When is war justified?

@lod_jaoakim
Thanks for taking the time for a second approach. I think I see clearer now.

Ah yes, I've heard of it. I'll have to disagree with Kant here. To codify morality in a way that it doesn't care about context may be useful to make people act moral, because it is comparatively easy to check on it and not as prone to abuse, just as with codified law, but also just as with codified law isn't a reflection of an ideal order let alone justice, this isn't actually a reflection of ideal morality. Ideal morality requires individual commitment and thought rather than just some abstract codification (while such is necessary to establish the fundamental aspects).

I agree with you that both approaches are stupid, (at least as you portray them, I am not that familiar with them myself). But I don't see how this gives validity to your conclusion to disregard rational morality all together. You don't think there are more viable approaches to morality than the two you discussed ? I surely do.

I disagree with you that grey means that something is not "good". My perception is rather that grey is a conglomerate of good and bad which could be split up in single pure good and bad components, but quit likely only in theory. While in practice, you always got grey, always got some good and some bad components. Now the moral thing to do would be to choose the one with the least share of bad / biggest share of good which then would be a inherently, a purely good act because you would do the best you can. Which means, that it is very important to differentiate between how you morally value a chose taken in itself and in the context of all the chooses given. Because the latter will always allow you to act good, regardless how bad the range of choices is you are given.
Which means, that "impracticality of morality" does actually only in so far exist as that people don't want to make the morally superior choices, not in so far as that morality would simply not match reality.

So when you say that the moral argument for war is never applicable, I strongly disagree. Because as soon as the alternatives to war produces even worse outcomes than war itself, it becomes a morally good choice, even though in itself rather bad. The same goes for all punishments which may be bad in itself.

After you have read this, I would like to ask you if you still don't see the necessity of morals.

Having said that, most people don't put much serious thought into morality without being inherently evil, as you surely realize. One does not need to consider morality to be good, or rather, fairly good. I don't have my life determined by morality either. Rather, I openly allow myself to be bad to some extends, but like to be aware of when I am. Morality is for me personally most of all a tool of fulfilling my will, because knowing what you are actually doing is necessary to know what you actually want to do.

I still think morality is unnecessary. But I don't have anything further to really add to the debate, so I won't really counterargue you. :)

I will, however, add something final I left out due to mindspace in my own post. (It didn't fit wholly and as such didn't add to the point as a whole... It's an addendum or something.)

I think there is a difference between good and evil and then good and bad. As you might understand, I like some wars if I feel they're justified, but I don't feel morality justifies anything because regardless of what some philosophers say (Nietzsche, I'm looking at you too) morality is basically a judgment of whether one is good or evil. The reason is that morality tries to act as a dictatorship of the ideal due to impragmatical reasons and incompatibility problems you've already semi-disagreed with. But I want to continue here.

The action in itself should carry its good without a moral judge, at all times. Morality shouldn't even come into question.

The following is going to be a little vaguely explained, bear with my bad English.

Morality seems, to me, as if it was some kind of bad-tasting leftover from our society's religious past and the according traditions of dogma or ideals. There are plenty of things that I like about faith, such as the personal importance it has to people, so don't get me wrong - I have nothing against religion in the abstract. But morality is connected to the bad things of religion - all-encompassing dogma, unquestionable rules etc. And why didn't we dump it when our states became technically secular? Because of social convensions, traditions, general culture. It's being carried over in our modern society through our social traditions and their ideals, empty expressions such as "solidarity" and "freedom" legitimize everything - we should rescue the suppressed peoples of Dictatorstan because they're unfree or that they're not equal with us. That's a moral action to Freedomland. Sure. I get that.

I question why my actions can't be good (contrary to bad) rather than good (contrary to evil) in themselves. If you need definitions, that is; I'd mostly prefered to talk about it as being loving, gentle, nice. Why do I need a moral excuse to give my girlfriend a flower? Why do I need to know I'm good when I shoot down a terrorist trying to bomb a village in his homeland? Why should ethics decide whether the murderer of a family should be inside a house? Do we really need the extra layer of good and evil to do things that feel natural or, bear with me here, loving? Why do I need morals when I can just be nice to people?

Technically, rescuing people from a brutal dictator, is a nice thing to do, you know.
 
Addendum: Morality is primordially and eternally true in abstract, always.

"Why do I need a primordial reason to be nice"?
 
War is justified when it is mutually agreed upon by both sides in a transparent and forthright manner... practically never.
'Of course you agree to have a battle?' Tweedledum said in a calmer tone.

'I suppose so,' the other sulkily replied, as he crawled out of the umbrella: 'only she must help us to dress up, you know.'
 
I still think morality is unnecessary. If you need definitions, that is; I'd mostly prefered to talk about it as being loving, gentle, nice. Why do I need a moral excuse to give my girlfriend a flower? Why do I need to know I'm good when I shoot down a terrorist trying to bomb a village in his homeland? Why should ethics decide whether the murderer of a family should be inside a house? Do we really need the extra layer of good and evil to do things that feel natural or, bear with me here, loving? Why do I need morals when I can just be nice to people?

Technically, rescuing people from a brutal dictator, is a nice thing to do, you know.
You know, I get very confused really easily.

Isn't this the morality of the Golden Rule?

Or are you saying the GR isn't morality?

It seems to me the GR is just about all you really need to make a judgement on the worth of any action. Except that given the choice between two evils one must always choose the lesser.

But, or course, this stills leaves the difficulty of how one makes these kinds of judgements.


edit: The following is very complex:
I think I could be considered a good person according to some weird moral system, but I don't want it. I don't want my thoughts to be universalized either. I don't need a moral reason to act like I do, and there are even parts of me that act bad, and I have resulted in really bad things for a few people. I don't need moral legitimization to yell at someone if they make me feel bad or even inflict some pain for fun at times.
but I quite like it.
 
