Can we discuss some pro-war arguments ITT

So I'm currently watching two facebook friends of questionable standing argue for about 60 comments back and forth on whether 'war is good or bad'.

One of them is sure that war is good – the winners are clearly the higher civilisation, because technology and military strategy are hallmarks of an advanced civilisation (who must also be more moral and better to live in), so war is a continuous process which heightens civilisation globally by killing off less advanced civilisations. His opponent isn't sure about this.

There's no way I'm getting involved, but watching it has made me wonder what arguments are actually out there 'for' war and I thought some of you might be familiar with them. So this might make for an interesting thread. I'm only familiar with caricatures, tbh.

what is it good for

who must also be more moral and better to live in)

what kind of cunt is this cunt and if you haven't asked him why not

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Manifesto_of_Futurism.jpg

Is that Marinetti?

It's interesting because, despite the obvious, mister war on my facebook feed isn't calling himself a Fascist – quite the opposite – I think he's mainly thinking about the Iraq and Afghanistan war, so he's throwing in a lot about Human Rights 'n' Democracy.

Ask him what is it good for

there are no pro-war arguments (well, maybe pro-war realpolitik arguments and even then) but there are 'war is better than the alternative' arguments, and maybe even 'well they've left us no other choice' communal affect clinchers. also maybe a pro-war radical-capitalism argument?

I feel like you maybe have to kill the first guy? just, logically

war is good because usually it's better than having to go to work

see also: the apocalypse

From a certain perspective absolutely based in faith it would speed the coming of God's kingdom. Which would be good for the faithful.

Otherwise it's a way of ensuring group a has enough food by taking over arable land from group b.

Keeps the population down to a reasonable size. By having a proportion killed every 20years or so.

Speeds technological innovation.

war is an excellent way of killing the baddies. it's easy to spot who the baddies are because they look a bit mental and/or stupid in their movies.

Called him a cunt yet or not

One of them is sure that war is good – the winners are clearly the higher civilisation, because technology and military strategy are hallmarks of an advanced civilisation (who must also be more moral and better to live in), so war is a continuous process which heightens civilisation globally by killing off less advanced civilisations.

no Godwin but he realises this is essentially what Hitler believed, right?

Cmon man hitler believed a lot of things reasonable ppl are gonna share the odd one of em

i'm not even saying Hitler was "wrong" altho he might wanna look at his own military track record but i just wondered if Cap'n Wargames there was aware of it

also Ireland clearly the more advanced civ in 1922

Well i mean ya he lost the war per se but he had a reasonably high score ito the count we're apparently using here

1922 fo, more advanced since prehistory obv

yah but i think for Adolf acknowledging the moral and civilizational superiority of the Soviet Union wd have been a pretty tough kartoffel to swallow

was not being insincere with the 1922 observation

i have to say when i look around the average college classroom a good medium-length war seems like a pretty good idea

Pffft college/secondary/primary/nursery cmon man its all predetermined iyo anyway right

yes but i'm predestined to act like it isn't

That seems like a v temporary solution, maybe cardamoms m8 can help with that

let's face it, who hasn't dreamed of raising a terrible army and through tremendous danger going?

Maybe if you raised a somewhat decent army the going would be less dangerous

I haven't called him a cunt yet.

I think his notion of 'whoever wins is obviously the more advanced' is wrong, and it's wrong in a way that is prob v. obvious, but might be worth spelling out.

He's assuming that a state's ability to produce weapons and apply strategies to win wars rises at the same rate and in tandem with its social and moral development. But then cleverly defining the highest point of social and moral development as 'the point at which the winners are'.

He's spending a lot of time accusing his critics of being 'cynics' who don't believe in progress.

As a tangent, I'd really like to learn more about international relations and in particular, whether wars happen more because of ideology, or because of convenience for interested parties ... at the time of the Iraq war, were there people in power making things happen who seriously believed in the cause – did Blair?, did Rumsfeld? – or was it all cynical use of the idea of liberal intervention.

guys like Wolfowitz genuinely believed in war as civilizing, liberating force.

