We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people.

War can be ended.

In my opinion, all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers, and in absolutely no way can that be justified as the right thing to do.

9-11 was not an attack on America. It was an attack by humans on other humans. America is not an ideal, it is a landmass. There are no Americans, only people born in America.

WWII was not Germans enslaving Jews and fighting America and other countries. WWII was humans enslaving humans and fighting other humans.

We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people.

War can be ended. We just have to stop playing.

My thoughts are all over the place, sorry. Thoughts?

Dr. Robert S. Hartman's definition of "war" is "Organized mass-murder in the name of a good cause."

I have seen no definition that improves upon this. It says it all.

We may well question: Was World War II a separate war, or just the continuation of World War I ?

If anyone want to challenge the concept that war is craziness; just ask any General with battlefield experience!

Every war has 'unforeseen contingencies' = events that were not predicted. Every war has "co-lateral damage", a euphemism for the murder of innocent civilians.

Every (recent, and perhaps not-so-recent, war has old men sending young men to be martyrs.

WHO NEEDS IT !!

So you are saying that not even the allied response to Nazi aggression, was justified? Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?

OK, how is this example relevant to the point that war is not justifiable?
Please explicate your argument.

OK, what is your point?
His point is given in the very next quotation that you selected, viz., "We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people." We are one human species, one race - the human race. We have a common interest: which is the sustainability of our species and the cultural advancements it has made. [...the planet will survivie...even if the next war we commit is mostly in outer space (a 'star wars' type of battle, that irradiates most of us into genetic mutants, or hurts us by contaminating our air supply.)]

stew;105740 wrote:

If you think that war is not taken seriously enough, I would agree....

Thank you.

....

stew;105740 wrote:

Mass murder? Thats a fairly loaded description.

It is required for the very reason you mentioned in your last observation that "war is not taken seriously enough." What you call 'loading' is emphasis - being emphatic !! - on the point that every human life (from the point of view of Ethics) is of indefinitely-large value, an infinum, in Lattice Theory, and thus is rather precious.

stew;105740 wrote:

war: fighting that involves various belligerent parties.

Your definition would claim that a bar-room brawl is a "war." Any melee becomes a war under your inadequate definition.

Dr. Hartman's definition captres the essence of it. There is (often manufactured) malice aforethought in a war. The participants are taught to kill, and to first de-humanize their victims by regarding them as "monkeys", "gooks", "scum", "ragheads," etc. This commits ethical fallacies. Ethics ought to be imporatant to members of this Forum, I would venture to say.

Historians have made a good case that The Treaty of Versailles, after World War I, led directly to Hitler's being able to mobilize Germans to wage World War II. It is a persuasive argument they make.

From my point of view each war is a prelude to the next one; it sows the seeds for a future violent conflict by setting an example that "violence is legitimate, and can solve problems" ...which from an Ethical viewpoint is a whopper if there ever was one.

stew;105740 wrote:

Soldiers lives should be considered anything but trivial. Same should go for innocent people as well.

Again, thank you. This shows enlightenment.

As I have written in several posts here, we largely operate from self-interest. There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is enlightened.

Enlightened self-interest is the awareness that what helps you helps me; what hurts you (eventually) hurts me. ...No matter who "you" are.

stew;105740 wrote:

How about putting it in a not so loaded way: if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless,

I agree with you when you say, " if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless". And would add that war, indeed, is a social invention that we are ready to outgrow. We need only become aware of this. The media can spread the word ...IF we demand it of them. First we must care; then we must mobilize for action. Nonviolent Direct Action can serve as an alternative. It starts locally with conflict resolution in the immediate family; then in the neighborhood; then in the city. We need more people to go into the profession of Mediator; and that of Negotiator.
War really is unnecessary.

The arts of diplomacy really have not been tried in a timely fashion, i.e., long before a war is waged.

The Afghans today would welcome us if we came as civilians to construct, to feed and nourish, to build, to teach engineering, etc. If we invade and/or occupy as soldiers, or as armed combatants, in or out of uniform, they feel they must drive us out. They see us as they did the British, the Russians, etc. And we will get nowhere. End war now.

A soldier, once and I never considered myself murderous. The fear of killing is no less worrying for many soldiers than getting shot. One in ten soldiers have been found to shoot at the enemies legs or miss altogether. There are killing machines in any army but in general they are not what they are perceived. We are all soldiers when the enemy is knocking on the door and we are all responsible for their actions, in our name.

Yeah, I really don't mean to give the impression that I dislike soldiers or think they are bad people. That would be highly ignorant.

I think the best way I could put it is that in a civilized society, there should be no need for soldiers, and there should be no politicians to force them into situations where they must kill.

Nazis are not bad people. They are people with bad beliefs. Beliefs can be changed.

You write: "Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?"
Those aren't the only two alternatives ...unless one is only capable of thinking in 'black-or-white', 'either-or', terms.
In Value Science the latter is known, technically, as Systemic-Thinking, and is relatively low in value. (See the Chapter on Dimensions of Value, and also Appendix One in the manual, a link to which is available in the signature.)

The topic of this thread is not "the justification of war" or its non-justification. It is for the majority of the human family to look at war from a novel perspective which is being suggested here. I say "novel" for it is rather different from the prevailing perspectives on the subject.

His point is given in the very next quotation that you selected, viz., "We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people." We are one human species, one race - the human race. We have a common interest: which is the sustainability of our species and the cultural advancements it has made. [...the planet will survivie...even if the next war we commit is mostly in outer space (a 'star wars' type of battle, that irradiates most of us into genetic mutants, or hurts us by contaminating our air supply.)]

