What are the valid reasons for war?

[KayJay]

What, in your opinion, are justifiable reasons for instigating and prosecuting war?

[kedaman]

power

[Pc_Madness]

All of them are justifiable reasons. ;) Of course, it may not appear so to those being attacked, but the attacker may believe its ok to attack to steal tonnes of swiss cheese. :) (for example ;))

[KayJay]

Originally posted by kedaman
power
I see one more disciple of Lord Russell ;)

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
All of them are justifiable reasons. ;) Of course, it may not appear so to those being attacked, but the attacker may believe its ok to attack to steal tonnes of swiss cheese. :) (for example ;))
I would like your personal opinion, please. Not any faceless attacker. When would you go to war?

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by KayJay
I would like your personal opinion, please. Not any faceless attacker. When would you go to war?

When my cheese supplies ran low? :)

Now, is this as me, as a country leader, or just a soldier?

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
When my cheese supplies ran low? :)

Now, is this as me, as a country leader, or just a soldier?
My apologies. I did not know you would have three different value systems for issues of life and death.

Nevertheless, thank you for your kind participation in my quest for clarity. My sincere gratitude for your invaluable contribution.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by KayJay
I see one more disciple of Lord Russell ;)
sorry I misread the question, I thought you asked for the reason of war.

[Pc_Madness]

Christ, don't get your knickers in a twist, I'm just having some fun.

[KayJay]

Kedaman: So no valid reasons?

[Pc_Madness]

Give us a situation then?

I would do all of the above, as the leader of a country.

If my country was in a bad state (due to my excellent accounting skills), then I wouldn't hesitate to go on a little tour of the neighbours in an attempt to help my people.

Thats the only one thats worth debating I believe. :)

[kedaman]

KayJay: Power isn't a bad thing if you need it. Justification is just another method to practice it.

[KayJay]

Pc_Madness: U would have taken me amiss, if you feel that I am trying to force contributors such as you and kedaman (only ones thus far that I can name) to capitulate and support my public anti-war stand.

I am trying to understand why there is so much support for this war in Iraq. Why there is so much animosity towards others. Its to clarify my values. As I said in an earlier post to you, its a genuine quest for clarity, not a clarion call (sic) for peace demonstrations.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by KayJay
Pc_Madness: U would have taken me amiss, if you feel that I am trying to force contributors such as you and kedaman (only ones thus far that I can name) to capitulate and support my public anti-war stand.

I am trying to understand why there is so much support for this war in Iraq. Why there is so much animosity towards others. Its to clarify my values. As I said in an earlier post to you, its a genuine quest for clarity, not a clarion call (sic) for peace demonstrations.

Don't worry, I won't be changing my views on this. :) I tried to voice one of my real reasons for it on GT, but I got shouted down for it, so my other, more "normal" reasons will do for here. :D

[KayJay]

Originally posted by kedaman
KayJay: Power isn't a bad thing if you need it. Justification is just another method to practice it.
Being a devout student of Lord B. Rusell, I will have to rephrase you there

Power isn't a bad thing if you want it. Its bad if you need it. Justification is always post-failure. Reasoning is pre-success. Rationality is perhaps the only tool one has, to effectively and successfully prosecute a program of destruction.

[kedaman]

KayJay: maybe my view is more simplisistic than yours. But then again I think we are trying to explain different aspects of power.
As individuals you all have needs that have evolved out of natural selection, and since power preserves, the need of power is fundamental. In your point of view it becomes a good thing for yourself, and since there is a limited amount of it there is competition for power. In the process of natural selection war is just a method.

What do you mean by post-failure and pre-success?

[KayJay]

Kedaman:

I think we define "Need" very differently, hence the confusion.

"Pre-success": I meant that establishing and comprehending clearly the motives, processes and expected results, before initiating any action (be it War or writing code for a program) is a precursor to success.

"Post-failure": I meant that if any one of the three (broadly grouping) are not clear and not even attempted to be clarified, then we end up justifying whatever happened after something goes wrong.

To clarify: The current Iraq crises: Note that I am going with what information I have learnt from the media and fellow beating-hearts and thinking-minds such as yourself.

I feel that the US of A has not defined its motives properly and has not put enough thought on the expected results. No doubt, they have been extremely careful with the process, (the precision weapons, military targets only, not aggravating current public mood, etc..).

Hence, we find people justyfying why 12 shells do not constitute WMD or why +/- 25 Kms constitute WMD. Justify why 10,000 Iraqi Republican Guards are not Iraqi people worth liberating.

