What do you think about war?

[public hermit]

just war invader

What is a just war invader?

 

[durangodawood]

All wars are invented wars.

Thats a good point.

For some reason I was privileging the view from home. When youre attacked nobody in your own country has to fabricate reasons to do war.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What is a just war invader?

A nation that invades another nation under the pretext of just war theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Shorter conflicts? No, it extends conflicts beyond necessity or optimal value for both sides. Had the Central powers and the Entente agreed to a partial peace conference earlier in the war, it would not have been so bloody. Total war also encourages treating the whole nation as a participant and so the recognition between civilian and war participant goes out the window. This is why the allies were willing to firebomb Japanese and German civilian structures and peoples during WW2. The whole nation was an enemy combatant.

The US entered WW2 in December 1941. The US declared victory after Japan's unconditional surrender in August 1945.

That's about 3 years to defeat not only Germany but Italy and Japan.

We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan, and lost miserably....

You're 100% wrong about it being a longer conflict.

Total war leads to an increase of escalation and combine that with democratic governments that are able to just print more money to keep the war effort going, it makes it even more dangerous. Conflicts if they are going to happen ought to be kept localized and escalation should be avoided.

That mentality is why we continue losing.

Just war theory is not averse to practical considerations

No offense, but it entirely abandons practical considerations.

 

[public hermit]

A nation that invades another nation under the pretext of just war theory.

So it's not just. That makes sense, thanks.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So it's not just. That makes sense, thanks.

I wouldn't say that it's impossible to invade and have a just reason for doing so.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The US entered WW2 in December 1941. The US declared victory after Japan's unconditional surrender in August 1945.

That's about 3 years to defeat not only Germany but Italy and Japan.

We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan, and lost miserably....

You're 100% wrong about it being a longer conflict.

It's true that Afghanistan was longer and you might have made the conflict shorter had you engaged in the tactics of WW2 Allies. America could have fire bombed Kabul like the allies did Dresden or Tokyo. The collateral damage in keeping and maintaining control over territory could have been avoided and you simply not care about who you kill in the effort to win. You could have drafted a half a million men yearly to pour into Afghanistan and spent three times as much money.

The real question is, would that have been worth it? WW2 cost Britain it's empire and place in the world and I think there's an argument to be made that having committed itself to such a war it simply wasn't worth it for Britain. From an American perspective however, what was the goal of Afghanistan? To have another American vassal state added to the Imperial collection. I think most people see Afghanistan as a mistake entirely, that it wasn't worth it and making that conflict a Total war, expending more pain, more misery and destruction also wouldn't make it worth it.

This is not to say that a well planned military campaign with limited resources cannot be carried out efficiently or effectively to achieve a limited goal. In fact that is preferable. It keeps the destruction down and if you are prepared to take not a total win you can achieve a partial victory.

That mentality is why we continue losing.

That's true. Many people look at America and it's place in the world and question it's global military presence. They question it's hegemony and the ideas it promotes with that hegemony. It happens to all empires at some point and I honestly hope that it continues to happen to America.

No offense, but it entirely abandons practical considerations.

Does it? I'm not super familiar with just war doctrine but let's say you have a just reason to wage a war, but you know the consequences of the victory will result in a pyrrhic one which will doom you and your nation long term. Does Just war theory demand you fight the enemy even though it will cause your own destruction?

If so, I am not a proponent of Just war theory though I am not opposed to a general concept of a Just war.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's true that Afghanistan was longer and you might have made the conflict shorter had you engaged in the tactics of WW2 Allies. America could have fire bombed Kabul like the allies did Dresden or Tokyo. The collateral damage in keeping and maintaining control over territory could have been avoided and you simply not care about who you kill in the effort to win. You could have drafted a half a million men yearly to pour into Afghanistan and spent three times as much money.

Given that you at least seem to understand that you're wrong about the time frame....I don't understand why you think these assumptions about cost and manpower are correct.

