What is More Important in Fighting a War...

Need a lot of support from the home front.

 

Anything is more important than fighting a war. Anything is better than killing people.

Next question?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 10:28 AM) [snapback]334415[/snapback]</div>

Humans are not slaves to "thousands of years of past history". I do not accept for a minute that humans will always fight wars. If that were the case, then there would be no hope of avoiding nuclear extinction. That may still happen, but there is a chance it won't if people repudiate war. As I have said in previous posts somewhere, war will eventually become as anachronistic as slavery, and as unacceptable. Humans must get over the idea that war is normal and acceptable. This is possible. There are societies that are far less violent than our own and religions/philosophies that completely reject killing (Buddhism, for example). Once children are trained to think of war as bizarre and unacceptable, war will be finished. This will be bad for the military, but good for us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]334393[/snapback]</div>

You don't need any significant PR if the cause is appropriate. We didn't need PR to go after Afghanistan, the world already understood that case, but we did for Iraq.

Military ability is needed to start a war, economic/financial ability is needed to sustain a war.

You forgot the ability to plan appropriately and letting the generals do what they know how to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]334470[/snapback]</div>

I do understand your point. All children everywhere have to be trained that violence is never acceptable. Some nations or ideologies would be tempted to take advantage of the more peaceful peoples of the world. By the way, I think this conflict between peaceful and warlike peoples goes back a very long time - to the beginnings of the neolithic revolution 10,000 years ago when people began farming. They farmed and created food surpluses through hard work, which attracted the nomadic peoples who just wanted to raid them and steal from them without producing anything. It is a conflict between productive people and raiders and exploiters. When you think about, however, violence and war can never actually achieve anything. What were Hitler's goals in WWII? Although he could conquer France, Poland and many other countries, what was the long term plan - there is no way he could control these countries, no way he could run the world even if he did conquer it. The whole enterprise was crazy from the start, wasn't it? Most wars, in my opinion, are like that. They have no rational raison d'etre. They can never achieve anything. There are exceptions, like the wars between Europeans and the native Americans where the Europeans really won a whole continent.
The decendants of those Europeans are still benefiting today from those Indian wars. At present, however, with more and more countries armed with nuclear weapons, war can no longer be beneficial to any society - the risks of all out nuclear war are just too great. Since war is no longer rational on a cost benefit basis (if it ever was) then it makes sense to relegate war to history and for all societies to focus on trying to fight the real problems we face - global warming, energy depletion, destruction of the natural environment. War is simply an anachronism. You are right that it will take some societies longer than others to realize this.

 

"more has been done by war than anything else - defeated American slavery"

This is where I cannot agree with you. You are only looking at the American experience. If it took a war to defeat slavery, then why was slavery illegal in Canada well before the civil war? Didn't take a war to do it there, did it? It also didn't take a war for Canada to achieve universal health insurance, or for Sweden to develop one of the most advanced and egalitarian societies on earth. There is a world beyond the US. Get a passport. Travel. Have fun.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 18 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]334540[/snapback]</div>

Oh gosh, am I misunderstanding, or are you actually saying that the slaughter of Native Americans was a positive thing? That's a position I wouldn't want to defend!

In addition to all of the other nastiness which occurred, I think the unintentional biological war inflicted on the Native Americans probably did more harm than the weapons of the time.

And, while there are some economic benefits to be sure, I suspect that our national consciousness (if any remains) might be suffereing from the memories of atrocities committed in the name of 'Liberty.' And suffering far more than we know, or are willing to admit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 18 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]334650[/snapback]</div>

(I knew that would get a reaction.) I am not making a moral point at all. Just stating the fact that I, as a descendent of Europeans, have benefitted from the conquest of N. America by the Europeans. It was, of course, a horrible genocide, a holocaust for the native peoples. Morally, it was a war of annihilation. I am not saying that my actual ancestors did this, but it was certainly done by Europeans speaking the same language and having the same culture as my ancestors. I was made aware of this about 20 years ago in a coffee shop in Calgary, Alberta. An old native American (or native North American) glared at me and said "Hey white man, how many head of cattle do you have? - I have 500" He was full of resentment at what "I" had done and full of pride that he had more than me.

