Militarism, Pacifism and War?

Post Reply New Topic

If a country is abusing its citizens, war is not the only option. The surrounding countries can open their borders to refugees, for example, and other countries can provide supplies to build and maintain refugee camps. Various sanctions can be imposed on the offending government, as well.

Good points, and once we move on to the domestic concerns of one community or nation state I think intervention from outside forces is highly questionable, history shows us that the intervening ststes invariably side with the group that serves their own national interests rather than the group with a popularly accepted moral high ground.

For example the Spanish civil war [1936-39]. Here we have a popularly selected shift in a nations direction achieved within the norms of democratic process' for the time, Franco leads a rebellion that was only achievable with the support of Italian Fascism [50,000 troops with armour, artillery and air support] and German Fascism ['advisors' and the Luftwaffe [shifts troops from north africa and supplies air combat and bombing capability]]. This leads to a token effort of support on the part of the USSR and the rallying of the 'international brigades' in response. A supposed embargo is imposed on both sides by most other European powers but in practice US capitalism supports Franco with oil on credit and some limited arms shipments and the UK and France obstruct the movement of volunteers for the International Brigades. The end result Franco wins and imposes a dictatorship and 30 odd years of repression and suffering.
What would have happened if they had been left alone? well indubitably a vicious civil war! however the Republic would probably have prevailed and the will of the people triumphed.

I like taking this into considering civil wars, how about the validity of insurrectionary violence? where is the moral compass pointing what are peoples thoughts on anti-imperialist or colonial rebellions? What is and is not excusable when one has a traditional claim on self determination but are overwhelmingly dominate both numerically [proffesional standing army] and possibly technologicaly [little armaments possibly only traditional weapons]. Was Bodicea right? Why shouldn't the Basques have their own nation state? How can the Russians possibly claim any validity for their actions in Chechnya?

Lastly your description of a defensive war is akin to my own in it's conception and is by definition not started by the defender, however 'pre-emptive' attacks which are all the rage since the advent of nuclear weapons and the 'cold' war is not in any way defensive, merely a well 'spun' act of aggression.

With regards this thread avoiding contemporary US wars? please it is not all about you!
My intentions here are to provoke thought and discussion about the broad ethical considerations attendent to communal violence.

peace j

But in the case of Rwanda, you'll still have ~1 million dead people. In the case of Libya, thousands of dead, tortured, etc. Sanctions take a long time to function. Death squads work pretty quickly.

Gaddafi's tanks were on the outskirts of Benghazi when NATO stopped them. He wasn't going to pause for sanctions.

It's just a choice. Choosing to do little, or to do slow and ineffective things, will lead to death in some cases. If you don't act when you had the power to act, you have to live with that.

Libya is sitting on a huge and delectable resource of oil. Gaddafi's declaration of returning control and ownership of that national resource to the nation must be taken into account in its inspiration to "free" the Libya people from suppression. Any examination of the violence in the Middle East outside of Israel's enthusiasm for land grabbing cannot exempt the control of oil in it's motivation.

Duplicate post deleted

Last edited by Sand on 05 Jul 2011, 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do not think outside countries should intervene militarily in the case of domestic uprisings. For one thing, the leaders of the uprising may be no better than the current government, or they may have great ideas but lack the organization to lead the country if they succeed. Mostly, though, I think every country should be free to chart its own path without such outside interference. Many modern countries have experienced bloody rebellions and uprisings without the rest of the world rushing in, and eventually emerged better for it.

Absolute generalizations are foolish and heartless. Actions must be closely analyzed under any circumstances.

Let me expand the syntax of your declaration. (All) absolute generalizations are foolish and heartless. (All) actions must be closely analyzed under any circumstances.

This is a generalization. Is it therefore foolish and heartless?

A word to the wise: Beware of the word "all"

ruveyn

The context was national actions. This was not a philosophical comment.

Okay I'm against the war in Libya to the extent of Obama violated the law, it is Congress that is supposed to declare wars not the Executive Branch.

As for taking out Saddam, we should have done that in the 1st Gulf War and Saddam made the mistake of trying to give a very angry Texan the run-around, that's just asking to get one's head handed to them.

Also, cutting spending on our military is not a good idea because it is about the only area that Government can actually contribute to GDP, not to mention we have Russia trying to return to its glory Soviet days.

I don't like war, but sometimes you have no other choice but to fight or get killed or enslaved. The fact of the matter is we are going to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqi people, Afghanistan is still up in the air and made worse courtesy of Obama wanting to prematurely draw down troops when the commanders on the field are saying it is a bad idea.

Depends upon how much faith you have in military commanders. they have been so terribly wrong so consistently in the past it is hard to acclaim them as knowing what they are doing.

We were already getting the oil out of Libya. It doesnt magically become free if the country changes hands. And these were small amounts in the case of the US.

We'd have a surer flow just leaving Gaddafi in power. He was happy to sell it.

What part of keeping this off the subject of contemporary US conflicts is beyond you people, I try and initiate a thread without partisan colour and it is all about oil, and US hegemony...

I don't want to engage in the endless roundabout that this leads to, I am so bored with it. There is a whole world and the entire span of human history to draw on for examples to illustrate philosophical assertions.

@ sand, I am sure by now you will have noticed my tendencies and the response they draw, please... these are debates that can not be won and they contribute nothing to the development of higher thoughts. Any opinions regarding contemporary conflicts will be implicit in peoples ethical/philosophical assertions.

@ Yippy Skippy, thankyou for your contributions.

to quote the clash, 'I'm so boooored with the U S A - but what can I doooo?...' Oh dear, I suppose that counts as 'flaming' or 'anti americanism' or even 'ad hominem argument' for most of you..

peace j

I can only reiterate that questions of national actions and reactions are not philosophical abstracts divorced from history or current events. One must observe actualities and try to draw conclusions.

Or you have another group which recognizes war is inevitable even though it is bad and that it is better to be prepared for the eventuality of conflict than to be unprepared when the conflicts occur.

And I can only re-state that there are plenty of not hot examples to be drawn on.

peace j