Civilization, War, and so on.

[Bijo]

Coming from the Britain and War on Terror thread, we were at the end discussing some stuff. Well, let's continue, pell-mell(!), shall we?

Civilisation is a CAUSE of wars war is not a cause of civilisation

Civilizations cause war, because civilizations clash with each other. We could call it a society as well.

so any culture that wages war isnt civilised? well thats us Europeans out we have waged more wars than any other culture on the planet

Therefore Europeans in the time when they slaughtered, went on rampage, pillaged lands, raped women, etc., were not "civilized", because they waged war. And I didn't speak of culture. I spoke of the people and the governments -- of whatever kind -- as civilization(s).

you make more sense here - yes the western culture places high significance on a countries that maintain the peace and dont start wars but that doesnt make us anymore civilised than anyone else - the strength of a Civilisation is its ability to change other cultures - Rome spread its way of life (through war) to the rest of Europe affecting and changing their cultures, the Roman Civilisation had a Romanising effect on any culture that came into contact with it changeing them to make them more like Rome and that is why they were a strong civilisation for a while - the same is True for the US its culture is so strong it changes the Culture of the othern western nations it infleunces so the US could be considered the strongest civilisation of current times - this is all off topic tho and we are doing what the pissing contest did - derailing the thread - if you want to discuss civilisation further make a new thread this was once a long time ago about the British changing our definition of the "war on terror" (bleugh) lets get back to that

The ability to change cultures OF civilizations, through war, caused by the clashing of civilizations (politically, etc.).


The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

I must say, you mix up those words in your responses quite carefully and almost even selectively to prove your point. It's very confusing to read.

[Don Corleone]

It's difficult to assess 'who is more civilized than whom'. Each society has values, and it values certain ideals to a greater or lesser degree: Fairness; well-being of its own citizens; Security; charity; peacefulness, etcetera.

For you to make the statement that the Netherlands is more civilized than the United States is a rather values-charged statement, and it's very relative. Because you come from a culture that values not starting wars above all else, then countries that are aggressive appear uncivilized.

But what if your country values standing up for what's right and putting bullies in their place. Wouldn't it appear uncivilized to continue to allow situations like Rwanda and Darfur continue every 10 years or so? Wouldn't it be more civilized to citizens of such a country to make the sacrafice of money and manpower to put an end to these atrocities when they occur?

I applaud Europe on its newly found pacficistic bent. I'm just trying to say that it's value is not absolute.

[Bijo]

I hear ya, Don. Let me see what response I have.

For you to make the statement that the Netherlands is more civilized than the United States is a rather values-charged statement, and it's very relative. Because you come from a culture that values not starting wars above all else, then countries that are aggressive appear uncivilized.

I didn't make the statement, though, that the Netherlands is more civilized: it was about Europe as a whole, now.

I get the relativity thing you're speaking of, and that is a very delicate -- and might I say even sneaky(?) -- argument, lol. Basically you mean that the US -- who is being aggressive -- just has an aggressive civilization? Somehow that word civilization doesn't fit with aggressive, but of course.... it's relative.

From what has been going on through history -- all the bloodshed, wars, and so on -- we must learn. It is difficult to exactly state the meaning of the word civilization, but I say because we know history let us then assume that we have good and bad civilizations. Good as in "peaceful" (not aggressive, not at war), and "not peaceful" (aggressive, at war).
If we keep to this relativity thing we go no further, and dare I say almost tolerate and accept aggressive behaviour under the reason that it's just their civilization which is like that which we look onto relatively. Aggressive imperialistic behaviour which was so common in Europe, but now something that has been left behind, while the US appears as if they are just experiencing it, as a fairly young nation, as if trying to rule the world.

Wouldn't it appear uncivilized to continue to allow situations like Rwanda and Darfur continue every 10 years or so? Wouldn't it be more civilized to citizens of such a country to make the sacrafice of money and manpower to put an end to these atrocities when they occur?

