Jump to content

Welcome to Green Day Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

This House Believes There Can Be A Just War

Debate

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
My dad said something interesting earlier. He said that the Western World had basically come to peace with itself - is this true? If there was another war would it be East vs West? Do you think it would be economically driven? Or religiously driven?

Or do you think that war between major powers these days is defunct due to the existence of massive stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons?

#32
Rush guy

Rush guy
  • Chump

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Joined May 12, 2011
  • 97 rep
  • Gender:Male
^

Economics plays a huge role in war for nations heavy in international trade. Two nations who mutually benefit from each other economically are unlikely to attack each other. The cold war was intense because the USSR and the USA saw each other as threatening to their respective economic situations. Many communist theorists think communism will only work if the entire world is on board, so capitalism anywhere is a threat. Obviously if an outsider wants to impose economic policies on you, you're going to get defensive. Hence, the USA was also tense. Think about the financial state of Germany in WW2 and the fact that the USA doesn't tend to attack anywhere with a McDonalds.

So, who would the USA be fighting in the east? China? Certainly not! North Korea? Probably, and most likely it would be waged in the name of damage control.

There is no war between major powers today because it's not in their financial interest to do so. The USA is a huge trading partner for most countries and so is China. If the USA will boycott you for attacking one of their allies....

#33
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,155 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,160 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
I honestly don't see a war with North Korea, ever. I think they are slightly smarter and more rational than they're given credit for. They know they exist in isolation, they know the same countries they call their enemies in propaganda are airdropping food aid down to them. And they know, if they decide to provoke war with South Korea, China will in all likelihood, not have their backs, nor will Russia. Both of those powers do not want the burden of losing the cooperation of the USA over a country they wish they didn't have to babysit. And it would be North Korea that would provoke a full scale war, because South Korea knows reuniting the nation by force would be a nightmare, if not utterly impossible.

North Korea is either going to decline to the point where they willingly surrender their sovereignty to South Korea, or they're going to slowly reform, open up, and go the route Cuba is going on the slow path to liberalization. Either way, they're basically going to make people nervous for a few more decades and then go away, one way or another.

#34
Rush guy

Rush guy
  • Chump

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Joined May 12, 2011
  • 97 rep
  • Gender:Male

North Korea is either going to decline to the point where they willingly surrender their sovereignty to South Korea, or they're going to slowly reform, open up, and go the route Cuba is going on the slow path to liberalization. Either way, they're basically going to make people nervous for a few more decades and then go away, one way or another.

I could see them becoming like Cuba. We're unlikely to go to war with them, but North Korea would be the most likely opponent in Asia. Actually, if you think about it, there is an economic connection to the West even if it's not mutual- the relief aid you mentioned. They're isolated but still dependent on outsiders. It would spell major trouble if they could fend for themselves economically I think.

#35
San Miguel

San Miguel
  • Pedestrian

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,236 posts
  • Joined Aug 13, 2011
  • 371 rep
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich, UK
I'm pretty sure N Korea can't and won't do anything without China agreeing first. The people certainly don't want war, they want their country to be one again (remember it was the Allies that split it in the first place). The younger generation certainly seem keen to me to become less isolated and whilst no one knows what Kim Jong Un is thinking, i'm hoping he will slowly open up the country to outsiders.

Changing the subject slightly, but Korea is just another country that got mixed up in the Cold War without meaning/wanting to be. Other such countries affected by the cold war included Vietman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia etc..

My question - do people really consider the Cold War to be over between Russia and the USA?

#36
The966;)

The966;)
  • Brat

  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Joined Feb 20, 2012
  • 13 rep
  • Age:98
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:check your sock drawer

I'm pretty sure N Korea can't and won't do anything without China agreeing first. The people certainly don't want war, they want their country to be one again (remember it was the Allies that split it in the first place). The younger generation certainly seem keen to me to become less isolated and whilst no one knows what Kim Jong Un is thinking, i'm hoping he will slowly open up the country to outsiders.

