h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Teasswill said: "One might fight in self-defence - having principles does not justify aggression."

A war of self defence is still a war, and not all war is aggresive.

" If you believe strongly enough in non-aggression, yes you might accept the consequences of being passive."

all this is saying is that not all the alternatives are worse. And if you truely believe that in every circumstance there is an alternative that is better than war all I can say to you is "good luck". But I cannot believe that anyone with an ounce of self respect could hold such an absurd belief.

"Conflict is not inevitable, it is a consequence of at least one party refusing to compromise & choosing to impose their view."

You are completely missing the point. A compromise can only occur when there is agreement between the parties about what is reasonable to conceed. For example suppose two religious sects believe that a particular piece of ground is sacred and was given by god to them, and them alone. Each wants to build a shrine on the ground, neither wants any other shrine on the ground. No compromise is possible because all possible concessions - no shire at all, or allowing the other sects shrine - are considered unacceptable. Conflict of some sort is inevitable.

The whole point is that from the point of view of each side, they are being reasonable in what they demand, and the other side is being unreasonable. To say that one side is to blame because they are refusing to compromise is to miss the point. Neither side believes they are refusing to compromise because each believes the others demands are unreasonable. Each side believes that the other is trying to impose a solution on them, but neither side believes that they are trying to impose a solution on the other because they believe that their own demands are eminently reasonable.

I think the question "Is war ever just?" is ill-posed. An action can only be justified within a particular world-view whereas wars generally occur between world-views (for the reasons given above). It makes sense to ask the question "When is it just for me (and others who think like me) to go to war?" but the two sides in any war will always answer that question differently, so it makes to sense to talk about whether a war is just or not.

'A war of self defence is still a war, and not all war is aggresive'.
Defending yourself when someone else has declared war on you is a different matter from declaring war or being actively aggressive. War is always aggressive, but may be using words or political/commercial tactics. I think for the purposes of this thread, we are being asked to assume war involving weaponry.

'all this is saying is that not all the alternatives are worse'
Re-read my posting. One might accept a worse alternative.

Re conflict & compromise - please re-read again. Conflict is NOT inevitable UNLESS someone refuses to compromise AND enforces their view. There may be a dispute but all parties may stand back and not try to enforce their view. That is neither compromise nor agreement - more of a stalemate.

Otherwise, I agree largely with your last paragraph! A war is just only to the people who say it is. So really you are saying we should answer giving our criteria for why we would justify war?

Skatehorn said "A war of self defence is still a war, and not all war is aggresive."

Can you give an example of a war that was not aggressive? To have a war you have to have at least two sides and at least one of those has to attack the other, which is an act of aggression by one or both sides, isn't it? Or am I over simplifying things?

If you are saying that one side defends itself so is not the aggresor then yes that may be true but the war involves both sides and the defending side has to take an aggresive posture to defend itself.

Steve

Steve:

You and lots of other people bemoan the apparent hypocrisy of the US, UK and others going to war in one location (Iraq, say) as opposed to another location (Africa, for example) when the stated reason is "humanitarian" while the unspoken reason is "we want access to natural resources." I submit that there's nothing wrong with this hypocrisy.

I believe that the politicians in charge of leading the most recent Iraq war will be the most rewarded scapegoats in history. The common citizens will wring their hands over the needless deaths in Iraq, shake their heads at the lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, cry in despair for those suffering [insert ethnic group here] who won't get humanitarian aid because they live in a barren wasteland nobody gives two cents about, and then re-elect the same war mongering bastards who dared to wage the war that we desperately wanted them to wage but couldn't admit to wanting.

- emc

http://www.geoffcooper.com
http://www.tinajens.com

If by rewarded you mean "reap huge monetary gains for their own pocketbooks as well as those of their business associates," you're right on.

That's not what I mean by rewarded.

I mean they will be rewarded by the exact same people who condemn them for waging a war. They will be rewarded by being re-elected to office so that they can do it again.

My point: the people who *say* they didn't want to go to war with Iraq are *lying* -- and very likely, *lying to themselves*.

- emc

http://www.geoffcooper.com
http://www.tinajens.com

Teasswill: "One might accept a worse alternative."

If you have two alternatives A and B, and in every case you would choose A over B then B is worse than A. What you are saying is that in every circumstance someone can choose A over B, yet maintain that A is the worse choice. That is obviously incoherant.

"Conflict is NOT inevitable UNLESS someone refuses to compromise AND enforces their view."

