CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Gandhi's suggestions to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war. Gandhi proposed that the Indians rebel against themselves and the British in order to achieve peace and stability in India.
I am not going to read a book in order to attempt to see your point of view; I did a quick search of a few excerpts here and there though. One excerpt has the dialog attributed to Gandhi (the Editor) at one point saying: “I have already described the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by force of arms. Brute-force is not natural to Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal."”
That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”
As the title indicates, this fictive dialog is more in regard to India’s fight for independence rather than war or peace in itself. At any rate, even if the non violent image of Gandhi is not true and he actually thought that war can lead to peace as you claim, I don’t regard a historical figure’s opinion on any subject to be a truth no matter how much I agree with it, or disagree with it as the case may be.
I implore you to actually add something to the debate, share your own philosophy on the subject instead of someone else’s.
That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”
"It is possible that those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal. There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. Unless we realize this, we cannot have Home Rule ... We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not want the tyranny of either English rule or Indian rule" (Indian Home Rule; 1909).
Political unrest is not peace, sir. Regardless of whether India's fight for home rule was or wasn't a "war", there was still conflict. Gandhi suggested that India "vent" by means of a civil war.
Peace is achievable by war. If I remeber history correctly (which I do), the end of World War II marked peace for the world. I don't think WWII was fought with water guns or rainbows, it was a war and it achieved peace.
The question is not should we achieve peace through war, but can we. The answer is yes, we can and no we shouldn't.
I am an avid reader of Gandhi's works, and, with all due respect, that is the most perverse interpretation of his beliefs I have seen in a while.
What he meant was that people should remain not oppressed. "Those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure" are not truly at peace.
The rest of the quote has been murdered by your interpretation. Nowhere does he say that physical violence should be resorted to. Non-violence is still a form of "fighting."
For God's sake, the man almost killed himself (hunger strike) to stop violence on the borders.
"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."
that is the most perverse interpretation of his beliefs I have seen in a while.
You should get out more.
Nowhere does he say that physical violence should be resorted to.
How many times do I have to quote this man? "An eruption must have it's vent" - read it to your grandmother, read it out loud, make it into a song. He is saying that the Indian people must fight AMONGST themselves. Read it and weep.
Gandhi preaches civil disobedience, resisting the system, peaceful protests. None of these can be considered war, yet they are the 'eruptions' that you talk about.
Yes, we can achieve peace through war, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan is evidence of this. The Japanese surrendered immediately thereafter.
So, under the "Just War Tradition" the principle of "proportionality" was followed and met.
Supporting material - "Violence, Politics and Morality: Ethical and Political Issues in War and Peace," by R. C. Smith, Politics Lecturer at Waikato University, New Zealand.
I really hope you’re being sarcastic. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians died in that attack. Not military members, but innocent civilians. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not an act of war; it was an act of terrorism. We struck fear into the hearts of the Japanese people through the use of terror.
There were a substantial amount of military leaders that admitted that it wasn't a well thought out plan, it wasn't justified, and that alternative methods of retaliation to the attack at Pearl Harbor would have been preferable. (See attachment)
And I honestly don’t see in any way how you can make the claim that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was an example of Just War Tradition or proportionality. Neither were followed or met. It wasn’t a justified act and the president at the time completely exceeded his power to give the order. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a blatant disregard to both Just War Theory and proportionality, wtf are you smoking?
According to R C Smith, the author of "Violence, Politics and Morality," when I took his 2nd year politics paper in 2011; when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the Japanese surrendered, the proportionality principle of the "Just War" tradition was indeed met. I agree with his view.
Maybe you could take it up with him if you are going to throw around accusations about "smoking."
According to R C Smith, the author of "Violence, Politics and Morality,"
Oh, so that qualifies your opinion? It was stated in a book so that means its right, is that it?
When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the Japanese surrendered, the proportionality principle of the "Just War" tradition was indeed met.
Proportionality in international law posits that the predicted damage to civilian life or property must be proportionate to the desired military advantage and that that predicted damage to civilians is not to be excessive in attaining the military mission.
Not only were there numerous military leaders and scientists who worked on the bomb research who strongly opposed the use of the bombs, but considering the bombs were never used on civilians before, no amount of civilian loss would have been clearly predicted in order to determine if it was proportionate to the US military advantage. Even if the amount of civilian loss was clearly predicted, it would have been shown to be RIDICULOUSLY excessive in gaining the military advantage. The US department of energy estimated that about 70,000 civilians died immediately after the bomb was dropped in Hiroshima alone. By the end of that year, another 20-96,000 who survived the initial blast was estimated to have died from severe injuries and radiation sickness. But wait, over the past fifty years, out of an annual average of 94 leukemia deaths, only half are from actual survivors of the event, the other half were born AFTER the bombs were dropped. The amount of civilian CIVILIAN life lost and civilian property damage far outweighs the military advantage gained especially considering my next point.
There were several US military leaders who stated that the use of the bombs was not necessary because Japan was already essentially defeated during the battle of midway six months after the attack at Pearl Harbor. After putting up a successful blockade, we were able to defeat the Japanese Imperial Navy, and without their navy, the Japanese were no longer a threat to American soil.
I am active duty Navy and I was stationed in Japan for three and a half years, and whether or not you feel that should qualify me for anything, one thing certain is that the first few years of my enlistment has provided a lot of basic military knowledge and my time in Japan (the people there love America by the way regardless of our past) and seeing the museums and reading about the history of the event has taught me a lot.
The use of the bombs on Japan was wrong for many reasons.
1. The principle of proportionality in international law was not met, as I stated above.
2. Was incredibly immoral considering the amount of human lives loss regardless of what side they were on, and also the fact that they were not military members actively engaging in warfare but innocent civilians.
3. The dropping of the bombs on Japanese homeland with the goal to incite fear in their government to immediately get what we wanted is by definition, an act of terrorism.
4. Was considered to be unnecessary by several US military leaders: Gen. Douglas McArthur, Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, Fleet Adms. William Leahy and Chester Nimitz to name a few.
If any other country dropped those bombs, especially if the bombs were dropped on American soil, you know damn well the ‘police of the world’ would be out there declaring it as a war crime and as being unjustified.
I agree with his view
That’s nice. An argument contains a reason for the audience to agree with your view, a premise. Saying that you agree with some guy’s book doesn’t give the audience any reason to agree with your position.
Maybe you could take it up with him if you are going to throw around accusations about "smoking."
All you’re implying here is that you are not prepared to defend your argument and you’d rather me debate the person from where you originally gained your miniscule understanding of the topic. Why would I do that? You originally stated your position without any regard to basing it off of some other guy’s opinion, so I will take it up with you.
No, I mean that I read the book that was the reading material for a 2nd year politics course, passed with above average marks, and agree with the author, his opinion, his book and his arguments.
I have explained why the principle of proportionality was met. It's not hard to understand that this action from America did actually save thousands of lives. That is what the principle of proportionality is about.
No, I mean that I read the book that was the reading material for a 2nd year politics course, passed with above average marks, and agree with the author, his opinion, his book and his arguments.
If I took a course about the digestive track of elephants, and the course was based on one guy’s book, and I didn’t cross check any of the information presented to me with other sources, then not only would I pass the course with flying colors, but I would also know a whole lot about shit.
I have explained why the principle of proportionality was met.
No. No you haven’t. Not in any way actually. You gave a poor example and you THINK your example meets the criteria for the principle of proportionality based on your own personal understanding of a book, but you have not explained WHY to me, at all.
Not until this most recent post of yours that is...
It's not hard to understand that this action from America did actually save thousands of lives. That is what the principle of proportionality is about.
So that is your reasoning? That in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US saved thousands of lives? And that that meets the criteria for the principal of proportionality?
It’s obvious that you do not understand what the principal of proportionality entails. For someone who passed with above average marks in a second year college course about politics, to not know something as simple as proportionality, it speaks volumes about the curriculum of the instructor/course you studied.
"It's not hard to understand that this action from America did actually save thousands of lives"
Whose lives?
This is a major factor in determining whether or not proportionality was met. If you mean that the bombs saved thousands of military members’ lives, than that is irrelevant to the principle of proportionality. Military members join the service with full knowledge of the possibility that we may die. We are willing to sacrifice our life for the good of our country. We willingly hand our lives over to the government to be used as tools in the war machine (often times in total opposition to the war effort but needing a way to make a decent wage in a decrepit economy). We are NOT casualties of war because we are not innocent of the war effort.
Now, if you were to refer to innocent civilians as the lives saved, THEN you could use it as a factor for the proportionality principle. Casualties of war (innocent civilians dying) and civilian property damage are not to be at an excessive cost to obtaining the mission objective. Considering the territory of where the battle between the US and Japan was being fought was Japanese territory, then the principal of proportionality in international law applies, and the innocent civilians regarded are the Japanese civilians.
So considering there were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who died in the bombing and their property was completely annihilated, proportionality was NOT met. Our mission, first and foremost is always national defense, defending the homeland. Since the battle of midway effectively prevented any further attacks on American soil, there was no need to drop any atomic bombs in that sense. The next mission after the nation was secure was to defeat the Japanese while keeping within the standards of the Geneva Conventions protocol. The Geneva Conventions specifically states in article 52 of Additional Protocol 1, that civilians and their property are not to be used as direct targets in accomplishing the mission and that only military objects are to be targeted where it would gain us a definite military advantage. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument
“Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. (notice the relationship between civilian casualties and military gains) This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target.” (I don't know about you, but two non-militarized civilian cities and the surprise decimation of all the structures and lives contained therein do not sound like a "lawful attack against a legitimate military target.")
I don’t know how else I can spell it out for you. YOU ARE WRONG. And you either do not understand the author or course you took, or the material on which the course was based is WRONG too.
Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. I did understand the course, and there was plenty of other material referenced in the book that I referred to. But apparently, you don't like back up referencing unless it agrees with your point of view. Too bad for you.
I understand the principle of proportionality very well, actually, I suggest you are the one who needs to read up on it.
I did understand the course, and there was plenty of other material referenced in the book that I referred to.
I have no doubt that you understood the course you took. Based on your lack of understanding on the subject however, I am inclined to believe that there is a reason for this. Perhaps you understood the course presented to you, but the course had inaccurate or completely false information.
And if there is ‘material referenced in the book that [you] referred to,’ then that is not the same as cross checking the information presented with other sources. A college course should not be based on one book alone, especially on the topic of politics where bias is almost always present.
But apparently, you don't like back up referencing unless it agrees with your point of view. Too bad for you.
To be honest, I actually couldn’t find one that didn’t support my position.
If it is easy enough to prove me wrong, link a website where it supports your idea of what proportionality is and how that relates to the bombing of Japan. I provided two sources to support my position that proportionality is a relation between civilian loss, and military objective. and also where it specifically states in the Geneva Conventions where civilians and their property are not supposed to be directly targeted by the military, proving that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not in keeping with the ‘just war’ theory.
The only reason you provided to support your claim is that you read it in a book. Well apparently you and the book are wrong. Nothing morally wrong with that, just look at it as a learning experience.
I understand the principle of proportionality very well, actually, I suggest you are the one who needs to read up on it.
I work in supply department in the Navy but I was sent TAD to the security department for two years. It was my job to know about military law according to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention articles, one article in particular (the one that applies here) relates to the protection of victims and civilians during an armed conflict.
It is possible that the reason we have differing ideas on what proportionality is is because we are basing them on what our respective countries define them as. Considering the US is the one who dropped the bomb, wouldn’t it be logical to use the US’s definition of proportionality as it applies to international law when trying to figure out if they were justified or not?
Lives on both sides were not 'saved.' lives on the United States were saved, but hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in Japan, civilian lives.
You couldn't even justly say that no lives were lost after the war stopped because thousands of people who survived the initial blast died from severe burns or radiation sickness. And not only that but for decades after the bomb was dropped, the land was still unstable and people were still dying from things like leukemia.
How can you honestly think that lives were saved on both sides?
The fact that the war stopped in its tracks was not due to tactical use of military force against the Japanese military, it was due to an act of terrorism; a surprise and direct attack on two non-militarized civilian cities. It was a purposeful attempt at provoking TERROR in the hearts of the Japanese by killing thousands of innocent civilians in order to bring an abrupt end to the conflict which was already coming to a resolution at sea during the Battle of Midway.
I would like to add that one bomb was not enough to cause the Japanese surrender. They saw the first and they stayed in the fight. Who is to blame for the second bomb? Just throwin it out there.
It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war. Under that definition, of course. Ending a war results in "peace." But then you wouldn't "achieve" anything. You went from peace to war and then back to peace.
Ending a war doesn't mean peace. It only means they stop shooting each other. But it doesn't necessarily mean they will love each other after that.
It's the same as with two kids ranting about something to the point they yell at each other. At some point they start fighting physicaly. And some time later, either one of them is taking a beating and the other one claims victory, or they both get tired and stop the agressions. Do they then go play football together as if nothing happened? No. They will still hate each other, at least for some time. And in that time the possibility that they may fight again is fairly high. And most likely their disagreement will never be solved. They will just hopefuly get over it over time. But even so, the existence of that unsolved disagreement may still become a reason for a fight in the future.
So, what did their fight solve? Did it bring peace between them? Nothing, and No. If their first discussion had been reasonable, they might not reach an agreement, but they might still be friends and, who knows, an agreement might come someday. But since it turned into a fight, it created hostility between them, that most likely will bring more fights. That's what war does, with the exception of isolated cases like hitler, where most countries were actualy forced into war, and when the nazis were safely contained it all ended and germany was no longer an threat, thus lost the enemy status (maybe after some time, even, but I don't know about that).
Ending wars leads to peace; it hardly defines the word however.
If we were a species who didn't war with one another, would that be peace? If we are a species that continually declares war on one another, is that peace?
All "peace" is is a time without war, not some idealistic utopia of togetherness.
And this is why I don't see a high probability of survival for our species: the false notion that togetherness is only in fantasies and is unachievable.