No. No peace through war, because with war we only further war. If we keep in mind what I said about going further and moving on, then war is an uncivilized act, whether there's a noble thought to act like a saviour of some sort.
But that wasn't really the point, was it? I addressed the overall imperialistic aggressive behaviour of the US, not their intent -- if there's any -- to nobly help others in trouble.



We could even throw in plausible conspiracies and suspicions regarding the country regarding expansion, but I bet there are people who wouldn't like that, so I'll refrain from it....... for now

[Sir Moody]

The Romans were the most civlised nation of their timein europe correct? Their cilvilisation was born from conflict and continued to wage wars right up to their fall from grace - the waging of war did not make them any less civilised

A culture is not Civilised because it maintains the peace - this is a modern fallacy that actually rules most of us out of being civilised, there are very few modern nations that havent engadged in some warfare in the last decade

you seem to be operating under the opinion that Civilisation operates in some kind of progressive form where those who are going through "stages" that we have allready been through are less civilised - this isnt true
The Romans were Imperialistic nation as were the victorian british and both can be considered highly Civilised cultures but would you say the Victorians were no more civilised than the Romans? no they were clearly far more civilised despite sharing the same imperilistic mind set.

[Stig]

Civilisation has nothing to do with war imo (well a little bit, but that's too little)

Civilisation has to do with welfare, income, richness, all sorts of things
And when you look at that countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (countries that are pretty all alike) are high ranked. And most of the time above USA.

Look at the GDP and you'll see the European Union is above the USA

Not to speak of the Dutch Health Care system, if one thing is civilised that is.

[Pindar]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

[Stig]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

[Sir Moody]

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

isnt it? the Romans and the Greeks coined the phrase "civilised" and they engaged in centuries of warfare - Europe of the 17th to 19th century loved the "civilised" catch phrase (we are civilised those we are conquering arnt so its a good thing) and yet we all built massive empires and fought each other

war is an acceptable and "civlilsed" past time...

to judge a truely civilsed country you need to look at how they treat their citizens and how they influence other countries (enemies and allies alike)

[Bijo]

Bijo,

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

Hmmm. No. In my second post here I spoke of good and bad civilizations. A good one has not only progressed -- in what some of you have said like Stig, like treatment of their citizens, and so forth -- but also in the pursuit of peaceful international coexistences.

A "bad civilization" is one not pursuing peace and has low care activity for its citizens, etc., and even worse, is waging war.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a civilization can be high on the level of technological, financial, etc., progress, but civilization is also about a society it depicts, and aggression / war is the evil part, while peace is not. People don't use the words of 'clashing civilizations' for nothing. It is a language thing.
I must agree that the level of internal national activity is very important, as is international activity. So even if a civilization is advanced in the typical way (or not), they almost throw away their label of "being civil" by being aggressive and / or imperialistic, etc.

to judge a truely civilsed country you need to look at how they treat their citizens and how they influence other countries (enemies and allies alike)

If that's what we must consider, then let's have a look at the US. I give that country a big thumbs-down

And about the Romans and Greeks:
Even if they were highly "civilized", I refer to "good" and "bad" civilizations, and they are to be categorized in the bad one, for they simply waged war. And any other nation -- "civilization" -- in this case the US, being aggressive and imperialistic, is also to be categorized therein.




Bah, I'm tired. No posting for me anymore today :P

[Don Corleone]

Well, Bijo, all I have to say is that your views certainly make things like Srebenica easier to understand.

[Pindar]

waging war is not really a civilised thing is it?

Why?

[Pindar]

Are you equating being civilized with pacifism?

Hmmm. No. In my second post here I spoke of good and bad civilizations. A good one has not only progressed -- in what some of you have said like Stig, like treatment of their citizens, and so forth -- but also in the pursuit of peaceful international coexistences.

A "bad civilization" is one not pursuing peace and has low care activity for its citizens, etc., and even worse, is waging war.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a civilization can be high on the level of technological, financial, etc., progress, but civilization is also about a society it depicts, and aggression / war is the evil part, while peace is not.

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

[Pindar]

delete

[Stig]

Why?

well war doesn't bring you anything good
Science brings you good things, health care brings you good things
War brings dead and violence, not really civilised

[Pindar]

well war doesn't bring you anything good

Are you a pacifist?

[Stig]

Are you a pacifist?

What's wrong with that?

If you want to wage war it's fine with me. I'm not going to protest against it. Actually I'm happy that we Dutch have soldiers in Afghanistan to help restore peace. However what I hate about it is the attention it gets in the media.
Today a Dutch soldier has been killed, as he stepped on a mine, and already it was headline, frontpage news. For gods sake it's only one dead, why are we bothered, yes mention it, but not as the main news, it's only one soldier. And what are soldiers for anyway, to sit at home and drink tea?

[Pindar]

What's wrong with that?

Does this mean you are?

If you want to wage war it's fine with me. I'm not going to protest against it. Actually I'm happy that we Dutch have soldiers in Afghanistan to help restore peace.

This seems at odds with the earlier comment: "war doesn't bring you anything good"

[Stig]

Where not waging war, we're (trying) keeping the peace after the NATO waged war in Uruzgan.

Does this mean you are?

I'm against the war in Iraq, but nothing more then that

[Sir Moody]

to say war never brings any good is naive and rubbish - war is a tool and it depends on HOW it is used - wars generally spur on technological advancements as well as cultural advancements (for example the jet engine and the "hippy" movement both were born from wars). wars can free people from tyranny as easily as it places people under the steel toed boot.

War itself is not evil or good it just is and without war we wouldnt be who we are today - while peace is a wonderful notion it is only attained through a strong military presence - one of the greatest ironies ive always felt

[ajaxfetish]

I'd agree that war is a tool towards an end, not an essentially good or bad thing in and of itself, but it should always be kept in mind that even when war is waged toward a good end, it almost always includes a high price. It may at times be necessary, but it's not pretty, and not inherently desirable.

Ajax

[Rodion Romanovich]

The word civilized in the meaning enlightened and peaceful is a great misnomer, since civilization is the cause of war, human sacrifice, slavery, genocide, religious fanatism, terrorism, dictatorship, secret police and prostitution, among other things. I think the word enlightened is better for referring to periods and geopgrahical locations where a decent behavior is exhibited by the populace and leaders because the people at large have realized that evilness only results in worthless short term gains and undermined security at best.

[Stig]

to say war never brings any good is naive and rubbish - war is a tool and it depends on HOW it is used - wars generally spur on technological advancements as well as cultural advancements (for example the jet engine and the "hippy" movement both were born from wars). wars can free people from tyranny as easily as it places people under the steel toed boot.

War itself is not evil or good it just is and without war we wouldnt be who we are today - while peace is a wonderful notion it is only attained through a strong military presence - one of the greatest ironies ive always felt

So, tell me one good thing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Or Sudan, Somalia, ...

[Sir Moody]

i said wars CAN be good i didnt say they didnt come without a price and that they would always be good

the Sudan war is the worst kind - genocide and nothing good ever comes down that road

Afganistan and Iraq DID free the people from tyranny and while we have made a total hash up of the peace the war was well thought out and operated - we gave them a chance to chose their leaders and live free... im starting to wonder if thats what they wanted but it is a noble idea

I think the word enlightened is better for referring to periods and geopgrahical locations where a decent behavior is exhibited by the populace and leaders because the people at large have realized that evilness only results in worthless short term gains and undermined security at best.

yes that is a far better term

[Bijo]

It sounds like you conflate 'civilized' with 'civilization' and 'civilization' with 'nation'. This is not a normal approach.

So any nation engaged in war is a bad?

I don't like normal approaches

Anyway, I don't necessarily meant nation but more the general picture of it: a nation, or a country, or a state, a civilization, a people. Basically I still stand by what I said in the previous post(s) for now, though it might change.

To answer the question you asked... hmm, if I stand by what I meant, then the simple answer is probably that I must ask you about what exactly your question means. I was specifically referring to an aggressive "civilization" and being imperialist / expansionist, not just a nation / civilization / people etc. engaged in war.

But to quickly post as I fight my fatigue ....Legio kind of generally said what I mean. In that case my previous saying about "good" and "bad" could generally refer to englightened and not englightened.

[Stig]

i said wars CAN be good i didnt say they didnt come without a price and that they would always be good

Yes but is the price worth it.
What has WW1 brought us? Nothing more then WW2 I think, and millions of deaths.
What has WW2 brought us? Yeah Hitler is gone, but the price? 6 million Jews, Germany destroyed, loads of death soldiers.

Is the price worth it?

Vietnam brought us nothing, all Korea did was make sure that the small country we call South-Korea is communist as well. The First Gulf War did nothing at all. Somalia in the early nineties? nothing.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes but is the price worth it.
What has WW1 brought us? Nothing more then WW2 I think, and millions of deaths.
What has WW2 brought us? Yeah Hitler is gone, but the price? 6 million Jews, Germany destroyed, loads of death soldiers.

Is the price worth it?

Vietnam brought us nothing, all Korea did was make sure that the small country we call South-Korea is communist as well. The First Gulf War did nothing at all. Somalia in the early nineties? nothing.

World War I brought the end of several empires, ushering in a more politically modern Europe, not to mention flight, submarine, and armor technology, advances in chemicals and artillery, and so on. It brought the United States into the position of a major player on the world stage, at a time when our political leadership was fairly idealistic. It caused the birth of the prototype of the UN. It also deglamourized war, making it a much more serious undertaking for nations. Not all of these are necessarily good things, but they're not all necessarily bad either.

World War II, didn't cause the death of 6 million Jews; the Nazis did that. If anything, the war prevented more Jews and other Nazi target peoples from being killed. It also saw the birth of jet aircraft, atomic power, the superpower status of the US and Soviet Union, advanced rocket technology, etc., etc., and ended the Great Depression. What's more, there wasn't much choice about fighting World War II. It was either let Hitler be in charge of the world and do whatever he wanted, or else stop him.

Vietnam, I'll agree was pretty pointless and would have been better off never having been fought, though with the craze of communism rising, leaders at the time had a very skewed perspective and couldn't really figure that out.

I've no idea what you mean by saying the Korean War made South Korea communist as well. Last I checked they're avowed capitalists. Korea was a defensive action against an aggressor, like World War II, and ultimately just reaffirmed the status quo: communist north, capitalist (free) south.

The first gulf war was another defensive war against an aggressor, this time to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and ensure western access to gulf state oil, and it was a success ('nothing at all' doesn't quite cut it).

Was Somalia even a war? I thought it was a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission . . .

War doesn't just cause good things, and it definitely has a high price, but it's much more complicated and multi-faceted than the picture you paint. Is the price worth it? Hard to say, but some of those wars had to be fought. Allowing the Hitler's and Hussein's of this world to seize whatever territory they like and do whatever they like to the people there is unacceptable.

Ajax

[Stig]

World War I brought the end of several empires, ushering in a more politically modern Europe, not to mention flight, submarine, and armor technology, advances in chemicals and artillery, and so on. It brought the United States into the position of a major player on the world stage, at a time when our political leadership was fairly idealistic. It caused the birth of the prototype of the UN. It also deglamourized war, making it a much more serious undertaking for nations. Not all of these are necessarily good things, but they're not all necessarily bad either.

Is the ending of empires good then? Flight was invented before it ... by the Wright brothers to be exact. And those chemicals didn't really help us did they?

