Good Side and Bad Side in War?

[PikeStance]

Yes, there are good and bad sides in some wars, and even in the most screwed up and byzantine of bad wars some parts of the sides can rise above the norm though ethical and honorable behavior (the entire reason for the ideals of chivalry and bushido, to counteract the ugly reality).

Chivalry and Bushido were personal honor code that did not extend to the behavior of the state.

The Athenian invasion of Sicily
Even if the American Civil War
The Franco-Piedmontese war
WWI, when you really, really get down to it and especially after the South Balkans (outside Greece) and Russia were defeated and occupied basically came down to the absolute monarchies or semi-absolute and definitely authoritarian monarchies versus the few democracies and republics. On top of the fact that the origins for the outbreak do not paint the Serbs or Russians in the best of lights but make the Habsburgs out to be the worst of all, *and* the fact that the conduct between the Central Powers and their enemies was not even remotely close to being equivalent? And ya, I'd call that.
WWII..
The Korean War?
Greek Civil War?
Vietnam?
Hungarian Revolution? Again, does anybody here really root for the Soviets in that?
The Suez War:
I could go On. And On. And On. And On, And ONNN.....

Each of these conflict (except the rebellion in Hungary) were serving the interest of the respective states. No state was fighting for moral righteousness. This is just what the "state" wants you to believe. It is how they get those who benefit the least to make the greatest sacrifice.

Please remove your head from your rectal cavity, good sir. You are insulting more than a few people who are actually still alive, including my Grandfather. Just because you do not know or are unwilling to recognize the different reasons the different ideologies went into WWII does not mean they actually do not exist, and does not justify the posting of tripe like this.

Can someone take the moral high ground if all they respond with is an over elaborate ad hominen? Its practically a pun, but I will spare everyone my overly dry humor.

[Turtler]

Chivalry and Bushido were personal honor code that did not extend to the behavior of the state.

Which is missing the point I was trying to make: one can't just debase everything to the lowest common denominator. If that were the case, we wouldn't have started out with the Greeks arguing and ripping each other over their own (often incredibly dated and uncomfortable to read now) various attempts to one up each other in terms of morality and which side was right.

Each of these conflict (except the rebellion in Hungary) were serving the interest of the respective states.

For clarification: the Hungarian government was also revolutionary/taken over by those sympathetic to the Rebels and most of the country barring a few holdouts were by and large sympathetic to the revolt. So I'm not sure I'd necessarily exclude that at all. Especially since on top of the various ideological and moral issues, there was a very credible interest in Hungary: cutting off the punitive "reparations" (read: glorified looting) to the Soviets, and the other burdens that came from being under the Kremlin's thumb.

No state was fighting for moral righteousness. This is just what the "state" wants you to believe.

Overly cynical, aren't we?

I can't think of a single state that has ever fought for *just* moral righteousness, but I'd posit that in many cases, many states have fought for that *as well as* many other things.

And in many ways, I'd say that this is somewhat besides the point: even if for whatever reason every state in history that has engaged in war was automatically run by unfeeling sociopaths somehow incapable of moral or ideological thought and feeling (which I doubt to the extreme), that is largely separate from the question: are there good and bad sides in some wars?

I'd say that the answer is "indisputably." Even if both a nation that behaves like-say- Nazi Germany and a nation that behaves like-say- Belgium are run by equally unfeeling and sociopath governments, that does not mean that Belgium is somehow not the "good" side of the war.

It is how they get those who benefit the least to make the greatest sacrifice.

Even when in many circumstances, those that make up the regime in question might find themselves fitting that description? Remind me again what happened to Francisco Solano Lopez of Paraguay

Can someone take the moral high ground if all they respond with is an over elaborate ad hominen?

Short answer? Yes.

Long answer? Yes. Case in point: the angry crowd that interrupted Ceausescu and shouted at him. Now, I doubt the angry mob was acting in the most rational way, or composing the most eloquent or rational arguments against him. In fact, from what the translations I've read say, they were doing the exact opposite. But did that meant that somehow, *they* lost the moral high ground in comparison to the totalitarian dictator who murdered, starved, and disposed them? Just because they called him very ugly names?

The quality of an argument one makes is independent to the quality of their justness. American History X is quite illustrative of that.

