Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 361
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Count Lucanor » December 29th, 2017, 4:01 pm

Burning Ghost:

I understand the context is that "he was decidedly against pacifism". And there it is where I make my point.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Greta » December 29th, 2017, 4:17 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
December 29th, 2017, 12:34 am
Greta wrote:
December 28th, 2017, 7:13 pm
Orwell appears to be talking about respect for one's combatants.
Actually, he was justifying the killing of civilians
Orwell obviously spoke about both. There's enough people denying the bleeding obvious.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Greta wrote:Having never fought a war or been shot at I respect Orwell's perspectives, even if I don't agree with all, eg. in war it is much better IMO to kill combatants rather than civilians, regardless of age or gender. When outmatched fighters embed in civilian populations, the latter are effectively being sacrificed as an "ethical shield" that logically can never hold.
In my case, I cannot respect any opinion that holds a superior motive to kill innocent people. And worst if he adds a pragmatic reason: better to kill a cross section of the population than only young men.
As per my last post, I opposed that idea. I do respect people who speak from experiences that I've not had.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Greta wrote:I find it hard to judge those who have served in the military because, this being a eusocial society, they fight on my behalf with my taxes, whether I personally agree or (more usually) not in a given war. They do the dirty work so we don't have to; the concern for me is only when the "dirty work" becomes especially dirty, eg. illegal invasions, political interference, wanton damage to infrastructure and nature, and the abuse of captives and the vulnerable.
The claim of ours being a eusocial society is disputable.
Only by the likes of Trump. In scientific terms humans are a classic example of eusociality:
Eusociality (from Greek εὖ eu "good" and social), the highest level of organization of animal sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care (including care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste.
In humans, there are vocations rather than castes. Other people our societies' dirty work on our behalf - one who can handle violence, and even enjoy it - so intellectuals who abhor violence don't have to do it or be exposed to it themselves, and can thus claim moral superiority over their protectors.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 361
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Count Lucanor » December 29th, 2017, 9:05 pm

Greta wrote:
December 29th, 2017, 4:17 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
December 29th, 2017, 12:34 am

Actually, he was justifying the killing of civilians
Orwell obviously spoke about both. There's enough people denying the bleeding obvious.
Some of the quotes appear to show a disposition towards justifying war casualties in general, but unfortunately he also made that comment about "young men" (meaning soldiers) having more value than civilians. Not only that, but he goes as far as mocking people who spoke on behalf of civilians as "parrots". Screw him. I don't know what Orwell said when the Geneva Conventions were established 5 years after he wrote this, but it seems he would have opposed.
Greta wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: In my case, I cannot respect any opinion that holds a superior motive to kill innocent people. And worst if he adds a pragmatic reason: better to kill a cross section of the population than only young men.
As per my last post, I opposed that idea. I do respect people who speak from experiences that I've not had.
The issue is not whether we respect people, but what value their opinions have. Does enduring a night of bombs make dismissing the value of human lives a more respectable opinion? I doubt it. Besides, it appears as if Orwell himself did not respect other's people experiences, so it's hard to be empathetic to someone who displays very little empathy himself.

What Orwell defended was nothing else but terrorism. I've looked it up and it seems that Orwell's remarks in The Tribune were directed to Vera Brittain, who advocated for civilian immunity with regards to the bombing campaigns against German cities, an argument which he despised as "sheer humbug". If war is barbarous, let it be as barbarous as it can be, no nuances allowed:

"...since it has to happen it does not seem to me a bad thing that others should be killed besides young men...The immunity of civilians, one of the things that have made war possible, has been shattered. Unlike miss Brittain, I don't regret that. I can't feel that war is "humanised" by being confined to the slaughter of the young and becomes "barbarous" when the old get killed as well...war is of its nature barbarous, it is better to admit that. If we see ourselves as the savages we are, some improvement is possible".

