Re: War is bad... it's still bad, right?

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 16:44:19 MST


On Monday 20 January 2003 03:01 pm, alexboko@umich.edu wrote:
> From: "Alex Future Bokov" <alexboko@umich.edu>
> X-Mailer: YaBB
>
>
> [quote from: Eliezer on 2003-01-20 at 15:38:43] From today's rant in \"Bob
>
> the Angry Flower\":
> > When did people start thinking war was an acceptable tool of policy
> > instead of a *total fucking human disaster*???
>
> Y'know, I think he has a point there. It may sound dreadfully banal, but
> it's still a hell of a strong argument:
>
> War is bad.
>...
It's worth remembering that it was General Sherman who originated the quote
"War is Hell." This didn't stop him from creating a miles wide path of
destruction "from Atlanta to the sea".
War has always been both a "total fucking human disaster" and a tool of
policy. Acceptable ignores the question of "Acceptable to whom?", just as
disaster ignores the question of "Disaster for whom?". The people in charge
of governments frequently consider anything acceptable if it isn't a disaster
for them, and any policy acceptable if it helps them. Being an inhuman
monster may not be a requirement for the job, but it certainly doesn't seem
to be a bar. And if the disaster is to their own citizenry, it doesn't
matter (to the leaders) as long as they can get it blamed on someone else.

-- 
-- Charles Hixson
   Avoid centralized designs.  A centralization of control is a failure 
waiting to happen. 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST