Is war always evil?

Great Debates
41

You need to go back and read my post again. I said “Stalin had no territorialist ambitions on the scale of Hitler’s.” Of course Stalin grabbed land in the Balkans; Russian leaders had done so for hundreds of years before the 20th century. Russia fought no less than three wars with Turkey partly over the Romanian provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia between 1850 and 1900. Stalin merely believed as every Russian leader before him did: that this area was vital to Russian and should therefore be brought under its control. Kind of like the U.S. and the Southwest in the 1840s.

Stalin could’ve annexed all of Finland, had he wanted to. Finland ultimately lost the Winter War of 1940. But he didn’t, unlike Hitler with Czechoslovakia and Austria and ad infinitum. Hitler was out to conquer; if he had a big enough army, he would’ve just kept going until something stopped him. This was a fundamental difference between him and Stalin. Stalin was aggressive, pugnacious, tough, pushy, and cruel. But he was also far more pragmatic than Hitler. Simply conquering for its own sake was a ridiculous idea, as Hitler proved himself.

42

An interesting thing happens whenever somebody points out that the bombing of Serbia, putting the finishing touches on the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, people feel compelled to regurgitate NATO propaganda. As if we hadn’t heard plenty of that already…

Whatever their intention was, it couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with what their stated goals were. These were obvious lies.

It is victor’s justice. In the course of the NATO attack, many atrocities were committed on all sides. At times, Serb abuses almost reached to the lesser crimes of such U.S. allies as Indonesia, Turkey and Columbia. Keep in mind that while the U.S. was bombing Serbia, Indonesia was threatening to burn East Timor to the ground if they dared to vote for independence. It was a promise they fulfilled, all fully supported by the U.S. During this same time, Turkey was slaughtering every Kurd they could find. During this same time, Columbia was burning down villages for Occidental Oil. You get the picture.

Nobody can possibly take the Hague tribunal seriously. Let’s see them put the Kissingers, the Suhartos, the Pinochets, the Garivilias, the Monnts, the Reagans, the Clintons and the Bushes on trial. Then we can take them seriously. Until then, they are nothing more than propaganda for the victors.

43

It’s arguable in the sense that any position is “arguable.” But, if by “arguable” you mean something like that it is possible to make a good case for, then no, it is not arguable.

The US “intervention” (an interesting euphemism for aggression) in Kosovo had the “entirely predictable” effect, according to supreme commander General Wesley Clarke, of vastly escalating atrocities on the ground. That is, NATO knew that their actions would make things worse, but they did it anyway.

This is very difficult to understand if you try to believe what they say. Once you realize that they are lying bastards, then it all starts to make sense. The bombing had nothing whatsoever to do with the humanitarian crisis, a crisis they vastly escalated. This much is obvious just from a cursory glance at the facts.

Then we can talk about what the real aims were. That, too, seems pretty obvious. There are a couple of very good motivations for the NATO attack. For one, they needed to justify the continued existence of NATO, and this served as excellent propaganda. Secondly, and more importantly, it served to consumate the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was built on an idea, the idea that the slavic peoples would not be weak and disjointed, but that they would come together for mutual aid and support. Yugoslavia was allowed to exist as an independent socialist state for 40 years as a sort of buffer to the USSR. But, once the USSR collapsed, its usefulness was over. The western powers immediately began conspiring to break it up into small, powerless, right wing republics. It took a decade, but they finally achieved their goal in 1999.

Before the bombing, Serbia was a World Heritage Site, one of the most ecologically diverse areas on Earth. Now it is littered with Depleted Uranium and other nasty stuff which has wreaked havoc on the environment. Furthermore, part of the whole globalization process that the various rightist states spawned from Yugoslavia have been forced to undergo is a reduction of regulations. So, now everything is being sold off to private power so that a few rich guys will make tons of profits, while polluting the crap out of the country. The remnants of Yugoslavia are being pushed into the Third World, to serve as cheap labor markets for western Europe (sort of like western Europe’s Mexico), and as a good place to export pollution.

In short, the negatives of the Kosovo action outweigh the positives by about a billion to one.

44

Whether war is always evil simply depends on where you are coming from.

Jimmy Carter is a fairly devout Christian. If you take Christianity pretty literally - Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc. - War is pretty much always evil. As imperfect beings, sometimes people have to go to war for a just cause anyway, but that doesn’t detract from war itself being an evil - necessary or not.

Basically, any worldview that has all violence as inherently wrong, and espouses universal forgiveness will never be able to view war as non-evil.

45

Depends what you consider freedom. You are aware that thousands of young men civilians in the American Merchant Marine went to their watery graves at the hands of German U-boats, yes? Freedom continues on the high seas.

46

You really are completely incapable of discussing anything at all without converting it into an anti-US, anti capitalist rant, are you?Please, I’m begging you, get off your high horse for just one minute and provide us with a yes or no answer, if you please. For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t personally give a damn what you think of the Kissingers, the Suhartos, the Pinochets, the Garivilias, the Monnts, the Reagans, the Clintons and the Bushes; I wasn’t asking about any of them. I’ll state the question again: in your view, was the capture and trial of Milosevic on war-crimes charges itself some sort of injustice?

I can only state that I am completely in awe at the audaciousness, the thundering absence of anything resembling documentary support, the sheer massive scale of misinformation and utter bullshit in the above short paragraph. Apparently, on planet Chumpsky, we never have to explain or back up any statements we make, we merely speak them and they are so.

I doff my hat to you, sir. Debate you, though? I might as well debate the wind.

47

Even granting the absurdity of NATO and its lapdogs handing out “justice,” the Milosevic trial is a joke. It isn’t really a trial so much as an inquisition.

