From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 17:21:31 MST
Eliezer writes:
> 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.
I think, yes, war is bad and it never becomes a good. But we don't
alway get to choose the good. Sometimes we only get to choose
the least bad. The human predicament is such that others can remove
from us the option of choosing the good and make us choose between
lesser bads.
Sometimes, war is less bad than the alternatives. Sometimes.
It is because war is so *obviously* bad, that I think, the burden of
making a case in each particular instance for going to war, for taking
a nation a war, should lie with those arguing for it, rather than those
arguing against it.
I'm my opinion, in history, there have unfortunately, been many wars
where, leaders exercising their judgement, as best they could, and acting
in response to dire circumstances, as they perceived them, have concluded
that war, though undesirable was the least worst practical choice.
In many cases, unfortunately, I think, I would in the shoes of those leaders
have had to agree with them.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST