War

 
   I think it is about time to create a new item on the principles of war.   
   This is it. (***)

   War is ugly & destructive & has an effect upon everybody, surviving or not. If war has some cosmic purpose for & by itself it is unknown to me at this time. I am reminded of Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. V,39; Luke VI,29).

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

   But, like the Golden Rule, it is much harder to apply to groups or masses of people who are not all in communication with each other or in agreement together nor are all Christians.

   At the personal level I have an all or nothing approach.  I shall do everything in my power to avoid a conflict. But, if you insist on fighting then I will do everything in my power to kill you or make it so that you will never again force me to fight you.  I come to this not from pacifism but from strength.  This stand is not good for whole countries because not everyone in a country is so committed. Each enemy is different, each era & war is different. In WW-II a couple of atomic bombs ended the war with Japan.  Now our enemies may have atomic weapons. Armies against armies is going out of style & insurgents & terrorists showing up in the midst of our country is a distinct possibility.  Death is desirable for the martyr & is not much of a deterrent for the hypnotized & insane. 

   This is not about Evil, though - it's about war & going to war. Triangulation with evil is not power but love.

   The solution is one by one to outlaw war. Gather a core of people & countries who totally outlaw war as a medium of change & political achievement & gather it into a critical mass such that anyone, any group or any people who start a war of any kind are swiftly dealt with in such a way as to become completely isolated from the rest of the humanity until that group, people or head of state transforms & agrees to the principles articulated here (& in the future) whole-heartedly. 

   That being said, another principle needs to be articulated such that those who outlaw war have something to guide them.  The principles that guide must include:

  1. Freedom - the right of all people to live in freedom and dignity
  2. The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all
  3. The equality of dignity of women and men 
  4. The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion

  5. The willingness to share natural resources in a dynamic equilibrium with the rest of the world such that all parties are benefited

  6. A wonder & love of the differences & similarities of all peoples & cultures that populate the Earth.

  7. (Consider also some rights in current documents such as the U.S. Constitution & other international documents.)

This is a first draft - others may come.

Tags

  1. war
  2. self defense

Comments


Mark de LA says
M 2008-06-11 18:46:21 10284
So how would you apply your nice principle to stop Iran from accomplishing it's declared goal to wipe Israel off the face of the map; possibly with nuclear weapons?

Obama promises : "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything" to AIPAC! I wonder what that is? Does it really align with Seth? Including war?

As the principles in this item get fleshed out by reality, I will move or create new items for the specifics.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 17:33:19 10284
My principal is simply that war is not permissable except in self defense.  Another way to state that is countries should never act to change things by violence; nor should they allow others to change their homeland with violence.  
That's nice.

Seth says
M 2008-06-12 09:28:32 10284
So coalitions & treaties rear their ugly heads. Can we avoid going to war for a friend that is attacked? Can we avoid going to war when a coalition of enemy forces attacks us or our friends ?
The principal i voiced above is a general one.  Real world situations are gnarly and nuisanced.  Use my principal to see the extremes -- so that spreading democracy, or communism, or Islam, or Christianity throught the world could never be seen as self defense.  Defending a friend or ally against actual attack is certainly self defense.  Attacking a percieved enemy for what they might do 5 years from now is not.

Mark de LA says
As far as banning all nukes, it's as simple as banning all guns.  Try banning all guns in your neighborhood & I suspect that the only people who will have guns are the criminals. In particular, banning all nukes will suddenly make a critical mass of nuclear material & bombs available for dis-assembly & the black market. Not everyone in Iran desires death & martyrdom over life. If they did, I would suggest giving it to them first.  The fact that they all don't gives leverage for alternatives. The fact that we do have a nuclear deterrent also makes alternatives possible.


Seth says
M 2008-06-12 10:53:56 10284
So to tease this out a bit more: Is it within the Seth principle that those who are spreading their doctrines such as China of communism are to be left alone?  Are those who suppress their own people, like Saddam Hussein who changed his homeland by violence, to be left alone? Is Iran who exports terrorism to Israel, Lebanon & Iraq to be left alone.  How would Seth's war principle ever be carried out in practice? Are we to believe that it is best to wait until the bombs fall on our homeland before taking action?
Basically i don't accept the premises in your assertions.  China is not spreading communism - the soviet union was, but we all know what happened to it.  The current administration's adventurism has not made us safer -- rather the opposite.  Say whatever you like about Sadam he balanced the threat from Iran nicely.  And this alleged war on terriorism is pretty much a made up enemy and a overaction to a small band of extreamists.  Making a war is a matter of getting people to believe in a threat.  Making them afraid.  Take all of that super hype out of the equation and, in most cases, you won't need a war.  A threat to our homeland must be real and imminent then it is self defense. 

The threat to Israel is another question.  They are in a precarious position over there.  That situation needs some serious re-thinking.  As to the nuclear threat - it is real.   The problem is the nukes themselves - not a particular country having them.  The solution is simple, but takes a lot of courage: get rid of all of them.  

