Is there really a time to kill? Your thoughts.

The commandment doesn't list any exceptions. It's really popular for humans to play ruleslawyering with God, but I don't know how he responds to that. I'm guessing to kill a million Iraqi civilians because 19 Saudi Arabians attacked us years ago isn't something God would approve of. Stopping the Nazis is an area where you'd at least be on more stable ground, trying to say "I was saving people by killing people, and more people would have died if I didn't kill anyone."

The answer is framed religiously, because the question was.

There are limited situations where war seems the only appropriate response. Those are so atrocious, dire, and uncommon in modern history, that for the UN to meet and find resolution (or for action under the exception to Charter 7, in defense until the Security Council can meet) is reasonable. It's too bad the UN is such a political body. There's no good reason to be strong armed into what could be imagined as a blessing for Bush's War in Iraq, and to sleep on Darfur.

On the other hand, it's good the neo cons were able to show enough restraint not to try to invade France for voting against the Iraqi invasion.

Just war is a complex topic. I don't have time for a very complex answer which it probably deserves, but I feel in rare circumstances, war is required (unfortunately) for the greater good.

With hindsight, World War 2 would have been avoidable. If other world leaders had played their cards right in the early and mid 1930s, then Hitler could have been stopped somehow via political pressure or something. The Germans wanted to hear what he said because the USA, Britain and France had left Germany in a terrible place following the First World War and the Depression only made things 10 times worse. The Germans gave up hope in the normal system and resorted to supporting an extremist party to rebuild their country to it's former glory. Hence, it is partly our fault that Germany was in this situation during the 1920s and early 30s and also our fault that Hitler wasn't stopped somehow before he gained such power that war was inevitable.

World War 2 was necessary in my opinion once we were at the stage that we were at. We were fighting a totalitarian regime with extremist right wing beliefs that involved discriminating against a whole host of people. Not only was this fighting a dangerous ideology, but we were fighting for our basic freedoms and fighting to save people from inevitable death had the Nazis gained control of our countries.

Some wars, as mentioned, are justified to protect very basic freedoms. The war in Iraq has been quite a mess and may not have been necessary. It is quite difficult to decide when to use force and when to keep pursuing diplomacy. Against the Nazis who were so powerful, diplomacy simply didn't work - Hitler made empty promises and continued with his plans regardless.

Dan

They say war is the result of failed diplomacy. Can you imagine a world in which diplomacy would be successful 100% of the time? Neither can I. Therefore, while not necessarily OK, war is, and will continue to be, a fact of human existence. Embrace the darkness.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Can you imagine a world in which diplomacy would be successful 100% of the time?

Yes.

Can you imagine a world in which the costs of war were spread evenly among the groups fighting that war? If the Bush girls had to fight in the infantry, we wouldn't be in Iraq; the weapons inspectors not finding weapons and al Qaeda not being in Iraq would have been enough. If the people who made the decision to go to war had to pay some of the costs of that war, diplomacy and trade would be successful most if not all of the time.

What starts a war? Trade and anti-diplomacy.

Sorry Forrest, but I'm not a big believer in the "Perfect World". We are human, therefore imperfect. I know of nothing in existence made by humans that works 100% of the time. In the case of diplomacy, 50% is probably above average. As the King himself said, there ain't nothing in this world foolproof, except hookers and Coup Devilles.

peace is something our race is not capable of obtaining

I mean the reason why I would even ask is the war in Iraq is obviously a controversial one and so why I don’t agree with the protest to bring our troops home I can give them a small pass (a very small one). But it seems to some people you would never have a just cause to kill someone, which I don’t understand that mind set at all. I would like to hear from someone like that… say does anyone here go to Berkley?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Can you imagine a world in which the costs of war were spread evenly among the groups fighting that war? If the Bush girls had to fight in the infantry, we wouldn't be in Iraq; the weapons inspectors not finding weapons and al Qaeda not being in Iraq would have been enough. If the people who made the decision to go to war had to pay some of the costs of that war, diplomacy and trade would be successful most if not all of the time.

Well I think Bush's life has been affected by this war, maybe not by a death in his family; but I read yesterday that bush is now the most hated president since Nixon.

If he had been able to count on that fact, do you think Bush would have been so eager to lead us to war? The point isn't so much that it happened, but that if it can be expected, that changes the decision process.

everyone hates war, but in certain circumstances such as one country invading another purely for its resources or land, then war is necessary. however any other reason is unforgiveable. i think america is the epitomy of unjust war. think of all the countries its needlessly occupied since WWII and more importantly the devastation she caused.
and i know this comment will be met with outrage but think about it first.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

think of all the countries its needlessly occupied since WWII and more importantly the devastation she caused.

Agreed. America IS evil. Busy occupying and causing destruction when pretty much the rest of the world lives at peace with each other. America hordes its wealth while the rest of the world gives charitably to nations in need. Thats why people are trying to get out of America in droves to seek shelter in one of the many better places. We can all rest assured, if America is at war, it is reeking needless devastation for an unjust cause.

That doesn't make any sense at all, cbwm. If America were invading the rest of the world ... people would be flooding in, not out, to avoid their homes turning into Iraq.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Sorry Forrest, but I'm not a big believer in the "Perfect World".