Its practically a pun, but I will spare everyone my overly dry humor.

Actually, would it be crazy if I said I for one would like to hear?

[PikeStance]

Which is missing the point I was trying to make: one can't just debase everything to the lowest common denominator. ...
Overly cynical, aren't we?

I can't think of a single state that has ever fought for *just* moral righteousness, but I'd posit that in many cases, many states have fought for that *as well as* many other things.

And in many ways, I'd say that this is somewhat besides the point: even if for whatever reason every state in history that has engaged in war was automatically run by unfeeling sociopaths somehow incapable of moral or ideological thought and feeling (which I doubt to the extreme), that is largely separate from the question: are there good and bad sides in some wars?

States acting amorally is neither the "lowest common denominator" nor does it take a sociopath to occupy the leadership of the state. To do so would inherently attached a moral/ immoral action on the part of the state. Moreover, what ever moral stance a particular action took, its morality or the lack of morality of the action is simply happenstance. Every war advocates a "just cause" the reality there isn't a just cause. Of course, when attack by state acting in its own self- interest, we defend ourselves out of our own self- interest.

Long answer? Yes. Case in point: the angry crowd that interrupted Ceausescu and shouted at him. Now, I doubt the angry mob was acting in the most rational way, or composing the most eloquent or rational arguments against him. In fact, from what the translations I've read say, they were doing the exact opposite. But did that meant that somehow, *they* lost the moral high ground in comparison to the totalitarian dictator who murdered, starved, and disposed them? Just because they called him very ugly names?

You using this to justified an ad hominen for this post

hellheaven1987:Nationalist, Communist, Racist, Populist, Militarist, Imperialist, Republican.... all agree they should burn the world for fun in 1939.

The quality of an argument one makes is independent to the quality of their justness. American History X is quite illustrative of that.

In other words, if I do not agree with you; I can attack you -

[Lord of the Drunk Penguin]

It all comes down to how you act AFTER the battle is won.
The good side: you release or treat the prisoners with respect.

The bad side: you kill the prisoners.

Treating a downed foe with respect is the most humane action one could take in a chaos slaughterhouse that is war.

[clandestino]

Good side: profit, if you are in arms business. Bad side: everything else.

[Turtler]

States acting amorally is neither the "lowest common denominator" nor does it take a sociopath to occupy the leadership of the state. To do so would inherently attached a moral/ immoral action on the part of the state.

Which is precisely what you are trying to argue is what happens in not only war, but by extension in other things. That is why it is ludicrous.

Moreover, what ever moral stance a particular action took, its morality or the lack of morality of the action is simply happenstance.

Again, asnine and ludicrous in the sort of way that only trendy coffee house nihilist theorizing can be. The idea that morality can be purely "happenstance" no matter what actions or attitudes a given faction takes is simply not a stance borne out by the actual evidence. Now, it's of course true that there is deviation from any given stance or particular action that can shade the moral quality in some way (for instance, not all European Axis members and not all Germans as a whole worked to bring the Final Solution about) on top of problems like unintended consequences, moral decay, motive changes, and what have you. However, this is tantamount to denying cause and effect. If I believe it is my god-given-right to rob you of everything you have and then to gut you like a fish, it is far from "simply happenstance" if such a thing happens. Even if the Generals or Commanders in charge of me the rampaging mercenary actually took an opposing moral stance or enacted a different policy and sets of actions, that would still not make this crime happenstance, merely unrelated. And of course if they condoned such behavior, it would be far from happenstance: it was be directly related.

I am sorry, but your logic here is atrocious to the extreme.

Every war advocates a "just cause" the reality there isn't a just cause.

The sad reality is that by definition, there absolutely is. In addition, the truth is that far from every war advocates a just cause. In fact, I'd argue that most of the military conflicts throughout history have decidedly not been for just causes, especially prior to the modern era.

That still does not change many, many facts. Not the least of which being that some wars are more just than others. For all either of us may parse about self-interest, I doubt when it comes down to it you would be willing to declare the Nazi regime no less justified than-say- Luxembourg just because it was following its' own self-interest. Especially since in more than a few cases, its' acts of cruelty and atrocity ran counter to its' self interest and the interests of its' people and thus cannot even be justified by that weak standard. It's easy to theorize and wank in general, but I question whether any of us would be alive or talking in a free forum today if the world was as purely mercenary and lacking in moral cause as you seem to claim it is.

