• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Is war ever justified? (1 Viewer)

Is war ever justified?


  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I think you'd be more suited to a bubble-wrapocracy.
Or would you prefer to be in a land of emotionless drones?
sounds like you'd be more suited to the make-believe, armchair general world of moll, where moll makes trashy and sweeping assertions about global affairs, and imposes his skewed, moronic vision on all of bos

you mindless hack
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
moll said:
No pain is ever irrelevant. But it is mostly unavoidable.
case in point. prove what you're saying. you're a moron hypocrite moll. "OH BUT WE DON'T KNOW THESE THINGS SO YOU SHOULDN'T ATTACK THE US CUZ U DIDN'T KNOW!"

"oh btw everything the US does is unavoidable

ffs

moll said:
So for you to deride the US' actions as leaving a lot of pain in their wake, fundamentally assumes that if they hadn't done what they did, this pain would have been spared, and yet you have absolutely no way of knowing the alternative. Ironic, given you pointed out my slippery slope argument.
we can make fairly justified and sensible assumptions though. for instance, in the last 15 years i'd say that saddam hussein killed a grand total of like, a few hundred or thousand people? the us killed 1000-fold more. so yeah, we have a fairly reasonable idea of the alternative.

but democracy is worth 20,000 lives, amirite!?!?

also,

moll said:
I never said that the US was justified in it's actions. I simply said that it's power projection was perfectly understandable given it's economic, political and military weight and that I would personally prefer the US in this position than most other powers.
fallacious argument = false dilemma

moll said:
Now, some may assume that I meant it is justified, but this in turn begs the question of it being justified by what means?
begs the question doesn't mean 'begs the question', m8
 

Random_dude

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
86
Location
if i tell you i have to kill you.....
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
A nice game of chess would be a much better solution.
now, it is time for a bit of storytelling. you see the croatian flag and how it has that big shield thingy in the middle.


well, there is a little story to go with that. the shield apparently originated from a legend (i'm really not sure about its validity) but the Croatian king won croatia's freedom in a game of chess against the venetian prince. now, the shield represents this with croatia's freedom. (aaawwww...)

side notes:
nice to see a chess supporter
how on earth do you do multiple quoting?
 

six demon bag

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
271
Location
Central Coast, NSW... :(
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
now, it is time for a bit of storytelling. you see the croatian flag and how it has that big shield thingy in the middle.


well, there is a little story to go with that. the shield apparently originated from a legend (i'm really not sure about its validity) but the Croatian king won croatia's freedom in a game of chess against the venetian prince. now, the shield represents this with croatia's freedom. (aaawwww...)

side notes:
nice to see a chess supporter
how on earth do you do multiple quoting?
You've just made my day.
 

yoddle

is cool
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,129
Location
nowhere man
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
[/QUOTE]
No pain is ever irrelevant. But it is mostly unavoidable.
If you truly desire the US - or any other country, for that matter - to take a foreign policy stance which doesn't favour some over others, then you will be sorely disappointed. It doesn't matter what any state does in the world, every single one of their actions is going to leave a big "what if" dangling overhead as people wonder what the alternative outcome could have been.
"Maybe if the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan thousands of lives would have been saved and the world would have been different. Or maybe al-Qaeda would have struck again and thousands more would have been killed." The simple fact is we do not know what would have happened in the alternative. It may have been better. It may have been worse.
So for you to deride the US' actions as leaving a lot of pain in their wake, fundamentally assumes that if they hadn't done what they did, this pain would have been spared, and yet you have absolutely no way of knowing the alternative. Ironic, given you pointed out my slippery slope argument.

On another note, I would much prefer the democratic government of the United States having unilateral international power than China, Russia or most other aspiring superpowers.



And you'd be an idiot if you didn't dispute them.
But just because the US isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not ahead of the competition south of the Rio Grande.




I never said that the US was justified in it's actions. I simply said that it's power projection was perfectly understandable given it's economic, political and military weight and that I would personally prefer the US in this position than most other powers.
Now, some may assume that I meant it is justified, but this in turn begs the question of it being justified by what means?
On humanitarian grounds, it is certainly not, but humanitarianism far too often involves a degree of selflessness on the part of certain parties which is entirely unrealistic.
If instead you meant that the continual intervention of the United States is justified by Realpolitik considerations, then by all means, it truly is.

As for the rights and responsibilities of states on the international stage, I'm afraid you are very much mistaken here. The simple fact is there are no such thing as rights and responsibilities between states, only mutual self-interest which so happens to occasionally intersect and demand cooperation.
If there are indeed certain rights which states have, they must either be natural/universal or legal/civil rights. They are not the former, simply because the modern state is not a natural construct but a man-made social creation for the organisation of a population and therefore cannot have natural rights. Nor are they the latter, as this imples there is some higher power which can give these rights to the states, of which there is none (I'm ignoring theocracies here for obvious argumentative reasons).
Furthermore, there are no such thing as responsibilities of states towards each other, simply because there is neither a guiding moral principle to their works, nor an overseeing body to force these responsibilities onto the states.
FUCK I can't work out how to fucking multi-quote!

Argh.

OK, so in one post you say that the U.S. was "forced" into intervening in foreign nations, however in this post you understand their engagement in "power projection"?

What you say about the existence (or lack thereof) of rights as a motivation in international relations is correct, international politics operates on mutual interest.