And because the reasons are not clear, the end-results will be totally screwed up by each party and it then justifies whatever action its takes from then on based on those results.

What are the results the US of A expects? Less terrorism? More stability? More Oil? More power? More freedom? No fear? More economic growth?

Do you see any of that happening in the future based on whats happening today?

[KayJay]

Something wrong with the Poll coding or do I actually see someone select "Loot and Plunder"?

[mkiihne]

I think any of those could be a valid reason depending on the situation in the two warring countries.

In this era of hyper-sensitivity, I believe the world could use more loot and plunder war, and less fighting over ideology.

[MasterBlaster]

OK This is just my opinion.

There is no moral justification for war, If that is the answer your looking for. I am guessing by "valid reason" you are fishing for something that gives us the right to fight with a clean conscience. The Guidelines for morality are pretty much sumed up in the commandments written down in the bible. All religions have their own version of these moral commandments but they basically have the same rules. if you strip out the rules that involve "God"(whichever one/s you worship if any) It is stripped down to.

1 Don't Kill
2 Dont Steal
3 Don't fook your buddies wife
4 Don't lie
5 Respect your elders (They DO know more than you do, no matter how smart you think you are)

Although morality is nice but, what do you do if:
Someone tries to kill you
Someone steals from you (including dignity, posessions, freedom)
Someone Fooks your wife
Someone lies to you or
Your elders don't return your respect

These rules of morality are all fine and good but they only can be achieved if every one follows them. This is in direct contrast to human programming. We have been built by design to be the ultimate killers, thieves, liars, irresponsible reproducing, disrespectfull sons of bitches that the world has ever seen. This has been programmed into us to ensure our survival. Survival is why wars are fought. Hitler gassed jews to ensure the "survival" of purebread arian humans. Japan attacked the US because they ran out of room in japan to support the "Survival" of its empire. Osama Bin hidin attacks to ensure the "Survival" of Muslims with the same religious beliefs as himself. The US nuked Japan to ensure the "Survival" of thousands of American Soldiers.

Sorry for rambling but the only reason for war is that whoever/whatever that designed us built the feature of self preservation into us. As a sick joke someone threw a conscience into the mix. Unfortunatly that is what will keep us from moving on to the next steps of evolution.

[KayJay]

War for Survival - in the 2003rd year of our Lord. And thats around 4000 years less than our total inherited civilizational experience.

Ok. I'm getting somewhere now, now. Thanx for that.

[hellswraith]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
OK This is just my opinion.

There is no moral justification for war, If that is the answer your looking for. I am guessing by "valid reason" you are fishing for something that gives us the right to fight with a clean conscience. The Guidelines for morality are pretty much sumed up in the commandments written down in the bible. All religions have their own version of these moral commandments but they basically have the same rules. if you strip out the rules that involve "God"(whichever one/s you worship if any) It is stripped down to.

1 Don't Kill
2 Dont Steal
3 Don't fook your buddies wife
4 Don't lie
5 Respect your elders (They DO know more than you do, no matter how smart you think you are)

Although morality is nice but, what do you do if:
Someone tries to kill you
Someone steals from you (including dignity, posessions, freedom)
Someone Fooks your wife
Someone lies to you or
Your elders don't return your respect

These rules of morality are all fine and good but they only can be achieved if every one follows them. This is in direct contrast to human programming. We have been built by design to be the ultimate killers, thieves, liars, irresponsible reproducing, disrespectfull sons of bitches that the world has ever seen. This has been programmed into us to ensure our survival. Survival is why wars are fought. Hitler gassed jews to ensure the "survival" of purebread arian humans. Japan attacked the US because they ran out of room in japan to support the "Survival" of its empire. Osama Bin hidin attacks to ensure the "Survival" of Muslims with the same religious beliefs as himself. The US nuked Japan to ensure the "Survival" of thousands of American Soldiers.

Sorry for rambling but the only reason for war is that whoever/whatever that designed us built the feature of self preservation into us. As a sick joke someone threw a conscience into the mix. Unfortunatly that is what will keep us from moving on to the next steps of evolution.

Agree 100%.... That was what I was going to say when responding to this thread. Glad I read down to yours, keeps me from typing a lot.