It seems to me the GR is just about all you really need to make a judgement on the worth of any action.

Haha, no. It sounds good, but it's far too imprecise to apply in reality - a bit like 'Courage, Honor [sic], Commitment'. Just as bad is 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'.
 
when a war is justifiable ? The "consensus" in this thread seems to suggest when it is winnable , so my pointless bump can't possibly add much , but a little rant ...


Spoiler :

war , a full scale war , is an equation with so many variables and unknowns . Making it living in interesting times , as the Chinese curse is supposed to be . Leading to its avoidance .

there has been lots of talk of war on both sides of the Aegean and in mid-1990s they shot down a Turkish jet with the justification that it might have been unarmed but it was well flown . Yes , exactly that . With close passes it was a danger , more than our usual spats we have with the Greeks ; you know we don't accept their views and have no intention of accepting . All of which lead to our flights in international airspace . Finally one day they showed their teeth . The Greek propaganda machine actually made much of the well flown part , it had to be an Israeli exchange pilot and he was saved and sent back , nothing to see here , all is well , move away . The backseater was Turkish , of course , and nobody from Greece mentioned him in their dispatches to the aviation media . He remains with that F-16D to the day . A Greek pilot was pictured with a Turkish flag under the canopy of his Mirage , him beaming with his one-fifth of acedom , though he soon quit his job as a colleague died in an accident that affected him deeply . People this side of the sea are sure they shot down the right one .

a snippet of time long past and it has all of it . Use of violence to get what one desires , desire to keep the violence limited to prevent further and/or return violence , accepting the tit-for-tat (just check the last part here ) , preceeded-accompanied-followed with talk and talk .

not a post on Greeks , but a general observation on how stuff works . It takes a certain amount of lies to get people die for the country and practically anything else ; this screen from reality needs to be protected , if men are to be willing to die in case of need . Hence we can't be flying good enough on our own and so on . War has been described as the ultimate and unkindest judge . War -where everthing goes up or down is an immediate indicator of what's true and what's not- can tear the very of fabric of society , the norms and all . Something to ponder on why it doesn't happen much between equals . Staying in the 1990s , it was a terrible shock for Athens to discover there would be not much help for them in their rightful struggle against us . We were chasing the dear seperatist leader across continents and somehow the words came loud and clear . That barring the way would lead to , you know ...

not a post on how great we are either . In the same exact episode , our generals and goverment was in the bog standart "Oh , the great America , allow us to rule the place AS IF we are fit to do . We will do your bidding in return , just watch us threatening Syria so that the most valuable people can sleep tight occupying the Golan Heights and below " mold when we threatened action if Damascus didn't kick the dearest of the dearest out immediately . PR and nothing else ! Had people in Ankara known it was about to erupt into a three versus one , Syria and Iran to the East , limited Greek action in the West to deny NATO's stinking Article 5 , with inevitable internal stuff , they would have all shut up .

huh, you still wondering the peace in the Aegean ? With picture contests on the web to decide who is the Turk and who is the Greek ?

full scale war is terribly risky , that's why people avoid it . Nothing ever happens in a vacuum , everthing interacts with something else . War is uncertain , you might have all the tables of equipment and all the computing power with all the math geniuses in the world but it will not guarantee victory that you weigh heavier on the scales . It took America 12 years to wear down Saddam's Iraq to be safe enough for the transformation through occupation . The math side was crystal clear even in 1991 , even the Syrians being on the Allied side , something else , a tiny spectre in the mind was not . America was the leader of the pack undisputably , with the Soviets visibly melting down ; it didn't mean the process could be started immediately ...

returning to Syria , the math of the 1980s showed Israel was far stronger , as it would be soon demonstrated over the Bekaa Valley , though nobody exactly wanted a showdown as experience had long proved there was nothing better to poison international relationships than a war in the Middle East . Which in the end led to a "What the..." moment for London as Argentina invaded the Falklands . While the world attention focused on a British victory , and an easy one as this balance of power thing rests very much on the idea that the big boys must prevail no matter what and that all the time , Argentinians were utterly confused on why their freshly delivered Israeli equipment was not working as advertised , you know , right at the moment when Tel Aviv was ripping the Syrians apart . Quite a few quite proper men died in vain , in attacks against British shipping , as an explosives disposal expert afloat could see the British made bombs lacked their fuses even as they were midair , arching down onto their targets . Famously , the BBC opinionated the attacks were too low and too fast , hence the weapons couldn't find time to go off , and the Argentinians took the hint to return on the morrow with retarted bombs . Not that widespread but a certain sourness still exists in Britain at their American allies that gringo advisors remained in Argentina while the junior or senior or whatever part of the special relationship was in a life or death struggle in the South Atlantic . Ai caramba , had the Americans left , what would have happened to Royal Navy ?

ı am personally ashamed -to a certain degree- 'cause at the age of 11 ı thought that since we were in the same Alliance with UK we had to root for the British . The analogy most apt this time should be the army general who was photographed at the wall in Kudüs wearing the skull cap . What was he thinking , certainly not that our Allies would choose democracy and he would be questioned in court for that very picture ? Now that our democracy must be an Islamic one and anti-Semitism works all the time in the Middle East ...

war being expensive and uncertain , especially in this modern era where people have somehow gone soft , the dictum has been modified from the Clausewitz's original version , politics are now the continuation of war . The transformation of this country still looks surreal , one or two years ago we were about to abolish borders with Syria and Iraq , which in itself was weirdly weird . Now that we are no longer friends Damascus accuses Ankara of being interested only in getting more and more for the Islamic Brotherhood in the future Syria , that our people talked nothing of but giving this post or that business permit to the Sunnis . We still have no word on what the Syrians were demanding from us .