The real question is, would that have been worth it? WW2 cost Britain it's empire and place in the world and I think there's an argument to be made that having committed itself to such a war it simply wasn't worth it for Britain. From an American perspective however, what was the goal of Afghanistan? To have another American vassal state added to the Imperial collection. I think most people see Afghanistan as a mistake entirely, that it wasn't worth it and making that conflict a Total war, expending more pain, more misery and destruction also wouldn't make it worth it.

It seems unlikely that a vassal state was the goal. I can't find a very clear answer for what the goal was though.

The concept of Democratization and establishing a stable government is a very post WW2 idea that should have died along with just war theory.

This is not to say that a well planned military campaign with limited resources cannot be carried out efficiently or effectively to achieve a limited goal. In fact that is preferable. It keeps the destruction down and if you are prepared to take not a total win you can achieve a partial victory.

Hard to understand what that means in this context.

That's true. Many people look at America and it's place in the world and question it's global military presence. They question it's hegemony and the ideas it promotes with that hegemony. It happens to all empires at some point and I honestly hope that it continues to happen to America.

Interesting. That hegemony keeps nations like China from your doorstep....so I'm curious what, if anything, would once that hegemony is gone.

Does it? I'm not super familiar with just war doctrine but let's say you have a just reason to wage a war, but you know the consequences of the victory will result in a pyrrhic one which will doom you and your nation long term. Does Just war theory demand you fight the enemy even though it will cause your own destruction?

If so, I am not a proponent of Just war theory though I am not opposed to a general concept of a Just war.

I can't imagine what a pyrrhic victory looks like in the modern context.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Given that you at least seem to understand that you're wrong about the time frame....I don't understand why you think these assumptions about cost and manpower are correct.

Time frame is only one aspect of a Total war I take into consideration. Not all wars are equal and we can judge them accordingly. Did WW1 becoming a Total war make the conflict more quick? No. It extended it as the number of participants grew and the desire for a total capitulation of the enemy grew. To not let the Kaiser back down and agree to a partial peace where Germany pays some reparations and maybe keeps the order it established in Eastern Europe in tact only extended the war.

As for my assumptions about cost and manpower, how are they wrong? Supposing the USA went into a Total war mode for Afghanistan, which it could have done. Does anyone think it would have been worth it? To go world war one and two style on a small middle eastern nation? No one thinks that would have been wise or appropriate, except maybe the Neo-cons whose lust for ever extending theatres of war is insatiable. Therefore the whole enterprise should have been abandoned.

It seems unlikely that a vassal state was the goal. I can't find a very clear answer for what the goal was though.

I mean vassal in a defacto sense, not the official reasons they fought this war. By establishing a Liberal democratic state in a country like Afghanistan, you would have required an American presence there for a hundred years, maybe more, so as to condition the population into exchanging the Quran for McDonalds. Such an Afghanistan would have been an extension of American military power and cultural hegemony, making it defacto a vassal dependent on the US for it's very existence.

The concept of Democratization and establishing a stable government is a very post WW2 idea that should have died along with just war theory.

Agreed about Democratization. I disagree about abandoning Just war theory entirely. War sometimes must be fought and I am not a pacifist.

Hard to understand what that means in this context.

In the context of Afghanistan? The war to me makes no sense unless you view it as a sort of imperialistic war. If the goal was to conquer Afghanistan they should have perhaps done your idea of gone full out, instead of wasting time. Yet since they weren't willing to do that and no one thinks that would have been a good idea. The consensus is that the war should never have happened in the first place. The cost of victory was too high in almost all areas considered, economically, militarily and politically.

Interesting. That hegemony keeps nations like China from your doorstep....so I'm curious what, if anything, would once that hegemony is gone.

