Violence the panacea

[Arkangel]

From Ossassin in another thread:violence is the only thing that does solve conflicts

So what I'd like us to do here is discuss exactly which conflicts violence has solved and how. We can talk about bumfights to nuclear bombs. You tell me how violence can solve all these problems and we can see if people agree with you.

Over to you guys

[knowledgehungry]

Enough nuclear Bombs and everything is solved! Is there a God? Boom everyone knows the answer! hahah Violence can solve everything but often there are better ways its a last resort but a good one.

[kingspaz]

i don't think talking solves problems properly. it just redistributes them. war has been the tool for problem solving for as long as man has been alive. we are an intelligent species. if war wasn't the best option then surely we would have thought of something else by now?

[vulture]

we are an intelligent species

Correcting, we think we are, because we can't adequatly communicate with other species.

Who says a dog doesn't think of himself: "I'm part of the most intelligent species, look at those silly humans, they kill eachother instead of cats or other lousy species."

For every major problem that has been solved by war, many new small ones were created.

A war might solve a political problem, but it will cause hatred amongst those who losted their loved ones during a war. As you probably know, you never forget things like that.

[Skean Dhu]

I forget whos signature this was/is but it was something to this affect" The axe is a swift cure for all ails you"
Exhibit A)
Schoolyard bullies pick on kids all the time, If the kid on the recieving end fights back, the bully backs off. Granted this may/has lead to school shootings but the kids aren't bothered by bullies anymore are they? Yes they may get bubbaed a few times, until bubba gets shived in the workyard/washroom one day
Exhibit B)
On a recent 20/20 interview or one of those nighttime news shows. A report was aired done by John Stossel about misconceptions and such. He eventually came around to gun control and how legislation won't stop gun related crimes. He interviewed some prison inmates and they said they weren't afraid of the bacon or jail, but rather that the owner of the house/business they were robbing might have a gun and use it on them. The threat of violence towards a person keeps them from action violently towards you.
Exhibit C)
the Cold war and others involving MADD

People are hardwired for self preservation, They don't commit acts that endanger themselves.
QUOTE]Originally posted by vulture

A war might solve a political problem, but it will cause hatred amongst those who losted their loved ones during a war. As you probably know, you never forget things like that. [/QUOTE]

Sure they will be angry and want revenge but if you kill them off then they won't be angry anymore will they?

[orgasmo]

Violence will usually work, but not always, and not sometimes only temporarily. If one is trying to defend themself or someone else then of course it'll work on a personal level. On the other hand, the international level it won't always work. Take the korean war for example, i don't know the exact number of years that the war went on but in the end the borders were just about the same place that they were when the war began, the Communists were stopped but nothing was really solved. Or look at the Israeli-Palestinian situation the violence is still going on with no sign of relenting.

Now i'm not saying that violence won't work on an international level, it's just harder to implement and finish the job. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, war removed the bad guys from the government, but it's gonna take a while to get the governments of those countries back in order. I think this can be done however. One can also look at WWII, we were attacked and responded in force, thus solving the problem of the Axis powers.

Violence can definitely be effective as long as it is implemented properly and with thought of what will happen post bello.

[MrSamosa]

I guess this sums it up: "Violence is not the answer; but it gets rid of the question."

[NightStalker]

I'd say "Violence is the solution because it gets rid of the problem".

If a person who threatened you is pushing up worms, and his family too, and any friends he may have had, then who's left to threaten you?

No one.

End of threat.

If tiny third world shit hole is source of scum that attack your country, and said country is obliterated, and raghead scum are fleeing for their lives as they're hunted down and blasted in the holes they're hiding in, then when do they have time to attack you?

The question isn't whether violence solves the problem, but whether you are willing to use enough violence to effect the solution...permanently.

If you beat someone down, time after time, letting them get up afterwards, eventually they'll either become strong enough to take you down, or figure out some other way to get you.

If the first time you beat them down, you cut their head off, they'll never be getting up to harm you later.

Half-measures, killing by degrees, and leaving survivors behind to seek revenge, all of these are errors committed by those who hesitate, and are thus lost.

Mongols exterminated all life. Their empire was huge.

Romans mercilessly crushed all dissent. Their empire was huge.

Brits crushed all rebellion. Their empire was huge.

I'm seeing a trend developing here. ;)

Skean...clean up your trashy post and properly start and end your quotes and such, eh? Thanks for doing your part to keep the Forum beautiful. :)

PS: Stickfigure is the one with the "The ax. A sharp cure for all that ails you." :D

[shooter3]

Nightstalker is getting it right in practical terms.