though despite all the rhetoric on how we will direct the reformation of the area , the shamelessness of writing that we are the new owners of the Middle East , all is not well . There is a quest for superiority inside the new elites and people look on dumbly as the supposed allies in the fight against the worthless , pointless and still worthless Turkishness challenge each other . One of my ideas -and mind you ı have never been anything but a fool- suggested that the new process would destroy any influence this country might have in the area , people are now more and more making a point of Arabs closing their TV sets when Turkish officals appear in the news , and somehow it must be Turkey alone who hides a run-away politician wanted by the Interpol and not Qatar , which was funding the "murders" ; no sir , the famous Turkishness must be shown to be disrespectful of international codes of behaviour - in case we complain about people doing this or that . Back to squabbles of this country , one finds the shreds of evidence whereever one looks to . Somebody leaked the new education reform where apparently high school students are now allowed to be married , no doubt to increase the marketability of girls who inevitably gain weight as years pass and hitching early would prevent the kind of "adultery" that goes on especially in the Western parts . And the number of days a student are allowed to miss school increased from 20 to 45 -out of 180- , leading to cries of increased opportunities for child labour . No such thing said the education minister . Of course not , the elites have their kids educated in undeclared military scale discipline , while the rest is given even more leeway for absenteeism . One example ı often quote , some years back ı overheard two students in discussion over the immediate future on the second or the third day the schoolyear started . One was already set on missing the two , three weeks ahead so that he would fail the classes and be free for the year ... The new elites will no doubt be proud to watch their offspring to get the degrees and the jobs as they were fittest to survive and thrive . The only official complaint was of course for those who leaked it .

people are cutting the tree branch they are sitting on , being a proverb this sentence makes more sense in Turkish . As my stuff makes 0 in English , still not much though . It seems brilliantly easy to destroy and start anew from a clean sheet , but people abroad have no interest in a Turkey that can be influential and a Turkey destroyed means no influence for people who are eagerly taking the reins . Was kinda amused to see a vocal critic of the past saying all the choice words for once allies . It appears he and a few similarly minded intellectuals have been talking to English / Irish people with the experience of IRA-Sinn Fein deals to do something similar here . And militant Islamists have called them as collaborators with the seperatists , meaning the militant Islamists have proven themselves to be immoral liars . Didn't hear an iota of that from him when the said militants were whacking the old order . It comes incredible that the West can abandon them the newly elites with the exact same abandon they showed to the old order . but every "democrat" will learn it one day . The US Cavalry rarely arrives on time , when it comes to people they don't like anyhow .

... avoidance of the notion that everybody will become old , passe , out of date , as anachronistic as the horse dropping on 21st century asphalt pavement ... is not the virtue some people take it to be .

must take care with what one says , the goverment generals are incensed with the formerly pro-military old order . So easy to get stamped but one can not avoid the laughter when the new elites rush to the defence of the new army . It gets repeated 50 times a day that a critic of the present day goverment said a couple of things that implied the Turkish Armed Forces was a paper tiger . Isn't it ? Now that the newly elites riveted themselves in by saying the same thing ? Even myself have been harping on it with the cardboard Panther theme . And the generals are particularly angry with the NCOs who are twitting in practically open rebellion for larger pay-checks , apparently to a tune of 150 000 personnel and family members . All evil moves to provoke them . The title goverment general surely hints that nobody expects anything from them . It will be huge fun when people notice the different colour code .

must not diverge too much from justifying politics , ee uhm , war . As said , it took awfully long for America to justify the invasion of Iraq , to themselves and allies . The issue was of course what to do with the platform to modify the country . Despite what they preach to outside world , both sides , that are working for the establishment of the "right thing" for the Near East are aware that Iran has been around for long time and can play the game of hypocracy . The problem arises with the Sunni leadership . Say, the Saudis were "desert people" until they got to smashing all the mirrors in Mecca-Medina 1920ish when they toppled the Hashimites who were clearly asking too much from the otherwise benevolent Britain . You know , the ban of images thing . They don't have the strategic patience arising from millenia of double dealing on a state level . And since traditions shape today and the future they know they will be back in the deserts when they run out of oil . And even the camels are not what they used to be ... Maybe 20 maybe 50 years . And this shapes their "agony" .

the sole reason why Saddam survived 1991 and the aftermath was that the Shia numbered far too much to enable the rule of the oil empire in Iraq . Saudis and their pals had this campaign with America until it was cut down to a reasonable size in October-November 2001 in some Asian backwater so that Sunnis could see the writing on the wall . Whatever happened in Iraq afterwards was an attrition campaign that tempered undeniable Iranian opportunitism and a certain pruning of Sunni ranks . Didn't like Zerkavi either . Iraq post 2003 is a solid American success if you look at it from a certain viewpoint . Before it was also likewise , when they "created" another bunch of oil-loving people right under our noses , from bases in our country , firing on us when grumbling too much .

we are always a consideration for those who create empires in the Middle East . The Turk has been around for a long time and we have it good in Anatolia , quite proper as real estates go . Weirdly or maybe not then we have to have our heads on the chopping block . Though one must remember the lies needed to send the soldier to die for country , and a straight action against us would expose a few , slightly more than a couple . Leads to stuff . We were to be in that attrition campaign of the paragraph above , Americans justify - watch the word justify - their consequent actions against us by the supposition that we betrayed them . My posts never have much connection to reality , especially those which claim we were already outbribing them in our designated operations zone , right in the middle of Iraq , away from the common border where we were sure to be killing seperatists as well , discouraging the people of the shining success story which Americans will sell you remorselessly . And the story goes on that the most modern American division , the laptop one , got sidelined when we declined to accept American troops here .

