Discussion in 'Politics' started by wesmorris, Feb 25, 2005.
I joined this late Jaybee are you a pacifist or not?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Do you believe, with an eye on history, a standing army is neccesary?
But Those marines didn't volunteer to be in a situation like the one you cited. They certainly had some concept that their volunteering could mean that they might one day be in a combat situation but never a certainty. They are also for the most part quite young and certain large scale concepts like this are difficult to actually grasp realistically before it is time to pay the piper, I personally am reminded of my taking out a student loan at 19 with no basis in reality to let me know exactly what it meant to be thousands of dollars in debt.
In the circumstance you mentioned a marine would behave in the exact same manner as yourself, a professed pacifist.
I do, but it MUST be an all-volunteer force, and then must only be used for strictly defending the land of the nation which created it.
It should therefore not be projected as an attack force, but must be a formidable, and effective deterrent; therefore, if the nation is attacked, the army has already failed in it's primary goal.
So yes, armed forces are a necessary evil. The key word, however, is evil.
Their gambling on not having to go to war makes no material difference. If they wanted to ENSURE never having to murder innocent civilians, they would have found alternative employment. The fact remains that they agreed to fight and kill when, or if called to do so.
Cannon fodder is best when young, impressionable, and unquestioning.
Like I said, I will do everything I can not to get into such a situation. The Marine signs up KNOWING that doing so might get him into that situ.
I fully agree that armed forces are a necessary evil, hopefully one day we can move beyond that.
I am with you here in your theory. This next bit however...
Is where things get sticky, how do you ensure in this day and age that you won't be attacked? it has happened in dozens of countries in the past year alone. In those cases have the armed forces failed? and if they have are they necessary?
Ok, whether we're talking about small African nations in guerilla style war, or countries that are larger, then the UN OUGHT to be playing peace-enforcer. Each nation allots a small percentage of it's armed forces for UN usage, and if trouble breaks out, the UN troops act to SEPARATE the combating parties.
Separate - making it impossible or unprofitable to continue hostilities.
Uhm, you missed your chance there sport.
For your convenience, I'll repost the two more important posts that summarized my comprehension:
FIRST POST: (in response to crimson scribe's request to summarize)
Okay. In this thread I've stated my understanding of the inevitability, function and utility of war more than once I think.
I'll summarize per your request and ask that you rebutt if you feel so inclined:
War is based on value and commitment to premise. Value is subjective. Thus, conflicting values are inevitable. Hence, conflict.
Function and utility:
To resolve divergence of value.
What it means to me:
Nobody likes war. It's horrifying and terrible. I don't like it, but recognize it as an unfortunate necessity. Though it comes at a terrible cost, such divergence must be resolved if there is strong commitment to premise (e.g. if you want my sandwich and I don't want to give it to you and we're both absolutely commited, one of us must die)
That's a somewhat simple summary. The detail justifying the conclusions was presented in my prior posts in this thread.
“ Originally Posted by Crimson_Scribe
In resolving a divergence of value, do we call a war 'good' because it supports our values? The values of the majority? ”
IMO, that's a highly complicated issue.
First, you have to consider that "we" don't call it good. Each calls it what they will. Then you have to consider the circumstance of the individuals who must make the decisions to undertake war. They'd have to see it as "good" considering the alternatives, or they wouldn't undertake it. Do they truly respresent the interest of those who they represent? How good are they at interpreting that interest, or formulating a plan that attains the related goals? I think human nature in general must dictate that the war is "good" in the context of the perceived circumstance that led to the related decisions if it's to be undertaken, as in "the best option". I doubt though that a person I would consider "decent" would think it "good" outside that context. It seems to me that if a person is thinking rationally, the decision for war must be the best option in a cost-benefit analysis.
“ The values most in line with our survival as a civilization? ”
Well, it comes out as the will of the people in the positions to make the related decisions. They represent "the will of the people" and are basically bound by their circumstance to "sell" their position on it. This is where language gets fuzzy and politics comes into play. Given that every person has at least a slightly different take on language, and there is large risk in misinterpretation, the decision for war becomes a PR war between those who've performed their cost-benefit and those they represent. It seems to me that marketing strategy becomes inevitably relevant to the process. Again, that's basically based on the fact that everyone is different in language and you must present your case to them in a way they can relate to.
“ Would you agree with Robert McNamara, who's said 'you can't change human nature' (in reference to war and conflict)? ”
Well, if you were to change human nature, you wouldn't have humans would you? I do agree, yes.... at least at this time. I think however, we closing on a singularity of sorts - a time in which "all bets are off". With technology at its current pace, I can't see how AI could be more than 100 years away, more likely it will come in less than half that time. At that point, I think it's tough to predict what might happen to human nature.