World War II, didn't cause the death of 6 million Jews; the Nazis did that. If anything, the war prevented more Jews and other Nazi target peoples from being killed. It also saw the birth of jet aircraft, atomic power, the superpower status of the US and Soviet Union, advanced rocket technology, etc., etc., and ended the Great Depression. What's more, there wasn't much choice about fighting World War II. It was either let Hitler be in charge of the world and do whatever he wanted, or else stop him.

Now you say superpowers are good, and you just said that empires were bad ???

I've no idea what you mean by saying the Korean War made South Korea communist as well. Last I checked they're avowed capitalists. Korea was a defensive action against an aggressor, like World War II, and ultimately just reaffirmed the status quo: communist north, capitalist (free) south.

A simple typing error. Even Stig is human you know. I'm not American, so I do make mistakes

The first gulf war was another defensive war against an aggressor, this time to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and ensure western access to gulf state oil, and it was a success ('nothing at all' doesn't quite cut it).

Erhh yes, and leaving him in command of Iraq, that sure was a good thing.

Was Somalia even a war? I thought it was a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission . . .

Ask the Somalians, they think differently about it.

[Redleg]

Is the ending of empires good then? Flight was invented before it ... by the Wright brothers to be exact. And those chemicals didn't really help us did they?

Are you so sure that they didn't help? Can you explain the rapid advance of medicine and the compounds used to aid patients? Do you realize that the rapid experimentation by the powers at war increased the capablities of aircraft? I am not saying that the capabilities of the aircraft would not have been increased without war, only that war speed up the process.

Then how about several of the compounds you use today? for instance plastic and syntic rubber. How about computers?

Now you say superpowers are good, and you just said that empires were bad ???

Actually that is not what was stated.

A simple typing error. Even Stig is human you know. I'm not American, so I do make mistakes

Nice recovery - however I am not statified with that answer. Where do you come up with the idea South Korea is communist? And the american comment seems to be an attempt at insulting another - where did the individual attempt to say being American is superior to all others?

Erhh yes, and leaving him in command of Iraq, that sure was a good thing.

No it wasn't a good thing. Study up on the politics of the first gulf war and come back to the discussion. A slight hint would to be look into what nations made up that collation of forces, how many nations supplied troops and how many, and then image your in one of the divisions from the following nations, French, Britian, and the United States, knowing that your supply line is solely dependent upon the good faith of the host nation.

Ask the Somalians, they think differently about it.

Many regret that the United Nations departed their country. Some are glad the United Nations departed their country so that they could continue with their war. And yes Somalia was initially a Civil War, but it turned into several different types of conflict over the last 20 odd years.

[Redleg]

Civilizations cause war, because civilizations clash with each other. We could call it a society as well.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. War is a continution of foreign policy to gain something from a competing nation state. War is not necessarily based upon civilizations clashing with each other. When I review parts of Chinese and European history - many wars were fought not because of civilizations conflicts but conflicts from within the society itself.

The basic point I made was that Europe is now civilized, as they maintain peace, not war. And now -- in the modern time -- the US is not maintaining peace, but war, basically doing what Europe was doing BACK THEN: IMPERIALISM. Therefore they are less civilized, and hence the speculation that their nation will be more civilized -- like Europe -- when they have fought enough wars, especially on their own soil if it comes to that and will finally start maintaining peace.

So Bosnia and Kosovo was Imperialism?
Desert Storm - or the first gulf war was Imperialism?
Somalia was Imperialism?

Are you attempting to state using force is Imperialism?

If your attempting to state that then you are in conflict with your own premise. Now the United States has been engaged in Imperialism in the past, and might even be doing so now, but claiming Imperialism because a nation is in a state of war, does not equate to Imperialism.

[Pindar]

I'm against the war in Iraq, but nothing more then that

So, this comment: "Well, war doesn't bring you anything good" should actually be read: "Well (the war in Iraq) doesn't bring you anything good"?