I believe that in time humankind would grow out of its infancy and possibly even become a level 1 civilization, but ignorance and intolerance will be the death of us before we can even reach such a time. Togetherness is the very key to our species’ survival, it’s a shame that people don't want to embrace it.
According to most sources about the World War II in Pacific, Japan had surrendered to the British and the Allies which resulted the total peace ending up the bloody and terrifying war. In this case, after several years, the Axis Power nations we're already associated with its neighboring countries like the US and others. It's just after the event that the Axis Nations fought for supremacy and glory but tragically lost to more powerful Allies. In this instance, war is a bridge to achieve more productive and understanding Treaty or Peace among nations.
It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war.
Indeed, perhaps I should have been more specific.
Ideally, I see the possibility that our species can stop fighting over small fractions of this tiny blue pixel we call Earth, and evolve, awaken, develop into a peaceful species. That would mean no more wars, none. That would mean no more oppression, none. No more intolerance, none. And no more undue suffering by way of making resources scarce in order to make a buck on our fellow human.
Practically however, I see the probability of something like this (considering our continuous destructive behavior, greed, ignorance, intolerance, and struggle for power) to be either far out of our reach, or unattainable if our destructive behavior leads to the very extinction of the species before we can break out of this infantile state.
My ideal concept is what I mean personally as peace, but a very basic definition of peace would be ‘no war.’ If a government terms the lull in between wars as a state of “peace,” but oppression, and intolerance still exist during that time, then perhaps it’s not my definition of the word that you should be concerned with.
I implore you to even consider a very basic definition of the word in regard to the debate question. You support the affirmative position that we can achieve peace through war, please elaborate on how war can achieve peace, because as you said yourself: "Ending a war results in 'peace.' but then you wouldn't 'achieve' anything.
So using a basic definition here is the debate question again:
If you are oppressed, coerced, etc can you defend yourself by attacking?
A good defense is a good offense, and a war may eradicate oppressors, coercers, and so forth while showing others that it isn't smart to mess with you. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Of course we can achieve peace through war! What are y'all, a bunch a' hippies? All we's gotta do is go in there an kill ery last un of em Moozlims, and maybe those Hindoos, too, what with thair shaved heads an sitting down all weardly an all! It aint natural! That's right, we'll sure as heaven have peace on tha day all those goshdarned pagans have been swallowed up by the very ground they walkt on!
I believe that there is only one way that war can ever achieve peace, and that is by destroying the whole of humanity, for if there are but two human beings still alive and together, then there shall be disagreements between them which could very well lead to violence.
Whilst it is true that a lot must be paid for war, the question is, if the price is worth the changes it'll bring in overcoming the conflict of interests?..........
Case in point: Gandhi had won freedom for his people through every non-violent methods that scarred many who were victims of impeccable british treatment.
Whilst freedom was truly granted and a large scale revolution or war would've caused the loss of millions of life, the amusing fact herein is, millions paid for not having a war.
The world wars brought with them famines for many parts of india which were STILL taxed to finance the british's exploits. Thus the people were not able to sustain themselves and yes MILLIONS had lost their lives, a better administration after a revolution would've lessened if not completely eliminated a death toll.
This is a debating site - yeah?! If it had been proved, there would be no debate. There are only opinions. That's what it's all about, and having supporting material too.
HAHA! I want to say that I agree that war is a solution in certain circumstances. If you are invaded and you defend yourself, you are half the cause of a war, but it's better than the alternative.
The reason I laugh is because your statement is saying that among other things, war is a solution to peace...it certainly is :)
In my opinion war is crucial to ridding the world of people/places that have made an effort to disrupt human Rights of the area and as such they should be met with punishment equal to there acts, furthermore i would argue that war is needed to stop things such as slavery which is a just war.
In my opinion war is crucial to ridding the world of people/places that have made an effort to disrupt human Rights
And in doing so, we effectively become the ones who disrupt human rights ourselves, namely the right to life. Of course we always think we are the ones who are doing the right thing, but often times when we look at a situation from another perspective, our opinions can do a complete 180.
Here is a passage from a book I would suggest anyone to read entitled “Endgame” by Derrick Jensen: (its pretty long but worth it in my opinion)
“Let’s tell this story again: Last Tuesday nineteen Arab terrorists unleashed
their fanaticism on the United States by hijacking four planes, each containing
scores of innocent victims. These terrorists, who do not value life the way
we Americans do, slammed two of the planes into the World Trade Center
and a third into the Pentagon. Courageous men and women in the fourth
plane wrestled with their attackers and drove the plane into the ground, sacrificing
themselves rather than allowing the killers to attack the headquarters
of the CIA or any other crucial target. Our government will find and punish
those who masterminded the attack…
…Here is another version of the same story: Last Tuesday nineteen young men
made their mothers proud. They gave their lives to strike a blow against the
United States, the greatest terrorist state ever to exist. This blow was struck in
response to U.S. support for the dispossession and murder of Palestinians, to
the forced installation of pro-Western governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
many other countries, to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed
by U.S. bombs, to the nine thousand babies who die every month as a direct
result of U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and to the irradiation of Iraq with depleted
uranium. More broadly, it was a response to the CIA-backed murder of
650,000 people in Indonesia, and to the hundreds of thousands murdered by
U.S.-backed death squads in Central and South America. To the four million
civilians killed in North Korea. To the theft of American Indian land and the
killings of millions of Indians…
…Here’s another version: Last Tuesday was a tragedy for the planet, and at
least a temporary victory for rage and hatred. But let us not seek to pinpoint
blame, nor meet negativity with negativity. The terrorists were wrong to act
as they did, but to meet their violence with our own would be just as wrong.