Look at the latest Iraq war. It was fought under the Sun Tsu doctrine. Fool the enemy, minimize casualties, talk the enemy out of fighting, and let him get away. I used to be a believer in this, but with 20-20 hindsight one can see that this will work only when people of a similar culture are fighting. They understand one another and know when to quit. Then you can forgive and forget. Ie; ancient china, US civil war, old European conflicts.

When dealing with implacable foes (ie nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Arab muslim countries), the Clauswits (sp) doctrine is what works. Total war. Wipe out the military. Enough peripheral damage and casulties to make the population change it's mind about there course of action. Even a complete idiot (maybe even bikers) can be made to quit if he sees you are willing to keep it up until he does.

This is what we did wrong in Iraq. The people have a scapegoat in the army(They chickened out!). The fedahean wasn't wiped out. We left the "Will to resist" and the solders to do it, intact. This may prove very costly to both us and the people of Iraq.

[gliper]

Volence works when you have greater capability and strategic knowledge than your would be oponent / s, Us v Iraq and fails when reversed The Confederate States (CSA) v the Union (USA).

"For every major problem that has been solved by war, many new small ones were created."

War is not declared by or waged for the civilians of a society but their rulers who tend not to die even in defeat and gain greater controll, wealth, respect, admeration and power both from war and the "little problems" it creates.

[Skean Dhu]

Originally posted by gliper
Volence works when you have greater capability and strategic knowledge than your would be oponent / s, Us v Iraq and fails when reversed

That is quite easily disproved by one tiny little 'backwards' country and its rag-tag army, Vietnam. That war ring a bell? The VC had far inferior weapons than the US but they had a will to kick some ass, most of our soldiers over there just wanted to go home.

Having the "will to do what it takes" or having a strong belief that what you're doing is right as said by others is much more potent than all the knowledge and tacticle arms in the universe, now when you combine the two your a juggernaught.

[ossassin]

You're really helping my reputation, Arkangel. :p I've been sitting here for quite a while, thinking about different ways to approach this issue. The best way that I can think of is simply to say that violence is the universal language in our modern society. Period.

[Arkangel]

Well it needs all the help it can get Ossassin;)

But seriously, violence is not the only universal answer, it is AN answer and I have never disagreed with that.

All the people here who see it as a "final solution" maybe haven't thought that hard about the alternatives. Pretty much all the conflicts we've seen could have been resolved with other, more creative efforts that cost a fraction of what a war would.

And Nightstalker's reference to the Mongols, Romans and Brits gives away EXACTLY what the latest war in Iraq was all about. Screw WMD's and kicking out tyranny, it was about expanding the US empire. I'd much rather they were honest about it.

And you know what really makes me sad about you guys? Well check this out. I was doing some pottering on the net the other day, as there was an explosion at a chemical works in Gloucestershire, England. In the news it said they were a drill manufacturer, and so I had a look at their site.......OH...they're a Halliburton owned company. Halliburton being ONE of the interests in which most of the US Administration have a finger. So then I start following links and working out where it all goes, is controlled from.

On the "location list" was a minor reference to Subsea7 - an interesting name I thought, and found a company 50% owned by Halliburton that had DOZENS of ships and operations all over the place. And this is just one tiny, weeny little part of the organisation. Halliburton, and all the companies your leaders have interests in are HUGE, and it is THEM that really benefits from the violence you're talking about.

You guys? I don't care what you do, how much money you have (and most of you don't have much) are bacteria compared to these people. The people that make arrangements for your brothers and fathers and friends to go off to kill and die in the sands are using them as toys to further expand their own immense fortunes and you guys take it up the arse like good little bitches you are.

I may be a whiner, but at least I KNOW when I'm being fucked:rolleyes:

[Nihilist]

War and violence are not solutions, they are patches, put there to cover something up. You cannot resolve a conflict with violence, you can only force the other side to temporarily concede to you. However just because you force them into signing a treaty or whatever it is you wanted them to do, doesn't mean that don't still hate you and won't still kill you as soon as they get the chance. You cannot wipe out an entire belief system, religion, ideal, moral, etc.. it has been attempted by almost every powerful nation in the history of the world, and it has always failed. Sometimes a simple patching of the problem is the best you can do, and then violence is certainly the answer, but definitely not the solution.

[ossassin]

Arkangel, I said that violence was the universal language, not the universal answer. It may not be the answer, but it will definately get your point across. :)

Also, how do you define the term "resolved"? Do you consider a problem resolved if a confrontation is avoided, or must you get what you want? In order for a side to get what it wants, that side must fight for it. The only other option is to settle for a compromise.

