War

[Mickey_Finn]

These are totally brutal discussions.

These are totally brutal philosophical arguments.

When I ask myself a boatload of questions about these, it becomes brutal.

It reminds me of a movie from about twenty-five years ago. I never saw the movie, but it most certainly came into class. “Indecent Proposal,” I believe was the name. It came up in a class. After five or six minutes of questioning about for how much would one sleep with a man (it was an all-girl Catholic school), one of the girls asked the girl who was willing to do it for a million down to around $ 50,000.00 cut to the case. “Would you do it for a penny?” The other student responded: “what do you think I am?” The girl that asked the question said: “you have already established that.”

Might the same principle apply to the Revolutionary War? Would you kill/murder a person for a billion dollars, a million, or five dollars?

Prostitution, murder, and war have certainly been around as long as humans have. There is no denying that all are human characteristics. But, they are not the same thing. Someone who would kill to protect themselves or their family simply has good survival instincts. Someone who would not, doesn’t.

To say that one war is just and another is not is an over simplification. Robertericleech said that the Indian wars were about greed, aggression and ethnic cleansing. We all know that these things were business as usual for the Indians of the new world. The only change our arrival brought was a superior social model that could sustain war beyond the hunter gatherer models capability. So, the men that resisted were killed and their lands were taken, along with their better women. Just like every other war.

There have been a tremendous number of statements about this thing war. “War is hell” was one. Our President said this:
“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
BARACK OBAMA, The New Yorker, May 31, 2004

Most statements from those who actually fought seek to demonize it. Though we have to admit many men must like war and fighting. How else could it be our constant companion throughout history? What little I know about this thing war is that survivors have to live with it. Their family’s are left to clean up after it, and the rich and the dead get off scott free.

 

[Jim_Baur]

“The Winners write the history; the defeated drink the beer and write the ballads.”

 

[Mickey_Finn]

“The Winners write the history; the defeated drink the beer and write the ballads.”

So, which are you then?

 

[Jim_Baur]

My O’Sullivans wrote the songs.

My Baurs wrote the songs after WWII. But they were cousins.

I don’t drink!

Honestly, I am a patriot.

From my understanding of the Revolutionary war, of which my peoples had no part, it was fought over mammon, under the title of taxes. Human lives were not as important as mammon. At least as far as I can discern,

Also, my Baur family left the Kingdom of Wurttemberg. He did not like Bismark.

When my Irish cousin showed my the old O’Sullivan Castle’s ruins, there was a sign: Pirates and Smugglers. It is no wonder my mother never told me about them.

What I have just said is as accurate as I can be.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

No, they were just Sullivans.

ATB

 

[PolarGuy]

[sigh]. It was only a matter of time before this degenerated into a “trash the United States and it’s unjust wars” thread.

Before we do that, and blame the US for, say, “ethnic cleansing of the honorable native Americans,” try reading an account of what the native Americans aka savages did to Saint Isaac Jogues and his compatriots. While the noble native Americans were gnawing the missionaries’ thumbs off then pulling their ligaments out, maybe we ought consider whether the so-called Indian wars were really so bad from a moral standpoint. Or were the Iroquois right to martyr Isaac Jogues?

 

[Spelf]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Perhaps OP would be more interested in abusive empires based on extractive economics or frankly un-Christian peoples ruling over parts of the world, since he seems to suggest that the United States, and I would imagine others, wage war entirely negatively.

Perhaps, then, we might say that the interventions in Korea, Siberia, Vietnam, Grenada, etc. were unjustified, and if only we did not get involved perhaps war would have been avoided, peace established, and blood spared! Of course, the Catholic observer will note that acting to destroy or otherwise contain the atheistic evil which is communism is no vice. Unless, of course, that that observer also seems to think that the Crusades were wars waged entirely for greed and in an un-Christian manner rather than to protect holy sites and pilgrims as well as restore the viability of the Christian Roman Empire in the east.

We live in a world full of sin and interactions between people are often shaped by it. Oftentimes states and people cannot sit idly by while their freedoms, including that of religious rights, are violated, and particularly to us, when Christianity comes under attack, whether it be from the Abbasid Caliphate, violent natives, or the Soviet Union.

 

[Jim_Baur]

[sigh]. It was only a matter of time before this degenerated into a “trash the United States and it’s unjust wars” thread.

Before we do that, and blame the US for, say, “ethnic cleansing of the honorable native Americans,” try reading an account of what the native Americans aka savages did to Saint Isaac Jogues and his compatriots. While the noble native Americans were gnawing the missionaries’ thumbs off then pulling their ligaments out, maybe we ought consider whether the so-called Indian wars were really so bad from a moral standpoint. Or were the Iroquois right to martyr Isaac Jogues?

I do not know who is guilty of trashing the U. S., but it is not me.

I love the U. S. I have several friends that should be in A. A. To say that is not trashing them. It is saying something that is actually loving. But the individual might not understand it. Also, I have never said it to the persons involved. Their spouses have actually asked me to tell them.

So I ask one of the questions again: was the American Revolution fought for mammon?

Concerning the wickedness of Native American nations, they too were wicked.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Thanks, I know what the O’ means.

ATB

 

[Spelf]

I never said that. However, defeating communism anywhere has the mutual effect of protecting Christianity everywhere, and also of course within the country or lands or peoples in which it is done.