Violence never solves anything. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only ends
up making the whole world blind.” Even if you believe the United States and
the global economy are fundamentally destructive, you cannot use the master’s
tools to dismantle the master’s house. The most important thing any of
us can do is eradicate the anger that lies within our own hearts, that wounds
the world as surely as do all the hijackers in Arabia and all the bombs in the
United States. If I wish to experience peace, I must provide peace for another.
If I wish to heal another’s anger, I must first heal my own.”
I think that first of all, no matter how critical the situation is necessary to consider the pros and cons.
In the story known first and second world wars. But who will ultimately suffer? People.Spilled so much blood of innocent people. Many wives and children were left alone
First of all we must try to come to an agreement or reconciliation of the parties and find a common language.
Yes we can. Human nature is based on conflict anyway. In almost all organisms on Earth, a display of strength is needed to show who is in charge and at the top. As long as someone who is in charge maintains order peace can be achieved easily. It is only when opposing sides come together when conflict results.
War can provide what we need for a better future. And can fade into distant past in the present future
World peace..... when people say that i think of one banner ruleing the entire world under one gloryous planet united and free to prosper and further advance there understanding of the world. This is what all men should stride for. However politics is ever changing from the cavemen time till now there are pointless wars.
Nations have come close to being able to seize world peace. Despite having to kill alot of people to do it. But when i think back more than 100 years i feel nothing when it says how many die. My life is here and now. And my world is not at peace ..... AND I KNOW ONE THING. i would die for world peace. and i would kill as much as needed. And i would hate myself. But i know that if we did . and 1000 years later men looked back and felt nothing for us i would be happy in the knowledge that No one else must achive this and live can advance so quickly and life can finaly be free and beautiful.
How ever this is not here yet and i would die and kill Millions more. so that billions will not have to
If this happened alot of bad shit would go down but it would be far more positive
Nothing is impossible stride to peace the present will be the past the past is what defines the future. And in the future we forget the past and look to the present and will it be one or still ravaged with pointless wars
I really think in the future the bad guys would finally listen to us and achieve peace because war I know we win but people die doing it until 4/450,000,000 only survive or at least figure something out to not die in the war.
Peace being achieved through war implies that there isn't initial peace. If there is initial peace, then a war ends that peace. If one is in a state of war, then there is no way to achieve peace but through the given war.
Can one achieve peace through war? Not where peace exists.
Can one achieve peace in a war but without going through it? No of course not.
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt
thar is no way to bring more war if thar is no one to mack war. the simpol truth is that if you have no more oponets then you have no woryes and if the grates thret you have to face is some one in your kingdom rather then somone els in thare kingdom the thret becoms much ezyer to deyol with
That’s not the message I was trying to convey. I’m saying that if our world were section into tow sides and both were night and day versions of the other one then the only way to have complete pees is to have a war in witch one side lost and another wan. But in a world like ours, with its divers neater the best we can hope fore at envy time is compromise and exceptions because all the world letters have to think about themselves or there country and we all do it. But to push the point further I was not saying I wont the world to have a war in witch only one country survives I was simply stating that if there was no avoiding it the war cooed create pees instead of more fighting.
Perpetual peace is achievable because of free trade and markets, but when it is constricted, war breaks out due to the scarcity of resources. All wars are fought over the scarcity of resources. War is taking what they have instead of producing then trading for what they produce.
So, instead of being productive through free markets and trade, war is destructive because natural resources are destroyed, which are the factors of original production, and people are killed. The two fundamental resources to production is nature and people, perpetual wars are the reason why there is no sustained peace.
Perpetual peace is achievable because of free trade and markets, but when it is constricted, war breaks out due to the scarcity of resources.
Well, since we have never achieved perpetual peace, that is just speculation.
All wars are fought over the scarcity of resources.
Not true. Imperialism is likely the cause of most wars in human history and has nothing to do with scarcity of resources, but rather greed. Religious wars are another example (like Charlemagne's and the Crusades).
