Humanitarian Wars?

[longboneslinger]

Can anyone tell me of a war that was actually fought on true 'humanitaian' grounds?

From the American Revolution to the Civil War (another oxymoron) to WW1 and WW2 to Iraq, what is humanitarian about war? Someone once said "War is robbery writ large." I believe this. War is between govs that want something. When, after all, has the people of a country declared war? Just run amuck without their gove approval? Most don't care about the world in general as long as they collect their paychecks and get to live thier lives as they see fit. The people dont want war, we have to go fight them! We get our asses shot off or blown to peices, not the gov that started the shit in the first place!

I submit: 1-The probs of the world are caused by the govs of the world.
2-They mislead their citizens to justify themselves.

So, am I wrong in whole, part, or right in part or whole?

Later taters,
BoNe

[Autumn Fox]

Wars aren't humanitarian. Agree.

People of a country may want to figth back or start an uprising.

The goverment is being selected by the people therefor they do as people might want. Common knowladge is being enhanced by secret information and thus people may not understand why the goverment want to start a war.

The problems of the world origin from what people are, of diffrences betwixt our cultures and being fools and either brain-washing for adults or proper education for young can change it.

As nternet.news would say:

We should share our thought openly to understand each other better
and i add:

and eliminate thoes of unwanted character

I might be taken for a "souless monster" (as my polish teacher once have said about me in accordance with my remarks) as i want to literally kill thoes which are against but i rather to think about the whole and not single people as they can lead as astray.

[longboneslinger]

as i want to literally kill thoes which are against but i rather to think about the whole and not single people as they can lead as astray.


Does this mean any one not in accordance with you or just the 'govenment' you would represent? No offense, but that sounds like a bit like a dictators point of view. Human life should be valued above all. To kill in self defense is one thing, to murder is another.


People of a country may want to figth back or start an uprising.

True. Point taken, but do the people want war? Violence is the first resort ot the ignorent. We have to find a better way.

Later taters,
BoNe

[Voetsek]

war just breeds more war tribal or not

[Autumn Fox]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@13 June 2004 - 19:00
(...)
Does this mean any one not in accordance with you or just the 'govenment' you would represent? No offense, but that sounds like a bit like a dictators point of view. Human life should be valued above all. To kill in self defense is one thing, to murder is another.
(...)
True. Point taken, but do the people want war? Violence is the first resort ot the ignorent. We have to find a better way.
Ad.#1

I'm quite for dictatorship as my country once had it in a such way that it had given us more good then bad. I'm for a hybrid of democracy(voting, much of freedom, liberal market and many others) and dictatorship(strong lider, low rate of crime)

Ad.#2

That's why I've mentioned about education.

[longboneslinger]

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

A good dictatorship is news to me. This was actually a thread on war in general, so I'll forgo that debate.

I'll attempt to make myself better understood.
Example: Iraq. We stopped a maniac who's killed hundreds of thousands from killing hundreds of thousands more. We lost thousands of lives. Was there a better alternative.

I'm not talking about why the war in Iraq happened, just the methods employed. Perhaps the thread should have been entitled something like "Does the loss of lives justify the lives lost to stop it?".

[Biggles]

Rule by a tyrant is an old concept. The ancient Greeks used the term without the connotations we have today. What mattered was whether the Tyrant was just or unjust. A just tyrant was usually thought well of.

Likewise, you appear to be raising the issue of the "just war" which is perhaps a more old fashioned term for a humanitarian war.

We have killed several thousand innocent Iraqis in our endeavour to remove Saddam. Whether our actions can be judged on pure arithmetic is a moot point.

The fact remains that these innocents died at our hands not his; they are our responsibility.

In answer to the question, no I do not think there is such a thing as a humanitarian war. There are humanitarian missions undertaken by our armed forces, such as the relief efforts in Ethiopia in the mid 80s and peace-keeping duties in a variety of potential flash-points, such as Bosnia.

Whilst the end result of WW2 was to the benefit of the world in general, it was not a humanitarian war. The UK was fighting for itself, its very existence. Likewise the US only joined 2 1/2 years later because she herself was attacked.

WW1 does not even rate on the Richter Scale of just wars. It was a nasty tangle of ambition, conceit and conflicting treaties. Simply honouring a treaty is not in itself a humanitarian act.

Consequently, I subscribe to the view that war takes up where diplomacy fails. The need to wage a war on Iraq, for example, was, in my view, an admission that we did not consider ourselves up to the diplomatic task of achieving the desired results through political means. A somewhat sad state of affairs considering the resources at our disposal.

[Autumn Fox]

To sumarize the first 5 posts:


Originally posted by Adam Mickiewicz
If younth known, if senility could.




"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A good dictatorship is news to me."

I'm happy that i've given you an example that is unknown for you.


I'm not talking about why the war in Iraq happened, just the methods employed. Perhaps the thread should have been entitled something like "Does the loss of lives justify the lives lost to stop it?".

If i were in power, i would sacrafice (such a nice word [translation: give away for death]) thoes of lesser capabilities. I.E. High ranked soldiers (Science officers, officers and black and coverd opps),high rank administration, scientists, technicians, farmers die last. In that order.

To reverse it: Soldiers and common citizens die first. In that order.

I'd do that due to the fact that - as i would assume - i would have to preserve my country from dying and thoes which i've mentioned are either expendable or not.