But then why send the Nazis to trial? As soon as the war is over, so it's the barbarism, so let's shake hands and go on with our savage lives.
Greta wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: The claim of ours being a eusocial society is disputable.
Only by the likes of Trump. In scientific terms humans are a classic example of eusociality:
Eusociality (from Greek εὖ eu "good" and social), the highest level of organization of animal sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care (including care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste.
The next paragraph of that Wikipedia entry states that: " E. O. Wilson has claimed that humans are eusocial, but his arguments have been refuted by a large number of evolutionary biologists, who note that humans do not have division of reproductive labor." So I guess this means that a large number of evolutionary biologists are the likes of Trump. Saddening, indeed.

It will not be the first time that Wilson spurs controversy, being the father of Sociobiology. That's because Sociobiology is a failed project from the beginning, being rooted in the social darwinism ideology of Herbert Spencer, a nutcase all by himself.
Greta wrote: In humans, there are vocations rather than castes. Other people our societies' dirty work on our behalf - one who can handle violence, and even enjoy it - so intellectuals who abhor violence don't have to do it or be exposed to it themselves, and can thus claim moral superiority over their protectors.
It is hard for me to grasp the concept of war as "dirty work" on behalf of others, and to think of the military as "protectors", as if it were a socially necessary institution. It is not. And I give Orwell that: it's barbarous. It well might have become a social institution, but one we can and should get rid of. Not for the sake of intellectuals that abhor violence, but the general well-being of all members of society.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Greta » December 29th, 2017, 10:04 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
December 29th, 2017, 9:05 pm
... unfortunately he also made that comment about "young men" (meaning soldiers) having more value than civilians.
Aside from your speculations about what Orwell may or may not have favoured, I did not take that statement as comparing the value of soldiers favourably over civilians. Rather he seemed to be considering the balance of populations after war.

By all means be angry about war, but I'm yet to see a war-free world, just as I'm yet to see aliens or hobgoblins. I think to some extent Orwell is speaking about acceptance of conflict but rejection of hatred.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Greta wrote:As per my last post, I opposed that idea. I do respect people who speak from experiences that I've not had.
The issue is not whether we respect people, but what value their opinions have.
Do outsiders with no experience understand your occupation or field of expertise better than you do?
Count Lucanor wrote: ...Orwell's remarks in The Tribune were directed to Vera Brittain, who advocated for civilian immunity with regards to the bombing campaigns against German cities, an argument which he despised as "sheer humbug". If war is barbarous, let it be as barbarous as it can be, no nuances allowed
I and others have addressed the OP and our posts are based on that, not on this new information.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Greta wrote:Only by the likes of Trump. In scientific terms humans are a classic example of eusociality:
The next paragraph of that Wikipedia entry states that: " E. O. Wilson has claimed that humans are eusocial, but his arguments have been refuted by a large number of evolutionary biologists, who note that humans do not have division of reproductive labor." So I guess this means that a large number of evolutionary biologists are the likes of Trump. Saddening, indeed.

It will not be the first time that Wilson spurs controversy, being the father of Sociobiology. That's because Sociobiology is a failed project from the beginning, being rooted in the social darwinism ideology of Herbert Spencer, a nutcase all by himself.
Our animalistic aspects, including the way our social dynamics often echo those of other animals, are blindingly obvious to those interested in what other species do, rather than dismissing their minds altogether.

So yes, there is a lot of denial going on; humans have always thought themselves divine and special and any attempt to link us with other species is fiercely rejected from most quarters. Even so, birth rates in various socio-economic classes and cultures make clear that humans are increasingly dividing reproductive labour anyway. In the meantime, humans tick all other boxes for eusociality and our societies are clearly vastly more similar to those of other eusocial animals than any other animal grouping.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Greta wrote:In humans, there are vocations rather than castes. Other people our societies' dirty work on our behalf - one who can handle violence, and even enjoy it - so intellectuals who abhor violence don't have to do it or be exposed to it themselves, and can thus claim moral superiority over their protectors.
It is hard for me to grasp the concept of war as "dirty work" on behalf of others, and to think of the military as "protectors", as if it were a socially necessary institution. It is not. And I give Orwell that: it's barbarous. It well might have become a social institution, but one we can and should get rid of. Not for the sake of intellectuals that abhor violence, but the general well-being of all members of society.
I'm personally glad there are police to protect me, and what I want from my country's military is to provide strong enough display behaviour to prevent potential exploitation, and to protect if need be.