HOW DO WARS ACTUALLY CREATE PEACE
Well, technically, they don't. It's like saying you achieve waking consciousness through sleep. You don't exactly, but sleep always ends (death aside) in waking consciousness. Sleep is merely the time in between.
Well, since we have never achieved perpetual peace, that is just speculation.
No perpetual peace because we are in perpetual war at least since the WWII. Peace can't be achieved with perpetual war.
Well, technically, they don't. It's like saying you achieve waking consciousness through sleep. You don't exactly, but sleep always ends (death aside) in waking consciousness. Sleep is merely the time in between.
You are right. Peace is a temporary state. I was about to dispute you that it can be a permanent state, but the fact is, we can't prove that. Permanent last forever and forever can never go away whether earth exists or not.
Peace is not a temporary state. Peace is a state in which humans are totaly responsible for it's continuosity. Wars never solved any issues between countries, except the liberation of opression in such countries that had it, and the destruction of dictatorships, such as hitler's (yes, without capital H, for I disagree that such a being deserves that).
All wars except those I aforementioned as exceptions have left all involved coutries with the same views as they were before, only with the added general opinion that the offending ones are a bunch of assholes. Only over time their issues were slowly softened (if you will) or even solved through other means than war, leading to the world we have today where Japan and russia and the US aren't necessarily enemies.
It all comes from political or religious interests (being economic interests in the political category in my point of view), and those are only solved by having the relevant polititions of each country discussing the matter, not by killing millions of unrelated innocents (soldiers included there) because they are losing power over petroleum interests like the US was getting into under Bush's time.
We can't sustain peace because we're too greedy and selfish and stupid to elect people that share these same adjectives. And we're too stupid to solve problems in a way that no one gets harmed. Wars don't come and go, we bring them.
Actually every war in history (stalemates aside) "solved" something. Whether it was successful territorial expansion or successful defense from territorial expansion, usually, one side always wins.
All wars except those I aforementioned as exceptions have left all involved coutries with the same views as they were before
WWII and post-war Germany. I rest my case.
We can't sustain peace because we're too greedy and selfish
This directly contradicts your first statement that peace is a permanent state.
i would have to disagree with you. Peace is a temporary state. Everything is a temporary state except the life of a soul but i don't want to get into that.
If something is really permanent, then it lasts forever. But "forever" can't be proven. Forever is till now till the end of time and time nevers dies. Thus, all is temporary.
In that sense, it is a temporary state. But you're thinking impractically, come back to reality.
Nobody is suggesting that the state of peace would be indefinite, even after the existence of sentient beings which perceive the concept; just that peace is not peace when war is a continuing occurrence.
Peace is not a temporary state in the practical sense. But peace is not the period of time in between wars either, that period of time is labeled as “peace time” by the ruling class to give its people the false sense of safety or peacefulness, it is an example of rhetoric which ruling classes are all too familiar with.
Yes, we have yet to achieve peace, especially through war.
We are not a peaceful species, from the beginning of recorded history to now.
And who says that the ruling class fooled the public into thinking that they had peace?
I did. And I realize that that pretty much amounts to nothing considering the idea of credentialism that the institution is so hell bent on.
My personal reasoning is that the ruling class labels a period of time in between wars “peace time,” when oppression and intolerance persists. That, to me, shows that they want us to feel at peace when simply looking around would reveal otherwise.
No. Peace is a temporary state. It is not something that, once "achieved," is permanent.
According to whom? Feel free to give me any definition you can find, cite the source, and then proceed to explain how peace (by said definition) can be acheived through wars specifically. Not ending of wars, but the creation of them. How can the creation of war lead to peace?
The fact that we still have wars today only proves we can't SUSTAIN peace.
Okay, you've made your point, peace can refer to the period of time in between wars, I get it. You can stop playing the fool now and add something constructive to the debate.
If peace in this debate means "a period of time with no war," (or any other definition you can find for that matter) my question is whether or not we can achieve that by creating more wars.
Not ending of wars, but the creation of them. How can the creation of war lead to peace?
It can't. But that's not what the question asks (you really should word them better or explain what you mean). The question simply says war, not the "creation of" war. War both ends and starts peace. When war begins, peace is ended. When war ends (as it always does), peace is restored, or "achieved." The question acts if peace is achieved. Yes, technically, it is.
You can stop playing the fool now and add something constructive to the debate.
I am simply answering a question that YOU told be to answer. Please don't persecute me for it.
my question is whether or not we can achieve that by creating more wars.
That's actually completely different from the question, but whatever. Yes and No. Just the creation of war does not create peace. However, the consequence of creating war (and the only constant consequence that has remained true for every war in the history of world is THE ENDING OF SAID WAR) does create peace. This all semantics because I don;t think "peace" is the word you are looking for.
It can't. But that's not what the question asks (you really should word them better or explain what you mean). The question simply says war, not the "creation of" war.