[Autumn Fox]

Originally posted by Biggles@16 June 2004 - 23:43
(...)
Likewise, you appear to be raising the issue of the "just war" which is perhaps a more old fashioned term for a humanitarian war.
(...)
The need to wage a war on Iraq, for example, was, in my view, an admission that we did not consider ourselves up to the diplomatic task of achieving the desired results through political means. A somewhat sad state of affairs considering the resources at our disposal.
Ad.#1

Could someone please explain me exacly what this term means.

Ad.#2

Perhaps Bush tried to do what his father failed ? Or maybe the vision of iraqi oil going somewhere else was to disturbung ? Show of power to the rest of the world ? Especially UN ? Or US administration considers Putin to be trying ressurect USSR ? Or maybe Jackson acctually never had a plastic operation ? (I could go like that for ever)


[Anyway...Sadam, what ever you say about him, never were a terroris and US admin. never (I think) said it clearly, but only put him on the black list.

Now, can someone can tell me how the ammerican attack on Iraq has affected the terrorists ?]

[Biggles]

In times gone past many people took religion very seriously. The commandment not to kill was important and Kings were often troubled by this.

There were few options open to them.

Firstly they had to pay penance for deaths caused by their wars - usually through building churches and monasteries etc., (which is why particularly warlike Kings built so many churches) and

Secondly, it helped if the Pope declared that the war was "just" and therefore the will of God.

I only raised the idea as LBS's humanitarian war seemed liked a modern version of an old concept.

[Autumn Fox]

Originally posted by Biggles@17 June 2004 - 00:26
(...)
Secondly, it helped if the Pope declared that the war was "just" and therefore the will of God.
(...)
Nothing like heretic statments. . As longboneslinger said:
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (It's about the popes and them kings, not you). And now the church wants to that christianity is to be mentioned in the EU constitution as a perfect thing - without the sinful things that happend due to them. And the worst thing is that, that many people don't want to know about it and when you mention many people here (Poland) can even go balistic. I hate religion leaders. Goverments should have such power, not institutions that can go even paramilitary.

[longboneslinger]

You have a point, Autumn. The Church (Whichever Church you care to mention) has done some horrible things. The Salem Witch Hunts, the Spanish Inquisition's, and the Crusades spring to mind. The Spanish Garduna are good expamles of Church power run amock. Terrorists are the extreme example.

On the other hand, the Church has also done tremendous good. Helping the poor, negotiating treaties, helping lost souls find God. Holy wars are horrors beyond imagining. Once a person beleives he/she is on a mission from God they can become blind to all but their own percieved 'truths'. It becomes easy to rationalize anything. Killing children, for example. Nits make lice, they'll just grow up to be sinners, idolators, etc. That they do evil is impossible, to them, because they are on a mission from God. With each murder or killing the next becomes easier. Wars are much the same. Once you've loosed the Dogs of War, they can become hard to muzzle. It can become easy. Especially now that some look at not how many lives can be spared, but how many are expendable, what are 'acceptable losses'.

To me, no one is 'expendable'. This reduces human lives to mere numbers. When we become nothing but numbers, we are less than human. Our lives become cheap. 1 life lost is to many. To decide someone is 'expendable' is trespassing on the divine. Who gives you, me, or anyone else the right to decide that someone else is 'expendable'. That power is, and should, be reserved by God alone.

[Autumn Fox]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@18 June 2004 - 00:03
(...)
On the other hand, the Church has also done tremendous good. Helping the poor, negotiating treaties, helping lost souls find God. Holy wars are horrors beyond imagining. Once a person beleives he/she is on a mission from God they can become blind to all but their own percieved 'truths'. It becomes easy to rationalize anything. Killing children, for example. Nits make lice, they'll just grow up to be sinners, idolators, etc. That they do evil is impossible, to them, because they are on a mission from God. With each murder or killing the next becomes easier. Wars are much the same. Once you've loosed the Dogs of War, they can become hard to muzzle. It can become easy. Especially now that some look at not how many lives can be spared, but how many are expendable, what are 'acceptable losses'.
(...)
Who gives you, me, or anyone else the right to decide that someone else is 'expendable'. That power is, and should, be reserved by God alone.
Ad.#1

I have never said diffrently and i do agree that the church has made some magnificent things. But thinking is such way (only about thoes good things) can make anyone a holy person. (Columbus, Einstein, Anan, Pol Pot, Jack the Ripper)

Ad.#2

I'm speeking from a position of an ateist thus i have no such limitations. What i do is rationalize and argument my statments and if i find meself wrong i correct it. For me, in this matter, there aren't any unquestionable truths nor falses.

And my list is based on this. For a nation or even the planet to survive is to have organised and efficient structure capable of expantion.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@16 June 2004 - 02:14
A good dictatorship is news to me.
The term "benevelant despot" would be an an apt description.

Can't actually think of any off the top of my head...

[longboneslinger]

I'm speeking from a position of an ateist thus i have no such limitations.
I don't think of 'religion' as a limitation. The teachings, not the church. Caring for and loving others is a laudable dream. One thing most religions have in common is their view on the sanctity of life. One of the worlds ills is that we place far to little a value on that which has the highest value: human life.
The loss of life due to war is horrible. Both to combatants and non-combatants alike. Not to mention the loss of resources, property and infrastructures.


I have never said diffrently and i do agree that the church has made some magnificent things. But thinking is such way (only about thoes good things) can make anyone a holy person. (Columbus, Einstein, Anan, Pol Pot, Jack the Ripper)


NOt true. Thinking about something doesn't make one holy. One must live a holy life to earn that distinction. Mother Teresa comes to mind. Sigh. Now company is here :angry: , so I'll try to finish this train of thought later..........

Later taters,
BoNe