[KayJay]

My life's thesis seems to be unfolding ;) I hold firmly that the world should revolve around the Oxford English Dictionary (ok, I'll grant Webster's as well) and not "Surya Bhagavan" (Sol, for those who don't speak sanskrit, Sun for those whose Lingua Franca ;) is English :p )

We have now reached a stage where having asked for 6 months what is "Weapons of Mass Destuction", we moved on to asking what is "Material Breach", and then what is "Serious Consequences" and onward to what is the definition of "clear and present danger" right to what is meant by "War" and as a subset of "War" what is meant by "paramilitary" or "irregulars" .....and have ended asking, what is "Survival"!

So I shall continue with this game called life.......

What is Survival?

1) Beating hearts
2) Full stomachs
3) Safety from the (non-human!) elements
4) Thinking minds
5) Freedom of choice
6) Freedom to ensure choice
7) Freedom to impose choice
8) None of the above, but something else
9) All of the above
10) All of the above and something more.

A point of order for those who choose 8, 9, and/or 10 : - Kindly refrain from saying only "That is wrong!" if you do not have answer to "What is right?". Its worse than "I really could not care less!" and very annoying :p :rolleyes:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
OK This is just my opinion.

There is no moral justification for war, If that is the answer your looking for. I am guessing by "valid reason" you are fishing for something that gives us the right to fight with a clean conscience. The Guidelines for morality are pretty much sumed up in the commandments written down in the bible. All religions have their own version of these moral commandments but they basically have the same rules. if you strip out the rules that involve "God"(whichever one/s you worship if any) It is stripped down to.

1 Don't Kill
2 Dont Steal
3 Don't fook your buddies wife
4 Don't lie
5 Respect your elders (They DO know more than you do, no matter how smart you think you are)

Although morality is nice but, what do you do if:
Someone tries to kill you
Someone steals from you (including dignity, posessions, freedom)
Someone Fooks your wife
Someone lies to you or
Your elders don't return your respect

These rules of morality are all fine and good but they only can be achieved if every one follows them. This is in direct contrast to human programming. We have been built by design to be the ultimate killers, thieves, liars, irresponsible reproducing, disrespectfull sons of bitches that the world has ever seen. This has been programmed into us to ensure our survival. Survival is why wars are fought. Hitler gassed jews to ensure the "survival" of purebread arian humans. Japan attacked the US because they ran out of room in japan to support the "Survival" of its empire. Osama Bin hidin attacks to ensure the "Survival" of Muslims with the same religious beliefs as himself. The US nuked Japan to ensure the "Survival" of thousands of American Soldiers.

Sorry for rambling but the only reason for war is that whoever/whatever that designed us built the feature of self preservation into us. As a sick joke someone threw a conscience into the mix. Unfortunatly that is what will keep us from moving on to the next steps of evolution.

Delighted to see such a good post! :)

I have some doubts about one part of your explanation, that wars are about "survival". You are quoting three instances from WW-II.

a. Hitler gassed Jews for the survival of the pure-blood (is he playing Voldemort in HP? :p)
b. Japan attacked US for their own survival.
c. The US nuked Japan for their own survival in turn.

I think only point no. a is a little closer to the survival idea (that too in the opposite way) but the other two points do not relate to the survival idea.

Survival basically means staying alive in adverse conditions. We can twist this idea around and around and say that Hitler thought slaughtering of the Jews could ensure the survival of the pure-bloods. However I personally don't believe in this interpretation. It's true, however, that Hitler did want the Jews eliminated.

I don't think Japan was running out of land when it attacked Pearl Harbour. Maybe political and land domination was one of its motives to join the war, but then the US too has been accused of these very motives in recent years. War in Afghanistan and recently in Iraq certainly doesn't mean the US is running out of land to shelter the Americans. Also till the attack on Pearl Harbour, Japan was not a party to the war. It could have stayed neutral and it would have come unscathed. But it wanted to expand its empire and therefore invaded the surrounding regions (I think China, Myanmar (or Brahmadesh) and such regions). What prompted it to attack the US is not clear to me. I also don't know if Japan can strictly be called an ally to the Germans. And in the absence of information we might even consider the Japan episode of the WW-II separate from the main battle against Germany and its allies, something like an annexure maybe ;)

As for the US nuking Japan for its own survival, again that's not true. When the US nuked Japan, it was certain that the Allied forces would defeat Japan. It was only a matter of time. The nukes quickened the process. Since at that time the American survival was in no way in danger (except if you consider casualties of war resulting from a prolonged conflict which were avoided by an immediate surrender by Japan) there's no survival motive in it.

We can use another argument in favour of the survival, that all these people maybe wanted their own nations or races to survive till the end, and the easiest method they adopted was to eliminate other races. However I think this tendency should be called more a domination than a survival.