Okay, you’re right, it doesn’t say ‘creation of war,’ but it doesn’t say just ‘war’ either, it says ‘through war’ as in ‘in the course of.’
Given my analogy in the description it should be easy to see what I mean by war and peace for this debate. Here’s the debate question again using my analogical terms:
‘Can we achieve virginity through fucking?’
Virginity being the pure sexless state, and fucking being the act of sex.
Now, go ahead and proceed to dodge the issue and explain how you’ve warped this to fit your argument…
War both ends and starts peace.
No, the end of war starts peace.
The question [asks] if peace is achieved. Yes, technically, it is.
Ending of war is not ‘achieving peace through war,’ that is ending war to achieve peace, it is the opposite of achieving peace through war. My position is that we need to end war to achieve peace, not a war, but “war.” The other position is that we must achieve peace through war, which is an asinine concept in my opinion and you seem to be defending it.
I am simply answering a question that YOU told be to answer. Please don't persecute me for it.
No, Apollo, you are dodging the issue because you know what I mean, I’ve explained what I mean many times now, and by dodging this and playing this annoying semantics game you’re only making yourself look like a fool. It’s not me that is ‘persecuting,’ you’re doing that well enough on your own by childishly playing the fool card out of pride.
Just the creation of war does not create peace.
So then we would agree? That we need to end war to achieve peace? Would you say that we have achieved peace if war (not “a” war, but war in general) was to end completely? Or do we need wars to achieve periodic states of peace? Is that even really peace if we are constantly enacting and then ending wars between different nations?
This all semantics because I don;t think "peace" is the word you are looking for.
What word is it then that I am looking for then?
Based on the fact that I created this particular debate, and that my meaning of the word should therefore be the one used, and that I gave a pretty simple and easy to understand analogy in the description followed by various indicating responses to your comments explaining what I mean by the word, why then is semantics even an issue? Could it be that you are unwilling to address the topic out of pride because you don’t want to admit that you are wrong?
In the post that provoked me to even create this debate, you said “What is the end goal of any military campaign? Peace.” And now you seem to be shifting your stance to mean that peace is not the goal of war, but the default posture that nations assume when a war is ended. Which is it?
How can it be that we declare war on a nation with the end goal of peace? How can we achieve peace through war when war in itself ends peace?
The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end. Sigh. Since you can't seem to understand by simple logic, pick the set you disagree with:
Question: "Can we achieve peace through war?"
1. Peace is a time of no war.
2. The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end.
3. The beginning of war destroys peace.
4. The ending of war creates peace.
5. Therefore, peace can indeed be created through the course of war.
2. The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end.
Indeed, the course of war is "everything from" it’s beginning to its end, not before or after, but during. “Everything from” is the content within the duration of that period of time… actions, causal factors, etc.
3. The beginning of war destroys peace.
Well, I would prefer the term ‘ends,’ or ‘marks the end to’ but okay.
4. The ending of war creates peace.
‘Begins,’ or ‘marks the beginning to’ is preferable, in my opinion. But I will humor you and say that everything up until this point is pretty sound, however; I don't see what this point would have to do with what happens in the course of war. Remember that you said that "the course of war is everything from [war’s] beginning to [war’s] end," which denotes something in between.
5. Therefore, peace can indeed be created through the course of war.
Your conclusion assumes something that happens within the “course of war” that ‘created’ peace. An example of this was not shown within your points of reasoning. What is the causal factor that happens “through the course of war?”
Simply ending the war starts peace by default, but that doesn’t imply that anything happened “in the course of” war for said peace to be created. My debate question again is: Can we achieve peace through (in the course of) war? And if I might add another question if the answer is still yes: What is it that happens through the course of war, which creates peace?
If your argument is that peace happens by default when war is ended, then that is not related to my debate question. My debate question is asking if peace can be achieved through (in the course) war.
Of course ending war will lead to peace. That is blatantly obvious. My debate was not to point out such a clear, understandable fact, for what would there be to debate on? The debate was created to provoke responses on how the act of war can be justified in regard to achieving peace. I have yet to see a sound argument for that side of the debate. Would you care to try your hand at it? Or are you going to continue this pathetic attempt at dodging my question?
Hence my "technically, yes" response. It is also why I think "peace" isn't the word you are looking for.
Which would have ended right there had it answered my debate question. But your ‘technically, yes’ response answered a semantically warped version of my debate question.
You seem like a smart person, have you figured out what my debate question was originally asking now, and do you have a response to it?
It kind of depends on where you have the war and such. But I strongly believe that you can't achieve through war for EVERYONE. But you can't achieve it through different war tactics and plans for yourself I suppose.
