garrick lee (email@example.com)
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
--- Alfred Urrutia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> garrick lee wrote:
> > pointless vs senseless, what's the difference?
> > all wars ARE pointless.
> Prove this. I not saying it from the position of a
> warmonger, I just
> think you're giving a kneejerk reaction without
> actually looking at past
> wars and some of the key benefits they gave, whether
> they be pleasing to
> the stomach or not.
well, i used to believe in a just war, when i was a
kid and all gung-ho (ah, screw gijoe). :) so, this
isn't a kneejerk reaction from me. might i ask why
you think wars are not pointless?
for my part, i think they are pointless because they
don't really achieve what they were initiated to
achieve. wars are fought for resources (land,
minerals, riches, goodies in the form of slaves) or
ideals (nationalism, religion, whatever floats a
in the case of the resources, more resources are
ultimately wasted than are acquired in the long run --
so what was the point of waging the war in the first
place? the waste is always greater than whatever is
accomplished. (on the other hand, you could say that
war prevents a greater waste...in which case, i
believe that having no war in the first place causes
the least problems)
in the case of ideals, i say war is pointless simply
because you wish to spread your ideals, and you kill
those who refuse to think your way. that's
but what i really think is we need to define
> > that a war is being fought in the first place
> > indicates a complete breakdown of human thought
> > processes. people, though they might be
> Negotiations, not thought processes. When talk
> fails, actions take
> over. Just because it's a large group vs. a few
> individuals doesn't
> make it stupid.
why do negotiations fail? people want to take, but
never give. one side refuses to understand the other
side. when one doesn't hear what one wants to hear,
it's the end of negotiations.
> During WWII (a cliche' example, I know), even though
> you weren't part of
> the group that got the U.S. into the War, would you
> not agree that
> stopping Germany, Japan and Italy was a just cause?
> A large number of
> people *voluteered* to fight in WWII. Were they all
> idiots? They were
> driven by the idea that the Axis was wrong *and* by
> the idea that
> nobody, but nobody pushes us around. The Axis asked
> for a war. Fine,
> they got one. Even if it's bloody, you should
> sometimes give them what
> they want. Somebody hurts someone I love, he's
> asking to have his
> kneecaps shoved up his ass, whether he's aware of
> that fact or not.
aaaah, i think you misunderstood my point and carried
it too far.
was stopping germany-japan-italy a just cause? i
think so. but by then, the war was already rolling
on. this just cause didn't start the war. by
necessity, the axis got the war they were begging for.
were the volunteers idiots? well, it's a noble
but the war, of itself, was far from not wasteful and
destructive. at least, i fail to see how nuking japan
twice and gassing over a million people ever achieves
anything, except to trim down global population by a
> You assume a universal definition of good, evil and
> just. There is no
> such thing.
i assumed no such thing. i specifically refrained
from calling war good or evil, just or unjust. i
think you're confusing me with someone else. i merely
sat well on my conclusion that war is destructive
> Sure, war is destructive. So is a
> forest fire or a
> volcanic eruption or a tornado. But benefits come
> from all of their
> destruction. This world is ruled by chaos. Just
> because it's a higher
> order, planned chaos does not mean that war is
err...i don't understand how you can so simplify war
as "planned chaos". it's more of random destruction
without benefits in mind (unlike the natural cycle of
life & death, destruction & reformation of nature)...
and if it were truly "planned chaos", how is it a
*higher* order than natural random chaos? being a
"planned chaos" does not make war right, either. (the
context of "chaos" that we are using, i assume, is
simply 'events that we cannot predict')
> Many wars are
> started for the wrong reasons, but joining in to
> stop them, and thereby
> participating in them, is not necessarily wrong.
yes, many wars are started for the wrong reasons. and
i never called joining a war as wrong. whether it's
right is another matter, but it's definitely an ugly
necessity. i'm not an absolute pacifist ("absolute"
being the key word -- as i'm not above using violence
when it's the only language the other understands),
and i don't condemn all wars. i can't condone them
> > war produces the most technology, but if that's
> > price of technology, i'm not sure it's worth it.
> You're saying that on a device that was spawned by
i am aware of that. but i'm also aware that i could
live content without computers and the internet (and i
do). it just so happens it's here...so, i'm using it.
*shrug* i just happen to think war is a pretty hefty
price for modern convenience.
> > me, i think life is a big joke (not necessarily
> > funny). and death is...you know how it goes. :D
> That's a defeatist attitude.
defeatist? hey, i don't pull shinji acts! i hardly
sit around and blame life for everything wrong that
happens. i do what i can, sometimes deluded that i
can change the world (which is, incidentally, one of
the reasons i like the character of wufei), but i'm
not so foolish as to not realize that a lot of things
are beyond my control and that shit will still happen.
when you start wondering if you've made a difference
at all, you start wondering if life IS a joke. it's
not defeatist. it's being honest, in a smartassed
fashion. (ok, so it's more of smug cynicism...)
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Apr 22 2000 - 23:59:55 JST