Of course, when attack by state acting in its own self- interest, we defend ourselves out of our own self- interest.

Except that is not necessarily true on multiple levels. To start with, nations and their leaderships at various times in history have calculated out the usual set of valued variables (including But Not Limited To self-interest) and have opted to instead let the invading army in, or past without resistance. Case in point, the passive lack of (military) resistance from Czechoslovakia to the Warsaw Pact forces that crushed the Prague Spring, Thailand's decision to allow the Japanese to land in and station forces on its' territory, Vichy period, and just about everything pertaining to the formation of Vichy France (granted, in large part because they thoroughly lacked the means to avoid it by then). So ergo, the decision to defend ourselves is not the only outcome necessarily supported in response to being attacked.

Secondly, it forgets that in many cases, states can attack or defend in *counter* to their national interest, as shown by the case of Athens in Sicily (since objectively speaking it opened up another costly front to an already intense war). The same can be said of just about anything and everything Imperial Japan did after attacking China in 1931. Demeaning everything to simply being of the national self-interest does not work, because humanity has not and never will work entirely like that. That's why Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs failed the basic test of "do we see evidence of this in the real world/ in testing environments meant to replicate the real world?" Humans and by extension states/nations/polities are capable of being many, many things. Moral, ideologically dogmatic, and just plain stupid are just some of them. National self-interest usually plays a dominant role, and not infrequently an overriding one, but good luck getting a job in intelligence analysis by insisting it's the only game in town.

You using this to justified an ad hominen for this post

Incorrect. I am using it first and foremost in response to your " Can someone take the moral highground if all they respond with is Ad-Hominen"(paraphrased) to point out that moral worth and the validity of one's arguments are independent. In this, your question has been answered, and the answer you implied was flatly wrong. Nicolae Ceaucescu held the moral low ground, regardless of whether or not Ion Public screamed incoherent curses at him.

Secondly, you are in fact the one resorting to an ad-hominen, by refusing to acknowledge that at no point was that segment ever purely an ad-hominen. Simply put, it is objectively established fact that the leaderships involved in WWII did not plunge the world into war "just for fun", and it is certainly not true that not all leaderships held equal blame regardless of ideology. To ignore those salient facts is to engage in horrendous intellectual malpractice, and is not only a gross insult to the field of research and logic itself, it is a gross insult to those living and dead.

In effect, you are conveniently ignoring what constituted most of my point (which was tantamount to a different kind of argument with at most a bit of A-H throw in) in favor of accusing me of writing that point as a pure Ad-Hominen. Flatly speaking, you are wrong. If you really cannot identify the other arguments in it, please demand a refund from whoever taught you logic.

In other words, if I do not agree with you; I can attack you -

False. If you are not merely wrong, but gratuitously and offensively wrong for no objective reason, I can correct you, forcibly. And using whatever language I please so long as it meets the basic acceptance of the administration and the rules that govern this thread and any others.

You are the one resorting to the unbridled insinuations of ad-hominen as your entire argument on this point, not I. But I hate to say that it is logically null and void: simplistic statements and insinuations are poor substitutes for actually being able to tell one type of argument for another, and to express that in more than one sentence with an emoticon thrown in. Much like cliched and horribly blinder-ed theory about nations only following their self-interest is exceedingly-poor-to-suicidal as a substitute for how governments and nations actually work, and the moral dimensions of that.

Nice try, please roll again.

It all comes down to how you act AFTER the battle is won.
The good side: you release or treat the prisoners with respect.

The bad side: you kill the prisoners.

Treating a downed foe with respect is the most humane action one could take in a chaos slaughterhouse that is war.

I agree there is something there, but I'd heartily disagree it "all come down" to that. There's a good reason why we would not recognize it as the same to-say- drop an atomic bomb on a Japan still at war versus to drop an atomic bomb on Japan that has already surrendered and been occupied. Similar to things like carpet bombing or artillery shelling. However, I do believe other factors are at play.

The justifications for the war and their value/worth, the ideologies of the sides in contest, and how the war is conducted overall. To name just a few.

