Is bloodshed ever necessary?
Posted 11 December 2005 - 11:58 AM
To further this discussion, I'd like to ask if any of our members currently live, or have ever lived, in a country that was not in some way founded through some type of war. I know that the US fought in and won what we term the American Revolution. It was a rather bloody war. We also had our Civil War, again rather bloody. Were these wars necessary? Were they jsutified? Should we not have fought them?
I'm just wondering if people think that the wars that were fought in the past were ok, but that now we've evolved past the point of needing bloodshed to continue our development?? Or have all wars throughout history been wrong?? Is there ever a time when a war is 'necessary'? Is there such thing as a peaceful revolution?
While I like the idea of not having people die, I also like the idea of living in the United States of America (as opposed to a Brit colony, no offense to any Brits here ). Does anyone else have this same view (of liking the idea of no war, but still enjoying the benefits wars fought in the past have brought)???
Please do not think I intend this discussion to be limited to those only from the US. I would really enjoy learning what other nationalities feel about this. Was your country founded after a war? Was your current form of government the result of bloody battles for 'freedom'?
Posted 11 December 2005 - 01:01 PM
The great wars like WWI and WWII are so complex and have so many different rationales that it is impossible to say if they were "correct" or not. It will always depend of which side one belongs to. The extremely nasty trench war in WWI is an example of how horrible the war field can be, whereas the extermination of Jews and dissidents in Nazi camps are too horrible to understand.
When we look at the US, it is a nation that not only is built on warfare, it is one of the most militarized countries in the world. It is hard to drive around in the States without passing some war monument every few miles, at least on the East coast and in the colonial states.
But the worst part of US warfare is not the internal wars (IMHO) but rather the wars in Korea and Vietnam which I find deeply troubling on many levels.
As a Scandinavian, I happen to live in one of the very few places in this world were war is not something we think about on a daily basis. So I cannot speak as someone who lives in a warzone or who constantly has relatives in a war.
- Chacmool likes this
Posted 11 December 2005 - 01:15 PM
We can choose to lay down our swords, so-to-speak, but it will result in martyrdom, costing our lives and/or freedom. We may have a choice between living and being slaughtered, but we CANNOT decide whether war will exist or not.
Also, I posted elsewhere regarding the wars in the bible:
Posted 11 December 2005 - 01:34 PM
While I like the idea of not having people die, I also like the idea of living in the United States of America (as opposed to a Brit colony, no offense to any Brits here ).
Consider that Canada, which never fought the war, managed to gain independance slowly and without bloodshed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have fought the war, or anything like that, just pointing out that history get so complex and interwoven that "this war caused this event" is always subject to interpretation. Who knows what the United States would be like if we hadn't fought the revolution.
That being said, I think that war is, sadly, sometimes necessary. I find it hard to believe that anyone could look at World War II and the Nazis campaign of genocide and not decide that the war was justified. At the same time, I'm deeply toubled but what the US did in Korea and Vietnam. I think we let our fear over come our good judgement.
I also worry its happening again right now (fear, over good sense). What started out as a defensive measure (finding and destroying WMDs) has become a mess. In the prisons of Abu Ghraib, we apparently forgot what it means to be the US. We are supposed to be better then that.
- Chacmool likes this
Posted 11 December 2005 - 02:39 PM
there are tons of things in the world that keep the natural balance in order for as long as it's still possible. Stuff like AIDS, war, natural disasters. Every aspect of life contributes to the balance. When species get whiped out, it's because the balance shifted, and they were no longer needed. And since the balance is constantly shifting, Every species is eventually doomed to be whiped out, either by themselves, other species, or by natural disaster.
Posted 30 December 2005 - 09:10 PM
No, it shouldn't be necessary. However, it's not being prevented. You must notice that it will continue until completely prevented. Prevented by teaching people properly that war is not the answer. I actually believe in the method of teaching people not to hate, by not showing hate at all.
Simply don't show violence or let it be and wars won't start.
