The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man

[Which Tyler]

For those who'd rather talk about such things, than current, ongoing conflicts.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

War, for anything but self defense or stopping ongoing genocide is wrong.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

War, for anything but self defense or stopping ongoing genocide is wrong.

I’d add, war in defence of an ally, if that’s not covered by self-defence.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@James Arryn

Quote

Scot, if you don’t even have enough respect for me or my field to read a single post that might, just might, give you a different perspective, than this exchange has at least informed me as to that. And while I have you here, am I correct in remembering your involvement in conversations about what lessons China might or might not take from Russia’s current actions?

Here, will say without equivocation that the US was wrong to invade Iraq. The justifications around self defense offered in 2003 were lies.  I myself shared them and argued in favor of them.  I was wrong and it sames me to think that my rhetoric is not in any way being used as justification for the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In that sense I see your point and I remember people warning of US justifications having bigger rhetorical danger that would blow back at a later date.  Those predictions were correct.

Now.  We are where we are and I think we need to limit war to the two circumstances listed above and look at those justifications, when offered, with skeptical eyes.

[Relic]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@James Arryn

 I was wrong

Really wish it would give me some pleasure in saying "told ya so". But it doesn't. Ok, maybe a tiny bit. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Relic said:

Really wish it would give me some pleasure in saying "told ya so". But it doesn't. Ok, maybe a tiny bit. 

As much as we went back and forth… you earned it.  

[James Arryn]

I’ll expand on a related point re: Iraq. Much has and should be said about the actual invasion itself and the BS justification, but in the diplomatic community Dubya’s  “you’re either with us or against us” was almost as dramatically destructive. That’s not language you use with allies or neutrals, that’s hegemonic direction to subjects. The idea that the US gets to decide what decision everyone else gets to make is…well…dictatorial. For many THAT was the point where they decided to resign, that was the point where 50 years work went up in smoke. 
 

Calling it a Crusade that he’d consulted God on also didn’t really do the world any favours. 
 

 But this returns me to my point: what price was paid by the evildoers? Bush got re-elected, the US didn’t suffer any particular cost, no one was ever brought to The Hague. Lesson: if you’re strong enough and/or have nukes, aggressive actions regardless of reason are not win or lose propositions, they are win, partial win, material win or status ante-bellum. That’s…a dangerous place to live. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by James Arryn

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’ll expand on a related point re: Iraq. Much has and should be said about the actual invasion itself and the BS justification, but in the diplomatic community Dubya’s  “you’re either with us or against us” was almost as dramatically destructive. That’s not language you use with allies or neutrals, that’s hegemonic direction to subjects. The idea that the US gets to decide what decision everyone else gets to make is…well…dictatorial. For many THAT was the point where they decided to resign, that was the point where 50 years work went up in smoke. 
 

Calling it a Crusade that he’d consulted God on also didn’t really do the world any favours. 
 

 But this returns me to my point: what price was paid by the evildoers? Bush got re-elected, the US didn’t suffer any particular cost, no one was ever brought to The Hague. Lesson: if you’re strong enough and/or have nukes, aggressive actions regardless of reason are not win or lose propositions, they are win, partial win, material win or status pro-bellum. That’s…a dangerous place to live. 

And that is what we are struggling with diplomaticly.  Don’t forget that Putin has worked to put friendly or internally facing administrations in place in many of the Great Powers including the US.

[TheLastWolf]

It would help keep the moron population in check, if only those resposible were made to fight, there'd be no more wars

[Wade1865]

46 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

It would help keep the moron population in check, if only those resposible were made to fight, there'd be no more wars

TheLastWolf -- sounds ideal, but that's not what would happen in reality. If political power required participation in battle, our leaders would be younger and stronger, with higher turnover; and wars more personal and rapacious. On the other hand, wars would be smaller in scale but more opportunistic, comprising skirmishes and raids. Ultimately, without war humanity would stagnate or -- more likely -- regress (socially, nutritionally, informationally, culturally, economically, politically, technologically, et sic porro).

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

It would help keep the moron population in check, if only those resposible were made to fight, there'd be no more wars

I don’t know about that.  In Greek city states, those who fought got to vote whether or not to go to war, and in past eras, the upper classes served as knights and army officers.  They all thirsted for war.

We’re just an extremely aggressive species.  The unpalatable truth about violence is that so many of us are good at it, and enjoy it.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

TheLastWolf -- sounds ideal, but that's not what would happen in reality. If political power required participation in battle, our leaders would be younger and stronger, with higher turnover; and wars more personal and rapacious. On the other hand, wars would be smaller in scale but more opportunistic, comprising skirmishes and raids. Ultimately, without war humanity would stagnate or -- more likely -- regress (socially, nutritionally, informationally, culturally, economically, politically, technologically, et sic porro).

There’s truth in that too.  Wars can stimulate technological advance and progressive social changes (such as advances for women).

