Noooo, you MUST accept war as a method of dispute resolution between nations!
As Clausewitz wrote, war is continuation of politics. As such it break when the other methods are insufficient. Nobody ever make war for no reason, there are always intersts behind this, and it also never breaks completely out of the blue.
Nobody say it’s fun (maybe except some idiots who never had to fight) but to say it isn’t viable method of politics is nonsense, as evidenced by the 250+ conflicts just since WW2 not to mention tens of thousands before.
war is continuation of theft.
political participation everywhere is close to zero. i’d say the same group who says it’s fun is another site of the group that justify it with mental gymnastics. just two different kinds of idiots (in the Greek sense of the word).
edit: damn we all fallen for the troll 😞
war is continuation of theft.
Imperialist war, yes. Liberation war, like for example the revolutionary war, is stopping the theft. So, continuation of politics anyway.
deleted by creator
Many. For example, French revolution and the wars after it until thermidorian reaction. Or February revolution and after that went to shit, October one and the ensuing civil war. Haitan revolution. Peasant War in Germany. Xinhai revolution, then war against Japanese then civil war. Greek Independence war. Many irish or polish uprisings. Vietnam War. Etc etc. It don’t even have to be 100% ideologically pure (it never is btw). Hell even the aggressive war can be just like Vietnam invasion on Cambodia.
are more about which particular group gets to do the oppressing.
State by its very nature is machine used by ruling class to opress others. Yet not every opression is equal. Again, if you expect total ideological purity manifested in flesh, you will get disappointed every time.
deleted by creator
I never said this, it’s the other guy you want.
This excuse fits every despicable war the US fought in the past just as well as Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Not sure if this is what you were after.
Also, in the years and years since Clausewitz wrote what you quote, one might acknowledge that international standards have come a long way. Just consider the historical context of the Napoleonic Wars, it’s just not the world we live in anymore.
Additionally, Clausewitz only meant that as an observation, not as something desirable.I don’t get where did you even suddenly put in the word “desirable”. Nobody said this, not me not you and not Clausewitz. I said “viable”, which is a simple observation based on how many conflict were resolved in this or that way by the wars, and you said “accept war as a method of dispute resolution between nations” which is obviously also true since most wars end in a peace deal which is a resolution of a dispute (it’s usually not desirable to at least one party but it is a resultion), and as such belligerents and most often everyone else do accept war as method of resolving conflicts, else no peace deal ever would be legal.
Obviously some wars are better than the others, for example liberation wars, while US imperialist wars are utterly reprehensible.
Also, in the years and years since Clausewitz wrote what you quote, one might acknowledge that international standards have come a long way.
Not really, as 250+ conflict since WW2 can attest, the only difference is that before the wars were waged and justified differently than now because systems changed, monarchic and bourgeois states needs different methods. War itself also changed of course.
I don’t get where did you even suddenly put in the word “desirable”.
You used Clausewitz’ description in terms of legitimizing war as a matter of politics (as you opposed someone else sarcastically saying you had to accept war as a matter of dispute between nations). If that was not your intention, then your post contains mostly whataboutism, pointing at others doing the same (?) thing in order to not be accused for something.
Obviously some wars are better than the others, for example liberation wars, while US imperialist wars are utterly reprehensible.
Yeah. If you say so.
250+ conflict since WW2 can attest
It’s 77 years since the end of WWII. There are around 200 countries in the world (also depending on how Mother Russia feels today about further annexations). A “conflict” is an extremely wide term. Therefore, I’m surprised it’s not more than that.
Politics are very different today than in the time of Bonaparte, therefore war as a matter of those and the reasons for it are hardly the same. So what I don’t get is why you pull out that 200 years old quote to excuse nations colliding in war in modern times. Yes, war is a reality. Of course it is, nobody ever denied that, just look what a great point you made there! But hell, do we have to like that or drop every effort to overcome it? Europe for instance lives in peace since the end of Nazi Germany, which is probably the longest period since, I don’t know, like ever? Yeah, not everybody was happy with every compromise that came with that peace. But I suggest that those were/are still better than open war.Let ideas fight & die, not people.
First off right, that was not you, my mistake.
legitimizing war as a matter of politics
War is legitimate manners of doing politics, nothing whataboutist with that. We might discuss if it should or shouldn’t be, but the fact is that it absolutely is and always was, i don’t know what is so controversial in this. Even if some countries like USA or Russia think it’s not a war when you don’t delcare it. By “conflict” i meant “armed conflict”, including border skirmishes, putches, or USA wrecking countries for 20+ years without officially declaring war.
Yeah. If you say so.
Nice to see you support national, class etc. oppression, because that is what you do after saying no war is ever just.
Therefore, I’m surprised it’s not more than that.
Hah and you jest you don’t see war as legit politic!
Politics are very different today than in the time of Bonaparte
Material conditions change and the politics with them, obviously. Btw the Vienna congress still shaping current politics and events to a certain extent.
I will leave the rest of idealist liberal nonsense without comment, maybe except one thing:
Europe for instance lives in peace since the end of Nazi Germany, which is probably the longest period since, I don’t know, like ever?
Having cold war with two nuclear powers and iron curtain probably had something to do with this. As is the first time Europe was mostly united militarily under NATO as de facto US protectorate. Also not very nice of you to igore half of the world pillaged by USA and their european pals, especially since 1991.
So as every imperialist, you write a lot of words without meaning to ultimately end at the position of defending pax americana. Coincidentally with above ironical “If you say so.” to suggestion that people can defend themself, pacifist when your side dominates. How predictable.
Always interested to see what you try to make out of my words. You could have been a gifted sculptor for all I know, you neither lack imagination nor the aspiration to transform stuff into something completely different.
I didn’t say basically anything you imply and have not enough time nor energy to waste in “discussions” with fundamentalists, so I’ll just conclude my annotations to your pseudointellectual ramblings with another “if you say so”.
You are full of melodrama and thought stopping rituals. The war has been going on for 8 years. Russia will end it.
Oh look, Varjolintu 2. Or maybe even 1, you seem to always arrive when he’s banned and have literally the same methods of trolling 101.