Then again rationality and feelings usually start wars when people can't calm themselves down mentally. Teaching people to rationalize correctly would be a big help.
All things could be solved by proper education and awareness.
Then again, not a lot is being done about that.
Posted 31 December 2005 - 12:14 AM
After the Manhattan project, global warfare have taken on a new skin: MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction between the US and USSR made the option of a nuclear exchange rather stupid, and have limited the conflicts of the Cold War to battles between the two superpowers using local armies as proxies. The Angola bush war between South Africa (backed by the US) and the Angolan/Cuban alliance (backed by the USSR) is a case in point.
I don't think we'll see another war on the scale of WWII, although with China rapidly filling the void left by the USSR, you never know. MAD will apply there as well, and we might see the struggle between the USA and China to be more economical in nature.
The biggest danger is if a terrorist successfully smuggles a nuke into the States and sets it off - and the US, in retaliation, nukes the first 'terrorist' country it can think of to show to the people at home that they won't take this lying down - even if it does pan out after the fact that the bombed country did not, in fact, have anything to do with the nuke in the first place.
Apart from this scenario, I think warfare in the future would also be limited to terrorist activities in general.
Think about it: The US spends more on its armed forces in one year than South Africa's total GDP for three or four years. Now, hypothetically, if South Africa has some sort of legitimate gripe with the US (and this could be about anything), how would SA approach the matter? There is no way at all to confront the US militarily. The Iraqi army being a valid case in point. So, enter terrorism. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I just think there will be an increase in the next century.
But as far as your original question goes, Irish; No, I don't think war is good. But that's me being idealistic again. I think war is just human nature to the n'th degree. The first caveman to club his neighbour over the head with a stick in order to steal his cache of tasty berries was the first warmonger. And when you get involved in a shouting match with anybody, you're busy with war propaganda (small scale) - and when the fists are flying, you are actually conducting warfare. Saying that organised armies are a different matter because they are protecting the integrity of a sovereign state is hogwash - it's just a matter of scale. Every individual human being constitutes some sort of sovereignty, I guess. That's where the concept of private property comes from. The thief who steals my car is exactly the same as Hitler invading Poland - just on a vastly smaller scale.
So, on a much smaller, more human scale, I guess warfare is just an expression of a lack of respect for others. That's a lack of respect for their person, property, sovereignty, opinion, etc. This can be applied to states as well. Hitler had no respect for the sovereignty or property of Poland, the person of the Jewish community, etc.
And I suppose the only way to entrench respect for others would be to start with the current batch of toddlers and teach them some respect. At school - that's where we should start.
Posted 31 December 2005 - 02:06 AM
As long as the people can't think for themselves there will be bloodshed or else germs everywhere.
Of course we're talking about bloodshed, not sickness.
So, assumption be that showing no violence is the answer to having no violence occur.
Problem is kids who a crack babies and other B.D. kids who have crappy parents.
Had to put up with those types of kids growing up as most of us probably have.
Of course showing violence to them isn't the pacifistic answer, therefore we'd have to find some alternative method.
Most kids these days can be classified by their behavior and academic excellence. I simply say portion off all children until they are older and control themselves. Then mix them together again. I believe in the elitest method of sticking the stupid with the stupid because I know I would have grown up better if I wasn't surrounded by idiots, but some just don't like the idea. I do, though.
I also think that when people understand that the world does not belong to them, they'll be aware that they belong to the earth. Too many people are materialistic and have very little understanding of the world around them. There is truth that everything belongs to everyone, however they must learn to give back and share. I like the way the Native Americans thought about things. When done correctly there can be less war.
Posted 31 December 2005 - 09:32 AM
disrespect and self defense. of these, self defense is the only ''good'' reason for war and without people brave enough to fight the war of self-defense, all the bleeding hearts would perish along with the rest of us. how long would an anti-war society last if an enemy wished to take their land? if you are not willing to shed blood, you will not hold your land.