So, no, it was not a "positive thing", but can you deny that European peoples have benefited from the conquest of N. America? Look at all the land the Europeans took over! Perhaps we should feel ashamed of it - I fully support measures such as free tuition for natives and other forms of compensation. We do owe them, in my opinion. By the way, Canada has been quite active in settling land claims from native peoples and giving compensation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 18 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]334540[/snapback]</div>

Probably as long as people have been around (ever see "1 million B.C."?). There is a certain element of violence in our genes, which I think can be overcome by upbringing.

Not necessarily. Genghis Khan did that. That's how the Roman Empire was made. Peter the Great something like doubled the size of Russia and governed it effectively. Okay, Alexander the Great was carving out territory he never could control, apparently just because he liked to fight.

True, but I think we could have achieved 80% of the same goal by treaty alone, given that they were vastly outnumbered (in part because of European diseases). Seems to me Canada won their part of the continent without the big Indian battles that we in the U.S. had (altho I'm not a Canadian historian).

Absolutely correct. However, making that happen is a whole lot more difficult. Even the supposedly rational U.S. military has way too many nukes than it could ever use, even if wasn't worried about radiation drifting back to our shores. How can we convince smaller countries with big scary neighbors they should give up their nukes first? The real risk isn't right now...it's what happens when Musharraf leaves power, or when Iran develops small effective nuclear weapons or if Israel (which most likely has the technology) gets run over by one of its neighbors. One of these scenerios will eventually happen. The capability is there, and it will remain forever unless something changes.

 

"Probably as long as people have been around (ever see "1 million B.C."?). There is a certain element of violence in our genes, which I think can be overcome by upbringing."

I was referring to large scale organized warfare as opposed to the tribal violence that goes on all the time in pre-neolithic peoples, like the Yanonami in the amazon. Of course, humans do have a violent history, but I am glad you agree that we can learn to control our aggression.

"Not necessarily. Genghis Khan did that. That's how the Roman Empire was made. Peter the Great something like doubled the size of Russia and governed it effectively. Okay, Alexander the Great was carving out territory he never could control, apparently just because he liked to fight."

Ok. This was a sweeping statement. But a lot of wars are really irrational. It was madness for Hitler to think Germany could take over Russia and all of Europe. And maybe some of the Germany people should have said this at the time instead of waving flags and shouting Sieg Heil. Had they been raised and educated to see war as a bad thing, instead of a noble thing, Hitler would not have had any support. That is my point. War should not be thought of as a desirable or even acceptable activity. That's why I referred to Buddhism, which teaches that war is abhorrent.


"The real risk isn't right now...it's what happens when Musharraf leaves power, or when Iran develops small effective nuclear weapons or if Israel (which most likely has the technology) gets run over by one of its neighbors. One of these scenerios will eventually happen. The capability is there, and it will remain forever unless something changes."

The risk is right now. Remember how close India and Pakistan came to nuclear war a few years back? And the world was very very close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missle crisis. With nuclear proliferation, things will only get worse. That's why I say we need a profound change in our attitudes to war, to the way children are educated to think about war. It will be very difficult, but there is no choice. A hundred years from now, the human race will:

1. Have eliminated war and learned to live within an international framework of laws, or
2. Have been eliminated by war, or reduced to a few scattered people living a stone age existence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 18 2006, 02:32 PM) [snapback]334658[/snapback]</div>

Oh, no, I certainly can't disagree that European peoples have benefitted from the conquest of North America. I guess that I feel that, once damage is done, it's difficult if not impossible to apply reparations and somehow make the situation all better (except in the minds of those who won).

The wound heals, but the scar remains.

Sometimes it *is* impossible to un-do damage, even if we want to.

So what I'm saying is that it's *really* important to think about one's actions *before* acting...that's what responsible people, and nations, do.

It's not nearly as helpful to reap the rewards of conquest, then attempt to compensate those who have been vanquished in ways that may not even be culturally appropriate in the first place. I mean, Northern Europeans were "victorious" ...and now we're giving already marginalized Native Americans the opportunity to...let's see...operate gambling casinos, and sell gasoline and cigarets at a discount...?!?!?

Yeh, that sounds like a square deal to me!