The Cost Of War

[IrishEyes]

Sorry, ME, I saw this and wanted to ask...

 

Napolean Conquest - Once he got going, I guess somebody had to fight him. Else all the world would be

French.

French Revolution - No. But was innevitable.

American Revolution - Yes. For a principle.

 

Why was one Revolution acceptable, but the other wasn't? Or was that not what you intended to say?

[IrishEyes]

One other thing, OP5...

I really admire your dedication and your perserverence... the fact that you have stuck with this thread is admirable - sort of.

 

If you're not getting your questions answered, why not try to pick *one* idea, and figure out a new way to say it. Maybe the way that you have worded it is not that interesting to people. Or maybe there are similar threads going on elsewhere right now. Either way, many of the threads that are started never really get off the ground. Sometimes, someone hits upon a hot topic, and things just take off. But quite honestly, those topics are few and far between.

 

Your choices seem to be to 1)accept the responses you've been given, 2) keep beating a dead horse, or 3) rework your questions in a new thread. I'm not closing this one down yet, and please don't take it as anything negative. Just direct some of your obvious frustration at challenging us in a new thread. :cup:

[maddog]

Why was one Revolution acceptable, but the other wasn't? Or was that not what you intended to say?

I saw the invasion of Europe by Napoleon as a 19th Century version of what Hitler did in

the 20th. He was a brilliant tactition and strategist.

 

Why I was musing positively for the American Revolution and Negatively for the French is

two reasons. Both were opposition to tirrany. Both the underdog won. The principle

in America was to be governed fairly with full representation or to fight for it. This

happened iteratively why were fighting from 1776 when the Declaration was signed

until 1787 when the Constitution was passed. From this a government was formed.

In the French Revolution the Monarchy was overthrown. What was negative was the

violence in the executions after victory. Many French scientist were lost during this period

because they were of aristocracy. They were beheaded along with the King and Queen.

Why it was innevitable was when you oppresse people for so long. The revenge is so

brutal. :cup:

 

Maddog

[Buffy]

Both the Americans and the French Proletariat were mainly oppressed economically, but the Americans much less so, and the severe depression in the French economy along with the in-your-face arrogance/extravagance/obliviousness of the court of Louis XVI did make the French populace feel trapped and threatened. Beware of a trapped, cornered and wounded animal of any kind. I've also often pointed out that there is a difference between a biased press (from Thomas Paine to Roger Ailes), and the incitement to riot of Merat and Hearst: there's no question that Merat's screeds are what drove the French Revolution out of the hands of the "moderates" like Robespierre. The Americans on the other hand only had a lowly British conscripts to massacre back, so its never seen as "worse." Shakespeare was right: people only care about the fortunes of kings....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[RiverRat]

I'm Sure there are similar threads, but i would like to focus on these questions.

 

What is the Cost of war?

 

When is war worth that cost?

 

Cost of War:

Economic – can be calculated based on generally accepted accounting principles.

Physiological and Psychological – can not be readily calculated as there is no reliable metric.

 

Therefore a concrete reliable total cost of a war is inevitably a subjective term. This subjective total cost would be variable across time. As a country’s economy expands and contracts, the economic cost would become either more or less bearable. As a countries ideology and ethics shift, the Physiological and Psychological cost would also become either more or less bearable.

 

War worth the cost:

When the perceived subjective cost of inaction exceeds the perceived subjective cost of action.

 

On a side note in respect to the subjective nature of Physiological and Psychological costs of war.

Imagine the probability of …

 

A) an individual existing that had vastly superior intellect and foresight to cure many deadly or debilitating diseases thus benefiting all of humanity.

 

:cup: an individual existing that was exponentially more evil and destructive than any current or past leader.

 

… If Stalin and Hitler were unable to carry out there massive genocidal charters that exterminated 10’s of millions of lives and there potentials thereafter.

[pgrmdave]

American Civil War - No. This was the saddest war America ever fought (with herself).

I disagree, I think that the economical situations present from the beginning of the 1700's made it clear that the country would, at some point, split in two. I also think that it would have been impossible for the United States to exist while competing with the Confederacy through the 1800's. Hence, the Civil War was a necesity, to continue the U.S.

 

The principle in America was to be governed fairly with full representation or to fight for it.

