Uglier than War

[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

 

[joespaniel]

Amen.

 

[cgannon64]

Just as blind, frenzied patriotism is uglier than war, because it leads to more than one war.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Teddy R said it best, right in my sig.

 

[CurtSibling]

What is uglier than war?

Being too ignorant to understand the meaning of it.

 

[cgannon64]

What is uglier than war?

Genocide. For it is a war against an enemy which cannot fight back.

 

[FredLC]

Well, well, I think that the more insightful members of CIVFanatics will recognized that this is but an "Iraq Thread", creatively disguised as a general question.

I won't bother answering this, as the author of the quote, despite writing beautifully and sounding wise, plays a guilty game which aim to lay shame on the heads of all pacifists, assuming that they all are a bunch of cowards. It fails to recognize that there are other approaches to the theme.

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. Now, I am the first to confess that I don't know the works of Mr. Mills, and I won't bother reading much to actually put this quotation in it's right context. However, analyzed like this, it looks very arrogant.

Anyway, AoA, I hope that such a crystal-clear attempt to dodge the Iraq-thread prohibition does not work (particularly one that is obviously headed towards a particular point of view), otherwise I may as well open a thread like "Do you think that it's fair that the standing top-dog use it's force to adjust things in it's interest" and say that "I don't mean the US, so it's not bashing anyone in particular and this discussion cannot be closed".

(Note: guys, this was just an example, ok, so please, no need to answer me that it's not what US is doing".

So, I think this discussion should be closed. But hey, this is just my two cents.

Regards .

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I really wish people would read announcements, I recinded the Iraq thread thing two days ago, that is a DIFFERENT message up there.

 

[FredLC]

Hehehehe. After all the commotion, I thought that I could take that prohibition for granted .

Well, I didn't really read it. So, I take back that part of my statement.

Anyway, AoA, just as a suggestion... when you change the contents of an Announcement, you should also make some change in the title. I didn't bother read it again because I had no reason to think it was different.

Regards

 

[FredLC]

I have just read the new announcement.

This is not exactly new information, or an original angle, in my opinion...

So, the prohibition does not apply anymore, but the critcism sure do...

Regards .

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The titles are different, as usual, I am attempting to assertain the level of observation on the forum.

The first said "Enough with the Iraq threads" with a mad smily.

That message is completely different, so it shows me most people don't REALLY pay attention to forum messages.

 

[FredLC]

Well, in that case, I apologize. Now that you mention it, I remember that the titles are really different.

 

[Toasty]

I'll never tire of such self-righteous men like Mr. Mills; they are simply too humorous.

 

[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.
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.
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.

 

[JollyRoger]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed & degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks not of the worthiness of a war is much worse. A man who thinks nothing for which his countrymen will fight; nothing he cares for more than his own SUV; is a miserable creature who lacks free thinking, but relies on the exertions of those even more unthinking than himself." - JollyRoger (with assistance from John Stuart Mills & SewerStarFish).

 

[The Troquelet]

The only thing that has destroyed more people in history than war is the blind patriotism that often causes it.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
The only thing that has destroyed more people in history than war is the blind patriotism that often causes it.

Try disease and famine. I think they claim top billing. Dictators killing their own people have made a serious run in the 20th century as well (not an easy century to best war in either). Between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the lesser players, they've wracked up quite a tally.

 

[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.

 

[sysyphus]

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

"Choose your battles wisely"

I admit I don't know the author, but I would certainly take his advice over Mills'.

 

[cgannon64]

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.

Let me preface my answer by saying two things: That is more of a personal belief than a political; I beleive in defensive wars. Second of all; it worked marvelously well for Gandhi.

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.

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

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.

Yes, I do agree with you here. I have respect for the devotion for those to lay themselves down for their cause. But how much courage does it take to kill for a cause? Are terrorists couragous?

Again, it all changes in a defensive war. In that case, being willing to die for a cause comes hand in hand with killing for it. So, it all changes there. IMO.