Posted 31 December 2005 - 10:31 AM
While you can decide not to kill or do harm, you can not make the same decision for your enemies, no matter how much you try to educate the masses. So when the time comes that your enemy is going to do harm/death to you or your loved one, do you then warrant pulling the trigger to prevent such an incident? Do you tell the officer not to have the sniper take out the kiddnapper who is lunging at your child with a knife, if the opportunity to take the shot is there?
And what of the passengers on the 9/11 flight that took matters into their own hands and crashed a plane, at the cost of those on board, rather than allowing terrorists to crash it into a building and costing many more lives? Should they have been passive because it is wrong to spill blood and allowed the terrorists to spill others' blood instead, because they were too 'proper' to take matters into their own hands? I'm sure most of us would agree that those passengers were unquestionably heros and that IF they could have simply killed the terrorists and saved the lives of those on board, it would have been warranted as well.
Posted 14 January 2010 - 06:32 PM
this is my gun
tis one's for fighting
and this one's for fun......
Bloodshed is indeed necessary...in defense of oneself and those that cannot defend themselves.....but that is the only time I see it as justified.....with the exception of the occasional pedestrian...for the sheer thrill of it an all:evil:
Culling the herd is also justified because there are too many people already and they're trashing my world:rant_red2: With they're disposable culture, and their obnoxious little bastard children popping up everywhere, and expecting me to dig into my pockets to finance their procreation and then to pay for their education ........... ...... ..... ... ...... ....
I'd very much like to see a bloody war declared on the baby boomers to force them to pay off the debts they have run up with the expectation that I will pick up the tab as well as support their miserable @$$es!!!! and then their mass extinction to make way for the breeders they produced... .... ... ...
Followed of course by the mass sterilization of everyone under 60years of age leaving only those under one year old to allow the species to continue.
REPRODUCTION IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!!!!!!!
Posted 14 January 2010 - 06:37 PM
BIG SMILE! BIG SMILE! BIG SMILE!!!!!!
- paigetheoracle likes this
Posted 15 January 2010 - 04:02 AM
Funnily enough that is both the physics and the psychology of the situation!
Perhaps we don't need to do anything about overpopulation, given these facts. Maybe this big flash of breeding will fizzle out, leaving a sterile population (almost). What I'm thinking is that all this stuff about male infertility across the planet, maybe not to do with female hormones getting into the water system through plastics, fertilizers etc. but us running out of steam because of being expressive as males, rather than repressed? Could this mean China is in this sense more masculine because it is more repressive and one day will too become explosively expressive, if it doesn't soften up gradually through trade?
Posted 15 January 2010 - 06:36 AM
Posted 15 January 2010 - 08:05 AM
The universe is expanding. Maneuver is an essential part of warfare. Maybe some day all material will drift too far apart for conflict.
That is the problem of course - too many people wanting to be on the same plot of land.
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:53 PM
Here is the problem IMO. You have 2 people with their own ideas about things. One of them is wrong. There are limited resources in the world. If one of them decides to be greedy and selfish, obviously you must resort to violence yourself to stop them. Once they realize that this just hurts everyone the 2 people decide to not be selfish anymore. But that is just the start.
Then the people must talk things out to come to an agreement on how to use the limited resources in a way that benefits everyone. If they learned anything from the above, and have some degree of wisdom and intelligence then it isn't a problem. That never happens. The people don't listen to each other because they both think they are right. They try and make themselves sound right even if they don't know what they are talking about using metaphors. Etc. Some times the problems are time senstive.
If the other person is being obstinate in this case, what choice do you have but to say "We are doing it this way unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why not... And if you try to stop me you are going to regret it". Of course usually neither side is that rational...
If not, then one side refuses to discuss the issue rationally
Posted 22 February 2010 - 05:36 AM
And unless someone calms you down you might even go, ah, ballistic?
But "Peace forces" seldom succeed in calming any one down.
Neither do they seem to stop atrocities.
But for those liking centralized power those kind of ideas are cool.
Peace most often come from sitting down, without arms, and talk.