This is untrue. America would not have been satisfied with representation, in fact, the ambassadors sent to Britain were given specific orders NOT to accept representation. The leaders in the colonys recognized that they still would not have the power they wanted, their votes would easily be over-turned in Parliment. The real reason we fought was for autonomy, not representation.

[Fishteacher73]

Our founding fathers would be shipped to Guantanamo as persona non grata under the Patriot Act....Bunch-a pot growin' terrorists....

[OpenMind5]

Irisheyes,

I don't beat dead horses, I disect them, then run them over witha steam roller and expect somthign interesting to happen. I don't take no as an answer. People are beginning to speak more readily.

 

The questions i chose could have easily been made less general, but i wanted to have people feel challenged. It is not a question with a wrong or right answer, only pure opion. I have tried rewording it, ect...

 

RiverRat,

I enjoyed your post. You stuck to my original post which thrilled me! I agree with parts of your answers, but you made those last two comments which makes me want to directa question your way. You mention evil, and i have brought this question up before....How much evil must you do before you do good? Is that even possible.

 

The question goes to everyone, not just RIverrat...what do u guys think about that.

 

(see irisheyes, i have reworded it multiple times...)

 

Op5

[Fishteacher73]

You mention evil, and i have brought this question up before....How much evil must you do before you do good? Is that even possible.

 

Good and evil are relative terms...For some 9/11 was a good thing, for others an evil thing. Generally people act because they believe what they are doing is "good" or that they must oppose something "evil". The Final Solution was probably looked at by the Nazis as a good thing for Germany.

[RiverRat]

How much evil must you do before you do good? Is that even possible.

 

Hmmmm …. I’m not sure I understand the context of the question. Can you expand on your thought?

 

Let me throw this against the wall to see if it sticks.

 

“how much evil must you do…” : Implies that ‘evil’ is measurable in absolute terms. I would again suggest that this is variable over time in relation to a perceived level (that is likely arbitrarily set against a past event).

 

“before you do good”: since both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ must each exist to understand or relate to the other, I defer to my above comment.

 

“is that even possible” : I see no laws of physics that must be defied. :)

 

Although … reconciling ‘good’ and ‘evil’ may be like ‘squaring a circle’. :cup:

[Fishteacher73]

If we can measure it, there needs to be a SI unit for evil......how about the Rumsfeld? :cup:

I just need to work out the stochiometrics for it...I think we need a SI unit for stupidity...that is usually a big copmponent of evil...(Perhaps the Bush or maybe the Quale?)

[OpenMind5]

Hmmm, let me see how i can put this....I hate making things a little less general...it cramps on your creative possibilities.....o well...here i go...

 

There are people out there that have fallen into the "idea" that "In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil." Is this somthing that is true?

Good and evil, i agree, are not numbers that can be weighed, but look at both sides here if you have to. I don't want to make things easy for you guys (as you can tell) Thank you so far, and please don't stop.

 

Op5

[OpenMind5]

people being shy?

 

Op5

[C1ay]

If we can measure it, there needs to be a SI unit for evil......how about the Rumsfeld? :eek:

I just need to work out the stochiometrics for it...I think we need a SI unit for stupidity...that is usually a big copmponent of evil...(Perhaps the Bush or maybe the Quale?)

 

Perhaps my first impression is wrong but this strikes me as an attempt to steer this thread into an off topic political debate. Was that your intent?

[IrishEyes]

If you want to talk about evil, start a new thread, ok?

I know that our discussions often get off track, but we're trying to get much better about keeping things focused. You've got some interesting ideas. Break them up into new threads, so we can follow them through.

The Cost of War can stay here, but Evil needs to be in a different place. I know the two are related (war/evil), but the questions you orignially asked had nothing to do with what evil is, or how it begins.

[IrishEyes]

Perhaps my first impression is wrong but this strikes me as an attempt to steer this thread into an off topic political debate. Was that your intent?

If that was the intent, I'm going to kindly ask that it not be follwoed.

Let's keep this discussion 'on topic', as soon as OP5 decides what the heck he wants to discuss.

[C1ay]

If that was the intent, I'm going to kindly ask that it not be follwoed.

Let's keep this discussion 'on topic', as soon as OP5 decides what the heck he wants to discuss.

 

There's no intent from me to follow that tangent, I was just sharing my impression.