Your commandments from the bible remind me: If you own a dog, and you really want to breed good pets, you will ensure that your dog is well-mannered, well-trained, obedient etc. and that it will only mate with a good *****. You put the dog on leash and keep a strict vigil on it to ensure all this. If you are lax, the dog might do something against the plans.

The rules you draw up for your dog are the commandments and other principles drawn up in our religion. When we go astray from these principles, we breed sons of bitches who have no sense of these rules and principles.

And it's in the nature of humans to rebel against rules. You won't find a dog that listened to and followed everything you told it to do. It will disobey you, it will go against your orders. Only depending upon the levels of the rebel nature, these acts will be random and occasional, or they may be consistent.

.

[kedaman]

HB: survival also means minimizing the threat of extinction, which is secured by gaining power, this is the process of domination.
As part of an evolving system in the process you will see rules which are adapted to the current conditions, to result in efficient progress, but as the conditions change the rules become inefficient and are undermined by the process. If your dog becomes aware of other opportunities to get their food than waving their tail and obeying orders given by their owner, that are more comfortable then they will use their freedom to disobey.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by kedaman
These rules of morality are all fine and good but they only can be achieved if every one follows them. This is in direct contrast to human programming. We have been built by design to be the ultimate killers, thieves, liars, irresponsible reproducing, disrespectfull sons of bitches that the world has ever seen. This has been programmed into us to ensure our survival.

Morals are followed because of natural selection, we are programmed to submit part of our freedom for security in our society as it promotes survival in long term more or less for all individuals. The compromise always depends on a fluctuating environment of threats and is thus there will always be a need for a certain flexibility, which includes rebelling and criminal behavour.
The theory of evolution doesn't say that you've been designed for a purpose, it says that you have been naturally selected over less efficient medium of progress.

[KayJay]

So, we have latched onto Survival...though no one seems to be able to define it definitvely, to indulge in redudancy :p

Survival: Survival of what, or should that be Survival of whom? If Survival as a species, then Japanese, Deutch, Aryans, Dravidians, Africans, Blacks, Whites, Browns and all the 24-Bit True Colours need not be killing each other. Survival of a race/sub-species, then the above list may be broken up into opposing parties. Survival of a group of a particular Geographic Area then may be even further, Survival of one's "family", then even more divisions,........Survival of an individual? Then, friends (and foes!), why have civilization and democracy and law and order and money and love and hate and Visual Basic and Java (lets murder those fellas, they are a potential threat to the Survival of us VB folks!).

For the record, I do not agree on "Survival" as a potent and primary motive for "murder". But thats Mr. Kay Verbiage Jay...

How about you?

[kedaman]

Originally posted by KayJay
I think we define "Need" very differently, hence the confusion.

Probably. I refer to needs as instincts for survival, they are to constrain our behavour to avoid threats to our survival. Isn't "want of power" a need for freedom?

"Post-failure": I meant that if any one of the three (broadly grouping) are not clear and not even attempted to be clarified, then we end up justifying whatever happened after something goes wrong.
...
I feel that the US of A has not defined its motives properly and has not put enough thought on the expected results.

I think its a way to mislead us and hide the actual motives behind diffuse principles

What are the results the US of A expects? Less terrorism? More stability? More Oil? More power? More freedom? No fear? More economic growth?

more power should sum up for all.

[kedaman]

KayJay:
I suppose you could say that survival of anything, a rule, a relation, a process or a population is defined as its use of progress within a system.

For the record, I do not agree on "Survival" as a potent and primary motive for "murder". But thats Mr. Kay Verbiage Jay...

How about you?

Maybe if you could see survival as a concept of natural selection?

[KayJay]

It aint gonna happen. At least, not without a substantial damage to the prosecutors. <Sigh><background Singer = Sir Elton John Song = Circle of Life....Wheel of Fortune.......>

[KayJay]

Why is everything like Nostalgia?

[KayJay]

Kedaman: My philosophy is potent mixture of the Hindu Value System, Renaisance Logic, New World Science and Human History. Its taken me about 10 years (I'm 25, I was around 15 when I had my Upanayanam, a Hindu ceremony of initiation) to assimilate them, and I am in the process of weeding out the seeming contradictions. I'll reply to your comments on "Natural Selection" a while later (I am packing my bags for a forthcoming business trip). For now, let me just say that, while I do belive in "Natural Selection", I have a theory on its "Purpose". To set you thinking, take a look at the "Omega Theory" by a noted (American?) Mathematician. Its not exactly my views but its a pointer to it. So is Star Trek, for that matter (I am not Spock!. Blood good book though, better than "I am...") :)

[Arc]

I also agree with MasterBlaster 99-ish%. In fact this very war we are engaging in is to protect America's "survival".