Its not about REFUSING to compromise. The point is each side believe the concessions demanded by the other as part of the "compromise" to be unreasonable. Neither side is refusing to compromise, they are refusing to acquiesce in (as they see it) an injustice. You have a point about "enforcement", but again the point is that neither side will see it as "enforcement", but as claiming what is rightfully theirs, and they will see not "enforcing" their views as surrender.

"There may be a dispute but all parties may stand back and not try to enforce their view."

I agree that that may happen in some circumstance, but reconsider my example with the sacred ground. How could both sides "step back"? The only way to "solve" the dispute is for at least one of the two sides to surrender what they believe to be their rights. One way this could happen is for neither side to build the shrine, and to leave the ground vacant. Outsiders may see that as "stalemate" but each side will see it as surrender, made tolerable only by the fact that it is not unconditional, and admits the possibility of later victory. In this case all that has happened is that conflict has been postponed. The only way that conflict can be avoided completely is for at least one side to change their beliefs to ones compatible with the other side. Even unconditional surrender without a change of mind leaves open the possibility of a later conflict.

"the people who *say* they didn't want to go to war with Iraq are *lying* -- and very likely, *lying to themselves*."

how can you lie to yourself about your own opinions or beliefs?

Is it coherent to say "He believes he believes in God, but he doesn't really"? Surely "I believe I am of opinion X" means that I am of opinion X. Of course ones opinions may be completely incoherent, but thats something different.

Skatehorn:

You don't think that a person can say, "I believe in X" when they believe Y instead? Psychologists deal with this all the time. People are forever trying to tell themselves one thing when they believe another. I'm talking about a situation where people don't want to admit the truth to themselves.

It's easier to take the benefits of a war-like society than it is to own up to being part of a war-like society.

Relationships are the same way. Sex is this way. People are forever getting into internal conflict -- "I'm a priest, I shouldn't want young boys, but I do want young boys, I'm so wretched, that felt so good, he must have liked it," -- and trying to tell themselves things they don't really, deep down, believe.

It's just easier to fool yourself when it's so damned fashionable to shout against the war.

Not too many years ago, the US Congress had a bill that gave the members a raise. If they voted in favor, they got a big raise -- voted against, a smaller raise. They could all vote against, cry fiscal sensibility -- believe, even, that they were being responsible -- while feeding their greed.

It's more complicated since kindergarten and pre-school. People lie to themselves all the time, especially when the truth hurts.

- emc

http://www.geoffcooper.com
http://www.tinajens.com
http://www.twilighttales.com

Hi emc,

IMHO there is nothing apparent about the hypocrisy of the "co-allition" they are only after one thing, power and money for themselves, Blair is after anything Bush will give him, Bush is, well just Bush and he is fixed for life anyway. As is Blair and any politician in the British Govt. no matter what they do short of actual murder (I am not too sure about that either) they will retire to the background for a while, then get a prestigious post in Europe. They cannot lose so they will do anything that will assure their place in history. Scapegoats?? Please a scapegoat is someone who is used to blame for something that they in all probability had no idea about, I do not believe that can be said for our glourious leaders. The only scapegoats are the people who have no choice in who to vote for because they are all the same, all overblown with their own self importance and to hell with anyone who gets in their way.

The last time I voted in the UK it was for the Green Party, they don't stand for much but they seem to believe in doing something, and not just to line their pockets.

I still stick to my opinion about politicians and war, I haven't seen anything to change that yet.

Steve

Steve:

I don't disagree with the idea that what politicians say and what they do are hypocritical. My assertion is that they are but the mouthpieces of the people they lead. They give their citizens the ability to drive their cars on Iraq's oil, cheaply, without having to admit that war is a fine way to get it.

Would you stop driving or taking the bus to avoid war with Iraq?

Would you pay four to ten times as much for everything you buy to cover the cost of shipping, just to avoid war with Iraq?

Would you go without things you couldn't afford to ship, to avoid war with Iraq?

Maybe you would. Thanks to Bush and Blair, you don't have to face the choice. They allow you to be a silent hypocrite -- they are the vocal ones. They take the blame for what we want.

That's a scapegoat.

- emc

Hi emc,

So if they hadn't invaded Iraq we would all be paying 4 times the amount for everything??? That is an interesting theory, so to make life even cheaper for us poor hypocrites they will be invading Venzuela next yes?? After all the majority of the US oil comes from there. Can you provide the figures for the revenues spent on oil from Iraq? Presumably by that definition we should invade Texas so that we can get cheaper jeans, oh and while we are at it lets invade Malaya so that we can get cheaper tyres, oh and how about Russia, Vodka is quite expensive after all.

