Is war always bad?

[ADL Colin]

Many of us accept battle, defeat, and death in the animal kingdom proclaiming "that's evolution, nature's way of eliminating or reducing the weaker species". Many of us think that is good, too.

Might the same principle not work with societies? The strong survive. The weak perish. That it is good.

Was it good for the human species for the Romans to wipe out a society of "barbarians" and replace their society with the technology, skills and art of Roman society?

[Baal]

Originally posted by Colin
Many of us accept battle, defeat, and death in the animal kingdom proclaiming "that's evolution, nature's way of eliminating or reducing the weaker species". Many of us think that is good, too.

Might the same principle not work with societies? The strong survive. The weak perish. That it is good.

Was it good for the human species for the Romans to wipe out a society of "barbarians" and replace their society with the technology, skills and art of Roman society?

Good question. Until someone you love is the victim of "nature's way of eliminating/reducing the weaker species".

Your 10 year old daughter is kidnapped, raped and murdered. The weak should perish?
Your wife is abducted and sexually tortured before her death. The strong always survive?
All of your relatives are slaughtered in an errant allied bomb strike. That's nature's way of fleshing out the weaklings?

Roman society stole most of their gods from the Greeks, used lead pipes for most of their water supply, and supplicated their enemies with threat of horrible torture if they did not join their empire (and usually slaughtered them anyhow).

It's not cut-and-dried. I assume you know that, and just want to pose an interesting question. It *is* a valid question, however.

[ReFresh]

War doesn't determine who's right.

Just who's left.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by ReFresh
War doesn't determine who's right.

Just who's left.

You're a machine.

[ADL Colin]

Baal,

Yeah, same with the poor gazelles that get eaten on the African savannas everyday. Assumably, they and their friends don't like it- but WE still consider it to be survival of the fittest.

If we could be on the outside looking in .. I wonder how we would see it.

[Dragon Curve]

Everyone SHOULD have the same rights. Regardless on how weak or strong they are. I suppose this might have been the way thing were meant to go down, but if it was, we would be living in a very, very cruel world.

[kmanrox]

war is greta for the economy historically, and it's great for the morale of the Armed Forces... When I was in the Marines we were SOOOOOO pissed we didnt get any action...

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Dragon Curve
Everyone SHOULD have the same rights. Regardless on how weak or strong they are. I suppose this might have been the way thing were meant to go down, but if it was, we would be living in a very, very cruel world.

Where did this SHOULD come from? Based upon what? Who says they SHOULD? Is this soem sort of Universal principle?

The world *is* a very, very cruel world and it has a brutal bloody history to prove it.

[reddawg]

It is never good, but a necessary evil is for sure.

[mika]

Originally posted by Colin

Might the same principle not work with societies? The strong survive. The weak perish. That it is good.

Was it good for the human species for the Romans to wipe out a society of "barbarians" and replace their society with the technology, skills and art of Roman society?

Maybe it was good in ancient times.

These days it seems that US bombs a country then sends it food. I dont see them "wiping out" anyone anymore

Second, theres the UN and globalization and all that shit. It's not about destroying the weak, it's about trying to make the weak stronger.

Strong enough to be able to buy mass produced stuff made by EU, American, Japanese and Arab owned companies.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin


Where did this SHOULD come from? Based upon what? Who says they SHOULD? Is this soem sort of Universal principle?

The world *is* a very, very cruel world and it has a brutal bloody history to prove it.

If everybody doesn't have the same rights then you can't claim that your society has any equality of opportunity. Isn't this what the USA is supposedly based on? The idea that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed or be rich or famous or whatever.

Don't your country have a Bill of rights? Is this not a priciple you agree with?

[Dragon Curve]

Originally posted by Colin


Where did this SHOULD come from? Based upon what? Who says they SHOULD? Is this soem sort of Universal principle?

The world *is* a very, very cruel world and it has a brutal bloody history to prove it.

Well I'm saying in general, anyone with any bit of compassion for the human race, or for anything for that matter, wants the world to be a peaceful place for all of us. To have this, everyone SHOULD have the same rights.

People who believe that not everyone SHOULD have the same rights are sadistic to say one. And would probably agree with the ideals of those such as.. Hitler or the recent Osama Bin Laden. Their ideals were that not everyone should have the same rights. And look how respected their opinions are in the world.

Yes, the world *is* a very, very cruel world. However, it would be infinitely worse if people's ideals were that everyone shouldn't have the same rights.

Everyone should have the same rights. How can one person become "better" than another person because they are stronger, or they run faster, or their skin is a different colour? This is the simple issue of equality that has already been accepted in society.

It is the general consensus that everyone SHOULD have the same rights. And you'll probably argue that just because the consensus says it is so, doesn't mean it should be that way.

The reason everyone SHOULD have the same rights is because that's what is fair to every human being. Nobody has a choice over how strong or weak they are and it does not make them a better person by being that.

If everyone thought differently, the destruction of mankind as we know it would have already occurred.

[Dragon Curve]

P.S. Yes it's a universal principle. Although, it's not a constant principle, it is the universal humanitarian principle. No sociological principles can be described as a constant universal principle. Nothing sociological is constant in the universe.

[ReFresh]

Originally posted by Colin


You're a machine.

Naw, that's just a quote I saw on a tagline once.

My own personal views on war are pretty much this:

Governments generate wars for vartious reasons, usually to take advantage of something another country has. This is followed by the propaganda machine that tells us why we want to go to war.

There's usually little fact in this process, but, people usually buy it anyway.

Then, the government that generates the war, is usually tied to some entity that makes a profit off it.

In order to make a profit, you have to expend some material somewhere. That means, you have to send someone somewhere to do some shooting. More bullets spent, more money made.

Generally, the government people who make the war machine roll have some mechanism in place to make sure *their* sons don't have to do much shooting.

Hell, this would get long if I continued. Let's just say David Gilmour said it best in "The dogs of war".

"For hard cash we will lie and decieve, even our master don't know the webs we weave."

"We all have a dark side to say the least. Dealing in death is the nature of the beast"

I'm just not a real war monger type. Not that I don't fight battles, I'd just like to fully understand it before I go in... and I just don't instantly believe what I hear / read, especially if I only hear one side of it.