Anti-war, or just anti this war?....

[mnaz]

I'm just in one of those moods.... feel like some futile sparring on an impossibly huge and complex topic, like on the old L/K politics board.... haven't done that in awhile.

Whenever I hear people going on about "war is not the answer" and such, I wonder. It couldn't possibly be that simple, right? I read stilltrucking's comments re: no such thing as a "just war", or words to that effect, and I wonder. (I'm not trying to "single you out" or anything like that, s/t... your words "grabbed me", that's all).

Is there a time when it is morally acceptable for one group of humans to take up arms against another group? I suppose this ties in with our mumblings about Jesus (turn the other cheek, etc.) What about self-defense? What about standing up to large-scale evil? Oh God.... that word, again.... "evil"-- (and its kissin' cousin "good", I suppose). Yeah, I know. Get past the duality and all.... But the holocaust did happen, and one group of humans fought (and killed, en masse) another group to stop it in its tracks. No, our relationship to "evil" may be in play, but this gets into very tricky, swampy ground in a hurry.

I've been to WW2 memorials which commemorate the latest (and by far most dangerous) collective moral meltdown in human history, and damn if those Allied soldiers didn't fight against a great "evil", employing their own "necessary evil" (in presumably much smaller and more justified doses than the enemy) for the cause. I thank those poor bastards for fighting that Goddamned war. They tried to show us the way, by showing us what it is not. So the great Allied triumph remains a failure in that sense. "Evil" exists, I suppose, though it's a beaten dead horse, chronically employed by every multi-national war pimp and media whore imaginable by now.

Opposing BushCo's apalling imperial savagery and greed in Iraq is easy money. He telegraphed it nicely for us. But what about a multitude of other troubled "gray areas" throughout the world? It seems most have never questioned the Americans' right to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and topple the Taliban, simply because it appeared to be a case of self-defense.... the only arguments I recall (outside of conspiracy types) concerned the methods, not the premise. Was it clear-cut self-defense? Would Jesus take up arms in self-defense? What about Darfur? Would Jesus take up arms to stop cruelty and genocide?

Tough questions.

[Dave The Dov]

Either by 2009 or before that maybe something will happen!!!!
_________________
recession in us

[mnaz]

Plenty has happened already.

[Dave The Dov]

No this time it will be the change that we want!!!!
_________________
BMW 327

[mtmynd]

what change do we want and who are the we? this country is so split that we're like a person with a split personality.... yes, no, maybe, not sure, when, who, why, because... just because, who care, what's on the tube, whose the american idol this month, what's really up, why am i down... too much, not enough.

[mnaz]

I'm not asking about "our" current political situation, necessarily. My question(s) here are more general than that. There may be no right answers.... (So why do I obsess over it?)

I remember a giant thread on L/K about the "moral merits" of strict pacifism (anti-war, period). Lots of argument on that one...

[mtmynd]

the amish. maybe they got it right. but when you have rednecks and cowboys in charge, pacifism is a definite no-go. add a military-industrial-corporate complex in the mix and pacifism is a double no-go. let's have a write in for an amish dude... anyone.

[mnaz]

Went to wiki and read for awhile.... there's a lengthy article on "just war" theory, but it's been "tagged"-- needs to be "cleaned up", substantiated, etc. Perhaps military interventions in Nazi Germany or Bosnia could be thought of as "just".... Humanitarian interventions and actions in self-defense are typically cited by hawks as "just wars", but it's easier to establish the former than latter, I suppose. And these preemptive wars of choice foisted on us by the M-I-Complex.... They've got to go.... Vietnam, Iraq.... Unacceptable..... Anyway, it's late. Just something I wanted to get off my chest today....

[Arcadia]

it's a delicate point. At this moment war causes disturbs me more than battle itself. But I hope my militar/guerrilla dosis is already full for this life...!

[whimsicaldeb]

No easy answers for your questions mnaz. Personally I found the Dalai Lama's perspective on war insightful/helpful. Perhaps his views will help you find some answers for yourself as well.

The Reality of War
Source:
http://www.dalailama.com/page.64.htm

Excerpt:

i want to make it clear, however, that although i am deeply opposed to war, i am not advocating appeasement. it is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess al such matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not.

