Forum Post: Give war a chance.
Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 25, 2012, 11:40 a.m. EST by 1sealyon
(433)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
All we are saying is give war a chance. - P. J. The Great
Many great leaps in social change and improvement in the human condition came out of war:
English civil war of 1215. (Magna Carta)
US and French Revolutionary Wars (Solidified western democracy)
US Civil War (Freedom for millions of black Americans)
WWII (Defeat of fascism in Europe and Japan)
The Cold War (Freedom for hundreds of millions in the Soviet Union and satellite nations)
Humans are a barbarous race warring on one another for hundreds of thousands of years. Killing in genetic with us. It’s how we get things done.
A useful link about the OTHER SIDE........
http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/
Go there to contemplate the other side.
Full disclosure, the post was inspired by P.J. O'Rourke and the NO WAR post. It's useful study both sides of the issue.
You make a good point; sometimes war is necessary and completely just. Other times not so much. Anyone who is pure pacifist is insane. Much can be accomplished through war, but if you chose this honorable path you must accept the consequences of war.
War is also a natural human proclivity. Asking people not to kill each other is like asking an elephant to refrain from eating its own dung.
Yet people can chose not to kill. It is very important that you remember that people always have a choice in every situation.
For the most part people choose not to kill out of adherence to a learned moral code or fear of the consequences. It is hard to suppress a million years of violent evolution. We manage about 500,000 murders per year world wide. Today we have a greater capacity to kill than any other organism on the planet.
In the fight for suffrage (the woman's right to vote),
the national movement targeted the ruling party (Wilson democrat)
because they were not allowing passage for women voters.
.
The woman's activist worker on getting women votes state by state
denounced the the national suffrage party
because they felt the democrats would keep the US out of world war 1.
.
Once the democrats committed to the war,
the national suffrage party force the issue of women's right to vote
by hunger strike an getting arrested.
.
To make the issue of suffrage was in line with the war effort,
the US claimed to be more democratic than the Kaiser
by giving woman the right to vote.
.
While social issues are often entangled with war,
war is not responsible for their inception.
We cannot afford another war.
In the past cost never seemed to be a determining factor.
That may be for the past but certainly not the present as proven by Iraq and even Afghanistan.
Did the projected cost of the wars prevent the US congress and president form approving and executing the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Those wars were not going to be stopped under Bush. Even you should be able to see the numerous sources of pressure to end those wars. Can you truly say fiscal strain is not one of the sources? Can you also say that fiscal strain was not a component to limiting our involvement in Libya? Is fiscal strain also not a factor preventing war with Iran? Really?
The point is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not stopped in the face potential cost by either Democrats or Republicans.
Cost was not a factor in the Syrian action and Iranian in-action. Both were motivated by political concerns, not financial.
Well of course, since our government does tend to keep the fact that the civil war debt has never been paid off, secret and a non-issue.
It's pure DUALITY 1sealyon.
However, if you enjoy the school of hard knocks, and believe you and everyone else can only learn this way, then why bother with easier ways to do things.
Maybe after ALL the suffering, inhumanity, torture, hate, and confusion what we really need is more of it. Much more.
WOW, for now on, I deem 1sealyon, the Duality KING. Someone will always need to point out the other side, and for that, we will always look to you to fill us in.
Just one quick question on the way to these greater heights, What is it, your thoughts, ideas, --- Mind, or Body?
Good Luck to you 1sealyon, you will be carrying a great weight on your shoulders as you enlighten us. Please, tell all of us immediately when this Duality Crisis Ends. We glow in the basking comfort of solving the great mystery of something from nothing.
Peace My Friend. Forever!
In the short list of examples above the outcome was probably an unforeseen consequence of war, but a consequence none the less. Changes for the better can come from less violent means, war just tends to speed the process.
It's one hell of way to go. But you have a point. I don't disagree. Order usually always inevitably follows chaos. It's the reality that human history paints for us.
What I would say, in my opinion, we need to remove ourselves away from that horrific cycle and aim for a higher good. Let's evolve to a better place. I'm sure this crap won't be happening there! Let's dream a little and harbor hope.
1sealyon, the difference here really comes to an attitude, realist, or idealist. It's a choice. We all vacillate from one mode of thought to another dependent on many factors. Tomorrow I can change my mind. Or I may be in a pessimistic state of mind. Our ideas are colored by our emotions.
You show promise by showing this side. It's completely correct that we have to look at these ideas from all the angles. Your angle tells us something about ourselves and where we fit in this historical curve. We won't learn anything properly if we don't consider all reasons and facts. Esp facts.
Thanks!
There is some good news.
Since the first use of atomic weapons in 1945 the % of the population killed in wars dropped for the first time in 1000+ years, and has remained at a low level ever since.
Right now we are enjoying one of the most peaceful periods in history.
who love war are those who have never been in one
Gandhi had no love for yet he supported them.
Psychotic people who love death and have no regard for human life love war and destruction. They get off on it because they are sick in the head plain and simple. Stop letting psychopathic control freaks run our lifes and try to boss us around and force their evil and hate on us.
Human race, get up off your knees.
War is often precipitated or accelerated by some pretty rational folks:
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
D. Eisenhower
FDR
JFK
Margret Thatcher
There were even a few wars that Gandhi liked:
http://rupeenews.com/2008/03/which-war-did-mohandas-gandhi-support-all-of-them-there-wasnt-a-war-that-the-prophet-of-non-violence-gandhi-did-not-support-he-was-sergeant-major-and-won-a-british-medal-for-war-duties-all/
Ok, so maybe JFK was pretty and possibly even rational. Maybe GW was rational.
The rest of them, especially Lincoln, you've got to be shitting yourself.
Lincoln was somewhat melancholy but sane.
What about FDR?
Lincoln was sane?
Not even close.
Many are certain he was one of the most evil and un-sane persons to ever be elected president.
FDR, seriously?
Let me guess, you were educated long after the early 60's, right?
So acording to you, it's such a wonderfull thing to bomb and kill people and shoot them. That way everything is made right....demonize your opponent and get the masses to hate them with your propaganda then they will support your murdering them....why killing and bombing other countries is as patriotic as apple pie and mom...don't you love and support mom and apple pie and baseball?... well don't you? We have to bomb other countries to bring mom and apple pie and baseball to those under priveldged scum over seas because you know they don't have that... and if they don't like it we should carpet bomb them out of existence right? Because when we bomb them back to the Stone Age and slaughter them they will be made 'democratic" and free and liberated...liberated of their lifes that is.....
Humans are violent creatures that frequently war on one another to solve problems.
Occasionally however the wars produce laudable outcomes.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
It's kind of a good-news-bad-news thing.