NZ would have to play neutral and play off the US against China and vice versa. Becoming neither too friendly towards one. Or NZ along with Australia and perhaps Japan and the Philippines could come to an economic and military agreements of defense along with potentially strengthening ties to other members of the Commonwealth. Not like there aren't options and it's not as if China doesn't have influence in NZ already or that it will mindlessly launch imperial wars for Communism. I actually think China will only continue to have more influence in NZ as the number of Chinese people increases here and business ties between China and NZ are expanded.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Time frame is only one aspect of a Total war I take into consideration. Not all wars are equal and we can judge them accordingly. Did WW1 becoming a Total war make the conflict more quick? No.

The issues extending WW1 are technological....not methodological. I don’t even understand what "limited warfare" under a just war doctrine looks like in that context, but I see no reason to imagine it would be shorter.

As for my assumptions about cost and manpower, how are they wrong?

I imagine it being cheaper....costing less in manpower as well.

Supposing the USA went into a Total war mode for Afghanistan, which it could have done. Does anyone think it would have been worth it?

Depends upon the goal.

To go world war one and two style on a small middle eastern nation? No one thinks that would have been wise or appropriate,

Of course not....they grew up in the same time we did. They have that luxury.

except maybe the Neo-cons whose lust for ever extending theatres of war is insatiable.

I'm pretty sure it's the neo-cons who argued for a just war doctrine. The same you advocate.

Furthermore, this attempt to paint limited warfare as somehow more righteous or moral may well be the reason we feel justified in engaging in it all the time. A total war doctrine may well result in less wars and deaths overall.

I mean vassal in a defacto sense, not the official reasons they fought this war.

You imagine that someone in Washington saw Afghanistan and said it looks like a great place to open up a Foot Locker lol?

Any basis for this wildly ridiculous idea?

By establishing a Liberal democratic state in a country like Afghanistan, you would have required an American presence there for a hundred years, maybe more, so as to condition the population into exchanging the Quran for McDonalds. Such an Afghanistan would have been an extension of American military power and cultural hegemony, making it defacto a vassal dependent on the US for it's very existence.

I don't see it. Sorry.

Agreed about Democratization. I disagree about abandoning Just war theory entirely. War sometimes must be fought and I am not a pacifist.

Uh huh.

In the context of Afghanistan? The war to me makes no sense unless you view it as a sort of imperialistic war. If the goal was to conquer Afghanistan they should have perhaps done your idea of gone full out, instead of wasting time. Yet since they weren't willing to do that and no one thinks that would have been a good idea. The consensus is that the war should never have happened in the first place. The cost of victory was too high in almost all areas considered, economically, militarily and politically.

Yeah I wasn't in the room for those decisions and I doubt the official narrative.

NZ would have to play neutral and play off the US against China and vice versa. Becoming neither too friendly towards one. Or NZ along with Australia and perhaps Japan and the Philippines could come


to an economic and military agreements of defense along with potentially strengthening ties to other members of the Commonwealth. Not like there aren't options and it's not as if China doesn't have influence in NZ already or that it will mindlessly launch imperial wars for Communism. I actually think China will only continue to have more influence in NZ as the number of Chinese people increases here and business ties between China and NZ are expanded.

Yeah, you're talking about a future without US global hegemony. I don't know how resource rich Australia is, but NZ would be the ideal jumping off point for invasion so....there's nothing to play off. China doesn't give a fig about the future of NZ and would gladly subsume it in furtherance of other goals. If we're talking about a future where the US is in decline....there's nothing to negotiate. NZ isn't worth fighting China over.

 

[Matt5]

Most people don't know this but war follows a precise mathematical process called the power law. That's about the frequency and size of wars. Why should I care?

Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war - YouTube

It turns out that forests follow the same process with forest fires following a power law process. Stock market crashes do too. So does wealth and size of cities.

Long story short, societies move forward in time a whole lot like forests do with the past heavily influencing the future. What happens to a forest when you put out all the fires?

You solve the forest fire problem with regular controlled burns.

What are controlled burns for society? Welcome to the Shemitah and Jubilee years.

