ForumGarden

Just to muddy the war debate waters a bit, here's a more philosophical question.



It seems Spot wants to eradicate war, regardless of the outcome.



How valuable is the absence of war? Do you believe that if the US, UK, and allies stopped all military action that peace would reign?

Heck no. Not as long as we have crazies trying to overtake people and countries, stopping at no cost. A world without war would be lovely. But at this point it's far from realistic. Too much blame is being placed upon those fighting wars and too little is placed on those who caused them.

They tried that once. Hitler said it best. Peace is unsustainable.

Of course not. All one needs to do is look at the "peaceful" '90s when we suffered terrorists attacks almost yearly. Not to mention Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia.......

Man has waged war since the start of time and boundries. It's the nature of man. That cant be changed.

Regrettably no I don't, there would still be religious bigots and racists who would ensure that conflicts continue.

But the extremism? I mean what is it that drives people to such profound hate of another kind? I think if we could answer that, then we would be well on the road to at least confing conflict to border disputes!

I wonder if anyone has ever studied all the wars going back several centuries. How many of those were religious wars and how many were started because of greed and power? I'm guessing greed and power trumps religion/extremism/hate as reasons that nations have gone to war. Just a guess.

I tend to think religion is just a cover for the real reason. Greed and expansion.

I'm disappointed the pacifists are giving this thread a pass.

Accountable wrote: Just to muddy the war debate waters a bit, here's a more philosophical question.
This seems like very murky water indeed. The first question is rhetorical and the second question had better not be philosophical. I'd like to think it's a possibility.



It seems Spot wants to eradicate war, regardless of the outcome.
You make it sound like eradicating war is a bad concept. What outcome are you refering to? You also make it sound like you know what the outcome would be.



How valuable is the absence of war? Do you believe that if the US, UK, and allies stopped all military action that peace would reign?
The problem is about how valuable the presence of war is, to those who profit from it.

I believe it would be more peaceful, yes. There are always going to be disagreements but I believe the big wars can be avoided.

Big = thousands of lives lost

koan wrote: The first question is rhetorical and the second question had better not be philosophical. I'd like to think it's a possibility.It's only performance art, you know. Rhetoric. They used to teach it in ancient times, like PT. It's not about being right, they had philosophy for that. Rhetoric was their chat show. Bernard's indignation is a sort of aerobics for when he goes on television.

from Tom Stoppard's "Arcadia", Act 2 scene 5.

Like I said.

Accountable wrote: Just to muddy the war debate waters a bit, here's a more philosophical question.



It seems Spot wants to eradicate war, regardless of the outcome.



How valuable is the absence of war? Do you believe that if the US, UK, and allies stopped all military action that peace would reign?


Oh excuse me............When did the US start anything..........maybe we shouldn't try to finish anything......maybe we should be isolationists again.

Can you say Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Truely do you not think the US is KIND now...............I DO.

If you look at our fellow apes, you see that ''wars'' are fought for breeding rights and territory. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent here for breeding rights, but "territory" certainly encompasses greed, oil and other resources, spreading religion and tribalism.

So, if all strife stopped today, I fear it'd begin again in a short time. I've long believed that people in the Middle East have become so "attached" to war they cannot and will not stop. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.

Lulu2 wrote: So, if all strife stopped today, I fear it'd begin again in a short time. I've long believed that people in the Middle East have become so "attached" to war they cannot and will not stop. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.Good lord - this from an American? Have you no idea at all how many wars the US has been engaged in since, for example, 1950? Which other nation has come remotely close?

Accountable wrote: Like I said.


Like you said...nothing?

philosophically, a " " is not really saying anything. Yet it does have an expression. But the expression is one of not speaking. So does the expression carry any sort of statement at all?

Thought I'd actually add a bit of philosophy to this non-philosophical thread.

hello fellow bloggers i am new to this conversation but i am no fool on the ground. i think we are not making progress where it is most vital because america is focusing on bending its policies to yield to common solution. for thousands of years we have learned these lessons on a global scale but what would happen if the un withdrew all of its forces and allowed "nature" to run its course in the middle east, tended to our own borders and allowed them to come to us ... we are developing some wonderful new technology. we need to stop being nosy and when they come.. and they probably would then we will do what is neccessary.