Today, however, perhaps the greater risks are cyber attacks, which may be even more wide ranging and indiscriminate than conventional warfare.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Burning ghost » December 30th, 2017, 1:20 am

From "Letter to John Middleton Murry:
You are wrong, however, in thinking that I have made use of you as a scapegoat. I think I have only mentioned you in print twice, once in this article in Horizon, the other time in the Adelphi in the review I did for you of Alex Comfort's novel. You are wrong also in thinking that I dislike wholehearted pacifism, though I do think it mistaken. What I object to is the circumspect kind of pacifism which denounces one kind of violence while endorsing or avoiding mention of another.
Later on Murry replies and they both find they have been equally balanced it was just that Orwell had not read his other work at the time. He was basically saying that it is wrong to denounce one side and ignore the actions of the other. In the quotes from the OP he made it quite clear that the Allies didn't start bombing civilians in WWII yet he was annoyed that certain people in Britain were acting as if the Allies were the instigators of the war.
AKA badgerjelly

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1439
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Belindi » December 30th, 2017, 5:16 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
It is hard for me to grasp the concept of war as "dirty work" on behalf of others, and to think of the military as "protectors", as if it were a socially necessary institution. It is not. And I give Orwell that: it's barbarous. It well might have become a social institution, but one we can and should get rid of. Not for the sake of intellectuals that abhor violence, but the general well-being of all members of society.
The armed defenders of a society are privileged to bear arms which are not only costly in the wealth sense, but brutalise men and women which is costly with regard to the lives and well being of the military . There are always aggressors, unless perhaps in the distant past , maybe the Old Stone Age, when the physical environment was spacious and so rich that aggression would have been pointless.Until recently professional soldiers were aristocrats.

You were concerned about the post war trials of prominent Nazis.The rationale is that war crimes are unnecessarily aggressive. In the case of Nazism, Nazis are mistaken about their own intrinsic superiority; they may have been mad(unlikely) however they were held to be sane enough to be brought to justice.

The armed forces stopped the Nazis overrunning this country.

The War Poets like Wilfred Owen who condemned the old lie "it's glorious and sweet to die for one's country" were concerned less about the fact of violent warfare as about proper treatment for the wounded soldiers on both sides, and propagandist lies which seduced the popular consciousness: see the poem by Sassoon about a real tank scaring the wits out of the music hall audience.The business of poets is to raise the public level of consciousness.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 361
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Count Lucanor » December 31st, 2017, 12:02 am

Greta wrote:Aside from your speculations about what Orwell, may or may not have favoured, I did not take that statement as comparing the value of soldiers than civilians but considering the balance of populations after war.
They are not speculations, since we have the quotes from Orwell himself. Is there any other better way to know what he favored? It is not a matter of you not wanting to take Orwell statements in some way, but the undeniable truth that he said what he said in The Tribune. May I refresh you from the OP:
"The other thing that needs dealing with is the parrot cry "killing women and children". I pointed this out before, but evidently it needs repeating, that it is probably somewhat better to kill a cross-section of the population than to kill only young men."