now when ı was a museum guide ı could afford buying books and sifting through stuff in the basement on a different errand recently ı found an American POP , piece of propaganda . It is once again proven that ı am a careless reader . It turns out in addition to the American Fourth , a British division equivalent was supposed to go to Northern Iraq , so that steely Brits could solidly face us from meddling with the poor Kurds and keep us marching to South and ı wasn't personally aware of that . Oh yes , the book of course doesn't say anything like that at all . It says :


British military strategists had actively participated in the U.S. war games and planning exercises dealing with the Middle East since 1995. Prior to spring 2002 they had focused largely on supporting an American drive north from Kuwait to Baghdad. But in June of that year, as the possibility of war grew, [American commanders] tasked British forces to participate in the drive from Turkey through Northern Iraq, to seize Tikrit and eventually push on to Baghdad. In this plan, only a portion of the 3rd Commando Brigade would remain in the south... Who instituted this shift from the south to north, and why, is not entirely clear...

As negotiations with the Turks dragged on into December, British ... planners increasingly recognized that... [Turks] would not allow the British to be part of the northern operation. Why the Turks held such an attitude was never clear. The best the British officers could offer was that several senior Turkish generals still resented Britain's role in the 1932 Treaty of Laussanne which awarded Mosul, with its rich oil fields, to Iraq. Strange as it may seem to many Americans who have never lived in the southern part of the United States, history has an odd way of lingering around for decades to affect the contemporary landscape.


despite the claims of Americans knowing there would be no permits from December , as if there could ever be , they kept their shipping in the Med off our ports so that Iraqis would bank on a massive Northern offensive and would pay less attention to the border with Kuwait . All changed once the action started and ended . Heavy equipment in the wrong place , poor America hand an arm tied behind back , one third of Army missing or what ... They had to rush to South and moreover the failure to capture Musul early , due to lack of troops in enough numbers , allowed El Kaide a presence there which meant adding 2 years to the butchery in Iraq . Yeah right . Yeah , one thing that would never happen in the CFC , Americans claiming the 173th or anybody else had absolute need for freaking Turkish assistance . 5 M-1 tanks flown in and it was not more than enough ? ı guess ...

the two authors have been described as first rate American military historians in the bookjacket , so the treaty date of Lausanne must be a misprint ... Just like the part when they write Washington largely ignored Saddam's faults and took advantage Iraq vs Iran fighting until the ... day of reckoning came in July 1990, as Iraqi troops moved into Kuwait in an almost bloodless military occupation. Now , the date is kinda etched into my memory . August 2 , 1990 was an unbearably hot day . Was helping father at work , mixing concrete with shovels is kinda backbreaking even on cool days . To protect my chicken neck from the merciless sun ı had to take the cotton garment you wear under the shirt and wrap it around my head under the baseball cap ... Have been an armchair strategist even then , was kinda ashamed to hear it from a co-worker of father's that Iraq had invaded , despite my assurances to anybody that showed an interest , who unfortunately quickly got to regret their interest . If this post was printed it would probably be around 5 pages or so , and probably ı have a dozen grammar failures and a couple of misspellings , never minding the dots and commas ; it is really obvious that one can have a couple of mistakes in 200 pages of a book . So , the authors are not definitely mentioning anything about the British-civilian-armchair-armour-enthuasist's-uninformed-gloating about the days of fighting the Kuwaiti Chieftains shone , by their mention of July . Most improbable , by now while everybody knows the Kuwaitis were stealing oil with horizontal drilling under the border , that they invaded first ? Fat chance this being the reality ...

cavalry performs well in Hollywood's golden days . Never arrives on time when the Injuns have guns .

one must avoid too harsh an indictment of any POP , anybody has them one way or the other and for the proffessional observer they can be very useful to show who is in and who is not . This book was an immediate product of the fall of Saddam and sets the record straight to justify the second round by underlying the failures of the first ; it ends with the notion that by June 2003 American troops had failed to find weapons of mass destruction ...

has a few particularly nice quotes too:

Kind hearted people might think of course there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of the war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst.

from the Bible , oh no , On War by Clausewitz . There are a couple from the Bible , not this one though . Kinda explains , as far as this biased guy can tell , the shock and awe , not only the bombing on the CNN and other channels . In the book the quote starts a chapter dealing with how no-fly zones were established , after Bush the First asked for rebellion and Americans watched Iraqis crushing it so that world opinion could not fail to see the misery , which was really there for people who suffered .

Our opinion of the Gods and our knowledge of the men lead us to conclude that it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can. This is not a law we made ourselves, nor were we the first to act upon it when it was made. We found it already in existence, and we shall leave it to exist forever among those who come after us.

some guy named Thucydides , presumably historian , starts a section on Saddam's pointless attacks on Iran and Kuwait which then led to no doubt righteous Western intervention . Can not possibly refer to anything else , especially -uhm- civilized countries ...

In war the will is directed at an animate object that reacts.

whatever ...

regarding people in and out , and to bolster my wannabe attempts at history : John Warden , an USAF colonel seems to be even more out in 2003 than he was in 1991 . Chuck Horner , the general who ran the actual Desert Storm was more neutral , ı know since ı have his autobiography in Turkish somewhere . Maybe because it was him who sacked the colonel or maybe it is truly obvious that it was the general himself who asked for the Instant Thunder , an emergency bombardment plan in case Saddam rolled into S.Arabia before US troops arrived in theater en masse . [Wouldn't have happened as Saddam Hussein had not briefed it with the US Ambrassador to Iraq . It being further operations that might happened beyond Kuwait .] No word on General Dugan though , who was sacked by Washington from overall command of USAF for stealing the limelight by suggestions of a full scale airwar . USN gets it badly for conduct in 1991 , asking for Route Packs a la Vietnam . No mention of USAF taking the entire responsibility for CAPs rather forcefully so that only USAF could shoot down jets , even Capt. Al Shamrani tailed by a couple of Eagles just in case , which still resulted in air combat for USN and a weird case where Scott Speicher was lost . Which might have somehow been the reason for the affair where USAF proved the MiG-25 could be a tough nut to crack with 4 F-15s firing 11 Sparrows at a single Iraqi flight over an "impossible" geometry . Wouldn't have happened with the F-14 . Due to previous bad experience over Iran , the Iraqis regularly broke contact when Tomcats were around . A reputation not even the French Mirage drivers could blemish , it appears they were around at the later stages of the 8 year war . Indeed ı recently read it might have been French themselves who attacked USS Stark to force America react to Iran , just to save Saddam .