 

[Spelf]

I’m guessing we have a different appraisal of the acceptability of the evil atheistic system which is communism, condemned of course by the Catholic Church and, I would imagine, by Orthodox authorities as well, though that I can’t confirm.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I never said that. However, defeating communism anywhere has the mutual effect of protecting Christianity everywhere, and also of course within the country or lands or peoples in which it is done.

Siberian expedition ( Polar bear expedition). There was an opportunity missed.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Our mission was to protect supplies, and to help with the evacuation of friendlies. That was our business there. Sadly it was only later we learned that we should never pass up the opportunity to kill communists. This last century would have been much different had we taken the chance to throw down the weak Bolshevik government. Certainly better for the Russians who had to endure Stalin, as well as the woman trapped in Berlin when it fell.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Baltika?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Perhaps OP would be more interested in abusive empires based on extractive economics or frankly un-Christian peoples ruling over parts of the world, since he seems to suggest that the United States, and I would imagine others, wage war entirely negatively.

Perhaps, then, we might say that the interventions in Korea, Siberia, Vietnam, Grenada, etc. were unjustified, and if only we did not get involved perhaps war would have been avoided, peace established, and blood spared! Of course, the Catholic observer will note that acting to destroy or otherwise contain the atheistic evil which is communism is no vice. Unless, of course, that that observer also seems to think that the Crusades were wars waged entirely for greed and in an un-Christian manner rather than to protect holy sites and pilgrims as well as restore the viability of the Christian Roman Empire in the east.

We live in a world full of sin and interactions between people are often shaped by it. Oftentimes states and people cannot sit idly by while their freedoms, including that of religious rights, are violated, and particularly to us, when Christianity comes under attack, whether it be from the Abbasid Caliphate, violent natives, or the Soviet Union.

SPELF;

I am the OP.

My intentions are really simple: What wars have not been fought for mammon?

Was the Revolutionary War fought for money, power, future taxation and vast amounts of land?

 

[Spelf]

SPELF;

I am the OP.

My intentions are really simple: What wars have not been fought for mammon?

Was the Revolutionary War fought for money, power, future taxation and vast amounts of land?

There were various legitimate and some not-legitimate rationales behind each war, and it’s overly simplistic to lump them altogether. The American Revolutionary War was fought over, among other issues, self-determination of taxation and trade policy as well as settlement policy. You seem to be arguing here that the war was exclusively about lands west of the reserve boundary of 1763, but that’s simply untrue.

Was God in error when he told the people of Israel to conquer the Levant in his name, even if at the expense of the Canaanites? That’s not to justify all expansion mind you, but surely an analogy could be made?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

No, I meant beer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Romans outlawed war within their own empire and in some of the borderlands surrounding it. They really did, and it was policy. Undoubtedly, being under the empire was not what everyone would have wanted, particularly at certain times and in certain places. But there was peace except when someone revolted or invaded, and then it was the Romans who dealt with that. The major reason why it worked was that, for a time, Roman military power was so overwhelming that, while a potential aggressor might gamble on taking on a local, taking on the Roman army was a nearly guaranteed disaster.

War was outlawed for a time in Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate, and it worked. Behind it, of course, was the armed force of the Shogun. Some, I am sure, didn’t like it, and it was oppressive, but it was peace.

Widespread peace is unusual in history, and in our own time exceedingly unlikely. But I will say this. For many decades the degree to which there was peace in at least a good part of the world was dependent on American arms or the perception thereof. As America backs away from that, one can reasonably expect wars to proliferate. Those who don’t like America will dispute this. But we have seen it work out in the last few years, and the next few will be even worse. Wait and see.

 

[JimG]

[sigh]. It was only a matter of time before this degenerated into a “trash the United States and it’s unjust wars” thread.

Before we do that, and blame the US for, say, “ethnic cleansing of the honorable native Americans,” try reading an account of what the native Americans aka savages did to Saint Isaac Jogues and his compatriots. While the noble native Americans were gnawing the missionaries’ thumbs off then pulling their ligaments out, maybe we ought consider whether the so-called Indian wars were really so bad from a moral standpoint. Or were the Iroquois right to martyr Isaac Jogues?

A good point, and Isaac Jogues and companions were not in it for the money or the land or anything other than to bring Christ to the New World.

The American Revolution was fought for independence. I suppose if we had remained British subjects, Winston Churchill might not have had such a hard time getting the U.S. to help Europe fight Hitler. I’m glad that we did, though. And then did the U.S. gain new territory? No, it helped to rebuild Europe; it did not subjugate Japan and Germany.

 

[JimG]

The Romans outlawed war within their own empire and in some of the borderlands surrounding it. They really did, and it was policy. Undoubtedly, being under the empire was not what everyone would have wanted, particularly at certain times and in certain places. But there was peace except when someone revolted or invaded, and then it was the Romans who dealt with that. The major reason why it worked was that, for a time, Roman military power was so overwhelming that, while a potential aggressor might gamble on taking on a local, taking on the Roman army was a nearly guaranteed disaster.

War was outlawed for a time in Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate, and it worked. Behind it, of course, was the armed force of the Shogun. Some, I am sure, didn’t like it, and it was oppressive, but it was peace.

Widespread peace is unusual in history, and in our own time exceedingly unlikely. But I will say this. For many decades the degree to which there was peace in at least a good part of the world was dependent on American arms or the perception thereof. As America backs away from that, one can reasonably expect wars to proliferate. Those who don’t like America will dispute this. But we have seen it work out in the last few years, and the next few will be even worse. Wait and see.

As the U.S. backs away from a world leadership role, it is likely we will see more, not less, war.