I see a cycle. You have a population of inviduals, each with their own values. In a peace time type situation, the value of petty shit becomes basically much higher than in times of danger, when people must huddle together to overcome a larger threat. As these values become more and more important over time, people are more and more willing to make sacrifices to attain their objectives. They become more and more important because there's no reason to huddle together because everything is "okay". Egos get out of check because there's nothing to fear and with no fear, people can "do anything". They take what they want if they can manage it. Someone gets hurt. The situation escalates. The divergence gets purged but leaves remnants which create further divergences down the road. It's almost like the evolution of a galaxy. It's tranquil, then BRUTAL and perverse, cannibalistic and then tranquil again until the energy in the system comes to equilibrium.
War is part of a process. Obviously it can lead to dire consequences for the individuals and entities who are subjected to it. It is however, a door. Think of all the things that would not be were it not for wars. It's a terrifying reality, but reality none the less. Thankfully, there is more to the process than war. I'll leave that for another thread.
Gonna miss the boat again eh?
you are naive because you think in the box--the matrix, the paradigm. this is revealed to me when you vision AI. which says to me you have a limited view of consciousness. you haven't looked in to it...aren't seemingly prepared to look into it. so...hey presto you will equate cosmic 'violence'--as you call it, with 'human' violence. you reduce all humans to you assumption we are the natrual image of a violent universe
i am saying that we should look at what is fueling this myth of conflict. that is is Deep and needs exploring. are YOU prepared to explore it and maybe see through the myth that has war as its central impetus
you believe thay wars are just. it is known the war on Iraq wasn't--though i know you dont agree....but look. all war is wrong. once you see it yu see it theres no turning back. you wont join up, you wont want your kids joining up
and what 'values'? i dont feel i can express My values. i feel like the Earth's occupied by a menace. a mindset that divides itself from Nature. we MUSt be more intelligent that what you envision. the waepons being used now can make the whole Earth unlivable. it aint spears no mo
so. who HAVe that as your vision? cause everyone eles does?
could you try ENGLISh is you're going to type stuff? I can barely read that crap. goddamn hippy doofus.
hah.....go read chinese dude...you'll be callin me a tree hugger next.
is that an excuse for not being able to counter the ideas?
No, it's a cry for clarity... just a smidge. I'm serious, I can barely read that shit.
Thus, I see no idea to counter. Just idealistic hippy jargon and a superiority complex.
BTW, where are YOUR ideas?
Baseless personal attack.
Again, baseless personal attack. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
I didn't exactly equate it, I simply noted the similarity. You fail to explain your problem with the analogy.
No, it's not an assumption, it's an observation. The universe is an incredibly violent place. There is also peace, but it doesn't exist without violence eventually unsettling it. Eventually even our sun will become a red giant and engulf the earth.
But you fail to address ANY point that has been made. You simply label them as wrong, attack ME and tell me I'm "stuck in the box". You fail to address the core argument: Subjective value leads to conflict. You call it a myth, yet have not shown in any capacity how that is so.
But you haven't presented anything to consider besides unfounded assertions. You claim "conflict is a myth" yet haven't shown HOW or WHY besides that you don't like it. Not liking it and pretending it isn't real is exactly the definition of denial. Hence I assert you are in total denial regarding the nature of conflict.
Are YOU prepared to offer an argument to that end?
From where do you gather this? I believe wars are just in the minds of those who wage them, but that is not equivalent to the flat statement "wars are just".
You say that as if you are some sort of absolute authority on what is and isn't fair or right. Value is subjective, thus your statement is flatly false.
Look at what? You don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.
To someone, yes.
Well of course, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you... hence you have no point.
Join up for what?
Whatever value is relevant to the conflict.
You just did.
So your "feeling" is your substitute for reason?
You apparently don't understand nature at all, given that you object to the considerable violent aspect of the universe.
Yes, it would be nice if you were more intelligent than my vision of you, but it's not looking like that way. How do you think yourself privy to my vision of humanity's intelligence? I've made no remarks here in that regard that I remember.
You're just catching that?
Is that english? I have no idea what you asked.
What? You really think that everyone else thinks the way I do about the topic of war? Please, grow a brain and use it before you post.
i stated my ideas a few pages back in a summary but you havent replied to them
War is just a test between 2 nation who are seeing who has more resouces, people, and technology. Also to see who is more modernized. Of course it's bullshit though, they both lose in the long run.
"Wesmorris sumarise your Ideology concerning war and ill elaborate mine into it, then you can tell me if it sounds good or not."
You're not very bright eh?
Separate names with a comma.