Is War a Problem Solver?

[k]

Does War ever solve problems or does it simply delay the process of conflict from one generation to another?

Starting with Jesus, I cannot think of one permanent postive movement that was led using violence as the spearhead.

 

[Agrippa]

At times, yes, it can. Let's take the extreme example of Adolf Hitler. The only way to stop him was violence, be it Allied armies or an internal coup. We can also look at various barbarian invasions. The only thing that kept the frontiers of Roman Empire secure was the might of the legions. It was the Byzantine Army of the Themes that kept millions of Greek peasants free from Arab and Turkish invasions, at least until a corrupt bureacracy destroyed that army. Sometimes violence is the answer. Today, however, we are free of roaming tribes of barbarians and a world of nations. The degree to which that generalization still applies is thus in question.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Violence breeds violence. Unfortunately, there are times when one has to be violent in order to achieve peace. Granted, certain wars and reasonings behind wars across the international community can be questioned.

Peace will never be achieved in our society at the way we live today. People take too many things to the extreme in their beliefs and are hell bent on making everyone believe the same thing they do, no matter the consequences.

 

[k]

At times, yes, it can. Let's take the extreme example of Adolf Hitler. The only way to stop him was violence, be it Allied armies or an internal coup. We can also look at various barbarian invasions. The only thing that kept the frontiers of Roman Empire secure was the might of the legions. It was the Byzantine Army of the Themes that kept millions of Greek peasants free from Arab and Turkish invasions, at least until a corrupt bureacracy destroyed that army. Sometimes violence is the answer. Today, however, we are free of roaming tribes of barbarians and a world of nations. The degree to which that generalization still applies is thus in question.

Let me temporarily concede the argument here....isn't anti-Semitism and racism still very much alive today? So, while it may have stopped Hitler, the war did not resolve any issues; it just switched topics.

 

[k]

Violence breeds violence. Unfortunately, there are times when one has to be violent in order to achieve peace. Granted, certain wars and reasonings behind wars across the international community can be questioned.

Peace will never be achieved in our society at the way we live today. People take too many things to the extreme in their beliefs and are hell bent on making everyone believe the same thing they do, no matter the consequences.

It appears sometimes violence has to be used to stop violence, but it seems too much to say Peace would be achieved.

War has always been about control, power, and big money. I can't think of one war where that was not the central theme.

 

[k]

double post

 

[Agrippa]

Let me temporarily concede the argument here....isn't anti-Semitism and racism still very much alive today? So, while it may have stopped Hitler, the war did not resolve any issues; it just switched topics.

Yes, both issues are still alive. But Germany doesn't appear to be about to go on the conquest rampage again. Neither does Japan. Big issues are never going to be solved by war, they probably will never be solved at all. But, at times it is still necessary to take up arms, against people who will not abide by more 'civilized' methods of resolving differences.

War has always been about control, power, and big money. I can't think of one war where that was not the central theme.

While they may be the central themes of war, other auxiliary themes do develop for the benefit of mankind. For example, the integration of emancipation into the war aims of the Union in the American Civil War. Also, in the Second World War, Britain and France only joined the war on the side of Poland to maintain their security, yet no one can argue that Europe was better off with Hitler defeated than allowing him to run amok in Eastern Europe, killing God-knows how many of his enemies.

 

[serioussamster]

== War has always been about control, power, and big money.

Maybe to those who start wars, but those who are drawn into wars usually do so for legitimate reasons. The dumbest wars are those run by people who are not in it to win. Vietnam, for example, was the dumbest war of recent memory.

== Yes, both issues are still alive. But Germany doesn't appear to be about to go on the conquest rampage again. Neither does Japan. Big issues are never going to be solved by war, they probably will never be solved at all.

Exactly. WWII was never about ending racism, although one would be at pains to argue racism hasn’t receded. Racism has gone so far backwards in 60 years that there are cases of reverse racism. Europe was so gult-ridden for having given birth to Hitler that it opened up its borders to whatever "other" wanted to come. The result? 20 Million Muslim immigrants flooded Europe within thirty years. Countries let them get away with murder for fear of being labeled 'racist.'

But the United States was drawn into the second world war. Germany torpedoing our commercial ships, for example, was a factor in our being drawn in. It wasn’t as if the American President woke up one morning and said, “Hey, the rest of the world is trying to kill each other, let’s join in and see if we can get some control, power or big money.”

 

[gal4God]

No

 

[ACougar]

It provides a short term solution at great cost.

 

[Blackguard_]

Does War......simply delay the process of conflict from one generation to another?

If that's how you want to phrase "war enables you to survive long enough to find a permanent solution"

For example, a permanent Arab-Israeli peace is only possible if Israel doesn't lose an Arab war and get driven into the sea.

 

[Anduron]

None of those apply to what I would have to say. But let me try this...Racism can't be fought with the sword, hate can't be fought with a sword. Oppression can be fought with a sword. Understand what I'm getting at?

Let's try this.
Hitler had millions of Jewish men, women, and childern slaughtered, for just being Jewish. The genocide that he was conducting ended by force of arms, but racism/hate didn't.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Europe was so gult-ridden for having given birth to Hitler that it opened up its borders to whatever "other" wanted to come. The result? 20 Million Muslim immigrants flooded Europe within thirty years.

Was that how it went? Or which was first, the hen or the egg? "Europe" did her dirty part by flooding -- invading and subjugating and making colonies of -- Islamic countries.