For instance, in the case of the Cold War, through deterrence may have helped promote stability, it did not create genuine peace. The last forty years in Europe have seen merely the absence of war, which has not been real peace but a facsimile founded dear. At best, building arms to maintain peace serves only as a temporary measure. As long as adversaries do not trust each other, any number of factors can upset the balance of power. Lasting peace can assure secured only on the basis of genuine trust.

I think the Dalai Lama’s correct and that makes me look at what's going on between our nations. Currently, there is no genuine trust - thus we will have war(s). But the level of violence; the styles of violence taken/used; that we do have some measure of control over. Or ... our governments have control over them, and that's why it's important to have those in leadership positions with sound and clear moral compasses. This last part (in the US) we “may be” coming/getting back to. Hope so anyway.

For me, when I say moral compass, I mean moral/ethical leadership which is not dependent upon which party (Republican/Democrats/Libertarian/etc) or religion anyone belongs to ... but upon the level of understanding they have of our shared Universal Responsibilities..

[mnaz]

Some lucid, thoughtful comments by the Dalai Lama.... almost like some sort of "just war theory" essay.... down to earth, "coolly" pragmatic in parts. His comments about the Korean War seem almost formulaic.... "because it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy".... I guess that one hits a little too close to home, after enduring BushCo's bullying neo-con deceit wrapped in buzz-word blathering about bringing "democracy" to Iraq....

I was never too sure about the Korean war. I tend to "give it the benefit of the doubt" (if such a thing is possible, or forgivable, regarding hell on earth) because it seemed like a case of "self-defense" in the face of large-scale, rapid, well-demonstrated (totalitarian) Communist aggression (and no, don't even think about trying to "justify" the Vietnam obscenity in the same way-- no way).... Lot to think about here. I'll have to come back to this.... late for work now. Thanks deb.

[Dave The Dov]

The answer is easy out with this truly old way and in with this new way that will embrace finally at last of how it should be in the 21st century!!!!
_________________
g13 diesel marijuana

[e_dog]

The U.S. invasion of Afganistan was an unjust and criminal act.

In fact every single U.S. foreign war with the exception of WWII was a criminal action.

"Just wars" exist: for example, the Vietnamese defending their homeland against the French and American empires, was a just war. (which is not to say that all the methods were legit.)

The American war of independence was a just war, whether or not Jesus would take up arms. At the same time, if the slaves were to kill all the slaveowners in the pre-Civil War South, that'd have been an even more just war.

[jimboloco]

When I resigned my commission in the Air Farce, I told them I was not against all wars, that I supported "wars of social liberation" such as the American revolution and the Vietnamese Revolution. Signed and sealed.
I got out. Woudn't be so easy today, but it was after an initial refusal, then after declaring conscientious objection. I had to do that in order to avoid a court martial. Then during the next six months I had plenty of time to think about it. I was adamently against the Vietnam War, and was not goint to be a part of the military that was controlled by Nixon, LBJ, etc. and marching in the streets, writing a senator, etc.

Unlike edog, I supported the War in Afghanistan , with exceptions to some of the things that happenned there, and objected to the way that the prisoners were treated, and the Balkans, the same air war follies, but the surgical strikes to take out the Serbian artillery surrounding Sarajevo was justified and late.

I think our national history has been one of imperial design from the beginning. And
we do better when we cooperate with the international community in these ventures.

I like this one of thhe Dalai Lama, from whimsicaldeb's link
the Dalai Lama has on his traditional "yellow hats" robe, and the figure un the background has such an exquisite blue, I could not resist posting it here, yes, prayers to keep sanity alive, amen.

http://www.dalailama.com/page.41.htm

[mnaz]

Yes. World War 2 seems to be on everyone's list as a "just" war, as far as America's participation.... seems to be untouchable in that way. Yet atrocities ultimately were committed on all sides of that war, at all ends of the earth (which is why we all should've gotten a giant clue about major militarized aggression in general, now that the earth is pretty well filled in and lots of folks have the bomb(s)....).

Perhaps it's because the Allies are/were seen as truly fighting in defense of their homeland and against incredible injustice and cruelty at the same time....

Re: Afghanistan.... Was it not a case of going to fight in self-defense (against the purported base of al Qaeda-- a demonstrated threat)? Was self-defense perhaps warranted, but in some way other than direct invasion?