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

Three words on the effectiveness of peacekeeping: Loyalists, Republicans, Brits.

And a slick little phrase from the 70s: Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity.

There are no answers, only more useful questions, and I am too tired and too ignorant to think of any right now.

Ben

Oh, and we are a war-loving species. Most animals are.

It is called testosterone, and is how the fittest survive. It ain't pretty, survival. It ain't cute either.

But it is natural. Peace isn't.

B

Ah. I wondered when we'd hear from 'the voice of reason'!
*Waves*

Well, that's it in a nut shell. Guess we'll have to close the thread down....









NOT!

Hmm.
I find the biological determinism argument a little depressing, and it does seem to me that it ignores the fact we also evolved brains and consciences along the way somewhere. Ans there is no biological imperative that says Dubya has to bomb Iraq. Is there?

Morally abhorrent? What's the alternative? I guess we could invade, and force them to come to terms. Then we could be the targets of terrorism and gurrellia action from both sides. Anything we do just p****s one side or both sides off. They're all adults, let them figure it out on their own.

Let's see, Iraq, that's that sunny little paradise where everybody is happy and loves their president and wouldn't have it any other way, isn't it?
Kinda like Afghanistan used to be.
Bozo Hussein claims that he 'won' the Gulf War. Yeah, like he won the war against Iran...
Yea, though I walk the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil,
'cause I' m the baddest (shut yo mouth!) in the valley...

Gee, Two-bit, if the US takes on more than one opponent at a time, with Britain as an ally, doesn't that make this WWIII?

I don't know about that. I think I would expect a more coordinated enemy. I odn't think the 'axis of evil' counts.

Ah. Waah!

Wanders off to find Kate Smith to see what she thinks.

Ah. Waah!

Wanders off to find Kate Smith to see what she thinks.

Ah. Waah!

Wanders off to find Kate Smith to see what she thinks.

I think if America and Britain start wandering around the world starting a rumble with whoever we perceive to be a bad guy that's as good a way as I can think of to create a co-ordinated enemy.

Saddam is undoubtedly a very bad guy indeed, but there's lots of them about to pick a fight with, some with 'weapons of mass destruction' - it's pretty obvious that his basic badness is not the reason why he's top of the target list.

Interesting - this thread was about keeping the peace - now it seems to be about starting another war.

'Taking' peace to other peoples is not the same thing as 'keeping' the peace.
Peace is about conflict. And avoiding conflict is very often the way that small irritations become large conflagrations.
The 'Pax Britannica' and the 'Pax American' have always involved arms and threats.
Sometimes people have had all the 'peace' they can stand. They bubble over and boil across the land. While the diplomats and bankers shake their heads at the 'restless' natives.

War has dramatic possibilities that diplomacy lacks.
People like drama.

Blues Shark, you are quite right, that I was ignoring brains and consciousness.

I was not saying that we have a moral understanding, that we have self-awareness, and awareness of others, that we have compassion, an imagination, an appreciation of the benefits of co-operation, an ability to plan and set goals, to agree to share resources, to negotiate, to evaluate risks, the ability to consider future consequences and to act accordingly.

The reason I was not saying this is because the thread is basically asking the question "why aren't we nice?" to which the answer is "because, by definition, we are decended from generation upon generation of creatures who survived because they were not nice".

Our challenge as a species is not only to know the difference between good and evil, which is an evolutionarily recent thing and a human construct, but to act morally.

Ben

Ah, but the morale is, whose 'morality'? Isn't that a cultural thing?
Is imposing our morality on another culture a 'moral' thing to do?

Are we morally obligated to serve as missionaries for our culture?
Or do we, in fact, have a culture?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Who steps in and says,"You're not doing that right. This is the way to do it!"

Maybe Bush feels inadequate and needs to play with large missiles to feel more of a man?

Hey, hello Tonsil Revenge ! Imagine finding you here!

How do we talk, meaningfully, about the matter of war? Why do people make war? Because they like war? Do the Americans like war - is that why they make war so much? What does the average American *know* about the wars being made by their leaders and soldiers? If we talk about whether war is good or not, does it depend on whether we are *winning* or not? Does it depend on the *outcome* of the war? If we were losing the war, would we still say that war is good? If we were winning the war, would we still say that war is bad?

Look, I don't know if a bunch of us could talk about this meaningfully, if we could really find any answers, if we could even manage to get along with each other. We might still find out something *about* war from this discussion forum ...

Well, I did start this.
And, actually, it is a question of how you 'take' peace to people without saying,"Do as I say, not as I do."

The civilized attitude is "War is fine, in it's place." Then they get upset when they find out there are people who don't follow the 'rules'.

Some o'them folks in like, say, Afghanistan, have been fighting for so long that it is part of their culture.

The idea that 'all we have to do is find a way to get along' is one that many soldiers would embrace, if they could, and just lay down their arms...if they could be sure of not getting lynched when they went home...or getting shot in the back for desertion...

Washington had something to say about 'standing armies' in his Farewell Address. He felt they would always be looking for something to do. And he was a fellow who hardly ever knew 'peace'...

It's always something. If it's not one thing, then it's another.

I think the average American knows that we were attacked. They know that we are seeking those responsible for the attack. They know that we are careful with our troops, therefore we tend to keep the war at arms length. They know that as a result of that it causes more collateral damage than countries that are more carelss with the lives of their soldiers.

Why do you use the phrase 'collateral damage'? It means 'innocent civilians killed'. Bin Laden could argue that the people who died in the WTC were 'collateral damage'. Question - are the lives of American soldiers more important than the lives of innocent Afghan civilians? If you had a daughter who was blown to bits by a bomb dropped by an Afghan plane onto your house, would it satisfy you to know that your daughter died even though she was not targeted because the Afghans had to fly their planes very high to protect their soldiers?

TR - I like your questions.

>whose 'morality'? Isn't that a cultural thing?

Absolutley - Morality is essentially an intellectual concept; and as such is held within the mind of the individual. Individuals respond phenomenonally to peer pressure; so the units of moral imperative are the individual, the peer group and the culture of which the individual and the peer group are parts.

The Genesis myth where Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil puts its finger firmly on the difference between us and animals. There is no such thing as an evil animal, or one that comits war crimes. And this is not because the ickle fluffy cutsie animals are all naturally kind. Quite the opposite, as I have argued further up the thread.

>Is imposing our morality on another culture a 'moral' thing to do?

In my opinion it is actually a profoundly immoral thing to do. But that is just my opinion.

>Are we morally obligated to serve as missionaries for our culture?

We think we are. Democracy is being discussed in the 9/11 thread; being good democrats we beleive that it is a horrific thing that Zimbabwe held such corrupt elections. Being good christians our great great grandparents beleived that it was a horrific thing that the Zimbabweans did not beleive in Christ. We think our ancestors misguided because we are outside their cultural imperatives; who knows what our great grand-children will think of us.

>Or do we, in fact, have a culture?

Bifidus Acidophilus, in the fridge, and in my intestinal tract. (Couldn't resisit).

>It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Hmmm; not sure of your point here, but it sounds great.

>Who steps in and says,"You're not doing that right. This is the way to do it!"

Let me inflict the Carpenters on you instead: "Hey Mister Interstellar Policeman".

Personally I beleive in the right of the individual to go to hell in their own way; however that sometimes clashes when other people don't believe in freedom, momma, and apple pie.

*less tired today, and therefore more verbose*

Ben