No Shemitah and Jubilee years means you'll be experiencing big shocks (wars and/or economic crashes) after around 70 years of stability.

Where are we right now? We're at 77 years of relative stability.

 

[Maimay]

I was born in Vietnam. My favourite song writer is Trinh Cong Son. I would like to share with you a few of his songs. He wrote these during Vietnam war.
I was trying to translate the lyrics as precise as possible. And if you are interested, there are a few links to the songs on YouTube at the bottom of this message.
What I can see from him is his misery because of the limitation of his awareness. On the other hand, I clearly see some good objectives in every war. However, there are still some better ways I think.

An old woman and a child
Year: 1965
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn

There was a bench which had been used to be in a park, but now it was moved to a pavement
There was an old woman who used to sleep on the bench
She was shivering
She also used to listen to the blasting sounds
And there was a naked child who was weeping because his childhood had been far away

There was a bench which had been used to be in a park, but now it was moved to a pavement
The woman was shivering
Her eyes were red
She looked through a market which was not very far from her
She was looking while the war was burning her town

An old shivering woman and a naked child
They were gathering some cooked rice which had become dry, one seed at a time, and few more
They were gathering their meal before a pair of dry eyes
There were some traces of bombing on the fields

Rough hands shut off smiles
Barbed wires tore up human skin
Bombing at nights are burning future

There was a bench which had been used to be in a park, but now it was moved to a pavement
Trees were under blasting sounds
Some people whom I knew were running to the market
The child was awakened during his sleep

There was a bench which had been used to be in a park, but now it was moved to a pavement
The woman slightly coughed, and she sat there breathing no more
Night skies were made bright by flares
The naked child began to wander away

A teardrop for my country
Year: unknown
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn

Here is a teardrop for her child because she is happy that he has gone into his sleep
Here is a teardrop for my river which is holding some moss
Here is a teardrop for the land, and it has become arid for years
Here is a teardrop for my people, since their fates are difficult

Here is a teardrop for the clouds when they are sleeping high above
Here is a teardrop for the trees that have fallen down on a mountain
Here is a teardrop for my friend whose blood has been dried out
Here is a teardrop for my country, and I know it will keep running down

Oh! How tears have kept running down
They are forever running down
For whom?

Oh! The tears have run into my heart,
And they have gone into my soul
Made me wake up during the night

Here is a teardrop for a bird who has left the forest
Here is a teardrop for a night when a hearse was going through
Here is a teardrop for my lover who is wondering about the fate of her country
Here is a teardrop for nothing which has laid down on my land

Mother Song
Year: 1965
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn

A mother was lulling her son by swinging a hammock
She was lulling her son then there was a piece of cloud coming by
She wondered whether it would rain at all
So that a seedling could grow

And she was still lulling her son, and she was weeping for her life
The mother had been lulling her son for years
She was weeping because she felt regret when her child was sad
Because she had brought him into a life-lasting shaming land
A flow of river kept moving far away
How uncertain a human life is

She was still lulling her son, and her voice sounded unsure
She was still lulling her son, and she tried to capture the clouds into her soul
She taught her son her language
Then she looked him saying goodbye

A mother is lulling her son, and she swinging her fate on the hammock
She heard the earth telling her about a deadly fate
She would be lulling for a hundred years
She was lulling her country
She was lulling a world where there were enmity, and war, and prisons which would be upon young minds

Người già em bé
(An old woman and a child)
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn
Singer: Khánh Ly

Giọt nước mắt cho quê hương
(A tear drop for my country)
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn
Singer: Khánh Ly

Ca Dao Mẹ
(Mother Song)
Author: Trịnh Công Sơn
Singer: Khánh Ly

 

[timothyu]

Listening to John Lennon's imagine feels good.. but it's garbage in reality.

So that would also apply to loving neighbour as self?

 

[jayem]

We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan, and lost miserably....