Then why are you asking whether people can imagine things? The larger point, though, is that this line of reasoning boils down to "the world isn't perfect, so there's no reason not to make it worse." That style of thinking is pretty common ... and pretty maladaptive.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I know of nothing in existence made by humans that works 100% of the time.

I've been told Linux and Mac both do this, while Windows is closer to the 50 % rate you gave diplomacy...

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

That doesn't make any sense at all, cbwm. If America were invading the rest of the world ... people would be flooding in, not out, to avoid their homes turning into Iraq.

Oops, forgot to put out the </sarcasm> emotes. Speaking momentarily as if I were serious, I don't believe Nazi Germany had people flooding in. From some of our previous "Occupations", Iraqi refugees seem to be headed to Syria, Koreans headed to South Korea(the ones that could get out), and the Vietnamese headed to the U.S.. Cuba on the other hand, is a place maybe we should have invaded (properly) but didn't, and yet Cubans are dieing at sea on small rafts trying to get in. Ronny did a much better job with Grenada and Panama.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Then why are you asking whether people can imagine things? The larger point, though, is that this line of reasoning boils down to "the world isn't perfect, so there's no reason not to make it worse." That style of thinking is pretty common ... and pretty maladaptive.

Agreed. Call it cynicism, call it realism, but no matter how much time I focus on good driving, statistics indicate I will have some 2.3 auto accidents in my lifetime(I'm way over that already). For that reason(and because the law says I have to), like a good cynic, I carry auto insurance. I wonder if they have something like Smeed's Law relating war to world population.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I've been told Linux and Mac both do this, while Windows is closer to the 50 % rate you gave diplomacy...

Doh! Great example. To make it fit a bit better, I would add the following twist. Linux and Mac(Hillary and Obama) both advertise 100% functionality, but once installed, simply offer a flawed desktop OS(50% functional) with a different set of problems. As long as I have a real choice, I'm all good.

Originally Posted by THEBUNNY

I mean I could understand this kind of talk going on in an "I love bush forum" but now here.

Can you please direct me to the "I love Bush" Forum.

Bummer. I thought you knew of an "I Love Bush" forum.

Originally Posted by THEBUNNY

Just remember If bunnies don't do it then its not right.

I guess I better put down this beer then.

I DO listen to rap! Then again, I also listen to Frank Sinatra. Maybe I have a thing for Gangster music....

Originally Posted by cbwm

Agreed. Call it cynicism, call it realism, but no matter how much time I focus on good driving, statistics indicate I will have some 2.3 auto accidents in my lifetime(I'm way over that already).

I would humbly suggest that if you're way above your allotted accident count, the strategy you chose isn't working out very well for you...

Just an observation.

The same thing seems to apply to the Iraq war, coming back to the topic "Is war ever ok?" In software development, specifically in concurrency control systems, things tend to fall into optimistic and pessimistic strategies ... pessimistic locking involves doing more work in case something goes wrong. System design means choosing an appropriate balance between the strategies.

You'll be thrilled to know Dawkins talks at length about the strategy you've chosen in life. There are evolutionarily stable strategies based on pessimism. No one member wants to deescalate a situation out of fear that others will do slightly better than him or her, so, for the good of the individual, the species goes extinct. Humans, though, have the unique curse of free will. Instead of being slaves to our selfish genes, we have the capacity to make choices based on morality instead.

To be a little less abstract, we both agree the world isn't perfect. But I'm seeing three ways to respond to that:

1. Actively make things worse.
2. Make things better in ways that don't cost you too much as an individual.
3. Kill yourself in the pursuit of a flawless world.

What's wrong with the centrist position? The others are untenable. One is the definition of immoral, without getting into specifics, and three is suicidal. Number two is a pretty reasonable course of action ... but for whatever reason, a lot of people find it threatening.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I DO listen to rap! Then again, I also listen to Frank Sinatra. Maybe I have a thing for Gangster music....

You started a thread about Bill Maher. He tells a joke you might appreciate:

"Frank Sinatra saved my life once. It was outside the ??? Hotel, in Florida. A bunch of guys were beating the hell out of me. Sinatra walked by and told them 'OK, that's enough.'"

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

To be a little less abstract, we both agree the world isn't perfect. But I'm seeing three ways to respond to that:

1. Actively make things worse.
2. Make things better in ways that don't cost you too much as an individual.
3. Kill yourself in the pursuit of a flawless world.

What's wrong with the centrist position? The others are untenable. One is the definition of immoral, without getting into specifics, and three is suicidal. Number two is a pretty reasonable course of action ... but for whatever reason, a lot of people find it threatening.

I doubt few could argue with three such simple choices, option 2 being the obvious choice. The problem is, the world isn't that simple and we often find ourselves accomplishing #1 or #3 when we set out to do #2.

I'm not sure I find your database locking analogy applicable, as we've been down that path with the Russians. For a very long time, a deadlock situation existed called Mutually Assured Destruction. The result was not the extinction of the species, but rather a strange form of stability, and eventually deescalation. Reagan called it peace through strength.

ah cbwm. if america nuked a whole country out of existence you still wouldnt be able to discuss it objectively. its for views like your's i found it hard to post on this site.