Good side: profit, if you are in arms business. Bad side: everything else.

I wonder if you really believe that, or if you'd like to live in a world where that would in fact be the case. I imagine if nothing else, your fellow Serbs would heartily disagree, given the way the Reich and its' allies and puppets ground entire nations such as yours underfoot simply because you were A: there and B: disfavored for various fundamentally unjust, morally degenerate, and logically indefensible "reasons."

[clandestino]

I don't get you mate, my fellow Serbs with disagree with my thought that war is bad, because of the reasons you listed?

[Turtler]

I don't get you mate, my fellow Serbs with disagree with my thought that war is bad, because of the reasons you listed?

No, I was saying this:

Do you really think that there is no valid reason for war, or no other "good" reason than raking in profits if you just so happen to be in the arms industry, and no other "good" side than said amoral money raking? Especially given that without people taking up arms against persecution of the worst kind, it's likely that Serbia today might exist only as a geographic and historical term due to the loovely policies of the German occupation of the Balkans?

[clandestino]

That's not a good side of the war, that's perhaps a good cause for the war, but the death and suffering don't differ depending on the cause.

[The Despondent Mind]

Especially given that without people taking up arms against persecution of the worst kind, it's likely that Serbia today might exist only as a geographic and historical term due to the loovely policies of the German occupation of the Balkans?

Maybe , but it would be certanly more serbs , and they would probably have a better life then they have now .

[Turtler]

That's not a good side of the war, that's perhaps a good cause for the war, but the death and suffering don't differ depending on the cause.

I agree it doesn't differ depending on the cause alone, but stacking the bodies for a bit, is it safe to say that to some degree, the death and suffering differed in intensity and overall amount?

Maybe , but it would be certanly more serbs , and they would probably have a better life then they have now .

Not overly sure what you mean, exactly. The Serbs were something of the unfavorite amongst the Southern Slavs/Balkan ethnicity in the Nazi ideology as a whole. They weren't actively exterminated with the same malice as-say- the Poles or Alsatian French, but they certainly were passively persecuted. And it was absolutely kosher for the local puppets to wage their own wars against them.

[Condottiere 40K]

Wars tend to be waged to impose policy by other means.

If you examine events leading up to the Second World War, it begins to look inevitable, as both Germany and Japan overreach. The question has always been whether Hitler should have authorized the attack on Russia in 1941, or just let the Soviets build up and counter attack when they get bogged down in Eastern Europe, giving him time to re-equip his troops and secure a peace treaty with Britain.

[PikeStance]

Again, asnine and ludicrous in the sort of way that only trendy coffee house nihilist theorizing can be.

You are the one resorting to the unbridled insinuations of ad-hominen as your entire argument on this point, not I. But I hate to say that it is logically null and void: simplistic statements and insinuations are poor substitutes for actually being able to tell one type of argument for another, and to express that in more than one sentence with an emoticon thrown in. Much like cliched and horribly blinder-ed theory about nations only following their self-interest is exceedingly-poor-to-suicidal as a substitute for how governments and nations actually work, and the moral dimensions of that.

False. If you are not merely wrong, but gratuitously and offensively wrong for no objective reason, I can correct you, forcibly. And using whatever language I please so long as it meets the basic acceptance of the administration and the rules that govern this thread and any others.

How do you plan on "forcibly" to correct me? This would be impossible, anyway, in real life, and especially, on an internet forum. Finally, I do not engage in ad hom discussion. I only discuss the points. The ToS is on TWC is the very minimal of courtesy in discussion. I will not debase the discussion simply because the ToS is lacking in enforcing ad homs.

The idea that morality can be purely "happenstance" no matter what actions or attitudes a given faction takes is simply not a stance borne out by the actual evidence. Now, it's of course true that there is deviation from any given stance or particular action that can shade the moral quality in some way (for instance, not all European Axis members and not all Germans as a whole worked to bring the Final Solution about) on top of problems like unintended consequences, moral decay, motive changes, and what have you. However, this is tantamount to denying cause and effect. If I believe it is my god-given-right to rob you of everything you have and then to gut you like a fish, it is far from "simply happenstance" if such a thing happens. Even if the Generals or Commanders in charge of me the rampaging mercenary actually took an opposing moral stance or enacted a different policy and sets of actions, that would still not make this crime happenstance, merely unrelated. And of course if they condoned such behavior, it would be far from happenstance: it was be directly related.