But, please, let us hear why you think Milosevic was a good candidate for a war crimes trial. (And not Kissinger, Pinochet, Suharto, Montt, Reagan, Clinton or Bush.)

48

Uh oh. You know, there isn’t a die-hard radical leftist out there who doesn’t have a secret hard-on for totalitarian dictators and mass murderers, and a hatred and contempt for the average person. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Milosevic, the Shining Path, the Khmer Rouge, John Wayne Gacy, they’re all good. Just as long as they are opposed to the West, well, how can you bourgeois pigs dare to criticize real authentic men of action?

I guess your average radical leftist just gets frustrated because they are so ineffectual and powerless in American society that they nurse secret fantasies of killing and enslaving all of us. For our own good, of course.

49

Interesting how you lump Milosevic (and even Castro!) in there with Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, etc. You forgot to mention Hitler. Clinton, after all, referred to Milosevic as a new Hitler on several occasions.

Perhaps, though, instead of simply regurgitating propaganda, you might like to provide some evidence that Milosevic deserves to be put in such company.

I’ll be waiting.

50

In the long term, war is justified if it can reasonably be shown that suffering and/or death has been minimised. There will always be debate about which specific military actions by which parties meet this criterion.

A campaign of genocide, in which civilians are deliberately targeted for execution, internment and dispossession of land according to their ethnicity never meets this criterion.

A direct invasion of another state solely to comandeer its economic and geographical assets without consideration of its electorate’s wishes will * almost * never meet this criterion.

No war to date has produced a civilian bodycount of zero. Every war must therefore be judged as to whether or not it is * less * evil than the consequences of neutrality. After all, ** the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. **

51

But Chumpsky, how can you demand a cite when you rarely provide any to back up your assertions? I believe more than one person has already asked you for cites, and you’ve routinely ignored them.

Forgive me for saying this, but it seems like the only one spouting propaganda is yourself.

52

SnetientMeat:

I agree with this as a sufficient condition, but not as a necessary condition. While I can’t think of any real-world examples - for all I know, there may be none - imagine the following:

Big, mean nation decides it wants to conquer tiny, benign nation, because… I dunno, it wants more beach-front property. Another big nation - this one with lots of neat-o military toys - decides to intervene. Now, if Nice Big Nation were to stay out of it, Tiny Nation would be leveled, some Tiny Nation residents would be killed, the rest deprived of their property, and there would be some misery and death. If Nice Big Nation intervenes, by attacking Mean Big Nation, it’s possible that there will be more death, as Mean Big Nation has a big, albeit primitive, army. However, I would argue that defending Tiny Nation is still the right thing to do, even if the net result is a greater loss of life.

The Gulf War may have been an example of this, but I’m not sure what the casualties were, or what they might have been had we stayed out. Howerer, Kuwait was a tiny nation, and Iraq considerably larger, and I think we did the right thing by coming in and pushing Kuwait out.
Jeff

53

Jeez, you were right, El_Kabong. It is like debating the wind. If Chumpsky doesn’t respond soon, I will just write him off as a propagandist.

54

At no time have I stated an opinion one way or another as to whether or not Kissinger, et al were deserving of war crimes trials, nor did I raise their names in the first place. The question I posed concerned [Cousin Vinny]Milosevic, and ONLY Milosevic[/Cousin Vinny].

I have twice posed a question that needs only a simple yes or no answer, and you have twice failed to answer. When you answer my question, I’ll answer yours. Cheers.

55

Indeed, Jeffe, there are always variables. However, in this case, I believe that it would be reasonable to assume that Big Nasty Nation would not stop at one Tiny nation, nor would it treat its own population as well as Big Nice Nation, perhaps to the extent that it might even gas a few million.

56

can war be one sided?
the evil bit is being resisted by the good bit.
then when its over
the good can declare war on evil

57

Should I give Chumpsky one more day to respond to El_Kabong, or should I just write him off now?

58

He is a little busy defending Arkan’s Tigers at the moment:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151160

59

Apparently my refering to the Milosevic trial as an inquisition did not answer your question?

A prime principle of justice is universality. That is, if a rule applies to you, then it should apply to me as well. A principle that is applied selectively is no principle at all, but merely a cynical tool. Rules that apply only to your enemies are not just–that is NOT justice. Thus, if Milosevic is prosecuted for crimes that western leaders commit with impunity, that is not justice. It is merely the humiliation of a vanquished enemy.

The fact that you can dismiss the question regarding the universality of justice simply shows that you have no interest in justice. If you are unconcerned that Kissinger, for example, is walking around a free man while Milosevic is on trial, then you haven’t the slightest interest in justic. At least be honest about it.

So, there is the point regarding universality, which the Hague Tribunal clearly does not abide by. This is not surprising. The only part about it that is surprising is that people take it seriously. If an official enemy did the same thing, we would immediately dismiss it as a cynical propaganda exercise. If, for example, the Soviets set up an international tribunal to try war criminals in Afghanistan, we would not take it very seriously. No, only the highly indoctrinated can take it seriously.

Separate to the question of whether or not the “trial” is just is the question of whether or not Milosevic is guilty of war crimes. This, of course, depends on how you define “war crime.” He has been charged with 391 deaths, almost all of which were caused after NATO began bombing. The NATO bombing killed a couple thousand civilians–without the excuse of being under enemy attack. Undoubtedly atrocities were committed on all sides, as happens in every war. Milosevic’s crimes are mitigated by the fact that he tried to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict. The same cannot be said for Clinton.

60

Since I have never mentioned Arkan, nor his Tigers, the above statement would, in fact, be a lie.