umm Kasr changing hands repeatedly between the US and UK doesn't get that specific nod either ...

law and order aspect mentioned only by the glorious British success in Basra in securing "the largest collection of single malt whiskeys ... seen outside of the liquor stores at Gatwick and Heathrow." , which certainly covers the aspect , without any need to mention that the only Iraqi Official building that wasn't looted was the oil ministry in Baghdad , because it was the only one guarded by the Allies .

what's it to us , apart from the foolish notion that this country must go under , because it doesn't fit in with smart plans for a smart future , that it doesn't fit the smartness of people that we could be wiped out in 30 minutes or an hour or a day or a week if our enemies are not primed up , as such a civil war is a good thing to start in this country and it has taken Uncle Sam and Uncle's cousin Johnny Bull some 20 years to create a center of gravity for our otherwise fractured East to gravitate to , at the cost of million and a half plus dead Iraqis , as the Islamists and Leftists of this country give the numbers ? It certainly makes no impression on our allies the Civil War here has been wargamed to a million dead , why should it afterall ? Mind you , our Easterners are needed elsewhere , as such we -the rest- are still to squabble in the rest of the country , after the world saves them from our nefarious ways . This thread has something on civil wars , something about the elites losing priviliges and resorting to violence . Say , was Ahromeyev , ı get to talk good of him without the slightest info on why - was Ahromeyev afraid of losing his dacha , of people who would come and send him to mines before sitting in his table to eat his dinner and sipping his Votka? Or was it something like preserving something , work of years , of sweat and of far too much tears ? Considering , with the possible exception of the Baltic states , Commies in one form or the other are still in charge in all of the former Soviets , only that they go to bazilikas for coronotion , why not simply getting accustomed to new realities ? In the one where son replaced father , our beloved Azerbeycan , the one nation two states thing , they have banned foreign TV series , of Turkish in addition to Russian , Brazilian and all . Pour souls , not even DVDs bought on discount and shown on TV without licence ... Where is America , to save people , from goverment oppression ? ( The reason for the rant ? ı watch their satellite channels , DVD thing means ı never have to go to or buy movies , they will be on within a month or two . )

afterall , does America feel much shame when declaring that the US State Department have been providing unhackable phones and training for their use , in a so-called NATO member , in the same breath like the countries like Libya or Syria ? Things have changed that much that people in TV debates and news don't have that much of a funny feeling telling the Northern Iraqi Kurds trust on us to protect them from Baghdad when they declare independence . If we were to do that why did we die for the last 30 years , us , them , citizens of this country or not , to the tune of maybe 50 , maybe 60 thousand ? More and more people want them out of Turkey , or whatever that gets left after they get their municipalities out , is that enough ? No , Uncle Sam wants us to become Serbians , so that they can bomb us to Kingdom come ... Come onnn , let's see who are bigger liars .




as usual everything herein comes straight from the archives of Department of Bullsit and Ministry of Horsec rap . Copyright relaxed for sigging the Injuns have guns line .
 
doesn't hurt much when you have nowhere to go , nothing to do , no one to talk to . Whiles away the time as the clock ticks .
 
have bought a book , the first in 4 years or more , me being the loser ı am . Had said everybody had POPs in the previous post , this is a Turkish one .

Spoiler :
the author has this series on Turkish craziness where we oppose the obvious and crawl out of we rightly belong . An undisputed bestselling line , it generally tends to help the status quo ; just like you pat a baby on the back after feeding and all the gas in the little tummy comes out one way or the other ; the process being an idiom in colloquial Turkish about relaxing stresses that might lead to trouble later on .

the book is about Cyprus and mostly about the early period . Those who follow recent events in Turkey will remember the military gets whacked regularly over coup-plotting and activities of a certain bureau , the stay behinds to organize guerillas after the Soviet invasion has been under the lime-light , as the den of the traitors who sell the country for 5 cents or less . The connection with the book is of course those guys were tasked with organizing the resistance in Cyprus in the late 1950s once it became clear that Greeks intented to "liberate" the Island . Was it necessary ? Of course . The book ? Good and bad , side by side ...

as such , we have a glorious account of vast assistance to Turkish Cypriots , with abundant amounts of self-sacrifise and patriotism on both sides of the sea ; Greeks and Greek-Cypriots are the villains . Not much surprise , it turns out the author , working in the state media at the time , had personally seen the bathtub where the wife and two children of the doctor of the Turkish unit on the island had been killed with 33 bullets . The third kid , the smallest boy , of 6 months , suffocated between them . The Bloody Christmas period of 1963 and disturbances had seen the neighbours taking refuge at the same house , a woman died , another lost an hand , her daughter her leg . The father of that neighbour family was wounded as well ( Though for the neighbours , ı might have found an tactical excuse that they were hiding in same bathroom and were standing behind the door . ) Even the Turkish traitors are mentioned , though no account of how weapons coming from Turkey were being sold . We have just a sugar coated version , no doubt with today's conditions in mind .