Argument #1: Generals have always understood that chance plays a very large role in the outcome of war. Citation: the Spanish Armada. Chance is impartial on questions of which contender in a war has a more advanced civilzation. It may favor either side. Or neither.

Argument #2: The ability to lie, deceive and terrorize all come in quite handy in battle. Inquire politely how all these talents are the hallmarks of advanced civilization?

Ambassador Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.

Rufus T. Firefly: It's too late. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield.

an argument for war is that it makes for easy drama and engagement, which is why the star wars prequels are anti-war masterpieces of de-romanticizing every aspect of war.
it's really hard to do that! even dr. strangelove made slim pickens riding a bomb look like a cool thing to do.

War: What potentialities does this have? How can it most productively strive against its own reactionary marketing & outmoded* orthodoxies?

*They're outmoded. Deal.

use custard pies only

only women allowed to make military decisions

guns that are so big they cannot be assembled

homosexuality on the battlefield mandatory

once you capture a country your troops have to perform a 40-minute propaganda play in every town centre

if you kill someone you're openly mocked by your army mates forever

"lol Shaun killed an enemy combatant, what a fucken prick eh Shaun"

all warplanes must be flown upside down on pain of bombardment from a UN spacelaser

grenade chicken

sniping someone from really far away is officially 'not cricket' under geneva convention; punishable by being forced to have the stereophonics write your new national anthem

wars to be decided by shouting contest. anyone who raises an arm is forced to show their genitals

you must look damn fly if you wanna paratroop

all the countries to be connected by a supertunnel so wars don't really matter anyway

wars against inanimate objects become all the rage. eiffel tower evacuated and then taken on by swarms of swordsmen

shoot all the weapons simultaneously into the moon just because whoa cooooool

later on war is a rammstein concert

rammstein seize control of the entire world & declare it an official cosmic partyzone

global cachet is measured in drum machine tone

then, a young girl digs up something in her back garden

it's...a bandanna

something inside her stirs

she sends tweets, instagrams

kapow. it's time for war.

I find these funny, imago, but

not to interrupt but this amendment still seems like a decent idea to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Amendment

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:13 PM (2 hours ago)

how about just getting back to giving congress this power

agreed 100%, but tbh i don't think congress actually wants it.

heard a drone dude make the argument that war is preferable to prolonged drone strikes, which buffer the striking side from seeing the costs of war

― Santana featuring (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:17 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

it doesn't buffer the striking side from "seeing" the costs of war so much as it buffers the striking side from the cost itself; at some pt drone bros like yr dude need to say that more ppl need to die so that fewer ppl die.

Aimless, that point about chance completely eluded me.

If the pro-war individual is arguing that the superior civilization wins wars, thus spreading the benefits of its superiority and "advanced" qualities, then an effective counter argument is that technological advancement or other "superior" qualities do not ensure victory in war, if chance intervenes, as it very often does, and therefore no such certainty can be postulated.

I could add that technological superiority very often spreads without the assistance of war, since few humans, seeing an easier way to acquire wealth and ease, will reject it out of hand, regardless of the source. It is a truism of history that more technologically backward peoples have often overrun more advanced civilizations, but that the culture of the conquered civilization quite soon supplants the culture of the conquerors, who quickly adopt it for themselves. Citation: Persia being overrun by the Arab outbreak under Islam.

i recently read a fantastic bernard lewis chapter on that citation. the linguistic bit of the argument is particularly impressive

there was that great episode of Star Trek where the two planets have been fighting a virtual war for a thousand years where computers work out the casualty rate and each side annihilates its own citizens accordingly. Kirk makes a good speech about needing to experience the proper brutality of war before they can realise how intolerable war is.

i believe they had gravitated towards the genesis of a similar system in the north post ceasefire

seriously? i can kind of imagine

Well, thing is, it appears that the illicit funding streams that spring up, right, in a guerilla warfare system, right- get this now its a doozy!- you can still do all that shit after the war. And better still, it's still FUN

oh i know all about that, when your fundraising activities wind up becoming your raison d'etre so to speak

some of them seemed to inordinately enjoying "policing" their "own" too

FUN

the unpicking of the latterday republican campaign against drugdealers left a lot of ppl kinda nodding softly to themselves - everyone hates dealers right- until whoops now all....the....dealers.....are.....ex-provos? what?

oooooohhhhhh...