However, I don't really understand while you would defend this system so much?
Murphyad is right, your arguments are extremely statist. They assume that it is right for a nation to murder and conspire to destroy the standards of living in other nations to purport their own power, prestige and corporate aims.

You put the interests of a government (read: elite) ahead of the individual liberties of people. As a part of this, your argument presumes that all this has been done in "American" interests. That is false. Most of the U.S.'s foreign interventions were undertaken out of the interests of the uppermost elite (we're talking in the interests of one or two very wealthy companies and a few more very wealthy and very powerful politicians). The conflicts are disguised as noble crusades to spread freedom (and governments, by definition, hate people being free) and then the responsibility is shared with the American public.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
yoddle said:
FUCK I can't work out how to fucking multi-quote!

Argh.
Rather than hitting "Quick Reply" in the corner, try using the larger "Quote" button next to it. This will take you to a new screen where you can edit and deconstruct the original post.

OK, so in one post you say that the U.S. was "forced" into intervening in foreign nations, however in this post you understand their engagement in "power projection"?
The two are not incompatible. I've already explained my theory previously in this thread upon the correlation between economic power and military power and how an excess of the former cannot be contained within borders, leading to military intervention to protect the economic intervention that has already taken place.
History appears to side with me here. All the great unilateral empires in history have started out with economic domination and then moved to military "aggression".
Rome was first the powerhouse of trade in the Meditteranean before it waged war on Carthage and Greece.
The European great powers had excess deamnd and funds caused by the Industrial Revolution before they started their colonial expansion.
The US was the only nation left standing economically after World War One, which led to it's predominance for the next 80 years.
And China's endless demand for minerals and raw materials has already led to it's political and economic intervention in Africa, recently followed by the first Chinese fleet in the Indian Ocean for over 500 years.
Just because the US is projecting their military power, doesn't mean they weren't forced into that position by economic, political and moral considerations.

What you say about the existence (or lack thereof) of rights as a motivation in international relations is correct, international politics operates on mutual interest.

However, I don't really understand while you would defend this system so much?
Murphyad is right, your arguments are extremely statist. They assume that it is right for a nation to murder and conspire to destroy the standards of living in other nations to purport their own power, prestige and corporate aims.
I've only been pointing out the status quo and defending it from irrational, ideological fantasies. I've never once said that the status quo is great for humanity and that we should all adore it.
I just think that all of the alternatives available have been untested and could just as well lead to disaster as to paradise. The current situation isn't great, OK, I accept that.
But it could be a shitload worse.

You put the interests of a government (read: elite) ahead of the individual liberties of people. As a part of this, your argument presumes that all this has been done in "American" interests. That is false. Most of the U.S.'s foreign interventions were undertaken out of the interests of the uppermost elite (we're talking in the interests of one or two very wealthy companies and a few more very wealthy and very powerful politicians). The conflicts are disguised as noble crusades to spread freedom (and governments, by definition, hate people being free) and then the responsibility is shared with the American public.
I think you need to read less conspiracy theories.
 

yoddle

is cool
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,129
Location
nowhere man
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Rather than hitting "Quick Reply" in the corner, try using the larger "Quote" button next to it. This will take you to a new screen where you can edit and deconstruct the original post.
Thanks :) Loquagacious beat you too it however. I'm employing it now!

I've only been pointing out the status quo and defending it from irrational, ideological fantasies. I've never once said that the status quo is great for humanity and that we should all adore it.
I just think that all of the alternatives available have been untested and could just as well lead to disaster as to paradise. The current situation isn't great, OK, I accept that.
But it could be a shitload worse.
Just because a group of people says that something is irrational, it doesn't mean it's wrong. If you don't think that the current situation isn't great, then what alternatives do you propose? What is the other evil that it is less than? (please note I have not posed any alternatives myself so I don't how you can be defending the current situation against them (or lack thereof))

I think you need to read less conspiracy theories.
That interpretation of history isn't conspiracy, it's in fact fairly mainstream. Maybe you need to stop taking things at face value.
 
Last edited:

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Just because a group of people says that something is irrational, it doesn't mean it's wrong. If you don't think that the current situation isn't great, then what alternatives do you propose?
None.
I simply can't see any viable alternatives to the current situation that would be garuanteed to work. Hence, I'm defending the status quo.

What is the other evil that it is less than?
Unilateral miltary dominance by an undemocratic nation would undoubtedly be a greater evil.
Even though the US system is flawed, it's not without some advantages in accountability and popularism over other totalitarian and authoritarian systems.

That interpretation of history isn't conspiracy, it's in fact fairly mainstream. Maybe you need to stop taking things at face value.
Mainstream amongst left-wing agitators and anarchist uni students maybe.
 

yoddle

is cool
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,129
Location
nowhere man
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
None.
I simply can't see any viable alternatives to the current situation that would be garuanteed to work. Hence, I'm defending the status quo.
No, what are the irrational and (insert other adjective which i've forgotten, here) alternatives you speak of?

Unilateral miltary dominance by an undemocratic nation would undoubtedly be a greater evil.
Even though the US system is flawed, it's not without some advantages in accountability and popularism over other totalitarian and authoritarian systems.
I agree. In that respect U.S. dominance is the lesser of two evils.

Mainstream amongst left-wing agitators and anarchist uni students maybe.
You're wrong. I know lots of people who are of that opinion who do not fit into the category of left-wing agitators and anarchist uni students (myself included). My conservative, Christian history teacher surprised me the other day by completely agreeing and giving credence to this analysis of U.S. history.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top