To quote that famous Canadian diplomat "Bush is a moron!" to quote Nelson Mandela "He is an idiot!" To save a few pennies on oil the US and UK taxpayer pays out billions to invade another country? Not quite that much of a saving is it?

Also you may have missed that American senator on CNN who said that after Iraq then any of the middle east countries run by a dictator, monarch or basically anyone who doesn't fit in to the American ideal of democracy had better watch out! You may have missed it because he was only on once, strange that, when CNN normally repeats the news, interviews etc, until their tapes wear out!

Steve

Steve:

Which way do you want it? Either these governments waged war for humanitarian reasons or they did it for the oil. Either way, the cost of oil will not go up -- which is what happened during the last protracted war that did not focus on outright invasion.

Do I have figures? No, I haven't looked. It's hardly necessary, given the history. I do remember the headlines about the price of gasoline during the last conflict.

Do the figures exist? Yes, I expect. The fact that gasoline prices skyrocketed during the previous Gulf War is an indication that the cost of oil fluctuates when the Middle East is both under its own control and hostile to the US and Britain -- regardless of Venezuela's oil.

Like it or not, going to war with Iraq essentially guarantees that oil prices are not going to spiral upward because someone's pet god sneezes. And this means your costs -- for your car, for the trucks that bring your food, etc -- are not going to climb due to Middle East conflict.

Yhe US and Britain will administer the oil in Iraq. Are they likely to play nice with the other oil-producing countries of the world to fix prices, or will they suit themselves? I expect human nature will win out, here.

I don't know that these governments are going to jump on another nation to get access to resources. I do believe that all of the "evil war mongers" we have been denouncing will be re-elected to the same offices they hold now. We won't banish them to some lower office because we hate that they went to war.

We will re-elect them because we don't disapprove of their war.

- emc

Hi emc,

I think that I have always said that they started the war for oil and/or control and nothing else. By your post I would say that you also think this and also think that they were right in doing so.
The humanitarian thing was just a smokescreen.

If you seriously believe that the cost of oil will not go up, (for the hypocritical taxpayer) then I think you are deluding yourself. How else are they going to pay for all these wonderful toys that the big boys have been playing with? I think that the price of oil is essentially guaranteed to go up because of it.

Last protracted war? They hardly had time to unpack before it was over, oil prices went up I think because they couldn't ship the oil because of the war, OPEC was at the time very friendly towards the UK and US as was proved by their soldiers fighting alongside our own.

"someones pet god"? that is a little insulting and uncalled for I think.

" don't know that these governments are going to jump on another nation to get access to resources. I do believe that all of the "evil war mongers" we have been denouncing will be re-elected to the same offices they hold now. We won't banish them to some lower office because we hate that they went to war."

I think I have been doing the denouncing, yours has been on the approving side I think.

"We will re-elect them because we don't disapprove of their war."

We will re-elect them? You maybe. Me? No, I dont think so.

Steve

I think the price will climb at its usual rate -- and that the Big Boys will simply take the percentage that would otherwise have gone to some other middle man.

The war was a success and fast: the boys in charge are nigh guaranteed re-election. The fastest way to kill that chance would be to jack up the price of oil beyond normal inflationary rates. They'd probably be wise to drop prices (for a few months, anyway) so as to lay in invaluable good will -- "See, we saved all those poor Iraqis from terror, our losses were small, and the price of gas is down!"

On pet gods...yeah, uncalled-for insults on the faithful is pretty much a habit of mine. We owe more senseless warfare to our fancies than to profiteers.

Yes: you've done the denouncing.

I haven't denounced the warlords; I've acknowledged that their actions will benefit me. Is that approval? Hm. I wouldn't bother to ask them to wage war and I wouldn't waste time trying to dissuade them. Tacit approval, I suppose.

What I do is challenge the denouncers.

- emc

http://www.geoffcooper.com
http://www.twilighttales.com
http://www.tinajens.com

Skatehorn - 'If you have two alternatives A and B, and in every case you would choose A over B then B is worse than A. What you are saying is that in every circumstance someone can choose A over B, yet maintain that A is the worse choice. That is obviously incoherant.'

Nothing incoherent there. People do make choices which may be more detrimental to themselves than an alternative, based on altruism, principles, masochism and so on.

In the example you give about the sacred ground, if neither side build on it - they will not admit it is surrender, they may make excuses to their people why not & still 'claim it as theirs'. The stalemate continues until one side decides to force the issue. What's sad of course, is when there is a third party living on the land. Now that sounds a familiar scenario.