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Forgetting the syllogistic tankie accusations, tautological declarations that Ukraine =/= Iraq because reasons, and now being branded evil for being detrimental to the defense of Ukraine by posting different ideas on a ASOIAF general chatter board, all of which make absolutely perfect sense to me and don’t require any kind of like actual supporting argument or reasoning, can I pause before the cigarette and blindfold long enough to suggest that the war seems to be clearly entering a stage where the will of the Russian people to keep fighting is becoming increasingly determinant, and that just maybe trying to understand the bases, legit or otherwise, for that will might be kinda, you know, germane? 
 

Just a thought. But do carry on doing your bit to help the defense of Ukraine by strictly posting updates about firefights now that the other posts won’t be somehow preventing those from being posted anymore. 

Does this debating style normally result in productive debates?  Nobody is stopping you from posting.  Just suggesting that there is a thread designed for it.

As for your other point, Russia certainly portrays itself as a victim.  Nothing new there.  Most "villains" do.  They were forced into it etc.  (The US invasion of Iraq was the same in that sense, until that house of cards fell apart).  One should always be wary of giving it too much credit. 

I find it incredibly unlikely that it would view itself less of a victim if the US didn't invade Iraq.  (You could create a very different world where Russia wouldn't find itself a victim but the world is very different, so its meaningless.)

Ultimately though, even if you accept Russia's victim-hood, what would you do differently?   Arrest Bush?  Sure, go for it.  But does it change anything for Ukraine right now?  Nope.

(Just to add.  The Iraq invasion came with a cost.  Obviously not big enough for people like Bush and Cheney but there clearly was a cost.)

[TheLastWolf]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We’re just an extremely aggressive species.  The unpalatable truth about violence is that so many of us are good at it, and enjoy it.

It was natural when we were fighting over food, mates and shelter like any wild animal, but when we started with sticks and stones and fire and now nukes....whats the use of humanity's progress from the cave if evolution is nil

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There’s truth in that too.  Wars can stimulate technological advance and progressive social changes (such as advances for women).

At a great price, yet renaissance comes after a long dark period always.

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

TheLastWolf -- sounds ideal, but that's not what would happen in reality. If political power required participation in battle, our leaders would be younger and stronger, with higher turnover; and wars more personal and rapacious. On the other hand, wars would be smaller in scale but more opportunistic, comprising skirmishes and raids. Ultimately, without war humanity would stagnate or -- more likely -- regress (socially, nutritionally, informationally, culturally, economically, politically, technologically, et sic porro).

Dystopian food for thought

[Wade1865]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t know about that.  In Greek city states, those who fought got to vote whether or not to go to war, and in past eras, the upper classes served as knights and army officers.  They all thirsted for war.

SeanF -- well written, especially the point where they all "thirsted for war." In fact, the classical Greeks and the medieval nobility were my points of reference when responding to TheLastWolf.

[Heartofice]

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There’s truth in that too.  Wars can stimulate technological advance and progressive social changes (such as advances for women).

To be fair, things like plagues and extinction events can also cause progress and some sort of positive change for some!

[Wade1865]

3 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

At a great price, yet renaissance comes after a long dark period always.

TheLastWolf -- this is an interesting point, something I used to think about when I was younger. At this point, the next phase of humanity is to venture into space; but since the moon landing, how far have we come? Not far. Why not? Because of human stagnation, which has prevented us reaching into space. I suppose the space race won't occur in force until there's a collapse of the US-dominated world order and subsequent revitalization.

[TheLastWolf]

4 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

At this point, the next phase of humanity is to venture into space; but since the moon landing, how far have we come? Not far. Why not? Because of human stagnation, which has prevented us reaching into space. I suppose the space race won't occur in force until there's a collapse of the US-dominated world order and subsequent revitalization.

There is no planet B.

There maybe millions, but we have just seen a spoonful of the ocean that is the universe, so probability of finding a planet that supports life and can support our needs too is nil.

But nice to speculate from what you say, Interstellar like wormholes may help.

6 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

TheLastWolf -- this is an interesting point, something I used to think about when I was younger.

Nature is chaotic and anarchy personified yet enduring, we humans force order and bring destruction, only  way to survive is go back to the cave. Not happening, so I give us homo sapiens 70-90 years left on this planet. With or without nukes.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

SeanF -- well written, especially the point where they all "thirsted for war." In fact, the classical Greeks and the medieval nobility were my points of reference when responding to TheLastWolf.

For the Greeks, war was an entirely reasonable means of settling disputes.  Hoplite warfare was actually, for some time, one of the most “humane” methods of warfare.  Essentially, the men of property of two city states would turn up on a battlefield (often agreed in advance ) and settle their dispute by arms.  Typically casualties were around 5% for the winners, 15% for the losers.  The small number of cavalry made a massacre of the beaten side unusual.  Victory was recognised when the losers asked the winners for permission to bury their dead.  Civilian casualties were limited.

It all turned a lot more murderous - with massacre and enslavement of civilians - during the Second Pelopennesian War.

[Padraig]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Typically casualties were around 5% for the winners, 15% for the losers.  The small number of cavalry made a massacre of the beaten side unusual.

Not an expert but I would have thought this is the essential point.  Once WW1 made clear what modern war had developed into, the "thirst for war" changed.  "War as revenge" or to "right a wrong" is obviously still a thing but its a different mindset than pre-WW1.