But we have had many advancements as a result of war. Medicine, safety, tolerance, technology. All of it is increased after a war. War is, ironically, a time when people come together for a common cause, regardless of their differences. And saying that something bad cannot bring good things afterward is a false statement. Let's say if someone murdered another person. That would cause negative effects to the murderer, the victim's family/friends, and community. But the murderer could feel remorse and as a result, look for a counselor to become a better person. The community could help out the victim's family financially and emotionally and begin a program to help prevent crime from happening in that area. The murderer could also "turn a new leaf" and even apologize sincerely to the victim's family/friends, maybe filling the gap caused by the murder. You cannot have something bad without something good following it. In a school where bullying is an extreme problem, students and staff could come together to prevent it, building new relationships in the process.
So, how can you say that apologise of murderer can fill the gap caused by him?!
Yes, probably you know that there are some financial/emotional help from the government, although do you believe that it can help to injured side?
I do not think that it will help to victim's family, they will not just care about whether the murderer become better person or not, due to their relative died! /Nothing can replace died person, even billions of dollars/
Consequently, why don't you consider about achieving something new and necessary without war or killing people?
As example, many great inventions were invented in peaceful time, therefore, humanity easily can achieve anything (I mean good things) without war.
Because maybe the family needed to know that he is sorry, that he knows what he did is wrong and he knows how he affected them (there are people like that) And Im not saying that help from the government would make everything better, I'm just saying that it could be a stepping stone; I'm completely aware that money cannot replace everything. And yes, great inventions can be created during peace, but war speeds the process. There would be no reason to proceed in the advancement of our weapons if there was hardly any reason to fight.
Hm, for example, family needed to know that he is sorry. So what?
I guess, everyone would know that he did wrong without any apologizes.
Also, anyway, it affected them negatively, whether he knows about it or not.
There is no necessity of any sorry from MURDERER, please pay attention to this word, because nothing will change, anyway he will stay being murderer of someone's life.
In my think, it is not so important, but is just a case, lets to move to another, important one: so you disagree that money cannot replace everything? /from your words/
Ok, if so, can you list top 5 important things in our life, what money may replace.
You agree that inventions CAN be invented during peace, but for what we need these kind of weapons?!
I understood from your words, that weapons are very "necessary" things in the world.
Therefore, i talked about other inventions, really important ones, not including weapons.
No we can't. War has gone on for many years and I still don't see any improvement. War is just stupid. We shouldn't waste our time fighting if we aren't getting anywhere with it. The goal is to get peace right? If we're not doing that, then why fight?
What do parents teach their children to do during a fight?- To use their words to express their feelings, not to blow each other up.
Plus, no amount of land or oil is worth a human life. War is the opposite of peace. Therefore, using war to achieve peace is going to do more evil than good.
However, it can be achieved through international governance and trade. Most of the wars since the end of the Second World War have been civil rather than international in nature. The international system today incorporates a lot of the tenets of Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace." On the subject of those civil conflicts though, many groups go to war to correct economic inequalities or improve their human security situation, but engaging in war is widely agreed upon to make human security worse. In general, it's pretty counterproductive.
I can't say exactly that a war is the only way to get peace. I am just going to express my own view point which is right according to my world view. Ofcourse there are a lot of examples where peace is achieved through wars, but what cost is payed for that...I think violence is the last way which we should use to achieve our goals and especially peace, because real peace can't be achieved through wars.
I believe peace can not be achieved through war. We must find out the causes of war and try to eradicate them. The important thing is that all the political leaderes of the world must recognize the importance of peace, economic development and dialog with their people who elected them and try to listen to the political leaders of foreign countries who have different views and way of thinking.
Peace is the worlds great lie, it is most impossible to find a solution. WAR. the word applies that both sides have an equal chance of winning. in war when one side concers the other side is left to cower in fear and rage.
you can never build real happiness over the deaths of others. war will only create pain. pain will create hatred and hatred will create war..why can nobody understands that ?
according Lord buddah we can't achieve peace through war .and according to Jesus we love even our enemies ,so how can we fight with each other. war is just a word for meaningless. so why should we participate meaningless things? war is a good thing for loosing properties and valuable lives.so what is the profit in that?
WAR IS THE OPPOSITE OF PEACE SO HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH A THING THAT NEVER TALLY WITH.ACCORDING 2 MY IDEAS WAR IS JUST A DESTRUCTION 2 THE WHOLE GLOBE NOT ONLY 2 THE HUMAN RACE.
No. Peace can never be permanent. Even the slightest disputes can lead to war. Diplomacy is at least better than war in settling problems. But I don`t think that peace will be attained permanently by any means necessary.
Peace being achieved through war implies that there isn't initial peace. If there is initial peace, then a war ends that peace. If one is in a state of war, then there is no way to achieve peace but through the given war.
Can one achieve peace through war? Not where peace exists.
Can one achieve peace in a war but without going through it? No of course not.
