War is just wrong

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: RobCur
What are we fighting for? fame? fortune? brags right? or just to show off who is tougher? what's the point? The world have gone mad ever since humans have existed, even during prehistoric times they enjoy clubbing each other to death. I guess history does repeat itself until most are dead. The more people on earth, the more problems we have. That is just so sad but I think the world needs to be united so that we can all live in peace.

The world needs to be FREE so we can all live in peace. War as such isn't wrong or right, it's a tool used to achieve certain ends. If those ends are good, the war is Just. If those ends are evil, the war is unjust.

You're trying to look for a unilateral answer to the whole War question; there isn't one.

Jason

I bet Charles Manson agrees.

What a completely unclever, pointless argument. I'd expect better from anyone other than Conjur.

Jason

It has a point, but it is completely over your head. To many people sitting in jail, murder is a tool. The Mafia has been killing others for generations, and it's often not personal. Yet they wind up in jail, because it's murder and murder is illegal, because it's inherently wrong.


War is inheretly evil. That it is sadly needed at times does not alter that fact. To you it's a tool. Well it's an act. A good horrific act is an oxymoron.




Too many people are entirely too casual about war.

Yes, too many are casual about war, about evil in general. No, War is NOT inherently evil. The *initiation* of force against otherwise non-aggressive parties is inherently evil, but the act of war most certainly is not. Yes, war is an act (or rather a series of acts) but it remains, nevertheless, a tool. It can be a tool to repel invaders--in which case it's RIGHT. It can be a tool to liberate oppressed people--in which case it's GOOD, RIGHT and MORAL.

It can also be a tool to DESTROY or OPPRESS others (witness the Nazi's or the Communists of the Soviet Union or modern day North Korea, all of which are examples of evil uses of war. In the case of the latter two, the war is used on a smaller scale--against their own people).

You keep looking for a one-size-fits-all answer to this War question. There isn't one to be had.

Jason

Now I am the leader of a country (not the US). I think it is good, right and moral that my country take over my neighbor. It would be of mutual benefit. I think they would be better off with my form of government, under my clearly superior leadership, and once they have been brought into the fold, then they will be much better off. My people have a far better standard of living, better education. I am not a cruel leader. My people are happy, theirs miserable.

In the long run they will be better off. Diplomacy won't work, and I have war as a tool. Nothing wrong with freeing them from their substandard conditions. War is my Moral Imperative. That people die is a shame, but they will thank me later.

Is there a point buried somewhere in all this? Where exactly do you aim to go with this topic?

Jason

 

[glorifiedg790]

Originally posted by: chrisms
War is natural. One group of people want things one way, the other wants it their way. When both fail to compromise, one will try to force the other into submission. There is really no avoiding it until the world is in complete agreement over everything, or until everybody has nukes and extremists become not-so-extreme.

yep basically that. I think war can be linked to the most primal of instincts, and that is survival. ( We have to fight someone or else we die)

 

[glorifiedg790]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The meek shall inherit the earth, that is if if there is anything left.

And what exactly are the meek going to *do* with the earth? One might point out that the reason the meek don't have the earth now is *precisely* because they are MEEK.

THe meek don't need to "inherit the earth", they need to grow some friggin' balls and TAKE it if they want it!

Jason

That is not what is meant by meek. As for as the quote and the New testament beatitudes go meek is meant as humble and not greedy for material wealth. The meek will inherit the earth is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[wchou]

What a boring thread.
























*Yawn*


...