today's conditions are that newspapers run it on the front page when a veteran of the times "confesses" that it was us who blew up Turkish mosques for world sympathy , framing Greeks . As anti-Westernism without Islamic references is now an hallmark of being an enemy of the state , even the book misses the choicest parcel , where it was not Greeks in UN peacekeeper uniforms arresting and executing Turkish Cypriot militants / terrorists / resistance fighters on a basis of scratch as you like , but the UN personnel themselves , out of sight out of mind , in at least one case . Then we have some totally spurious events , eh ? Luckily we are yet to hear it was us who kill people in bathtubs . In Turkey . For world attention , the Greeks were into it right on the day one .

tensions among the Turks are barely mentioned . It was locals who ran the risk of humiliation and seriously , real seriously , that of anhilation . It was "legal" for them to press for action . It has been an r16 thing that General Griveous of the Clone / Star Wars is derived from Colonel Grivas of the 1960 / 70s . Though ı am assured , the expert from Greece didn't have 4 arms . Denktaş and his political drive mentioned , but not that it was his glory seeking of sorts that led to the "battle" of August 1964 ( which in yet another r16 thing that piqued Washington so much that they legally jumped into Vietnam with both feet ) . He got softer later on . Repeating it time after time , opinion leaders of a pitiful race that goes by the name of Turks , can not grasp that people outta are really out to get them , for good .

america gets the inevitable bad press , and Turkish leaders are divided between good patriots and awesome patriots . Inönü is cleared from allegations that as the Army was utterly unprepared Ankara asked Washington to stop us from going in and America did it with utter coarseness . That in 1964 . '67 saw Uncle Sam in true colours , expenditure of money , undeniable efforts to have something on the table and ships were recalled with troops on board . And Americans were telling those on Cyprus to forget it , we were not coming . And Greeks stopped at the right moment , as told to naturally , so that we would break on our own . Remember the lies needed to send troops to battle ? There were suicide attempts in the ships that turned back ...

then the 1974 . Author is clearly fond of Ecevit . When he again became the PM in 1998 , ı ventured that he could be good , because you know he had had the gall to "occupy" Cyprus . ı got a couple of smiles . You certainly won't read in the book am talking about that the motive in 1974 was also hoping an American intervention . Ecevit banned the ships from leaving harbour until the Cabinet meeting was adjourned . Ships were slow they had to start at a certain hour if they were to combine it with air landings . Amphibious landings have a reputation of being tough . Every hour passing away would have increased the chance of Greeks agreeing to a deal and the operation cancelled altogether . Greeks had no intention , the military here was in the exact point of use it or lose it and the operations were sort of delayed , ships reaching the shore an hour later the paratroops landed . If you think this was some risky business , Denktaş had announced the operation two hours before and the PM 50 minutes , they were kinda hoping there would be no fighting but lots of noise , no doubt impressed by the previous overflights and limited numbers of bombing raids which had cooled the Greeks for a while . Air attacks were dispersed on the first day , except targets of opportunity , since no planning could overtake pilots' eyesight and personal initiative . Instead of opposition , American ground crews actually serviced Turkish jets for combat over Cyprus , loading bombs . RAF had an active interest in THK ops , interfering whenever possible . It is in the newspapers that an helicopter crew laughed as we were sinking our own destroyer . Though the thing is not delved into to the proper extent .

the first night was tough . When it became clear that we would survive , the UN General Assembly is accused of the fastest cease-fire call in its history . The second day it was obvious that the only way was fighting to win and the Greeks folded . They had their lesson of depending on other countries' empty promises of support . Both sides would reinforce as fast as possible , we were closer to home , we won .

there would be another round . This was the time London attempted to stare us down with 12 Phantoms and 600 Gurkhas . Not even massacres of civilians could stop it either . When stuff starts rolling , you either stand on its way to stop it or get out of the way .


all in all a good read , despite the fails . Even if name calling is too much , and transforming the past is evident in a couple of places , this POP is OK , especially when one knows the things actually happened . Propaganda happenz in many ways , it is kinda gross when it involves non-existant things . Like the newspapers here headlining the chief of goverment generals visiting the most secret US base in an epitome of collaboration and trust between the two nations : Key West , the HQ of the commandos who got Usame . Why this is found funny , ı won't tell ...

and that even before reading the newspapers and seeing American experts talking in some meeting , in some weird "Quit crowding me, Buster!" mood ,one claiming this country is among the top 5-6 countries in the world and two of us , US and we , should stop bossing each other . Aww , really ? Us bossing the US ?

Spoiler :

wait , just wait until ı get some 1700s under my personal command .

 
When else?

When you have something that I want. Isn't that why they are always fought?

"Justified" is a really loaded word honestly. Who is to determine whats just and whats not?
 
"Justified" is a really loaded word honestly. Who is to determine whats just and whats not?

I am. Please bear that in mind. :mischief: But seriously folks, if anyone wants to take himself out of the judging business, that's fine, just don't expect the rest of us to play along.
 
some more rant , this time to the tune of "War is justified when the journos justify it."

