- Arthanari Chandrasekaran
- Chennai , Tamil Nadu
- India
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What can one achieve through war?
What motivates people to wage war, or even fight, let it be at any level with neighbor, state, or across country.
Dan Geurin 10+
Lawren Jones 10+
James Zhang 30+
So the cause of all issues in the end is a misunderstanding in some form or some way. That's the FUNDAMENTAL problem imo
Zdenek Smith 100+
James Zhang 30+
Zdenek Smith 100+
Some people are being brain washed into believing certain ideology and not being given access to objective information.
James Zhang 30+
So, then look at us. I bet everyone here at TedTalks has been given access to that objective information or education at some point in their life. Or else we wouldn't be on TedTalks. I think you and I have now realized what the problem is, is that maybe it's all because the children weren't raised in a way where he/she viewed society positively. I bet that would explain the DKR shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, etc. And it, like you have said, could explain why we have power hungry people and corruption.
Barry Palmer 50+
The question is "What can one achieve through war?"
My earlier post was intended to show that war can achieve goals. Believing that war solves nothing is unrealistic. It may seem useless and senseless to you, and for many people, but for some people it is effective for achieving goals. People who initiate wars are not crazy. They often carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of going to war, and factor in the risks involved, and then make what they consider a very rational decision to proceed with war.
If we consider the perpetrators of war as sick or defective or somehow profoundly different from ourselves, then we are not seeing the truth. The truth is that the perpetrators have morals that consider war acceptable under specific circumstances, and values that make war worth the price and the risk.
Consider living under an oppressive dictator. Even under the most egregious conditions, war must be considered a last resort. All non-violent means must be exhausted before going to war. When those means are exhausted, living your own life under an oppressive dictatorship might still seem acceptable for you personally. Now consider your children and your grandchildren and their children and their children. Envision your descendants being brain washed into voluntarily going to war for the person who is enslaving them. How many generations of suffering are enough to justify a war that is truly an act of self defense?
Random Chance says: "Get rid of the reasons, causes and benefits." I agree completely.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Random Chance 30+
Certainly not more peace.
Humans worship lies.
Some will even use examples of wars that worked, but that is the lie masquerading as the truth and that is accepting the lie as the truth. It also serves to cause confusion and doubt in those who favor no war.
Get rid of the reasons, causes and benefits. That is possible but most are so dominated by the false belief that it is human nature, cannot then fathom anything truly new and never begin designing it because they listen to an embedded lie that it is all human nature and always will be.
Thus, most don't really want to end human trafficking, drugs, crime or all the other horrible conflicts we are forced to live with because they cannot imagine a new way that doesn't have all their old conflicts present: in order to feel comfortable with what they are too familiar with. They are adjusted to the bad, thinking they are well-adjusted when what they really are is extremely mentally ill.
Comment deleted
Zdenek Smith 100+
Now is this true every time? How do you see freedom movements in countries like Libya and Syria? It seems that people in these countries have tried hard to overcome regime peacefully for decades with no effect. At the end arm struggle seems like the only unfortunate option that is necessary in order to end suffering that occurs under "peaceful" dictatorship?
Barry Palmer 50+
Violence is abhorrent, but there is an important moral distinction between initiating violence and reacting violently as a means of self defense. I admire Mahatma Gandhi and his principles, but I am not convinced that his methods will always be effective. If we take nonviolence as a moral absolute peoples might suffer under tyrants forever.
Zdenek Smith 100+
"peaceful dictatorship" is not so peaceful for those thrown in jail and tortured.
Yes exactly. I used the term to contrast it to actual war with visible casualties. Under dictatorship to outside observer it might seem that no one is dying but in reality that is not true as people are tortured and killed for their beliefs.
Barry Palmer 50+
Under what circumstances would you consider war desirable?
andrew jones
Noah Crossfield
That being said, war, like many other parts of history, should be seen for its benefits and detriments to society. War has done horrible things and caused many to give up their lives for a cause. However, war (and the expansion of nations that has come with it) has played a large role in defining our world today. The Roman empire, through war, brought many cultural and technical advances to places that were very far from Rome. Cyrus the Great used war to pursue his own kingdom, but also united a large span of the middle east. Examine what the United States did to the Native Americans. (It is was more like a forced removal, but it is close to war) The US is seen as morally corrupt for removing Native Americans, but also the US brought a whole new society. The US was pursuing its own motives, but the Native Americans eventually were assimilated into western culture. (Which I consider a big plus) While war is normally bad, I think that it needs to be seen for its true impacts on society.
Barry Palmer 50+
"benefits and detriments to society" -- society is just people, and the benefits are never beneficial to the dead.
I think we agree about one thing. It is very important to understand war for what it is. In this area, only cold realism will produce answers.
Efrain Torres
Barry Palmer 50+
Most citizens of the USA would say that our War of Independence achieved a just purpose. The justification for this war was set out in the United States Declaration of Independence, available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
That war is a model for peoples who believe they are being treated unjustly and have a legitimate right to obtain justice by means of war.
More recently, the people of Libya fought a civil war to remove a tyrant.
In a different context, war achieved the unification of North and South Vietnam.
I think there is no doubt that war can achieve political goals. No one knows how many of its victims would say that the goal was worth the price.
David Hamilton 50+
I think war is only legitimate when used to stop an agressive group from performing genocide. I'm respect American, Canadian, and Australian involvement in World War 2. Canada and America had almost nothing to gain... We made bad decisions leading up to the war, America did certainly... but, I believe it is morally right for the world to unify against any nation, or group, or tribe, which believes only its members should be allowed to live. Nazi's were worth going to war with.
To paraphrase, two quotes, which straddle the edge of contradiction
"Demons run, when a good man goes to war." Doctor Who
"War... Huh. Yeah! What is it good for, absolutely nothing... Say it again yall. War, has shattered, many a young mans dream, left him disabled, bitter and mean. Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting war each day. War can't bring life, it can only take it away..." The Temptations