[Arkangel]

Compromise



Now there's a radical concept.



My girlfriend wants me to be utterly faithful to her and never have eyes for any other woman.

I want to screw every half decent female I lay my eyes upon.

Somewhere between the two poles I get to leer and flirt, but not do much actual touching. Its'a compromise I'm not totally happy with but I recognise I have to make some sacrifices to maintain the relationship I have with a particularly beautiful and intelligent woman.

The problem you're illustrating is what happens when one entity is not prepared to compromise. When it's security, wealth and selfishness is put before everyone else's.

To me that's a preventable problem to which violence is touted as a solution, but frankly it's a poor one.

[ossassin]

Relationships are their own issue. We're talking about politics. In your case, I think that a compromise is still wrong. You shouldn't flirt with those other girls!

[Arkangel]

Compromise is compromise is compromise.

All's fair in love and war etc.....

The world thinks the US went to war because you all want to drive around in SUV's and are not prepared to compromise with a compact. And why is that exactly?

And for the record, what you said was:In the grand scheme of things here on this earth, violence is the only thing that does solve conflicts So it's more or less the same as saying it's a universal solution. I wasn't quoting you in any case.

[ossassin]

It was meant to be taken in context. Also, if this girl is as beautiful and intelligent as you say, why would you need a compromise?

[Arkangel]

Because I'm a rutting stag mate. I'm hardwired to collect a whole herd of fine centerfold does around me to carry my young.

Society forces me to have just the one, something I consider a bit of a pain in the ass

[vulture]

I'd like to throw a new term into the discussion:

VT or Violence Treshold.

I admit that sometimes emotion takes over and some fine violence will make you feel better.
But, where's the line? When does a conflict get so much out of hand that violence is the only means that'll solve it?

Let's assume you're having an argument with a person. You don't really like that person, but you also don't really dislike them. You're both very stubborn, so the argument continues for quite some time. To displease eachother, you'll both oppose ANYTHING the other party says. Just for the sake of disagreeing with him/her.

That's where most conflicts get out of hand and where unnecessary violence is going to be used.

[knowledgehungry]

Tsk Tsk Arkangel, some angel you are. I'm quite faithful to my girlfriend i dont even look at porn, I have but i try not to in general.

[Arkangel]

If I was an angel of any kind, I wouldn't be on this forum talking to you lot now, would I;)

[Flake2m]

People use violence and war not to resolve issues but to generate profit.
A street mugging: profit
A break an enter: profit
Armed robbery: profit

So I have established that violence is a source of profit (money and goods).
"Wars cost money, just like politics and dating".
Completely true. Politicians needs moeny to fund their election campaign, Someone has to pay for all the bombs, tanks and guns in a war and people use money to impress their boyfriend/girlfriend (Movie tickets cost money).

All three can be linked to violence as well. War is a more organised form of violence, People will bash the crap outa each other for a guy/girl and politicians have been known to use violence to reduce the number of opponents.

These three form a triangle, with war politics and dating each taking a corner. In the middle is money or profit.

The reason violence is used is because it is easier to simply get a gun and shoot someone or bomb some country back to the stone age then simply talking to them and trying to... compromise.
The other reason violence is used is because it causes. Pain. When people are violent people experience pain, sometimes its the physical injuries but it can be also loosing someone you care about. The threat of pain can be enough for people to obey.

@ knowledgehungry: its not cheating if she doesn't know about it. ;)

[Arkangel]

The reason violence is used is because it is easier to simply get a gun and shoot someone or bomb some country back to the stone age then simply talking to them and trying to... compromise Flake, you must live in a very different culture to me. Since when was it easier to shoot someone than..............compromise? I mean, even in the middle of a war it brings dilemma's, but in day to day life, are you kidding?

If you go out on the piss with a knife in your pocket, one day there's a chance you'll use it. Maybe you're defending yourself, but it wouldn't matter, you'd be FUCKED if you were ever caught. Chances are if you ended up in the same set of circumstances without the knife, you'd either talk your way out of it, run away, or find some other solution, but if you have a knife sure as nails you'd have it out and use it. Maybe that would work in some extreme circumstances, but 95% of the time you'd be worse off.

Violence begets violence.

[Tuatara]

To those ragging Arkangel for looking at other women
"It doesn't matter where you get your appetite, so long as you always eat at home"
;)

As for violence, it can be anything from a grunt to a thermonuclear explosion. Violence as I've just defined is the normal response to a conflict of interest. Every level of violence applied in resolution will have consquences: good, bad, immediate and delayed. The real trick in resolving a conflict is in choosing the appropriate level. I think this is where many people fail, as they don't comprehend the full extent of the consequences of their actions, as highlighted in the last post.

