

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Richard III
It's a fine quote, but only relevant if you assume that all of those who question a particular war under particular circumstances are also as likely to criticized any war.

As I said in my response: It is more of a personal belief than a political one. If Iraq attacked us right now, I would wholeheartedly support a counterattack. Same thing if Iraq attacked one of our allies.

Its my opinion that all war is ugly, but sometimes ugly things must be done. However, its also my opinion that probably 3/4 of all wars are unjust and unneccessary.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
A) "I am willing to die for my cause, but I am not willing to kill for it."-- a nobel sentiment with which I find no fault but begs the question of how to deal with those who will.

Well, if you are willing to die, I guess the answer would be by dying.

Anyway, seriously now… someone already said it, and I’ll say again. It’s for sure that one of the main drives of the pacifists is the fact that they consider war an ugly thing. However, and being realistic about the fact that this thread IS about Iraq, what makes me mad is the attempt to paint all pacifists as cowards. It’s totally silly.

People are discussing if it is a fair war or not. Very different from feeling fear, specially because most of the debaters won’t go for war anyway. I, particularly, won’t, and as my nation is not involved, neither will any relative of mine. So, what is there for me to fear?

I, for one, have made cases against this war in this forum… and my stance was, above everything, NOT that this war does not have some valid moral background (although I always debated exactly how central they are in the actual decision of fighting), but that by imposing itself as the enforcer of human morality, USA is not serving justice. Even agreeing that it is possible to condemn and even attack Saddam for his crimes against his countryman, that this decision should belong to the UN and to the UN alone.

And for those who say that it’s too urgent to wait for UN, I say that the only really just course of action would be to use influence not to decide regardless of it, but to make it efficient… otherwise we will always be dependent of willingness of USA to get us rid of madman tyrants.

Now, how that can be mistaken with being coward or complacent is beyond me.

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
B) Also because he seen to think that he is some sort of moral paradigm that can dictate the moment when the act of war is justified. -- Yes it is much easier to play the role of moral paradigm when espousing a course of inaction;once the action is taken there can be no counter proof that the easier course was wrong. However to claim that an opposing view must have the higher moral ground is an indictation of the arguements weakness.

And to elaborate that, look above. It has nothing to do with inactivity or with standing on a moral pedestal.

I simply think that there isn’t in the world, yet, an obligatory moral code of conduct that can be enforced over sovereign nations. I think that before any nation at all can claim that another is being immoral, particularly when they claim that they are SO immoral that they can be invaded, such code MUST exist. It must describe prohibited conducts, predict the correct punishment, and be equal to everyone. Finally, it should never be enforced by a nation, but by an international entity that is impartial.

I know those things are costly and will take time to achieve. But what I ask here is a previous law that applies equally to everyone, and that is impartially enforced by a neutral organ. That is the only way to really achieve justice and to be, in fact, fighting for justice.

What is happening now is topically fair, I know… no sane person would deny that Saddam is a dangerous lunatic and murderer. However, playing sheriff with the world is not the way to go. It’s trading one injustice for another. USA may be right this time, but Saddam will not be the last of the conflicts that will ever arise. Are the world supposed to trust that USA will be right every single time?

And I’m sorry to rain in your parade, but arrogance does lie in thinking that you can be the unilateral dictator and enforcer of world morality.

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
C) While the US-Iraq situation made me think of the quote,I chose to place it here as a reminder that war is,was and will be a function of civilization. War is the only method for the oppressed to free themselves, for injustice to be righted againsted the wicked, and to thwart the barbarians of each age from destroying and usurping the civilized. And ,yes,I realize that often the oppressed are called barbarians by the civilized -- never the less, it makes you think and makes me appreciate those who were willing to sacrifice thier lives, to make the enemy die for his belief that have drug humanity from where it was [lurching in little steps] to what I believe is a more civilized time. I only hope that the struggles for freedom of thought,belief and from fear do not lose the ground that has been gained.

War is nothing but murdering in large scale.

You are right. War have historically being a tool to shape the world. So, in fact, murdering the minions of our foes to weaken him is that tool.

That is what Saddam does. He kills his enemies. That is what makes him a tyrant.

Now, how do we deal with a mass murderer? Simple, mass murdering his army. Saddam is a monster because he’s an anachronism, a relic, a man living by a morality that is long buried in the civilized lands; but, when we deal with him with equally old-fashioned anachronisms, what are we?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m pragmatic enough to understand that in some situations war is really the only choice. And I even can accept that in the present situation it is justified, as I’m all for helping people in need, and I understand that the people of Iraq IS in need.

The only thing is that a war which’s grounds are not legitimate defense (an aggressive war, than) should NOT be dealt this way. If you want to make just, than work to create a global system of justice.

If UN were the mastermind behind it, I’d be waving flags of approval to the tanks.

But I won’t to USA controlled forces. Simple as that.

Regards .

 

[SewerStarFish]

In direct response to FredLC:

Now I must question your logic. Simply put, as this moral code of which you speak and admit does not yet exist, how then can you deny a sovereign nation that has been attacked from defining its enemies and by the laws that do now apply (Treaty of Paris, International Law Governing Nations at War) and attacking them.For you see, it was not the UN,China,France or Brazil that was attacked under the laws of today but the US.

While the OAS,NATO and UN are worthwhile entities, if they ultimately fail in their obligations or mandates then the responsibility fall to each sovereign nation to act in its best interest. The pressure on the UN and NATO, while applied by the US, are being agreed to by some nations that really don't support war because the UN's 12 year failure to back its mandate has compeled the US to act alone. Continued procrastination IS a security issue for the US, the US will act, and that is a failure of the UN.

Like it or not the UN is essentially a confederacy. Unless and until the it becomes a centralized authority able and willing to enforce its laws on nations it is susceptible to this weakness.

Finally, it is NOT arrogance to ask nations that have signed a treaty with the US for mutal defence against an enemy to honor their obligation. 19 NATO nations have issued statements of support for the US position, the 3 who don't will also suffer diplomatic consequences should the US act alone. I admit I don't know the numbers for the OAS but I do know Brazil is a signator.

I guess those treaties are an inconveniece now that the US is the target and not the defender. That's okay, but just like in Civ, the nations involved will not trust each other for quite some time. But as usual individuals of the seperate nations may still meet and not let these differences seperate them

PAX

 

[onejayhawk]

What if, as many suspect, the truth about Iraq and Saddam's regime rivals that of the Khemer Rouge or Stalinist Soviet Union. What if everything that President Bush accuses Saddam of is a pale image of the truth. We know what he did to the Kurds. We know that he has had for many years the potential to do the same to others. What if all that has gone on in the last year has been nothing but smoke and stalling by a cornered crook seeking to evade justice.

If all that is true, would it not be much worse than war?

J