It is required for the very reason you mentioned in your last observation that "war is not taken seriously enough." What you call 'loading' is emphasis - being emphatic !! - on the point that every human life (from the point of view of Ethics) is of indefinitely-large value, an infinum, in Lattice Theory, and thus is rather precious.

Your definition would claim that a bar-room brawl is a "war." Any melee becomes a war under your inadequate definition.

Dr. Hartman's definition captres the essence of it. There is (often manufactured) malice aforethought in a war. The participants are taught to kill, and to first de-humanize their victims by regarding them as "monkeys", "gooks", "scum", "ragheads," etc. This commits ethical fallacies. Ethics ought to be imporatant to members of this Forum, I would venture to say.

Historians have made a good case that The Treaty of Versailles, after World War I, led directly to Hitler's being able to mobilize Germans to wage World War II. It is a persuasive argument they make.

From my point of view each war is a prelude to the next one; it sows the seeds for a future violent conflict by setting an example that "violence is legitimate, and can solve problems" ...which from an Ethical viewpoint is a whopper if there ever was one.

I agree with you when you say, " if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless". And would add that war, indeed, is a social invention that we are ready to outgrow. We need only become aware of this. The media can spread the word ...IF we demand it of them. First we must care; then we must mobilize for action. Nonviolent Direct Action can serve as an alternative. It starts locally with conflict resolution in the immediate family; then in the neighborhood; then in the city. We need more people to go into the profession of Mediator; and that of Negotiator.
War really is unnecessary.

The Afghans today would welcome us if we came as civilians to construct, to feed and nourish, to build, to teach engineering, etc. If we invade and/or occupy as soldiers, or as armed combatants, in or out of uniform, they feel they must drive us out. They see us as they did the British, the Russians, etc. And we will get nowhere. End war now.

First post, new to forums.
I agree with Aedes.
.... Many societies in history have been devoted primarily to martial prowess most namely the Spartans of ancient Greece and the Vikings.

To make the statement "all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers" is ignorant...

Conflict in general although often unpleasant fuels human competition and human progression. ...

However i do agree some wars are not worth the price in human collateral.

Exactly how might this be accomplished?
I

Find me one example of a prominent Nazi who expressed regret (let alone mortification) after the war and maybe I'll go along with this. I've read a great deal on this subject -- and what's shocking is that after the war, even decades later, expressions of remorse were incredibly uncommon. The most famous example of remorse was by Rudolf Hoess, who was the commandant of Auschwitz -- but his remorse was VERY tongue-in-cheek, because at his execution he apologized for his crime against Poland and not against Jews (even though over 90% of his victims were non-Polish Jews). The other example of remorse was Hans Frank, the governor-general of Poland; I've not read his statement, but his own children felt that it was disingenuous.

Other major Nazis who admitted their involvement, like Eichmann and Stangl and Blobel NEVER expressed any regret or remorse. The majority of ex-Nazis justified it, denied it happened, or claimed to be just following orders and not responsible for their actions.

Yes, and where is Sparta,, the City-State and the culture, today? And where is the Viking culture today? ...extinct.

It didn't help them much to engage in warfare.

If we can go to the moon, build supercomputers, use nuclear power, or find it necessary to have 700 channels, we CAN find an alternative to war.

But violence, my friend, is NOT beneficial to the recipient of it. If his thinking is unenlightened, he will often brood about getting revenge, and one day may actually wreak vengeance.

if leaders assume no responsibility whatsoever, how is that in practical terms, any better than retributive justice in war tribunals?

I think it helps in a few respects, even if the leader is indignant and defiant (like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein).

1) It's a major catharsis and reassurance to the victims and to the world that the world community considers this a grave crime, and that humans (as opposed to circumstances) are to be held responsible

2) It reminds leaders in power that they will never be immune from their actions. Some may get away with it, but some (like Charles Taylor, like Fujimori, like Saddam Hussein) can't escape forever.

3) You can't punish every functionary in a genocide. So you have to punish the ones issuing the orders. To execute every person who was in some way actively responsible for the Holocaust, even if just by calling out Jews, would be a genocide unto itself.

This i could not disagree with more. Physical violence very often has a beneficial effect to someone's metal state. Often being physically assaulted can have the effect of removing ones ego and regularly being put into stressful physical situations where your forced to defend yourself can teach young men especially to have a more calm and assertive nature and get rid of many of the innate insecurities regarding young men's masculinity that plenty of young men suffer from in modern western society.

This i could not disagree with more. Physical violence very often has a beneficial effect to someone's metal state. Often being physically assaulted can have the effect of removing ones ego and regularly being put into stressful physical situations where your forced to defend yourself can teach young men especially to have a more calm and assertive nature and get rid of many of the innate insecurities regarding young men's masculinity that plenty of young men suffer from in modern western society.
The majority of the time the injuries are superficial and cosmetic, however I agree that once weapons are involved the individual conflict has escalated to a point where it in most cases would be more beneficial for both parties not to continue.

I must say, I do agree with this. But to me, there's a HUGE difference between violence for the sake of instinctual self-improvement, and violence for the sake of killing, pride, and ego.

There are few things in life more ego-destroying than being in a fist-fight. As long as nobody gets seriously injured, and as long as it's not done out of anger or contempt, I see few things wrong with fighting.

War, on the other hand, is a completely different game.