True. The war was terribly mishandled. For sure, the Taliban were demagogues with a medieval approach to government. But our real enemy was Al Qaeda. Who declared war on us with the 9/11 attacks. It took much longer than it should have to eradicate them because we got stupidly sidetracked into attacking Iraq. No doubt Saddam Hussein was a brute, but he had no WMDs, and he had nothing to do with 9/11.

The lesson should be obvious: if you must go to war, make sure you're fighting the right enemy.

 

[Astrid]

Actually I'm a big supporter of war. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's one of the things that makes life interesting. The idea that we all need to live in shangri la doesn't sound all that appealing to me. So whether the Russians kill the Ukrainians or we end up with a nuclear holocaust...well that's life. You're only gonna live for a very short time, the only question is what's gonna happen between the day you're born and the day you die. I want it to be an adventure, full of the unknown, yes there should be love, and compassion, and courage, and hope, and faith, and I shall do my best to live my life in pursuit of such things, but there should also be sorrow, and suffering, and injustice, and every conceivable emotion, trial, and triumph that life can possibly pack into it. So I say let there be war, and let there be suffering, and let there be injustice. For the day will come when I will experience these things no more...but let my life not have been a frivolous thing that I walked through unchallenged. Let it have been nobler than that. Let me have fought the good fight.

Must be some good in it,it sure is popular.

 

[Maimay]

Actually I would like to share with you this. If possible please take some time to have a look at it and tell me what you think.

This is what I call “A review of The Great Plan”. It is my imagination so feel free to show your disagreement with anything on it.