Pennies dropping from here to coleraine at about that point.

everybody needs a retirement plan

He's spending a lot of time accusing his critics of being 'cynics' who don't believe in progress.

anti-progress>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pro-war

Pierce on O's latest clean-war plan:

The families of all those dead people will not care how carefully our politicians over here drew up the plan that resulted in their fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, and children now being dead. They will not care how smart our bombs are. They simply will hate us for it. If we are going to decide to make war in a place, we at least should be honest about what will happen to that place when we do, and make that the only issue in the debate over whether or not we will make war in that place.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33087/war-games-the-president-promises-to-make-war-better/

armies tend to represent constituencies who take it personally when your army fights their army, even putting "collateral damage" aside. the idea that we can divorce war from civilian populations is pollyannaish, or just a cynical lie we tell ourselves so we don't have to deal w/ the meaning of war - aka killing ppl to push yr political agenda.

the context of the sherman quote he mentions:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

i wonder if it maybe isn't hubris at all but a kind of naive psychosis - that bc we don't see the war we wage in our homes and on our streets we start to believe that it's possible to wage wars without destroying homes and streets. the ideal war for the ppl of the US is one where our drones fight their drones in the skies and no one gets hurt.

Is this authorization just to cover O's ass w the bombing campaign or is he looking for a free hand to do whatever he sees fit, incl ground troops (seems like the latter?)

I def wouldn't trust Hillary not to get her full-war on

my realpolitik solution re: ISIL is to ignore them until they get threatening enough for Iran and Israel to intervene - let them deal with it

last time O sent a war initiative to congress it was bc he needed to be bailed out of his syria red line remarks. this time it seems like... maybe just ass covering?

iran is already intervening fwiw xp

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/12/06/Iran-confirms-it-carried-out-air-strikes-in-Iraq.html

yeah I know, but we all know airstrikes aren't gonna nip this thing in the bud on their own

it's gonna require ground troops, and a concerted and (likely v bloody) effort to round these guys up and kill them - but until they start threatening more important resources than random hostages no one's going to make that commitment. barring a moron in the White House (fingers crossed)

jordan maybe

yeah maybe, not yet though

Jordan's deployment appeared to be "an intensification of ongoing efforts to secure the border to stop movement of men and weapons" and not the precursor to an incursio

Democrats lovin' war as long as it's the right prez

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/13/morning-plum-american-public-appears-ready-for-some-more-war/

ISIL has carried out an effective propaganda campaign to terrify the American people. What do you expect?

horrify maybe, terrify no fucken way

https://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Smaller-logo-header.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-is-the-president-in-a-time-of-conflict/2015/02/12/c0c6d0ba-b2ea-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html?hpid=z2

Charles Krauthammer...

Take Russia. The only news out of Obama’s one-hour news conference with Angela Merkel this week was that he still can’t make up his mind whether to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons. The Russians have sent in T-80 tanks and Grad rocket launchers. We’ve sent in humanitarian aid that includes blankets, MREs and psychological counselors.

How complementary: The counselors do grief therapy for those on the receiving end of the T-80 tank fire. “I think the Ukrainian people can feel confident that we have stood by them,” said Obama at the news conference.

Indeed. And don’t forget the blankets. America was once the arsenal of democracy, notes Elliott Abrams. We are now its linen closet.

Why no antitank and other defensive weapons? Because we are afraid that arming the victim of aggression will anger the aggressor.

Such on-the-ground appeasement goes well with the linguistic appeasement whereby Obama dares not call radical Islam by name.

says the warmonger who should be in jail

Krauthammer shows more talent for vitriol than usual there. no perceptible knowledge of the facts or common sense, but a real talent for vitriol.

why doesn't krauthammer just parachute into donetsk with an uzi strapped to his back and shut the fuck up?

do they make parachutes for toads?

quoting Eliott Abrams is a great touch. The Post must not edit him at all