The sad reality is that by definition, there absolutely is. In addition, the truth is that far from every war advocates a just cause. In fact, I'd argue that most of the military conflicts throughout history have decidedly not been for just causes, especially prior to the modern era.

That still does not change many, many facts. Not the least of which being that some wars are more just than others. For all either of us may parse about self-interest, I doubt when it comes down to it you would be willing to declare the Nazi regime no less justified than-say- Luxembourg just because it was following its' own self-interest. Especially since in more than a few cases, its' acts of cruelty and atrocity ran counter to its' self interest and the interests of its' people and thus cannot even be justified by that weak standard.

The decision of the state to act was to protect its own self- interest. Its irrelevant that it resulted in the opposite outcome.

You misunderstood the "happenstance" comment as well. The point of the comment was that each "state" acts in its own self- interest. the fact that it had moral overtones is happenstance. It doesn't change the fact that the "state" acted within its own self- interest. In the case of being attacked by another "state" it is self- preservation, which is the self- interest of the state.

The introduction of individual actions is a red herring. We are not discussing social psychology here. We discussing the actions of the state.

Lastly, the simplicity of the "theory" doesn't negates its value for discussion. A "theory" need not be complex to be valid.

Simply put, it is objectively established fact that the leaderships involved in WWII did not plunge the world into war "just for fun", and it is certainly not true that not all leaderships held equal blame regardless of ideology.

The comment was cynical, not literal. You took it as literal and overreacted with an ad hom. Hardly an excuse.

[clandestino]

Not overly sure what you mean, exactly. The Serbs were something of the unfavorite amongst the Southern Slavs/Balkan ethnicity in the Nazi ideology as a whole. They weren't actively exterminated with the same malice as-say- the Poles or Alsatian French, but they certainly were passively persecuted.

To be honest Germans weren't that much a priori inclined to extermination of Serbs in WW 2, most of persecution they did, and they did a lot , was in order to prevent and stop the resistance save the standard liquidations of political and intellectual elite and other ''suspicious'' elements which were totally unprovoked. However you noticed nicely that there wasn't much need for Germans to get their hands dirty when there were a lot of their ''allies '' who were more than happy to do the job instead them.

[Turtler]

How do you plan on "forcibly" to correct me? This would be impossible, anyway, in real life, and especially, on an internet forum.

Misintererpretation

Correct forcibly = "correct (through writing) with force", not "force you to see the correct" way. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I am talking about throwing the fact book in someone's face, not Orwellian Room XXX material.

Finally, I do not engage in ad hom discussion.

Saying it does not necessitate it being factual. As I have clearly pointed out before, and as you have written below.

I only discuss the points.

Discussing the facts would do you much better.

The ToS is on TWC is the very minimal of courtesy in discussion. I will not debase the discussion simply because the ToS is lacking in enforcing ad homs.

I am quite familiar with the Terms of Service. I read them when I came on here, and I read them frequently to ensure I remain on the straight and narrow to the greatest degree possible. I am well aware of what it says, and I am well aware of what it does not say. I will not debase this conversation as you have by posturing about ad hominens, by *falsely* accusing another user of ad-hominens, or by irrelevantly crying out about how ToS lacks in enforcing ad hominens and factual accuracy. That is not for here nor there.

The decision of the state to act was to protect its own self- interest. Its irrelevant that it resulted in the opposite outcome.

Except by that definition, the unleashing of nuclear weapons by the US on Britain tomorrow without provocation would be to protect its' own self-interest. Nevermind the obvious side effects and other factors at play. There is a reason why there are limits to what pure power or possession can bring for a state in terms of even its' own self interest. The fact that such actions like backstabbing an ally and levying war on them in circumstances very close to-say- the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars might be seen or advocated as being in the self-interest of a government does not change the fact that through a different set of lenses one can analyze how they do not fit the self-interest of the government, or indeed run counter to it.

You misunderstood the "happenstance" comment as well.

Perhaps I did. However, your elaborated claim also has problems, to put it mildly.