Spoiler :
being a loser ı still don't have a solution for the satellite antenna thing at home , meaning only this Turksat works , with Al Jazeraa being the only foreign language newschannel ı can watch . Anyhow , last night there was a programme built on intercepted phone calls of Kaddafi and his goverment . Central thing ı noticed was the confession there were no particular Black mercenaries , Africans as the Libyans call them , but it just got into public conciousness and all , and the pro-Kaddafi guy invited to the show -as it is SOP in such things- sort of stressed there were Serbians and Croats as advisors on the Green Flag side . Though tough on part of the people who got it bad on some made up suspicion . ı am not the guy who would do justice to the words that needs to be said here , but a nice little ethnic cleansing has been carried out under armed NATO protection , as some Libyan cities enlarged their Lebensraum at the expense of Afro-Libyans .

not to worry , the channel had a choice tape where Libyan goverment proved themselves to be opportunistic propaganda makers . We had a ship going around evacuating people from both sides , at least initially and it was escorted by military power . The tape says our jets carried out an attack on the Goverment troops , an hour after the ship left , and 11 were killed ; they "buried" 100 . Which should go up and hurt some people in a country that borders the Middle East ? Like people , certain people ? A pity Al Jazeraa was not around in the Gulf War of 90-91 , where people quickly ate their word that the THK went in on January 17th ...

a Turkish idiom has it that a cup of coffee is a favour to be remembered for 40 years , that Kaddafi provided 25 tons of supplies for air operations in 1974 is still valid . Not only that big guns of the media will turn some other place one of these days , you see . A celebration of victory , the programmers went on balance the lack of Black mercenaries with claims of connections to Somali pirates . Good , nicely done .

then a mockery of Trablus' attention against them and a jolly moment remembering the adrenaline rush when a live connection had to be cut short when the freedom fighters turned their Toyotas around and "ran with the wind" . These are the times which everybody starts to hate in time , for it means yet another stuffy lecture on the dangers of stereotyping . The journalist of the time now had fun at the opposition , for it seemed they were content to drive people back to Bingazi . Does she question her bunch would have killed all unlike the "effeminates" and stuff or does she claim that nobody could have dared shoot to kill a journalist anyhow ?
 
I still think morality is unnecessary. But I don't have anything further to really add to the debate, so I won't really counterargue you. :)

I will, however, add something final I left out due to mindspace in my own post. (It didn't fit wholly and as such didn't add to the point as a whole... It's an addendum or something.)

I think there is a difference between good and evil and then good and bad. As you might understand, I like some wars if I feel they're justified, but I don't feel morality justifies anything because regardless of what some philosophers say (Nietzsche, I'm looking at you too) morality is basically a judgment of whether one is good or evil. The reason is that morality tries to act as a dictatorship of the ideal due to impragmatical reasons and incompatibility problems you've already semi-disagreed with. But I want to continue here.

The action in itself should carry its good without a moral judge, at all times. Morality shouldn't even come into question.

The following is going to be a little vaguely explained, bear with my bad English.

Morality seems, to me, as if it was some kind of bad-tasting leftover from our society's religious past and the according traditions of dogma or ideals. There are plenty of things that I like about faith, such as the personal importance it has to people, so don't get me wrong - I have nothing against religion in the abstract. But morality is connected to the bad things of religion - all-encompassing dogma, unquestionable rules etc. And why didn't we dump it when our states became technically secular? Because of social convensions, traditions, general culture. It's being carried over in our modern society through our social traditions and their ideals, empty expressions such as "solidarity" and "freedom" legitimize everything - we should rescue the suppressed peoples of Dictatorstan because they're unfree or that they're not equal with us. That's a moral action to Freedomland. Sure. I get that.

I question why my actions can't be good (contrary to bad) rather than good (contrary to evil) in themselves. If you need definitions, that is; I'd mostly prefered to talk about it as being loving, gentle, nice. Why do I need a moral excuse to give my girlfriend a flower? Why do I need to know I'm good when I shoot down a terrorist trying to bomb a village in his homeland? Why should ethics decide whether the murderer of a family should be inside a house? Do we really need the extra layer of good and evil to do things that feel natural or, bear with me here, loving? Why do I need morals when I can just be nice to people?

Technically, rescuing people from a brutal dictator, is a nice thing to do, you know.

Human made standards of behavior are subject to constant change. Who is to say what a brutal dictator is? You can measure in meters meaningfully only if the meter is a fixed standard. If you want something to be six meters high and its only five then you have three choices. You can accept it. You can build it higher. Or, you can change the length of a meter. What do you think human beings do?

All of your opinions are worth absolutely nothing if they are not measure by God's standards. Anything can be justified if you are free to make stuff up.

If you sin, you can ease your mind by rationalizing endlessly but this does nothing to dispel the consequences of your actions. When God commands "Thou shalt not commit adultery" it not just for the purpose of ruling over us, rather, it is for the purpose of protecting all of us against the consequences of giving in to the darker side of our nature. In todays world, you might just as well pursue an adulterous llifestyle insofar as legal or societal sanctions are concerned because they are few or none. But the consequences are still there.

Our drifting standards serve no more purpose than the fig leaves with which Adam and Eve hid their shame. From God you can run, but there is nowhere to hide.
 
"God's morals" are human made standards too.
 
You can't put out fire with gasoline.
 
I actually dropped this debate, but am now in OT-mood, stumbled over this thread again and here I am. Besides, earnestly denying the use of morality is so outrageous that it deserves to activate my "wrong-on-the-internet-must-respond"-reaction.
I think there is a difference between good and evil and then good and bad. As you might understand, I like some wars if I feel they're justified, but I don't feel morality justifies anything because regardless of what some philosophers say (Nietzsche, I'm looking at you too) morality is basically a judgment of whether one is good or evil. The reason is that morality tries to act as a dictatorship of the ideal due to impragmatical reasons and incompatibility problems you've already semi-disagreed with.
Semi in so far that if you mess up your moral code, that's the result. Not if you do it right, as I already made an effort to demonstrate. But go on.
The action in itself should carry its good without a moral judge, at all times. Morality shouldn't even come into question.
I think you are way to hooked up on this "what is good is universally good"-stuff. Those are important fundamentals of morality, but I think you misunderstand them. I read the rest of your post, don't worry, but think you are so far off and that so evidently with your claim that morality was useless, that I'll like to take it from here and make my final case for why you are simply and utterly wrong. Please bear with me.