First of all, let me say souls live before and after our lives. If we only care about our current lives, there's no need to care about the Bible. Good souls feel happy since they help each other and bad souls feel unhappy since they harm each other despite their awareness. There are millions of places where good souls live together, and we call them heaven. And there are millions of places where bad souls live together, and we call them hell. There was a moment when God decided to save bad souls. He created a lot of explicit places that human eyes could see, and he created the earth. On the earth, he places souls of identical levels with each other. According to their characteristics, they will be some kind of animals. Of course when their nature changes, they can be offered a different appearance. And I guess God is generous enough to train a soul through a number of lives. Let's stop for a moment here and reconsider. Wasn’t God very pleased with everything He had created, despite the fact that there were bad characteristics from the beginning such as the serpent. Additionally, He commented that human beings were evils from the beginning. It's not his mistake, otherwise he would be conflicted with himself. Furthermore, what did he mean by "the beginning"? Didn't Jesus say we must become like children? So the beginning is a different moment, not the moment we were born. Ok, so let's continue. There was a loving plan that he had prepared. Let there be a naive soul living among the creatures. He called him Adam. He was created before or after the remaining, that's not important. The important thing is he was part of his plan to save others. Do not blame God that just because Adam did not obey him once, he made a world full of misery for us. If so, what is the point where he sacrificed his beloved son? Anyway, Adam is not the only ancestor of human beings. The first evidence is that at the beginning, God created animals except human beings first, and then he created human beings. However, at the moment he made Adam, some animals were made later. The second evidence is that there was a time when God's sons got married to human's daughters. This can be explained by Adam's descendants meaning God's children, while the remaining means human species. Let's go back to the story. The plan was brilliant. Adam would have a fruitful garden to eat, and other people and other kinds of animal species would have food for them too. The only difference was Adam was intended to live forever or at least until the plan was accomplished, while others had short lives. Let's think about it for a bit. Why weren't others not allowed to live forever? Well, maybe God was afraid that their evilness would harm each other tremendously. Some will go to heaven and some will go to hell, and this process will be going on. However, it was necessary for Adam to live happily forever, because that's the way other people and other animals would want to follow him. How could they become righteous when they followed Adam? The only way is Adam would always obey God. Why was there the tree of knowledge in the middle of the garden? It's just a test. Unfortunately, Adam failed at the first test. Be patient. Still what's the problem when Adam ate its fruits? He has had the ability of gods, which is knowing right from wrong. Are ourselves more stupid than Adam? This is unlikely, because we somehow can distinguish between right and wrong. But Adam needed to be a naive soul, which ended right at the moment he ate the fruits of knowledge. Now he's able to judge. A judgement creature could not help God accomplish his plan, because he would love some and hate others. Now it's not useful for him to live forever, if not harmful, because all others would follow him and he would eventually lead them to hell. Anyway, God did not give up his aim. Now let's stop for another moment and think about the above things. If Adam had accepted some animal as his friend, there might not have been Eva. Still, humans as well as other species were planned to produce much more all over the earth from the beginning. However, God did not intend for Adam such a human life. Oh interesting! Why did he only choose among animals other than humans for Adam to choose a friend from? To make sure they were naive. Just don't be confused. There were cunning animals out there, such as the serpent, of course God wouldn’t choose them. And being careful, he made some new ones, even though there might already be tons on the earth, and took them to Adam. It's easy to see that a normal human might be more clever than Adam, then he or she would lead Adam. Again, Adam could not find any friends from the group, God carefully made a woman out of himself for a harmonious soul to live with him because that way there was love. I don't think Eva needed to bear children at all from the beginning. Anyway, after they failed to obey God, it was their descendants where God continued his plan. Let's say we were all Adam's descendants after the flood, but from the beginning not so. Did you feel bored yet? Ok, inevitably, I must say God hates war. Because of the beautiful plan from the beginning. Because we can see how he got angry with crimes. Still in Noah's age, he established a new order given the evilness of the creatures. First, he commanded no killing. And then, it became more complicated when talking about other animal species. Well, what is the reason why there are two stages, which are connected but look different, that we can see from the old covenant and the new covenant? I don't know what is about you, but for me I was hard headed. I was weak, my heart was evil, and my head was hard. That's why in order to save me, God needed me to obey him. And in order to obey him, I needed to love him. No way with such a creature like me that God could make me love him before he made me afraid of him. So the old covenant says about the first stage and the new covenant says about the second stage. Likewise, human mission is to lead other creatures. However, both themselves and others became so evil that other animals attacked and even ate humans. A crucial thing to save themselves was to make them afraid of humans first. And God allowed humans to eat these animals. That's from the age of Noah. Let's move to Moses'. Now things got better, and they should be, otherwise what's the point of the Great Plan? Since their characteristics got better, he commanded the Israelites not to eat some unclean animals. On the other hand, he reserved the calmest animals to be sacrificed only in the event of clearing sins for their owners. He emphasized that their blood guilt would shed onto the one who shed their blood. However, Moses failed to follow this, and he allowed the Israelites to eat those calm animals' meat whenever they wanted to. He's just a human. How can we expect him to be perfect? God was disappointed with him a few times, and he even prevented him from reaching the promised land. But let's not judge him. Because we are not to judge. Anyway, until Moses' time, humans had become meat eaters for a long time. That's why Moses even thought that God loved the smell of sacrificed meat. He loves calm animals, that was certain. It's just the smell of sacrifice that made him forgive the owner. Who won't moan about their pet's death, though? And who needs to eat their dog's thigh but does not regret their sin? Despite all of those, people were getting familiar with eating meat. And because a sheep's meat was not very different from others' with Moses, he ignored the commandment. Then came Jesus. He would like us to eat him and regret our sins. But there's some practice that even reverse its meaning. Some people show their happiness whenever they celebrate the Eucharist, and they think that way God will get into their body! Be realistic! You eat your lord's meat and drink his blood, to depict your weakness and sinful condition, and commit to follow him. That's the meaning of the Eucharist. Coming to our age, animals have been afraid of us. Some have loved us already. Let us make all of them love us. I hope I will be able to add some more to the story later but now this is the end. Sorry for getting far from the topic.

 

[MehGuy]

So that would also apply to loving neighbour as self?

Not on an individual level.