Depends where you start. Once hitler kicked off i think its likley that he'd have just carried on expanding until someone stopped him. But ww1 wasnt even remotely based on right and wrong. I't was based on "we're bigger than you". And hitler wouldve never come to power were it not for the anger at us blaming it all on them.
As for the war in the pacific, Japan wanted to be acknowledged as an equal to western nations. Hence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...Proposal,_1919 << read it
At the time we had something of an empire and the thing about empires is once one country has one everyone else wants one.
So, no I don't think we do need war. But countries don't fall out for no reason. Resentment at unfair treatment doesnt come from nowhere.
The done thing seems to be to decide that a problem started at a point that paints us in the best light, like Hitlers rise, disregarding the preceding events, the unfair treatment, in which we had a part, and thats unfair.
Thats not to say we were the only ones to make mistakes of course. Not by a long shot. But were it not for all those native australians conveniently falling down a hole (must've been a lot of holes just dotted around the places we invaded) rather than some other sort of mishap and our continued benefit from the colonies we then established (not to mention that time one of our boats capsized leaving all that heroin to wash up on the beaches somewhere) people might think that when people bring up such things we'd keep quiet and hope that putting an end to the tyranny of empire (with a little help from our fair minded honorable Indian friends) makes up for our rather significant part in perpetuating it. Its hardly a cause for ideas of moral superiority. A cause for learning lessons and moving on.
Last edited by green.tea; 26-04-2012 at 04:27.
There will always be war , the only way it could cease would be if we were basically identical in every way (wealth ect)
Last edited by jamieguitar101; 03-05-2012 at 21:34.
Unless you're a pacifist then clearly it must be assumed that, to some degree, war is sometimes necessary and just. Pacifism is carelessness masquerading behind morality. I'd say that it's not even an amoral position, but an immoral one. As G.K. Chesterton once brilliantly illustrated, it argues that if you see a man beating a woman in the middle of the street then, whatever you do, you must not hit him. Pacifism simply means that you exclude yourself from the question of who gets killed, often leaving the side with the strongest force and resolve to act unimpeded. Very often this is based on relativistic self-hatred, e.g. anything that is conducted on behalf of the neo-liberal economic system and transnational corporations is bad. It needn't be said that, in my view, you're both a moral coward and an idiot if you think that the international community shouldn't have put stop to genocide in Rwanda or bombed the railway lines to Auschwitz on the grounds that it may have generated a profit for U.S. arms companies.
Last edited by Suetonius; 04-05-2012 at 04:12.