War as "necessary evil"

[barsoomcore]

Once you have violated the sovereign territory of a foreign power you have committed an act of war. That starts the war, not the violence.

Don't start bringing in definitions now, we're having so much fun....



I hope it's clear by how wide a margin that definition misses the entire point. But if not, I'm not talking about the definition of war as regarded by international law but rather a common-sense definition that I hope we all understand. If there is no defence, there is no war. Germany may have committed an act of war with the annexation of the Sudetenland (sp), but World War II didn't begin until the Polish shot back.

 

[tburdett]

I hope it's clear by how wide a margin that definition misses the entire point. But if not, I'm not talking about the definition of war as regarded by international law but rather a common-sense definition that I hope we all understand. If there is no defence, there is no war. Germany may have committed an act of war with the annexation of the Sudetenland (sp), but World War II didn't begin until the Polish shot back.

That is my common-sense definition, and I am sure that we all understand perfectly well what it means.

You cross THAT line right there and it is on. No quarter, no mercy. Make peace with your God and bring lots of body bags. What? You don't like that? Then don't cross the line.

Philosophy is an attempt to obfuscate the simple.

 

[barsoomcore]

Ah. A position statement is different from a definition. You're saying that if I march my army into your territory, you will start a war to defend it. Which is different than saying that war, in the general sense, is started by crossing a line on the ground.

Please refer to previous posts in this thread on the difference between starting a war and being responsible for a war.

Philosophy is only useful when uncovers the principles behind the events of our lives, and assists us in making good decisions.

 

[tburdett]

Ah. A position statement is different from a definition. You're saying that if I march my army into your territory, you will start a war to defend it. Which is different than saying that war, in the general sense, is started by crossing a line on the ground.

Please refer to previous posts in this thread on the difference between starting a war and being responsible for a war.

Philosophy is only useful when uncovers the principles behind the events of our lives, and assists us in making good decisions.

What wars do not involve crossing imaginary lines in the sand? Your definition of war includes violence. It is hard for any violent acts to take place without lines being crossed.

If I have made it clear that crossing that line means war, then you are starting the war by crossing that line. Cause and effect.

 

[barsoomcore]

If I have made it clear that crossing that line means war, then you are starting the war by crossing that line. Cause and effect.

I've had this discussion already in this thread. Please read my previous posts for a detailed description as to why you are wrong.

Fact is, if there is no defense, there is no war. If you change your mind and do not defend your territory, then it doesn't matter how many tanks I send in, there is no war. Only if you choose to defend does the war begin.

You are, like other people have done earlier in this thread, confusing issues of judgement with issues of fact. I'm not going to retread those arguments unless you present new ideas that my previous statements do not refute.

 

[tburdett]

I've had this discussion already in this thread. Please read my previous posts for a detailed description as to why you are wrong.

Fact is, if there is no defense, there is no war. If you change your mind and do not defend your territory, then it doesn't matter how many tanks I send in, there is no war. Only if you choose to defend does the war begin.

You are, like other people have done earlier in this thread, confusing issues of judgement with issues of fact. I'm not going to retread those arguments unless you present new ideas that my previous statements do not refute.

Just because YOU believe it to be true, does not mean that I am wrong. You can choose to believe whatever you like. You can believe that the sky is green and that water is poison, but reality does not conform itself to your beliefs.

 

[Altalazar]

Once you have violated the sovereign territory of a foreign power you have committed an act of war. That starts the war, not the violence.

The Amelkites would agree with you. Unfortunately, they were slaughtered to the last baby - all because they had their soverign territory invaded by an allegedly 600K strong army and had the gall to actaully object and try and defend their homes. And it was declared that THEY were the ones who did wrong. Crazy stuff. War is evil.

 

[barsoomcore]

Just because YOU believe it to be true, does not mean that I am wrong. You can choose to believe whatever you like. You can believe that the sky is green and that water is poison, but reality does not conform itself to your beliefs.

Reality does not need to conform to my beliefs -- I have amply demonstrated that my beliefs conform to reality. If you think your beliefs do so more accurately, explain why. If you think that my beliefs suffer from a serious logical flaw, point it out.

I'm looking for the truth here, I'm not blindly defending one position. If you've got ideas that haven't been addressed, bring them up. But what you're saying has already been dealt with.

And just to be clear, only one of us can be right. If I am right then you are necessarily wrong, and vice versa. Regardless of what either of us might wish to believe.

 

[tburdett]

Reality does not need to conform to my beliefs -- I have amply demonstrated that my beliefs conform to reality. If you think your beliefs do so more accurately, explain why. If you think that my beliefs suffer from a serious logical flaw, point it out.

I'm looking for the truth here, I'm not blindly defending one position. If you've got ideas that haven't been addressed, bring them up. But what you're saying has already been dealt with.

And just to be clear, only one of us can be right. If I am right then you are necessarily wrong, and vice versa. Regardless of what either of us might wish to believe.

Our belief systems are obviously too diverse to make any headway in this conversation. Natural selection will favor my belief system in the long run, and I am content with that.

 

[barsoomcore]

Our belief systems are obviously too diverse to make any headway in this conversation. Natural selection will favor my belief system in the long run, and I am content with that.

It's not clear to me that our beliefs diverge at all, since you have offered very little explication or defense of your statements. I remain interested in what you have to say, if you will only formulate new ideas that haven't yet been demonstrated to be false.

But if not, I am happy you are at least content.