Mark de LA says
Ask Tibet about China's spread of communism. Consider Cuba & Venezuela who are moving rapidly in the same direction. Glad you thought Saddam Hussein was beneficial - you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh? Loved it when he & his sons raped & tortured his people because he balanced Iran, eh? Most of the rest of your stuff is anti-war, anti-Bush rehash of TIRED Iraq war rhetoric.  See 4413 for an explanation. No solutions is what Bill C. did to prepare for 9-11. Take them all to court, eh?
 

Seth says
M 2008-06-12 11:59:37 10284
seth 2008-06-12 11:52:06 10284
source: M above
you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh?
That was self defense (of an ally).  See the difference. 
Actually I will invoke the Seth & John F. Kerry nuance rule - Iraq was up to the time considered an ally against Iran & got weapons support from the U.S.  This must have been an ally against an ally situation. The US liked Iraq more than Iran whom Carter allowed to take our embassy.

Iraq clearly invaded Kuwait which was our ally and we justifiably defended them - your fuzzy history notwistanding.  I believe the Iraq/Iran war was, at that time, years in the past. 

Note also, in support of my principal, that the major US wars honestly justified by self defense, have ended in victory.  Those that were not, ended in quagmires:

 War Victory
Quagmire
Self Defense
 WWI yes
  yes
WWII
yes
  yes
Korea
?
  yes
VietNam
  yes
no
1st Gulf war
yes
  yes
Iraq invasion
  yes
no


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-12 11:52:06 10284
source: M above
you didn't mind when he invaded Kuwait, eh?
That was self defense (of an ally).  See the difference. 
Actually I will invoke the Seth & John F. Kerry nuance rule - Iraq was up to the time considered an ally against Iran & got weapons support from the U.S.  This must have been an ally against an ally situation. The US liked Iraq more than Iran whom Carter allowed to take our embassy.


Mark de LA says
Well, Seth your brain is the fuzzy-buzzy one! We sold weapons to Saddam and this following picture might jog your brain. Apparently things soured after he invaded Kuwait.


Seth says
source: M above
We sold weapons to Saddam and this following picture might jog your brain. Apparently things soured after he invaded Kuwait.
So what?  An ally is not an ally forever.  A enemy is not an enemy forever.  A war is justifed or not by the current situation, not by the history of previous arms dealings.  I don't chatch your train of though here.  

Mark de LA says
So Saddam Hussein became an enemy after he was an ally after he invaded Kuwait. And then he became an enemy after he refused to comply with the UN resolutions; having shown that he would threaten his neighbors.


Seth says
M 2008-06-15 10:12:14 10284
source: ...
You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

... Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!  As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness? Europe, unlike the US has been investing heavily in nuclear power for a long time.


Again with writing untrue sentences about me ... is that really necessary?

Anyway you dont't need to plunge the world into darkness.  You could use the existing plants or retrofit them to burn up the existing nuclear materials.  That should help us untill the recyclable alternatives start comming on-line.

Seth says
M 2008-06-15 09:21:35 10284
M 2008-06-12 11:50:07 10284
As far as banning all nukes, it's as simple as banning all guns.  Try banning all guns in your neighborhood & I suspect that the only people who will have guns are the criminals. In particular, banning all nukes will suddenly make a critical mass of nuclear material & bombs available for dis-assembly & the black market. Not everyone in Iran desires death & martyrdom over life. If they did, I would suggest giving it to them first.  The fact that they all don't gives leverage for alternatives. The fact that we do have a nuclear deterrent also makes alternatives possible.

YEP, ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE NUKES IF WE GET RID OF OURS!

You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

Mark de LA says
source: ...
You old addage does not work here because guns are low tech, but enriching uranium is very high tech.  Once all the bombs are gone and nobody is allowed to enrich uranium, then nobody can get their hands on a nuclear bomb.  Look it won't be easy ... but then neither is nukes going off and fighting wars to prevent them from going off.

... Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!  As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness? Europe, unlike the US has been investing heavily in nuclear power for a long time.



Seth says
M 2008-06-15 10:36:25 10284
Which one's untrue?
All of the sentences where I am the subject are either strickly untrue or total distortions of the truth.  I don't know if you noticed, but i do try to write sentences that are true.  One way i do that is not to write about your intentions, feelings, beliefs ... rather i write about my own, which i can vouch for.  Or write about known and documented events of history.

Note the only sentence that your wrote that was true was: "Europe, unlike the US has been investing heavily in nuclear power for a long time." which i responded to and did form some basis of interest and dialogue for me.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-15 10:43:26 10284
M 2008-06-15 10:36:25 10284
Which one's untrue?
All of the sentences where I am the subject are either strickly untrue or total distortions of the truth.  I don't know if you noticed, but i do try to write sentences that are true.  One way i do that is not to write about your intentions, feelings, beliefs ... rather i write about my own, which i can vouch for.  Or write about known and documented events of history. 
You must be objecting to one of 2 sentences: (let's see if they are true):
M: ...
Your knee-jerk (sic) response unconceals the fact that you didn't bother to read the article!
... Did you in fact read the whole article before you responded with your get rid of the nukes comment? If, not it was knee-jerk. If so then . (scout's honor)
 
M: ...
As a secondary consideration do you also want to plunge the world into darkness?
... this comment is within editorial limits. It points to the consequence of your "nobody is allowed to enrich uranium" silliness. Since there are a lot of nuclear power plants in the world that use less than weapons grade nuclear material people will still need to process uranium to keep them going. We can't just turn nuclear bomb material into power plant material. Your pie in the sky suggestion has as much illative force as Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along!". You still ignore the fact that terrorists will have a bomb & don't play by the rules of civilized people. That is much like criminals who have guns but don't & won't care about laws requiring registration.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-16 08:47:26 10284
In summary:
  • 120 trillion $ : refine nuclear materials
  • 300 trillion $ : clean up after the nukes go off
  • Never having refined then in the first place,  PRICELES
Had there not been a premature ejaculation leaving Iraq during the first gulf war then the 2nd one would not have been needed at all!