The point of the comment was that each "state" acts in its own self- interest. the fact that it had moral overtones is happenstance. It doesn't change the fact that the "state" acted within its own self- interest. In the case of being attacked by another "state" it is self- preservation, which is the self- interest of the state.

Except quite frankly it does not always. It may seem to be, and when seen with certain lenses we can even imagine how it seems to be, but that does not change A: the validity of an average cost-benefit analysis, B: actions throughout history that frankly were visibly against the self-interest of the states involved (like Napoleon's overthrow of his Spanish ally, to give but one reason), and C: the other issues involved beyond self-interest. Endlessly repeating those canards cannot and will not change the fact that it is not always so.

Self-interest may be objective, but our perception of it absolutely is not. Just like our perception of morality is also subjective, and it is to these subjective perceptions (amongst other matters) that states act, not to the cosmic, objectively true ultra ultra facts which we as humans cannot fully have but which we can to some level discern. Treating geopolitics or human nature like it is some laboratory experiment in the eye of the beholder is to ignore the entire benefit of studying either or what they can tell us.

The introduction of individual actions is a red herring. We are not discussing social psychology here. We discussing the actions of the state.

The red herring is straitjacketed, linear, and dogmatic thinking that holds that to some degree we *are not* discussing social psychology here, or that we can discuss the actions of the state without doing so. For all your eloquent words, you seem remarkably unable to come up with explanations or facts for historical events- the gold standard by which events in our world can be analyzed- in which matters other than reactions to (perceptions of) self interest were in play.

Lastly, the simplicity of the "theory" doesn't negates its value for discussion. A "theory" need not be complex to be valid.

Correct with caveats. A theory must be complex to be valid when it is specifically meant to apply to something that cannot be covered simply or universally. However, beyond that I agree. The simplicity of the theory does not negate the value for discussion. The lack of worth it possesses in and of itself (at least for the universal application you attach to it) is more than enough to negate its' value in the discussion in any event.

The comment was cynical, not literal. You took it as literal and overreacted with an ad hom. Hardly an excuse.

A: In my previous experiences with hellorheaven, I have seen more than enough evidence to doubt such a charitable interpretation.

B: Even if that was so, it was still an inaccurate addendum to this conversation, absolutely devoid of worth and adding nothing but easily debunked libel.

C: I do not believe that cynicism is an excuse for stupidity, or that it somehow makes such stupidity and insensitive libel worthy of defense.

To be honest Germans weren't that much a priori inclined to extermination of Serbs in WW 2, most of persecution they did, and they did a lot , was in order to prevent and stop the resistance save the standard liquidations of political and intellectual elite and other ''suspicious'' elements which were totally unprovoked. However you noticed nicely that there wasn't much need for Germans to get their hands dirty when there were a lot of their ''allies '' who were more than happy to do the job instead them.


[/COLOR]

My apologies for any vagueness, but yes I was indeed noting that the actions of those allies- as abetted and enabled by the German occupation- were part and parcel of it. And that's before we theorize about distant futures where the Germans would hypothetically seek to obtain yet more "living space" at the expense of the already decimated Serbs.

[SuperTechmarine]

In war, there's no good or bad, only bad and worse.

[PikeStance]

I am quite familiar with the Terms of Service. I read them when I came on here, and I read them frequently to ensure I remain on the straight and narrow to the greatest degree possible. I am well aware of what it says, and I am well aware of what it does not say. I will not debase this conversation as you have by posturing about ad hominens, by *falsely* accusing another user of ad-hominens, or by irrelevantly crying out about how ToS lacks in enforcing ad hominens and factual accuracy. That is not for here nor there.

I do not know about your claim of "falsely accusing you" of an ad hom. You admitted to have that right under certain conditions in the previous responses. I don't think it is neither here or there; its paramount for civility.

Except by that definition, the unleashing of nuclear weapons by the US on Britain tomorrow without provocation would be to protect its' own self-interest. Nevermind the obvious side effects and other factors at play. There is a reason why there are limits to what pure power or possession can bring for a state in terms of even its' own self interest. .... Except quite frankly it does not always. It may seem to be, and when seen with certain lenses we can even imagine how it seems to be, but that does not change A: the validity of an average cost-benefit analysis, B: actions throughout history that frankly were visibly against the self-interest of the states involved (like Napoleon's overthrow of his Spanish ally, to give but one reason), and C: the other issues involved beyond self-interest. Endlessly repeating those canards cannot and will not change the fact that it is not always so.

