Is War Ever Necessary or Justified?

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Just a one minute video but makes a lot of sense.

America is not blessed with common sense both at Echelon and among the people. Sure, someone brings it up from time to time but words are not actions. When you start seeing actions, that will be the paradigm shift and it is not to say it starts with america. [Although many used to think the example was america for some time.]

I am beginning to wonder if the events we are seeing: Natural Disasters including armed conflict, are some sort of punishment of particular areas. When it comes to balance, which nature does do effectively, it seems like nature does take its sweet time.

[East Sun]

Some people have said that the globalists have been defeated.
I sincerely hope that that is so.

If not it would be a good idea to stop them as they are causing havoc
world wide against humanity, which is us I believe or any living entity
that is on the side of humanity.

We have problems in--fighting among ourselvs, something we need to
resolve soon before we have to deal with off/on planet groups far more
advanced than us. We need to start thinking in advanced, get rid of
Biden and all crime families who are totally motivated by greed.

How can we eliminate greed? That would be a good place to start
thinking about don't you think----any ideas anyone.........

[rgray222]

This is something that I posted on WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia, I thought it might be appropriate on this thread as well.


I would like to take a second and rant, my apologies if it ruffles a few feathers but mine fell back in place when I finished writing this.

One of the major consequences of war is the impact on the mental health of civilians and soldiers, it is tremendously significant. Not one person in the war zone escapes, not men, women, children, the elderly, the disabled or even our pets. There is a definite increase in the incidence and prevalence of severe mental disorders in all people but especially women. The long-term effects of war are simple, it destroys countries, communities, families and individuals. The suicide rate of those participating and those that are impacted by war catapults to obscene levels, these souls are lost forever.

Wars do not make men or countries great, but they do bring out the greatness in good men. War is romantic only to those who are far away from the horrific sounds, turmoil, destruction, blood and death on the battlefield. Romanticizing war is an idiots game played by politicians, mainstream media moguls and only those that have something to gain.

To make war work it needs a villain, the bigger the better, this justifies the chaotic death and destruction on a grand scale and makes the hero (usually a false champion) shine a bit brighter. It forces people to choose sides even those that have no material interest in the war. Once you choose sides you are participating and condoning in the murder and destruction of war. Once you have chosen sides you have become a willing pawn in the system, you might as well be on the battlefield with a weapon. The game cannot be played without a villain, the game cannot be played without participants.

A sea change needs to take place regarding how we think about our political leadership. Politicians that discuss or suggest war as a real option to solve problems need to be removed from leadership roles. If one country or village has a grievance with another there should be a mechanism to hash it out with words and diplomacy, not hate and guns.

We need to flip our priorities, memorializing science, invention, creative thinking and altruistic behaviour not war and death.

[East Sun]

Problem is with the people who, behind the scenes, start wars and gain
a lot financially. They are not even seen as part of the equation.

People have to fight to protect themselves and often their country.

[Bill Ryan]

No-one reading this would wish for unjustified violence against any human (or in my own case, against any living thing).

But the problems are about the lack of effective legal recourse to immoral or unethical acts.

That's why wars happen — because (in the eyes of the instigators, and usually all the participants) there's no other way to settle a dispute.