With Democrats in charge I suspect there will be  another premature ejaculation!




Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-18 10:29:11 10284
source: M above
Had there not been a premature ejaculation leaving Iraq during the first gulf war then the 2nd one would not have been needed at all!
Well there were a lot of people, myself included, who were surprised that the 1st Bush did not polish off Sadam.  In retrospect, some of us now see the wisdom of Bush senior's reluctance to create a power vacuum in Iraq.  Now in vein we search for a power there to balance our real enemy in the region which is the Iranian Mullahs.  Unfortunately no power is emerging and we must substitute our own.  Hence McCain's 100 years war is what we actually face in the middle east.  Or withdraw and let the region find it's own balance. 

Nope! We were afraid of our own power & what the world would say if we finished them off! There is nothing like victory that gives a country the power to determine how democracy & freedom gets implemented.  King George found that out. The emperor Hirohito found it out. Saddam Hussein found it out. The Kaiser found it out as did Hitler who committed suicide!  And ... Osama rightly calculated that Bill Clinton was more interested in having his cock sucked than protecting this country & Osama & his organization miscalculated that Bush would do the same! too bad! He (Osama) is hiding in a cave somewhere; hopefully about to have a Predator end his reveries of the glory days of the twin towers.


See Also

  1. Thought War in Syria - 2017 with 392 viewings related by tag "war".
  2. Thought War with North Korea with 190 viewings related by tag "War".
  3. Thought War Powers - To Fetishize or Not to Fetishize with 68 viewings related by tag "war".
  4. Thought No More Wars? with 61 viewings related by tag "war".
  5. Thought War in the Middle East with 51 viewings related by tag "war".
  6. Thought The Merry Go Round with 47 viewings related by tag "war".
  7. Thought Enough already yet ! with 23 viewings related by tag "war".
  8. Thought about: Lecture Series: The Building at Dornach with 14 viewings related by tag "war".
  9. Thought The Decay of Society with 4 viewings related by tag "war".
  10. Thought Why War? with 3 viewings related by tag "war".
  11. Thought Apocalypse or A Pack of Lips? with 3 viewings related by tag "war".
  12. Thought The drums of war on Iran with 3 viewings related by tag "war".
  13. Thought Diaspora with 2 viewings related by tag "war".
  14. Thought about: You can't end a war, you can only win it or lose it. with 2 viewings related by tag "war".
  15. Thought War or Assassination ? with 2 viewings related by tag "war".
  16. Thought The Dogs Of War with 2 viewings related by tag "war".
  17. Thought about: Situation Called Dire in West Iraq with 1 viewings related by tag "war".
  18. Thought A pacifist fails to respond at all - just like a pacifist would with 1 viewings related by tag "war".
  19. Thought Second Nobel Prize? with 1 viewings related by tag "war".
  20. Thought Hippies & Insanity with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  21. Thought A terrible question ... with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  22. Thought Scariest Headline Yet with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  23. Thought about: Is Iran planning a cataclysmic strike for August 22? with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  24. Thought about: Mark's Hollywood Ending with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  25. Thought Murder & Merde with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  26. Thought about: Olmert gives IDF green light to expand ground offensive with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  27. Thought Would that it was Otherwise with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  28. Thought UN Resolution 1701 with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  29. Thought The Quintessential Jewish Script with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  30. Thought What does stay the course really mean? with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  31. Thought What Causes War? with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  32. Thought about: aljazeera.net with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  33. Thought about: Al-Qaeda planning militant Islamic state within Iraq with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  34. Thought Where are we in the script ? with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  35. Thought about: Hezbollah Denies Firing Rockets at Haifa - Forbes.com with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  36. Thought WAR! with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  37. Thought The Art of War - Sun Tzu with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  38. Thought about: Doc Searls: War in pieces with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  39. Thought One road to peace ... saying things that need to be said. with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  40. Thought War & Peace with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  41. Thought Pictures from the Front Lines with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  42. Thought about: Iran is the real winner in the war on terror with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  43. Thought Will Israel take out Iran's nukes ? with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  44. Thought about: pepe le pew diplomacy: typically french with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  45. Thought Showing the horrors of war with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  46. Thought Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  47. Thought Pacifism with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  48. Thought The USA War Against Terrorists with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  49. Thought Country Sizes with 0 viewings related by tag "war".
  50. Thought Drums of War - Africa with 0 viewings related by tag "war".