Know when to walk away.

[TreverSlyFox]

I'll start off by actually giving an example of how violance solved the problem on a political scale IE: 1776 The King of England pissed us off and we tried all the political ways to stop the BS, they didn't work. So we kicked the redcoats ass and started our own Government. Violance solved that problem until 1812 when we had to kick the redcoats ass again, that did solve the problem since they haven't come back for round #3 in almost 200 years.

On an individual scale violance solves problems everyday IE: Armed Mugger, Rapist, B&Eer jumps the wrong citizen, citizen is armed and blows away the scumbag, problem solved and in most cases the citizen walks away free and clear. Mostly because here in the States we have the right to defend our Lives and Family and in many States our Property also, with deadly force if need be. Every State that has passed "Shall Issue" CCW laws has seen a drop in crimes of violance and that's documented in the FBI crime stats for each State each year.

So violance does solve problems, it's not the perfect answer but it's an answer. In many cases there probably is a better answer IF you have the time and resources to find it and the other party is willing to listen. Even Jesus Christ knew that violance was the answer in some cases and told his followers to "...sell your cloak and buy a sword..." in Luke 22: 35-36.

Violance is the way of nature, just look around and you'll see violance in every species that inhabits this world in one way or another. Humans have just improved the tools used and expanded it to greater limits.

God created man, Col. Colt made them equal.

[Flake2m]

I am not saying that violence is always the easiest way. Its is just some people get a lazy and/or impatient. Think about it like this:
You can need $2000. You can earn $6 an hour for 9 hours a day flipping burgers, or you can make a quick $2000 or $3000 by robbing a store. What would you choose?

I would choose flipping burgers myself as I would be prepared to work hard for the money and for me there is just too much risk involved. Someone else might choose the second option because they are either more desperate for the money or lazy, because they aren't prepared to work hard enough for the money. Also some people would have nothing to lose by robbing a store.

Violence is an answer to some problems. But it isn't always the best answer, some things could be solved in a day if people simply sat down a discussed an alternative, sure violence will get you somewhere in life but it'll only work for so long and where you end up isn't alwasys where you wanted to be. The same applies to being diplomatic.
After all, sometimes no matter how hard you always end up in the same situation. Thats just life and in life Shit happens.

[gliper]

[QUOTE=Skean Dhu]That is quite easily disproved by one tiny little 'backwards' country and its rag-tag army, Vietnam. That war ring a bell?

In responce to my statemet; Volence works when you have greater capability and strategic knowledge than your would be oponent / s, Us v Iraq and fails when reversed

First off Russia and I recall China were the true enemies in that war Vietnam was just a proxy, it was US v USSR, a far closer mach up and in my mind ended more in stale mate than defeat. It goes with out saying however that you can loose if you don't try, even if victory is served to you on a plater.

[Jacks Complete]

Vietnam is a tricky one. Neither side really won.

The US were made to look like the fools they were, and lost some 70,000 troops.

Vietnam got sent halfway back to the stoneage, and lost about 3,000,000 people, not just troops by a long way.

As for war solving a problem, yes, you could just kill everyone who disagreed with you, but the law would catch up with you. Yes, you could kill every last MoFo on earth, but then you would be pretty bored, as the last person alive.

The problem with violence is that it rarely actually solves the problem to everyone. When you have a fight, everyone loses in some way, especially if there is no clear winner.

Bombing the shit out of kids in Afghanistan is not a way to "win" anything but contempt. The Taliban are winning the war on Terror. They wanted terror, and now the US is more scared than it has EVER been. Hell, they don't even need to call in a bomb threat, as the CIA will do it for them!

As for on a more personal level, we tend to use clever words more than fists to get our points across these days, but I can't help feeling that it has gone too far (in England, at least) in that you can go to jail for ten years for saying a bad thing to someone, and offending someone who may overhear you, and you may go to jail for five years for defending yourself by threatening a mugger you will hit him, but someone who has burgled thirty houses should be given the full protection of the law, in case a home owner tries to stop him.

It is almost as if violence on a personal level is so abstract and outside the law that now, the everyday "violence" of harsh words is treated far more harshly!

Personally, after hearing what goes on with the "secret" "civil" Child Court cases in this country, I said to my other half that if I ever was in the same situation, I would kill all the police and social workers I could, faced with that much injustice, as they (tried to) take my child from me based on the secret judgement of a secret court. She agreed 100%.

Clever speech is the new violence, and it is far the nastier.