Near the very start of this thread, I shared these thoughts on my post #13. It feels 100% clear to me that this is the overwhelmingly principal issue.

~~~

Thanks for the excellent thread.

I'm only going to offer an analogy, because it might be helpful in thinking about this.

We almost always consider war as war between nations. But the exact parallel would be a war with your neighbor.

He keeps stealing your chickens, or moves his fence posts over the border into your own property to steal a little of the land you have available in your garden. Or maybe (as in the Trojan War!) he has an affair with your wife.

As a citizen, you should have legal recourse. And in a fair and just society, that would, or should, work. But in all of known human history, that's a very recent innovation.

We might assume that 40,000 years ago, if you were a Cro-Magnon, and a Neanderthal stole what you considered to be your property, you might get together a posse of your friends and family and go steal it back, beating him up in the process and maybe stealing some of his property in revenge. That's how things worked for eons.

Now, we have police and law courts — imperfect though they may be. But it's at least a theoretically good idea. Ask any Ancient Roman or Greek.

So the real problem on a global nation-state level is that there's no reliable, workable and functioning equivalent to address serious international conflicts. (I stress "reliable, workable and functioning".)

If there were, then no nation-state wars should be necessary. In a future (and ideal!) Star Trek world, we might imagine that all this had been ironed out and so war between fellow-humans had become a relic of the past.

[onawah]

Bumping this thread with some very insightful words of wisdom from Alan Watts, beginning at 13 minutes into the video, about how Democracy inevitably becomes Fascism...
And at 16 minutes in, about why a wise King keeps the Court Fool close by, to remind the King that he too is only human, and not to give himself airs and graces, and to remember that there are forces and domains far beyond his...
And finally, that it is very difficult in our present world to abandon nationality.
(Themes that may also apply to the discussion in the thread "China Spying and Cyberwarfare". )

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=51mBqzhQUGI

[rgray222]

I was on a site today and just by chance, I watched these two videos back to back (In the order below). I could help but think that in the Ukraine-Russian war assessing blame is an idiots game because there will be absolutely no winners, only losers. The sooner we understand that fact the better our chances of survival as a species will be.

New Himars rockets being deployed by Ukraine and supplied by the USA.

[ozmirage]

War is either piracy or defense against piracy.
How can you tell the difference?
If the winners keep the property of the losers.

[rgray222]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
War is either piracy or defense against piracy.
How can you tell the difference?
If the winners keep the property of the losers.

Why would there be a need to tell the difference, one may have more spoils than the other but everyone who participates in war loses.

We need to look at war exactly the same way that we look at slavery today. If someone brings up slavery as a viable option for their workforce they would be rightly ostracized from all of society. If someone brings up the idea for war as a viable option to solving disputes they should be blackballed and shunned from all of society. If the human race survives it will eventually come to this conclusion.

[ozmirage]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
War is either piracy or defense against piracy.
How can you tell the difference?
If the winners keep the property of the losers.

Why would there be a need to tell the difference, one may have more spoils than the other but everyone who participates in war loses.

That is no reason to tolerate evil. Pacifism in the face of piracy is unmerciful to their next victim.

We need to look at war exactly the same way that we look at slavery today. If someone brings up slavery as a viable option for their workforce they would be rightly ostracized from all of society. If someone brings up the idea for war as a viable option to solving disputes they should be blackballed and shunned from all of society. If the human race survives it will eventually come to this conclusion.

Anyone in a socialist country is compelled to labor for the benefit of another. That's slavery.
Why aren't you protesting against socialism, too?

[Bill Ryan]

I'm reposting this (my earlier post #13) to bump the valuable thread.

I'm fully aware that many good members (not only rgray222 who started the thread) have grave and sincere concerns about the so-called 'morality of war'. I still fully believe that my post addresses this.

In the absence of any kind of fair and functioning global legal system, sometimes nations have to take things into their own hands.

— Just as you would have to do personally if you lived in the US Wild West, with no sheriff at hand and no-one to help you fend off the nightly cattle raiders. You'd have to take action yourself. Clearly, no-one's going to stop the cattle raiders apart from you.

It's simply your last resort after all negotiations, peace offers and agreements have broken irretrievably.

In one sentence, returning to our present-day world:

It's the totally failed, corrupt and US-dominated UN that's the problem.

In the current Russia-Ukraine war, Russia has no other options available to resolve the situation, despite having previously tried every other means available over the course of many years.

Here's what I posted earlier:

~~~

Thanks for the excellent thread.

I'm only going to offer an analogy, because it might be helpful in thinking about this.

We almost always consider war as war between nations. But the exact parallel would be a war with your neighbor.

He keeps stealing your chickens, or moves his fence posts over the border into your own property to steal a little of the land you have available in your garden. Or maybe (as in the Trojan War!) he has an affair with your wife.

As a citizen, you should have legal recourse. And in a fair and just society, that would, or should, work. But in all of known human history, that's a very recent innovation.

We might assume that 40,000 years ago, if you were a Cro-Magnon, and a Neanderthal stole what you considered to be your property, you might get together a posse of your friends and family and go steal it back, beating him up in the process and maybe stealing some of his property in revenge. That's how things worked for eons.

Now, we have police and law courts — imperfect though they may be. But it's at least a theoretically good idea. Ask any Ancient Roman or Greek.

So the real problem on a global nation-state level is that there's no reliable, workable and functioning equivalent to address serious international conflicts. (I stress "reliable, workable and functioning".)

If there were, then no nation-state wars should be necessary. In a future (and ideal!) Star Trek world, we might imagine that all this had been ironed out and so war between fellow-humans had become a relic of the past.