[kedaman]

KayJay: I'd be happy to know more about your viewpoint. I looked up Omega Point theory (by Frank Tipler, I assume this is what you refer to as I can't find anything else googling), which surprisingly is similar to my own views (strong AI and cooperation towards obtaining infinite information processing) but then again there's a lot of assumptions i'm just not willing to do, some because I know very little about his theory, and at least one fundamental imperative which contradicts mine. I know a bit more about Star Trek though and I can say it makes a lot of assumptions which are very questionable, like the success of a marxist utopia (isn't that a contradiction?).

[chenko]

where is the option

"Defend your own country" ?

[essaar]

Originally posted by chenko2
where is the option

"Defend your own country" ?
The question's "instigate and prosecute", defending comes only when somone else "instigates and prosecutes".

[KayJay]

Kedaman: Back from a whirlwind trip. Will post soon. Need to get my hands on some VB though.

Its a miracle how the proffessional marketing people do it! I spoke of how our product works, how cheap its is, how it will reduce their total production cost, the lengths we went to make it idiot proof, how tightly knit the code is so that there are no unexpected bugs/spin-offs.... No use!

I ran into a friend (a Tight Sk__ - Loose Pa__ person ;) ) in a prospects place, who spoke to my prospect for 15 mins, bought lunch for all three of us and lo and behold! I leave the restaurant with complimentary mints and a confirmed purchase order :confused: For the life of me I can't recall a single word being spoken about our product during lunch :confused: How do they do it? :confused: :mad: :D

[chenko]

Originally posted by essaar
The question's "instigate and prosecute", defending comes only when somone else "instigates and prosecutes".

Is it a war when you start attacking a country, even if they dont defend? Hence, once the opposing country starts to fight back, that is a war.

[KayJay]

NB: All emphases mine.
Originally posted by chenko2
Is it a war when you start attacking a country, even if they dont defend? Hence, once the opposing country starts to fight back, that is a war.
chenko2: Thats not spelt as "W.A.R". Its spelt "P.R.O.T.E.C.T.I.O.N R.A.C.K.E.T"

[KayJay]

Kedaman:

As I was saying I feel that evolution of consciouness has a purpose. Roughly speaking (with scope for retractions, additions and contradictions), its something like asunder:

I believe that all the very different conscioussness will converge into a single entity thereby bringing in a theoratically infinite computational and analaytical capacity and can sustain itself for ever after, purely by the fact of its existence. This convergence, variedly called becoming one with God, Big Crunch, Energy, Nature, etc.. is the purpose of all creation. The end of all the means. Activity as we know it now, in physical, in emotional and intellectual senses, will cease and the state of perpetual harmonious existence will be the order of the day.

The assumptions/a priories I work with are
Conservation of energy
Reducing all arbitary constants to One and Only One, the velocity of light being the most preffered choice.
The continued existence of Consciouness
The gradual extermination of Conscience

The hypotheses I make are
Conversion of energy will reduce. There will be less and less physical actvity.
Communication between Consciousness will increase
Current Morality and Right/Wrong will be replaced by accepting only Clarity and Consistency.

Two immediate contradictions/difficulties are
Non-Liner Time
The requirement of an increased and heightened activity before anhilation (Dying embers of wood)

[kedaman]

KayJay

I believe that all the very different conscioussness will converge into a single entity thereby bringing in a theoratically infinite computational and analaytical capacity and can sustain itself for ever after, purely by the fact of its existence. This convergence, variedly called becoming one with God, Big Crunch, Energy, Nature, etc.. is the purpose of all creation. The end of all the means. Activity as we know it now, in physical, in emotional and intellectual senses, will cease and the state of perpetual harmonious existence will be the order of the day.

hmm, this is quite interesting because the Omega Point Theory tells us an infinite amount of information will be processed, and that we're thus actually never going to reach a harmonious state but will evolve without bounds?

We have very different definitions of consciousness so I'd like to have some more clarity in what you think it is. My entirely useless (as in metaphysical) definition is a passive observer percepting reality as information. This suggest a dualistic view since entities that don't exhibit information cannot be percepted and thus doesn't exist, that's why I'm a positivist and instrumentalist.