Self-interest may be objective, but our perception of it absolutely is not. Just like our perception of morality is also subjective, and it is to these subjective perceptions (amongst other matters) that states act, not to the cosmic, objectively true ultra ultra facts which we as humans cannot fully have but which we can to some level discern. Treating geopolitics or human nature like it is some laboratory experiment in the eye of the beholder is to ignore the entire benefit of studying either or what they can tell us.

The red herring is straitjacketed, linear, and dogmatic thinking that holds that to some degree we *are not* discussing social psychology here, or that we can discuss the actions of the state without doing so. For all your eloquent words, you seem remarkably unable to come up with explanations or facts for historical events- the gold standard by which events in our world can be analyzed- in which matters other than reactions to (perceptions of) self interest were in play.

The approach does not have to take into account bad decision- it is the intended result that counts not the unintended consequences. History will "littered" with states acting for their own interest that resulted in the exact opposite fortune. It doesn't change the fact that the intention was to make a gain.

Also, I have already dealt with specific examples prior to your arrival to this thread- So I am a little confused when you state that I haven;t come up with an explanation with historical events.

I do not think I mistreating the study of Geopolitics. In fact, my opinion is based on my study of geopolitics. This is my conclusion from the evidence. Are their alternative views? sure. I happen to believe this one.

What is hypothetical is my theory on individual morality where I was attempting to extend the theory to individuals. It technically originated from a different philosophical approach. This isn't the venue for the discussion, but I may post something about in a few months. (too much on my plate at the moment to write it all out.

A: In my previous experiences with hellorheaven, I have seen more than enough evidence to doubt such a charitable interpretation.
B: Even if that was so, it was still an inaccurate addendum to this conversation, absolutely devoid of worth and adding nothing but easily debunked libel.
C: I do not believe that cynicism is an excuse for stupidity, or that it somehow makes such stupidity and insensitive libel worthy of defense.

I have no problem with what he said and I didn't necessarily agree with him. Cynicism and witticism are always a great way to liven up a conversation as long as people can maintain civility in the discussion. You are taking too much this personal. Besides, incivility can only lead to the alienation of the choir boys not convert the unconverted.

[Turtler]

I do not know about your claim of "falsely accusing you" of an ad hom. You admitted to have that right under certain conditions in the previous responses. I don't think it is neither here or there; its paramount for civility.

You have repeatedly debased an entire argument and the debunking of the supposedly "witty" cynicism into being only ad-hom, which by any objective measure it is not. Whether it includes any ad-hom at all can be debated subjectively ad with merits, but tha tis not what you have don in the least. Whether or not you know about my claim or anything else is irrelevant to the objective facts, for the same reason whether or not anyone knows anything is relevant to objective facts.

Having established that, I do not feel obliged to debate civility when the other side in this conversation has deigned to show none up to this point. Especially since this is by any objective standard well outside of the parameters of this topic, which is something that is covered for on the ToS.

The approach does not have to take into account bad decision- it is the intended result that counts not the unintended consequences.

Which is why that approach is flawed cripplingly even on its' own standards, and by any other is of at best marginal importance by itself. Being able to plot out complexities is part of what gives these models power in the first place, and one of those complexities is the ability to take bad decision making into account, amongst other things..

History will "littered" with states acting for their own interest that resulted in the exact opposite fortune. It doesn't change the fact that the intention was to make a gain.

By and large, yes. But what happens to a model when it would struggle (and more often than not fail to) give voice and reason to a large number of said littered states. It would be severely hard-pressed to explain matters such as Louis XII's frankly *dazzling* display of incompetence and often times charity in his campaign(s) in Italy, which led to precisely why Machiavelli cited him as a bad example. It is intellectual shallowness masquerading as a model promising great cosmic truths; from your own admissions here it is at best a very two dimensional model that works best only when applied in hindsight. The central truisim may be useful, but the overall system collapses because it cannot account for things other than the universe unfailingly obeying and adhering to its' single truism.

