What is war for?

Well-meaning people may disagree about whether the planned war on Iraq is about international order or about something else.

But let’s take Powell’s statement at face value. Is a war to maintain international order a necessary war?

“International order”? What does this mean?

If “order” means “prevention of genocide” then -> necessary.

If it means “international pecking order” -> not necessary.

Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”

Glad to see that december has joined the ranks of the anti-war party.
Welcome.

Churchill is speaking as a pragmatist. The relevant part of the quote:

So it seems to me Churchill thinks that you can’t exclude the possibility of the use of force. But how does that help one to decide when to use force? I think he would argue that simply to “maintain international order” is not sufficient grounds for the use of force.

Thanks for the eloquent argument, december.

!What is it good for?

Absolutely NOTHING…HuuuH!

War, good God yall, is good for…

Liberating people that live under the yoke of tyranny.

Protecting we who are free from the advance of tyranny.

Keeping open forums such as this free from molestation.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

– Thomas Jefferson

So we should be invading all tyrannical states and liberating them? Or only some?

In any event, maintaining order seems a lot broader than relieving tyranny.

Oooh, I get it. You want us to say something BAD about war.
Ok, I will…

War is bad because sometimes the tyrants win.

War is bad because sometimes the bad guys use terms like “International order” as “gobbedygook” to disguise their desire to enslave other nations rather than use the term properly as Colin Powell did in his remarks, which is…

  • the peaceful order that is necessary for the community of peaceful nations to go forth without being blackmailed, or being attacked by hoodlum nations with nuclear missles, and deadly chemicals, and biological weapons, or to have to suffer horrendous terrorist attacks by fanatics sent by these cowards .*

Or “National interest” or “Freedom” or “Liberation”…

or “the peaceful order that is necessary for the community of peaceful nations to go forth without being blackmailed, or being attacked by hoodlum nations with nuclear missles, and deadly chemicals, and biological weapons, or to have to suffer horrendous terrorist attacks by fanatics sent by these cowards .”

You misinterpret me. I’m interested in when war is justified. If you think was is justified when “peaceful” nations are being blackmailed and attacked by “hoodlum” nations or their messangers, that’s what I want to know.

Personally, I tend to agree with you, though I think that “order” encompasses situations with a lot less threat in them than those listed above.

Also, AFAIK, none of the terorists were Iraqi, so you’ll have trouble proving that Iraq somehow ‘sent’ them. And no one has attacked us with nuclear weapons or deadly chemicals. And they don’t seem to be blackmailing anyone… if anything they’re cowering in a corner waiting for the bombs to start falling.

So I guess you’d be one of those arguing against war on Iraq? Or did you have some more qualifications of your definition of when war is justified?

This is probably one of the truest statements about the nature of war. Every nation wants to preserve its prosperity and way of life. When something threatens that way of life and diplomacy fails, nations go to war.

Or “National interest” or “Freedom” or “Liberation”… ~ Latro

  • Yeah I know, you have to think to recoginze the good guys. It’s like an eighteenth century morality play of good and evil, the actors keep going backstage and changing masks.

But knowing the bad guys is important. Here’s a visual that might help…*

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html

*See the Korean peninsular? See the straight line of the 38th parallel that divides the sparkling lights of the southern half from the dark black prison land to the north?

When we lost 38,000 men in the Korean War which part did we liberate?*

*So I guess you’d be one of those arguing against war on Iraq? Or did you have some more qualifications of your definition of when war is justified? *~ nogginhead

Yeah I guess I do. But thank you for your implied criterion of justfication for war. At least the US can justly apply it to Japan. Yes the dirty nips sneak- bombed Pearl Harbor, and so, by current standards, we were right in declaring war against Japan.

But oh-oh, according to the current refined standards for military engagement, we had no such excuse for attacking Hitler. Oh well, maybe history will forgive us for that slight faux pas. But I guess, I suppose, that depends on whom is writing the history.
:slight_smile:

Since when was Churchill a pacifist? This was the guy who advocated continuing WWII to take on the Soviets.

what was war for…

what was hitler for?

what was napolean for?

what was alexander for?

find the answer to any of those questions and you have what war is for

What is war for? It’s simple…
Money

Peace.

You go to war only if the peace that follows is better than the peace you currently have.

Will someone please point out a war that didn’t revolve around money in some way, shape or form?