France, for instance, went to Northern Africa, Algeria, Marocco, Tunisia. "Tens of thousands of settlers from France, Italy, Spain, and Malta moved in to farm the Algerian coastal plain and occupy the most prized parts of Algeria's cities, benefiting from the French government's confiscation of communally held land," writes Wikipedia. With the Algerian War, Algeria's pro-France Muslim population was then forced to flee to France.

The British Empire on her part has certainly gone to great many places, to Iraq, Pakistan etc. and it shows in London street scene.

As to the, say, Kosovan Muslim refugees "flooding" other European countries, they are Europeans and have always been in Europe.

Indeed, one would be tempted to say Muslim immigrants "flooded" Europe only after "Christian" Europe first went for their countries and their resources. What goes around comes around, I suppose.

 

[ScottishJohn]

War usually returns you to the exact same position as you were in before the fighting started: round the negotiating table. Your ability to enforce your will may have increased, but peace does not come from enforcing your will. War usually creates about a bizillion other problems which have to be dealt with.

War is just about the most inefficient, destructive and counterproductive approach to problem solving that there is.

On the other hand, a minority make a great deal of money from war, and it is in their interests to see it continue. Some countries have their whole economy built around war. This does nothing to change the fact that it is a lousy problem solver.

It may be necessary to defend oneself from other agressors. That is different from the doctrine of 'Preemptive Strike' which is so popular in certain quarters. That is just chucking your weight around, and as we are seeing at the moment, solves nothing.

 

[k]

Yes, both issues are still alive. But Germany doesn't appear to be about to go on the conquest rampage again. Neither does Japan. Big issues are never going to be solved by war, they probably will never be solved at all. But, at times it is still necessary to take up arms, against people who will not abide by more 'civilized' methods of resolving differences.

That was my point exactly....Germany is no longer imperial (switching topics) but does that mean there are no imperial powers alive today? IOW, the war stopped Germany but it did not stop imperialism, thus no problems were solved, only shifted.

If big issues cannot be solved by war, then why do so many think war can solve the smaller ones? I disagree big problems will never be solved.

While they may be the central themes of war, other auxiliary themes do develop for the benefit of mankind. For example, the integration of emancipation into the war aims of the Union in the American Civil War. Also, in the Second World War, Britain and France only joined the war on the side of Poland to maintain their security, yet no one can argue that Europe was better off with Hitler defeated than allowing him to run amok in Eastern Europe, killing God-knows how many of his enemies.

Many would argue Emancipation has yet to occur. Heck, even in WWII white nurses were not allowed to treat African-American soldiers and white soldiers could not receive blood transfusions from African-American donors. My point is that even these auxilary themes are inherently illusory.

The US had a cotton candy alliance w/ Russia in WWII but even before Japan surrendered the US was vying for position against Russia....thus it could be argued WWII never ended....we just changed the name to the Cold War.

You did make valid points about Europe uniting against Hitler and also how some auxilary themes can develop. My concern is to not allow those themes to trump the issue of war or offer any justification in any form.

 

[k]

Exactly. WWII was never about ending racism, although one would be at pains to argue racism hasn’t receded. Racism has gone so far backwards in 60 years that there are cases of reverse racism. Europe was so gult-ridden for having given birth to Hitler that it opened up its borders to whatever "other" wanted to come. The result? 20 Million Muslim immigrants flooded Europe within thirty years. Countries let them get away with murder for fear of being labeled 'racist.'

But the United States was drawn into the second world war. Germany torpedoing our commercial ships, for example, was a factor in our being drawn in. It wasn’t as if the American President woke up one morning and said, “Hey, the rest of the world is trying to kill each other, let’s join in and see if we can get some control, power or big money.”

The US could have stayed out of WWII because neither Germany nor Japan posed a physical threat to the US. (Yes, I am aware of Hawaii )

The US was not "drawn" into WWII in reluctant fashion. Many major US companies (Ford, GM, ITT, IBM, etc.)supported Hitler and it was the war that brought the US out of the Great Depression. The whole Bush family empire is based on financing Hitler and just recently it was shown that Prescott Bush's company continued business w/ Germany until 1954. Basically, the US sided w/ the Alliance because the US had loaned so much credit to Europe that if Hitler would have won then the US would have been back in another Great Depression...one probably worse than many had already experienced.

Germany torpedoed ships that were carrying military supplies to its enemies...we would have done the same thing.

I don't understand the "20 million muslim" importance thing here? Is it being suggested that Europe should have prevented Muslims from entering?

 

[k]

It provides a short term solution at great cost.

Some could interpret this to mean War is not worth the cost.

 

[k]

None of those apply to what I would have to say. But let me try this...Racism can't be fought with the sword, hate can't be fought with a sword. Oppression can be fought with a sword. Understand what I'm getting at?

Let's try this.
Hitler had millions of Jewish men, women, and childern slaughtered, for just being Jewish. The genocide that he was conducting ended by force of arms, but racism/hate didn't.

It may have stopped Hitler's genocide, but it did not stop genocide. Therefore, nothing was actually solved. Stopping a murderer does not stop murder.

 

[Borealis]

Does war ever solve anything?

Ask the Hittites, the Carthaginians, and the people of Jericho, for starters.

How about the Spanish-Moor wars of the Renaissance period? That solved a few problems, didn't it? World War II obviously solved a whole mess of problems.

Were they permanently solved? In many cases, no. But then, changing a lightbulb solves a problem. It's not a permanent fix either.

 

[Verv]

How was the dismantling of the Japanese imperial empire and Nazi Germany a short term solution? We stopped the rape of Asia and the Holocaust through pure physical violence.

Certainly there are wars that do not solve problems, but there are clear-cut exceptions.