If someone came on this forum here and claimed to be able to distill the laws of physics down to gravitational pull, we would call them pseudo-scientists and charlatans of the worst form and kind. Statescraft might not be the same exact and unvarying science (or "science") as physics but I fail to see how this does not apply here.

Also, I have already dealt with specific examples prior to your arrival to this thread- So I am a little confused when you state that I haven;t come up with an explanation with historical events.

You seem to underestimate my ability to be unimpressed with your examples. Especially with how you have butchered and mischaracterized the origins of both the Second World War and the American Civil War.

it's all well and good to characterize the latter as not being fought at first to free the slaves, because it wasn't; but the sheer idea that one can leech all morality out of the opposition to a group of militia fanatics taking up arms and seceeding because they *lost* a legitimate election does not and can never stand the test of time, especially since it begs the question what would have happened if it were somehow solved without a single drop of blood being shed (given how you strictly conflate amorality with warfare itself, but that raises the questions of where the issue stands when it doesn't get far enough to be armed conflict).

Secondly, World War Two was not started purely because Germany magically attacked everybody simultaneously. It was built on the many, many, many treaties, guarantees, principles, and yes interests that the various sides had cooked up in the interbellum and before. If attacked, you fight explains the situation wonderfully for China and Poland and Ethiopia, but it does jack all to explain why the Soviets and/or the Western Allies entered the war as well. That can be partially explained through interests (such as the obvious benefit to the Soviets of not having an expansive Japanese Empire on their Eastern doorstep at this time, and the West's chronic and justified fear of Germany) but only partially.

In particular, it ignores why and where the first Western Allies declared war on Hitler in 1939, on behalf of a Polish state that was surrounded by hostile neighbors on all sides, largely incapable of aiding or being aided, and which in effect cut short their plans for war production by years, in part leaving them to be driven from the continent for a time. You can trot out the "bad decisions" canard, but if a model that is supposed to be all-encompassing cannot account for such a thing, the problem is with the model.

I do not think I mistreating the study of Geopolitics. In fact, my opinion is based on my study of geopolitics. This is my conclusion from the evidence. Are their alternative views? sure. I happen to believe this one.

And you are welcome to your own opinion, as we all are. But you are not in the least entitled to your own facts or reality. Nobody is save maybe the guy upstairs. Washing away the evidence that does not conform to a hypothesis is just sloppy experimentation.

What is hypothetical is my theory on individual morality where I was attempting to extend the theory to individuals. It technically originated from a different philosophical approach. This isn't the venue for the discussion, but I may post something about in a few months. (too much on my plate at the moment to write it all out.

I would eagerly look forward to it.

I have no problem with what he said and I didn't necessarily agree with him.

Whereas I very profoundly have a problem with what he said, necessarily do not agree with him, and suspect the cold hard evidence is all too macabre and self-evident.

Cynicism and witticism are always a great way to liven up a conversation as long as people can maintain civility in the discussion. You are taking too much this personal. Besides, incivility can only lead to the alienation of the choir boys not convert the unconverted.

Except for the fact that it was not witticism in the least (or at least in the least bit worthy), idealism has rarely been called a great way to liven up conversations, and you accuse me of committing incivility by merely refusing to tolerate one poster's incivility to both the living and the dead. I could care less about converting the unconverted versus speaking to my convictions, and the fact that you are willing to wash aside the blood and toil of millions upon millions is the greater incivility than telling someone to get their head out of a rectal cavity.

[NobleWoman]

Its all subjective.
the good and the bad side depend on what side you are on, and for what reason.
What is one's interests in a war determines what side he supports or holds "righteous". sometimes, it doesnt require reason or analysis- your ideology, point of view as shaped by your society, religion, education etc and even the situation brands the good and bad for you.

[Turtler]

Its all subjective.
the good and the bad side depend on what side you are on, and for what reason.
What is one's interests in a war determines what side he supports or holds "righteous". sometimes, it doesnt require reason or analysis- your ideology, point of view as shaped by your society, religion, education etc and even the situation brands the good and bad for you.

But are you willing to go to the mat here and explain how the Nazi Reich and our current evaluation of it are "subjective" and completely depend on what side you are on?