Changing the subject slightly, but Korea is just another country that got mixed up in the Cold War without meaning/wanting to be. Other such countries affected by the cold war included Vietman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia etc..

My question - do people really consider the Cold War to be over between Russia and the USA?

yes, because that was the cold war. there could very well be another, but that particular war is over.

#37
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

yes, because that was the cold war. there could very well be another, but that particular war is over.


Agreed. I think that there is still an intense distrust between Russia and America. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a revolution in the position Russia held in world politics. I think there's just a struggle to bigger and better than the other.

#38
Rush guy

Rush guy
  • Chump

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Joined May 12, 2011
  • 97 rep
  • Gender:Male
I doubt very much that any of the Western nations would fight with each other and if North Korea were to get involved in a national conflict, it would hardly be a world war.

So, if World War III were to roll around, where do you guys think it would start? Who do you think the different sides would be and why?

Between Nuclear deterrents and economic friendliness between the biggest world powers, I don't see it happening any time soon.

#39
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
I think it would be over before it even started.

#40
Trotsky

Trotsky
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,155 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 7,160 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

So, if World War III were to roll around, where do you guys think it would start? Who do you think the different sides would be and why?


Not "who" but "what", and that what is probably peak oil, and the alliances and factions would likely not be based on ideology but convenience.

#41
Artificial Idiot

Artificial Idiot
  • Pedestrian

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Joined Aug 15, 2011
  • 488 rep
  • Age:17
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Woodstock Festival (in my mind)
There is no such thing as a "just war".

#42
Vesper

Vesper
  • Sand Snake

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,827 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,514 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

Not "who" but "what", and that what is probably peak oil, and the alliances and factions would likely not be based on ideology but convenience.


Hmmm. I disagree. I don't think that will cause WWIII because I'm hoping by then (50 years I know!) we've come up with a suitable alternative. I think it will be ideology. Either that or land space.

#43
Dylan.

Dylan.
  • And Don't You Fucking Wear It Out

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined Sep 08, 2007
  • 573 rep
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Not "who" but "what", and that what is probably peak oil, and the alliances and factions would likely not be based on ideology but convenience.

Peak oil? Possibly. But look at the impending economic conflict between the United States and China. The U.S. owes an enormous amount of money to China, and as the state capitalist policies of China create a booming market that will continue to expand until they hit the age bubble, and the United States continues to be stuck in a fight between reactionary and reformist legislation, there is increasing tensions between the two countries.

Personally, I hope that "WWIII" isn't really a global conflict between nations at all, but the national uprising of leftist revolutionary factions against capitalist authority and exploitation. A great deal of social change will have to be achieved first, particularly the attitude towards socialism, the demonization of the labour equality movement, as well as the laissez-faire attitude towards imperialist governments. If this happens at all, it might happen over the next couple of decades, as the crises of capitalism make themselves more and more evident to the younger generations. I'll stop my manifesto short, but that reflects my attitude towards the justification of war.

War and violence are apart of structured hierarchy. When one class seeks to exploit, dominate, and control another class, there will inevitably be conflict. In human history, this has been demonstrated through one sovereign community attempting to dominate and control another people in order to extract their land; through racial class division, through economic class division, and through authoritative class division. Class conflict necessitates and promotes social change, because it is anachronistic to suggest that one class can be subjugated by another for all of history. There will always be class struggle, and this usually requires violence in order for the cycle to continue. Peaceful revolution is illogical because it requires using the processes which bring one peope under control of another in order to render class division void. It simply does not happen as such. All rights, in our current system of hierarchical society, must be fought for and taken from another domineering class.

So, it is not whether I condone violence, or think it is just that is the issue at hand, but rather that I see it as an inevitable consequence of class authority, and therefore cannot condemn its practical utility. As for what I classify as just or unjust, I would suggest that any war promoted for the further subjugation of another class of people, or any war which indirectly contributes to further subjugation is unjust. A just war is any such conflict which removes subjugation from one people, and pushes the society towards a class equilibrium--or an egalitarian society.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users