Is war necessary to achieve peace?
-
Do you believe that war is necessary in order to have peace? (After all, "War is a continuation of policy by other means" - Clausewitz)
"I can't decide if peace is an interlude between times of war or if war is an interlude between time of peace" -
it's bullcrap actually...
all you gotta do is to lock the two goddamned leaders who are rattling their sabres into a steel cage and let them settle it like the maniacs in pro-wrestling, with stapleguns, lighttubes, barbed wire and other scary things... and you see how fast the bastards make peace...
we ought to have a global law like that... -
am i right to say that politicans are often selfish cowards that send the normal people to their doom?Originally posted by the Bear:it's bullcrap actually...
all you gotta do is to lock the two goddamned leaders who are rattling their sabres into a steel cage and let them settle it like the maniacs in pro-wrestling, with stapleguns, lighttubes, barbed wire and other scary things... and you see how fast the bastards make peace...
we ought to have a global law like that... -
Sometimes war is necessary to achieve peace. But what's going on in this world right now is not war for peace, it's war for domination.
-
btw, clausewitz is an asswipe...
and check out the lea-duhs now.. Bush and Cheney send troops (2000 US deaths and counting) for their cronies to make obscene profits...
Hitler had his neuroses which he sought to get rid of with his insane militarism..
Mussolini had his delusions of grandeur..
Saddam wanted Kuwait, Iran.. whatever..
the Arabs and Israelis sit behind walls while they send suicide bombers and their soldiers to the front...
NONE of the lea-duhs ever had to face the horrors of battle...
make up your own mind...
war is just a tool of the powerful to get their way while the normal people pay the ultimate price... -
war is only necessary when someone else initiates it...
think about this...
ALL the bloody armed forces in the world are "for self-defence"
so.... if all are for self-defense, who the hell is attacking?
that means a LOT of them are lying...
initiation of war is NEVER necessary.. no matter what the maniacs who write "war doctrine" sayOriginally posted by MohamedF:Sometimes war is necessary to achieve peace. But what's going on in this world right now is not war for peace, it's war for domination. -
I have to disagree. I'm not a war monger, but i believe that the roads to peace are paved with bricks of war.
If pacifism is not the path to peace, (as shown in WW2), then the line has to be drawn somewhere. And when the line is cross, the willingness to go to war has to be demonstrated.
Ultimately, what is peace if the state of peace exists without justice and equality? If war is needed to restore a peace with justice and equality, then I think its better that the blood of good men be spilt so that blood of innoncent will not have to flow for unjust reasons. -
I think it's telling that every single society on earth, including followers of religions which abhors the taking of any life, have some some sort of organized defense ......
it's part of natural law to defend yourself, and you have to, else Darwin will get you .... same thing for countries and societies ...... -
Actually, you cannot generalize it like that can you?
In certain cases, war does achieve peace.
And in others, no. -
Remember that Karl von Clausewitz lived and served as a soldier(a general by the time he died) and military reformer for Prussia during the Napoleanic era and post-Napoleanic era,where war was still a viable tool of politics and policy(the original German word used by him was politik,which means both in English),partly due to the fact that firepower was still quite limited for wholesome destruction. In one delves into history it is repleted with wars and battles,in fact only until recently that the more advanced states ceased and limit itself to utilize wars and battles further one's interest or ideology.Originally posted by cmeptb:Do you believe that war is necessary in order to have peace? (After all, "War is a continuation of policy by other means" - Clausewitz)
"I can't decide if peace is an interlude between times of war or if war is an interlude between time of peace"
Karl von Clausewitz's treatise which you derive your quotation from,"On War",gained its popularity when Prussian Marshal Helmuth von Moltke,who the Elder engineered the Prussian victory over France in Franco-Prussian War(thus resulting in the unification of modern nation-state of Germany under Prussia),attributed his victory to the book(though it is noteworthy that von Moltke studied in the military academy when von Clausewtiz was the principal,but never taught by him.).
"On War" is pretty much a complex book to comprehend,due to the fact that Karl von Clausewitz was a rather over-elaborative writer(to the point of being messy and confusing),mistranslation from German to other languages(esp. English) and that he experienced the changing nature of warfare from the Napoleanic era,one of unlimited warfare to propagate liberty,equality and fraternity(at least on the surface),and post-Napoleanic era,one of limited warfare in which states struggled to seize territories or to obtain concessions or favourable treatise from other states. The last factor compelled von Clausewitz to amend his treatise which he had wrotes two decades ago,but he died of cholera before he could complete it.
What it is miscomprehended(esp by "the Bear" and threadstarter) is that Karl von Clausewitz is not advocating war in the quotation,but delineating the nature of war itself,that "war is a continuation of policy by other means"(in fact,by your logic,if i were to say that flu virus causes influenza do you mean that i am encouraging you to catch a flu?
). As I mentioned previously,"On War" is a humongous military treatise to comprehend,words easily taken out of context(thus military historian Micheal Howard commented that it is the most frequently quoted but the least read book,much less understood by the mass) overmore originally in German,thus a good translation with annotation is very much important to understand it. Where English translation is concerned the one Micheal Howard and Perot is unarguable the best,even international affair researchers and sociologist cite from it. -
he did not advocate war... but he wrote a lot about how to wage one right?
i am not talking pacifism.. i'm talking about the people taking power into their own hands and making the lea-duhs accountable for their actions...
if they want to wage war, let them put their own children right in the front line in the line of enemy fire...
you WILL see them sue for peace within a heartbeat...
where is it written that we, the people, cannot make such a global law that forces those who want to wage war, be the first one in the line of enemy fire? -
I get your drift,though during WWII many of the American politicians sent their children to fight the war,if i recalled Mao Zedong's son died in Korea during the Korean War.Originally posted by the Bear:he did not advocate war... but he wrote a lot about how to wage one right?[/quote]
Uh,not really,hard to explain why i said that it is not really so but he is generally regarded more as a war philosopher than as a theorist,and his treatise "On War" a book on the philosophy of war,thus it is more towards the nature of war,as in why war exists and roles of participants involved. Jack Welsh,the CEO of General Motors read the treatise and applied it to the business arena.
[quote]
i am not talking pacifism.. i'm talking about the people taking power into their own hands and making the lea-duhs accountable for their actions...
if they want to wage war, let them put their own children right in the front line in the line of enemy fire...
you WILL see them sue for peace within a heartbeat...
where is it written that we, the people, cannot make such a global law that forces those who want to wage war, be the first one in the line of enemy fire? -
i thought war is where one can show off their weapons to lure potential buyers
-
Is war necessary to achieve peace?
... when diplomacy failed and all others avenue for peace has been exhausted, then I regret to say we will strike for a decisive victory.
-
As one would say,war is the sign of bankruptcy of policy.Originally posted by TooFree:... when diplomacy failed and all others avenue for peace has been exhausted, then I regret to say we will strike for a decisive victory. -
That's for leaders who have shares in the Military Industrial Complex.Originally posted by alexkusu:i thought war is where one can show off their weapons to lure potential buyers
-
maybe it's the manufacturers to really field-test their products////*Originally posted by alexkusu:i thought war is where one can show off their weapons to lure potential buyers -
I would very much like to put the politicians on both side of a conflict into one room & then gas them... end of story.
Things often get complicated as for every one politician, there's always a few thousand suckers. Case in point, the Germans, the Japanese, the suicide bombers...