At first again some basics: We already established that good is an in the end arbitrary categorization, human doing. Hence, if there is no one to judge, there also is no judgment and as a consequence, "good" and "bad" don't exist. In deed, as soon as you use the words "good" and "bad" in the sense that you judge other people's decision and if you are concerned with a somehow objective justification of your judgment, you are exercising morality.
So that is what morality is about: Establishing common ground with other individuals and their individual judgments of good and bad/evil. And, to be frank, to not see the necessity of this can only have two reasons:
You don't understand what morality actually is (well, now you do I hope. or at least at the end of the post).
You don't put any value in the judgment/destinies of others beyond the gain this may allow to you to obtain. Meaning, you are a sociopath. From what you tell us, you are not a sociopath. So I'll have to go with the first option.
Now, assuming that you continue to find morality useless, where exactly is your disagreement with me her?
You write
Addendum: Morality is primordially and eternally true in abstract, always.

"Why do I need a primordial reason to be nice"?
and seem to miss the point. Not caring for the theoretics of morality is like not caring for the theoretics of your body functions. You may find little use for it in everyday life, but you will still breath, eat and take a piss. You make use of your body functions without coherently understanding them and you can do the same with morality, by intuition. Theoretical morality simply serves the purpose to refine one's moral judgment, to refine the common ground with others, to sharpen its indispensable role in forging a functional and pleasurable society (why indispensable? Because many people living together need judgmental common ground! = morality)

But to then paint morality like a "bad-tasting leftover from our society's religious past " really nails it :lol: Man I think your exposure to moral philosophy just went terribly wrong. If anything, religion abused and raped morality like the power-graping rapist it is.
It is true that morality requires dogmas. But not in the sense that you may not questions those dogmas. You not only may, you shall! But you need to start somewhere to establish moral theory. You need to assume a dogma for whatever moral framework. A fundamental decision. For instance: Is hurting others bad or good? But if you think the wrong dogma was assumed, or wrongly assumed, then theoretical morality lives from you saying so.

So again, if you ask: Why do I need morality? So that people can live together in a tolerable way.
If you ask: Why do I need to approach such issues in the manner of moral theory? You don't. But humanity would be better of if we all gave it an honest try, a try beyond abstract axioms that is. A try to reevaluate everyday life and its impact. I mean, do I really have to explain why that is fundamentally good? However, most don't. So society won't punish you if you don't. So naturally, you likely won't.
To just be "nice" means to don't give a crap about what is actual good and to just go with the flow. Is that bad? Well, yeah, I think so. But as said, this is the kind of bad society holds no grudge for, which makes it the kind of bad you will have an easy time to not mind, being the human being you are. And I am not much better, mind you. Well, in some ways maybe a little. But in others, I am sure you are.

And now please don't tell me that morality is useless you sociopath ;)
 
Well, I won't quote you specifically for each argument, but I actually have a retort, even though you made a really great point there. I have to say some few more words to this deal, though.

Theoretical morality is just a problem to me. It's philosophically debated and decided, giving me those problems I've stated I have with it so many times (dogmatic, abstract, inapplicable with certainty). We've been through that.

The thing is that I make a morality to be something externally present, assuming it is rational, it is an idea rather than a thing. When you begin discussing whether something is morally right or wrong, it's a golden standard problematic to the real world yadda yadda.

But you don't make morality to be external just the same way. You think it's more internal to humanity; you agree with me that it arises from a human group. I think that you then say it comes from a common consensus of a group on how to act, serving the group's warmth, stability, happiness and safety. The whole point of morality is to serve these things.

So that is what morality is about: Establishing common ground with other individuals and their individual judgments of good and bad/evil.

And let's hold it there. Because the establishment of social convention and consensus is a natural social drive that ensure the pleasantry and safety of a human group. It comes from the group for the sake of the group. Then thinkers of the group write down this establishment of common ground as morality to ensure that the safe consensus remains. Now, it becomes a moral code, a rational concept, something external that very rationally describes how to act according to the group. Morality becomes an idea, making it possible to be ideal. And the idea becomes applied back onto the real world and collides horribly and violently with many things, currently leading to "We must bomb Ongostan because they are not free."

The thing is that I see a distinction between the morality pre-rational and the morality post-rational, a distinction between the time morality was internal and the time morality was external, and a distinction between the time morality was a consensus - a passive, social behavior - and an ideal - a violent, judgmental force. The time morality becomes retroactive and changes behavior, it becomes dangerous.

And here's the kicker to me, and perhaps a misuse of semantics: Before morality becomes an ideal, it's not morality, it's simply social convention and cultural behavior. It's more fluid and chaotic than strict and judgmental. It's internal and amorally good in and itself; the very origins of morality was the passive, natural warmth that morality seeks to ensure.

Note that I'm never fully convinced of anything, really took your post into account and will think about everything; my mind is never set in stone. I also know that my way of approaching things is even more impractical than using an evil moral system. :p I merely thought you deserved this reply. Provoking thoughts is the fundament of a good debate culture. I'm happy you found I was so wrong that you had to answer.

I don't have a reply for MisterCooper, as I find his divine standard silly and in contradiction with his very God's word.
 
When is war justified?

When is war not justified? There is always a reason for war, however trivial. Some wars can be economically justifiable, as the Mexican-American War was. Others can be politically and morally justifiable--the Cold War and WWII--provided enough propaganda exists to sway the public into believing the war is justifiable.

To determine when war should be justified requires a definition of morality. When the war is morally solvent. But, it should not be understated that the government can alter a person's morals severely or entirely. This is, in fact, why war would take place; both nations, and their peoples, would believe that they hold the moral high ground. Thus, war has always been justified, and it has only been the observer who has not had the perception to see it that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom