Do You Believe In War?

[Tumah]

First of all, a disclaimer: I do not condone war or violence. I am only giving my opinion on why I think there is war.

The facts are against you - look at the conduct of the Khudai Khidmatgar composed of Muslim, Pashtun tribesmen in Afghanistan in their successful struggle against the British Empire.

I not next to nothing about history, but from what I see, it looks like it was not their non-violence that led to the end of the struggle but political maneuvers that took place after the fact with the Congress.

If the alternative is to encourage you to keep doing that, then sure, I just might.


The fact is that war mobilization just does not lead to anything worth pursuing, nor does it provide the means to limit its own growth. It just keeps scaring others and being scared back in a destructive cycle.

Part of what I am saying is that your non-violence, will not end the next guys violent tendency. You are not spreading peace, you are just using a different tactic to fight the war. The end will result in death, whether from massacre after massacre as in the case cited above, or from violent confrontation. What is the gain? Did the British stop fighting in wars after their "lesson" from Ghaffar and Gandhi? One more non-violent country? Did Pakistan and India dismantle their armies?

That isn't war. If directly attacked, I will defend myself against the individual doing the attacking. What I won't do is slavishly throw my life away (or anyone else's) - or sacrifice own my free will and moral conscience to follow orders - for some BS "cause", because war is a racket and I'm not a sucker.

Then you agree with me.

 

[Caladan]

Maybe it's better if the 'No more war' section of the hall define what they mean by 'War' because right now everyone seems to be confused about how to define it and members are arguing about terminology and less about strategy or ideology.
Do you mean deployment of troops to take control of natural resources? Do you mean any kind of military offensive? defensive? or preemptive action?
Maybe we should throw this out into the thread since this is something which seems to be ignored: Do we define war as the act of attacking another party? or is war the result of deterioration of political circumstances? If Germany invades Poland, and Poles fight back, which stage do we define as war? Germany's 'declaration' of one, or the state which followed in which the two sides fight?
Often one side finds itself in a state of war without actually firing the first bullet.

I find it quite the unstable mind who finds war constructive, but realistic being the unfortunate Truth.

I find it kind the useless mind who would not launch a preemptive assault when one is needed. I would find such lack of thought process to be par with the worst creature in the animal kingdom who has lost all will for survival and perpetuation of their existence, I conclude because it is an uninspiring one.

Although we claim to understand what Pride is we still find a need to forgo the value of a Human Life to fulfill vapid hungers as such. I agree that Future technologies will give us not only a wider array of Security issues, but as long as ignorance and excuses are see as proper definitions of our actions, we may be biting off more than we can choose.

The fact that technologies are and will be misused is not a guilt which is shared by all members of human society equally. Unfortunately we all have to address it. Or bury our heads in the sand and pretend we are not part of this world.

Courage is a rare quality which allows a person to face realities and responsibilities. My point of this post is not to condemn or blame others, or even ask someone to get dirty doing something for me I myself would not do. As far as grave injustices are concerned, I personally have a few that would I am quite sure surprise you beyond what you think imaginable

I doubt it. When I was a young soldier, I've seen a farmer shag his goat through my night vision goggles once while scanning the horizon. From that moment on, nothing comes as a shock.

Like I said, look at Gandhi - the most effective answer to those who would use violence is nonviolent resistance.

Effective to whom? Not to every society or nation. Gandhi was part of a civilization that experienced the British Empire's occupation under different geographical and historical circumstances, and shortly after the British granted them with independence India found itself facing a major split into a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India. The Irish and Scots could never it seem fully remove the British dominion. The Jews on the other hand put up a very competent and motivated resistance against the British which factored greatly in the British decision to pull out their colonial foothold in the region, resulting in the establishment of the State of Israel. In addition, the British made great efforts to stop the influx of Jewish refugees who escaped Nazi occupied Europe by turning their ships and by other efforts. In the Jewish pragmatic mind of the historical period it was imperative to take initiative and matters into our own hands by being practical. Fasting to inspire an entire culture against evil empires is not really what will create an impact in our circumstances.

That isn't war. If directly attacked, I will defend myself against the individual doing the attacking. What I won't do is slavishly throw my life away (or anyone else's) - or sacrifice own my free will and moral conscience to follow orders - for some BS "cause", because war is a racket and I'm not a sucker.

So how do defensive, or even preemptive assaults compute in that? a war is not simply the act of declaring one on another group or nation, a war can be what results in the failure of diplomacy or the complete lack of one, on occasion when one side refuses the diplomatic or political platform and engage in conflict instead.

 

[sandandfoam]

Effective to whom? Not to every society or nation. Gandhi was part of a civilization that experienced the British Empire's occupation under different geographical and historical circumstances, and shortly after the British granted them with independence India found itself facing a major split into a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India. The Irish and Scots could never it seem fully remove the British dominion. The Jews on the other hand put up a very competent and motivated resistance against the British which factored greatly in the British decision to pull out their colonial foothold in the region, resulting in the establishment of the State of Israel. In addition, the British made great efforts to stop the influx of Jewish refugees who escaped Nazi occupied Europe by turning their ships and by other efforts. In the Jewish pragmatic mind of the historical period it was imperative to take initiative and matters into our own hands by being practical. Fasting to inspire an entire culture against evil empires is not really what will create an impact in our circumstances.

Let's look at the question so.
It is my belief that violence is never the best answer.
In the first instance, the best answer to the murder of the Jewish people in the WW2 period would have been for western countries to behave in a decent manner and accept refugees fleeing Nazism.
Of course I am not going to attempt to censure the Jewish people who took matters into their own hands and did the best that they could. They were in an impossible situation.
My argument is that violence was not the best way to deal with Nazism, how many people died during the war - 50 or 60 million? I am not for a second suggesting that the Nazis were anything other than a criminal, murderous whirlwind but I refuse to believe that a solution with that sort of body count was the best answer to them.

 

[Caladan]

Let's look at the question so.
It is my belief that violence is never the best answer.
In the first instance, the best answer to the murder of the Jewish people in the WW2 period would have been for western countries to behave in a decent manner and accept refugees fleeing Nazism.
Of course I am not going to attempt to censure the Jewish people who took matters into their own hands and did the best that they could. They were in an impossible situation.
My argument is that violence was not the best way to deal with Nazism, how many people died during the war - 50 or 60 million? I am not for a second suggesting that the Nazis were anything other than a criminal, murderous whirlwind but I refuse to believe that a solution with that sort of body count was the best answer to them.

I obviously agree with your first and second points and with the general philosophy that we as social creatures should find ways to dismantle unnecessary violence before it even begins. Which is to say that violence is indeed not the default answer to solve problems, and that Western countries took their time or stood idle as countless of ancient communities perished, or even simply prevented the escape of Jewish survivors.
The breakdown of our communication in such debates is that both of us think that violence should be reduced in the world, however I still wish to receive constructive and workable solutions and models for the circumstances Jewish men like my grandfather found themselves. His circumstances were labor camp in Siberia, the loss of 4 sisters and brothers, his parents, his home, property, European citizenship, and in fact his entire community which was simply wiped out. He took up arms and fought the Axis under the British higher command in a native Polish force. Their actions in fact paved the way for the Allies to the heart of Italy.

 

[sandandfoam]

however I still wish to receive constructive and workable solutions and models for the circumstances Jewish men like my grandfather found themselves

I have to say that (depressingly) I do not believe that there are (or were) any for people like your grandad.
I think that people like your grandad achieved victory by surviving and becoming parents.
To my mind, the Holocaust is the only point I can think of where logic/reason/understanding and all the normal everyday human tools break down.

Following on from you post though - I do not think that we fundamentally disagree.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Let's look at the question so.
It is my belief that violence is never the best answer.
In the first instance, the best answer to the murder of the Jewish people in the WW2 period would have been for western countries to behave in a decent manner and accept refugees fleeing Nazism.
Of course I am not going to attempt to censure the Jewish people who took matters into their own hands and did the best that they could. They were in an impossible situation.
My argument is that violence was not the best way to deal with Nazism, how many people died during the war - 50 or 60 million? I am not for a second suggesting that the Nazis were anything other than a criminal, murderous whirlwind but I refuse to believe that a solution with that sort of body count was the best answer to them.

So if you were FDR, Churchill or Stalin, you would have just let the Nazis take over mainland Europe?

If so, Britain would have fallen soon after Hitler consolidated his power. Eventually the US would have been defeated by Hitler and the Japanese. Which would mean that no Jews anywhere would survive.

You would just allow the most aggressive culture to own the world?

 

[sandandfoam]

So if you were FDR, Churchill or Stalin, you would have just let the Nazis take over mainland Europe?

If so, Britain would have fallen soon after Hitler consolidated his power. Eventually the US would have been defeated by Hitler and the Japanese. Which would mean that no Jews anywhere would survive.

You would just allow the most aggressive culture to own the world?

Sigh

Did you read what I said?

here it is again - My argument is that violence was not the best way to deal with Nazism, how many people died during the war - 50 or 60 million? I am not for a second suggesting that the Nazis were anything other than a criminal, murderous whirlwind but I refuse to believe that a solution with that sort of body count was the best answer to them.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think our human species has ended up with stockholm syndrome

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sigh

Did you read what I said?

Yes, I did read it. And I asked you a direct question about your belief which you have refused to answer. I have to say that I think those who refuse direct questions... they probably haven't thought through their own beliefs very carefully.

here it is again - My argument is that violence was not the best way to deal with Nazism, how many people died during the war - 50 or 60 million? I am not for a second suggesting that the Nazis were anything other than a criminal, murderous whirlwind but I refuse to believe that a solution with that sort of body count was the best answer to them.

So what is the best answer if not war by the Allies?

 

[LuisDantas]

Part of what I am saying is that your non-violence, will not end the next guys violent tendency.

See, that is the thing. I challenge your statement quite completely. History pretty much shows that violence does not stop violence, while non-violence does.

You are not spreading peace, you are just using a different tactic to fight the war. The end will result in death, whether from massacre after massacre as in the case cited above, or from violent confrontation. What is the gain? Did the British stop fighting in wars after their "lesson" from Ghaffar and Gandhi? One more non-violent country? Did Pakistan and India dismantle their armies?

I guess I am reduced to scratching my head and wondering what you mean here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

See, that is the thing. I challenge your statement quite completely. History pretty much shows that violence does not stop violence, while non-violence does.

Not my reading of history. It shows just the opposite.

Hitler was an aggessive violent man, controlling a huge military. So were the Japanese generals.

If we had not reacted with violence, they'd have surely swallowed us by now.

If you disagree, how exactly would you have stopped Hitler and the Japanese?

 

[Sees]

See, that is the thing. I challenge your statement quite completely. History pretty much shows that violence does not stop violence, while non-violence does.

I know what you are meaning here, how love stops hate..not more hate.

Love is also strapping on your boots and stopping cruelty and destruction if you have the strength and courage. Not all forms of hate, cruelty, ignorance, etc. can be stopped with mindfulness and blessings.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Not my reading of history. It shows just the opposite.

Hitler was an aggessive violent man, controlling a huge military. So were the Japanese generals.

If we had not reacted with violence, they'd have surely swallowed us by now.

If you disagree, how exactly would you have stopped Hitler and the Japanese?

From what little I know about history, WWI which would set the grounds for WWII occurred because they had made crappy treatise and people got drawn into the war that would normally not have even bothered. All which has been products of other violent acts.Violence does beget violence. Though reacting violently may help short term wise it does not offer a long term solution.

 

[nazz]

I know what you are meaning here, how love stops hate..not more hate.

Love is also strapping on your boots and stopping cruelty and destruction if you have the strength and courage. Not all forms of hate, cruelty, ignorance, etc. can be stopped with mindfulness and blessings.

Yes, this point must be recognized. Sometime the tanks will keep rolling, the bullets will keep flying, and people will die. And sometime fighting back will stop that happening at least for a time. But eventually it all breaks down, as do all things based on force, and the cycle merely repeats itself. Thus only non-violence and the power of love has the power to actually end the cycle permanently.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

From what little I know about history, WWI which would set the grounds for WWII occurred because they had made crappy treatise and people got drawn into the war that would normally not have even bothered.

Yeah, that sounds like what I understand about it.

All which has been products of other violent acts.Violence does beget violence. Though reacting violently may help short term wise it does not offer a long term solution.

Political solutions are always to be preferred over military ones, but the bottom line is that if we aren't ready to go to war, we'll be eaten.

Arguing against war is like arguing against law enforcement. If we don't want to enforce the law, the bad boys will take our stuff and kill us.

Me, I'd prefer to resist.

 

[Clarity]

Why or why not? Personally IMO we are a much too evolved species to not understand there are alternatives to extinction. What's your take?

I believe your question is incomplete.

You should have begun with, "Does evil exist in the world to such an extent that war is inevitable?"

The answer is an obvious yes.

For example, if every nation on earth laid down their weapons, terrorists would not, and the people would be defenseless. To end war would be a crime against humanity waiting to happen.

 

[Sees]

Yes, this point must be recognized. Sometime the tanks will keep rolling, the bullets will keep flying, and people will die. And sometime fighting back will stop that happening at least for a time. But eventually it all breaks down, as do all things based on force, and the cycle merely repeats itself. Thus only non-violence and the power of love has the power to actually end the cycle permanently.

Yeah only love and wisdom that comes with understanding how we are all connected and life is better as a team/family leads to long-term peace and utopia.

Sometimes dragonslayers are needed though, until there ever comes a time of perfection.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yeah, that sounds like what I understand about it.



Political solutions are always to be preferred over military ones, but the bottom line is that if we aren't ready to go to war, we'll be eaten.

Arguing against war is like arguing against law enforcement. If we don't want to enforce the law, the bad boys will take our stuff and kill us.

Me, I'd prefer to resist.

Well it's kinda what I mean about our stockholm syndrome. Its gotten to the point where as much as we don't like it we've just sort of accepted War like it's "just what is going to happen at times"

I think one quote from WWI was "at that point it was just too much trouble not to have a war"

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well it's kinda what I mean about our stockholm syndrome. Its gotten to the point where as much as we don't like it we've just sort of accepted War like it's "just what is going to happen at times"

I guess I don't see any way around that. We haven't yet culled out all the aggression and greed in the human ape. Until we do, I think physical violence will be a part of our experience.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, I did read it. And I asked you a direct question about your belief which you have refused to answer. I have to say that I think those who refuse direct questions... they probably haven't thought through their own beliefs very carefully.

I take it this is the direct question

So if you were FDR, Churchill or Stalin, you would have just let the Nazis take over mainland Europe?

No of course not, but their response resulted in the deaths of many, many millions.

So what is the best answer if not war by the Allies?

They could have treated refugees in a humane way for starters.
Look at Stalin's response to the Warsaw uprising and tell me liberation of the oppressed was his motivation.
Look at the fire-bombing of Dreseden and tell me that was a just and noble war against tyranny.
Politics and humanity was the answer. Instead they got old men ordering mass death.