Post by Lions Growl of Butchers FoulPost by de chuckaI was discussing the latest attacks in Indonesia with a couple of mates
last night. My point was how could anybody could kill people in the name
of religion. It was raised that my Grandfather left Australia in 1915 to
kill people in Europe in the name of the Crown. When I raised that he
was only killing other soldiers it was quickly mentioned the history of
civilians being killed in the name of 'something'. The Romans, Greeks,
Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, American Civil War, bombing of cities in
WW2 etc.
This is not a defence of terrorism rather a comment that killing
civilians in the name of 'something' no matter what is WRONG. At least
soldiers know what they are getting into and in most cases put their
hand up for it.
1/ A method for resolving disputes antecedent to all Diplomacy or States, and therefore a primal urge
2/ A continuation of politics by other means
And Lenin says words to the effect of "Politics is the reason, war is the tool"
So wars must all differ in how justified they are, depending in what the dispute it, what the politics is.
1. The British waged war on the cult of Kali. The nature of Kali engendered disputes between those who were targeted by Kali, and those who did not wish to be robbed or murdered. The British made a political decision to eliminate the source of such disputes by eliminating Kali. Each side employed their respective adherents to fight the other.
We would be asked to accept the justification that Kali's devotion to robbery and murder meant that Kali should be destroyed and that any casualties were the necessary result of achieving that justified aim.
Kali? It's the 21st century, not colonial India.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers Foul2. The USA - with proxies - waged war on the Vietnamese Communists. Many layers of disputes arose between those who wanted to impose Communist rule, and those who wanted to resist it. The USA made a political decision that Communism should be resisted. Opposing Communist states made the political decision that Communism in Vietnam should be assisted. The adherents to each political entity did their jobs by fighting each other.
We would be asked to accept the justification that, Communism representing an unacceptable threat to personal freedoms and personal quality of life, any casualties were the necessary result of achieving that justified aim.
That is a very misleading narrative of the war in Vietnam. The facts
are that the Japanese kicked the European colonisers out of Asia during
WW2, which was a basic bit of Japanese foreign policy. After the War,
the French returned, and got their arses comprehensively kicked by the
Vietnamese. Vietnam was then divided between the north and the south,
with a promise of a referendum to join the two parts. The south reneged
on the deal, being the corrupt cretins they were, and the Vietnam war
began. The US, in its traditional fuckwitted way, intervened. The
north Vietnamese duly kicked the arses of the US and its allies,
including Australia, and the US and its allies ran away.
Vietnam is now an undivided and independent country, where the post-WW2
war there achieved nothing.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers FoulSo war, being either a continuation of politics, or a tool of politics, is therefore just as unavoidably complex and full of moral compromises as politics itself obviously is.
You either morally accept murder and robbery and oppose Kali's elimination, or you accept deaths will be the result of ending Kali's murder and robbery.
You either morally accept persecutions, dire poverty and state-sanctioned mass-murder, or you accept deaths will be the result of ending Communist rule.
Bullshit. Communist rule is not ended by war, certainly not war imposed
by external States. It collapses from within.
And persecutions, dire poverty and state-sanctioned mass-murder are not
inventions of communism.
Post by Lions Growl of Butchers FoulThis is about "why way" not "how war".
"How war" is a different, and constantly evolving issue, and we have things like Geneva Conventions to try to agree on it as well as other tacit agreements such as the almost total absence of chemical warfare during WW2, or today's situation where only a handful of States employ cluster munitions.
No! Really?