There's the other quote from The Tribune, May 19, 1944, that I submitted, where Orwell's position is expressed very clearly.
Greta wrote:By all means be angry about war, but I'm yet to see a war-free world, just as I'm yet to see aliens or hobgoblins.
Well, sure, we are unlikely to see soon a war-free world, given the powers that effectively rule and the economic and political interests behind the military-industrial complex. We're yet to see a hunger-free world and a child exploitation-free world either, but the next thing should not be writing an article to say "screw them all so that the misery of hunger and exploitation is evenly distributed and we admit that we are savages".
Greta wrote: I think Orwell is speaking about acceptance of conflict but rejection of hatred.
There are many types of conflicts and war is just one of them. If war does one thing well is to invite hatred, it nurtures it, it hides the banal evils from social control, it moves the power to decide the fate of people to the happy triggers of a bunch of psychopaths with licenses to kill, rarely accountable for their actions. But if Orwell is separating hatred from conflict, as if armed conflict was some natural disaster that came upon mankind, he's actually making it worst. He is sanitizing death and suffering by neutralizing the human interests involved and bypassing human action. For him, perhaps war must be a sterile, clinical procedure, and I would think that's even more evil and prone to dehumanization. Such a stance fits perfectly with the "war as only hygiene" slogan proclaimed by proto-fascists.
Greta wrote: Well, the value from an anonymous internet poster...
There's the issue of relevance and context. This is the opinion of an anonymous internet poster in a modest online forum, about the opinion of a famous and influential intellectual in the public domain. My opinion is only relevant to this forum, while the other is relevant to a higher degree and a wider audience, which includes myself. If I get it wrong, nothing important really happens, but public figures are measured with a different yardstick. I'm using it now.
Greta wrote:...speaking theoretically would seem to have less credibility in the subject of war than one who has been through it.
How about Vera Brittain? She was contemporary to Orwell and went through the same events, but had the opposite views. And yet, you would say she has credibility in the subject of war for being through it.

In any case, credibility about what? About the empirical facts of war? I don't think anyone in this debate, nor Orwell himself, is disputing any facts about what happens at wars. This is not an issue. So you're left with the good and bad of war, but how does "credibility" play any role here? Do I need to be beaten brutally by thugs to make myself credible when saying that beating people is wrong? BTW, there's a thing called empathy, which means being able to put yourself on someone's shoes, even though you don't experience it yourself.
Greta wrote: Do outsiders with no experience understand your occupation or field of expertise better than you do?
There is no technical, professional or any other job-related issue in debate here. It's all about the social outcomes of war conflicts. And not even about the facts of a particular conflict,, which no one disputes. So, to what field of expertise you refer? Of war? Of human suffering? Of death? Evilness? Geopolitical interests?

Orwell never lived under communism...so I guess you would say he had no valuable insight to offer about it. As an outsider he is not credible and his novels must be naively written, right? And surely anyone who has not been a millionaire cannot have an opinion on Trump's tax policies.

Just FYI, because it has nothing to do with my opinion, as I already said above I did experience a military invasion by a foreign power:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzmUlRWxs-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex2rF52q60w
Greta wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: ...Orwell's remarks in The Tribune were directed to Vera Brittain, who advocated for civilian immunity with regards to the bombing campaigns against German cities, an argument which he despised as "sheer humbug". If war is barbarous, let it be as barbarous as it can be, no nuances allowed
I and others have addressed the OP and our posts are based on that, not to be re-contextualised by new information just presented by you.
That's simply false. This is not "new information", it is part of the series of articles in The Tribune, that just the same as the other quotes in the OP, have been there waiting 73 years to surface to this forum. If some were good for you to discuss, the others should be too.
Greta wrote: Those who argue against sociobiology are simply in denial, and always have been.
That is, most scientists, I suspect.
Greta wrote: Our animalistic aspects, including the way our social dynamics often echo those of other animals, are blindingly obvious to those interested in what other species do, rather than dismissing their minds altogether.
Ants and zebras are both animals which display social behaviors. That common factor alone doesn't mean you can explain the behavior of zebras with the structure of ant colonies. That's why the distinction between social and eusocial, and it's widely agreed (except for you and O.E. Wilson) that humans and zebras belong to the social category, not the eusocial one. Of course, you can always have your own opinion, even though scientists will not be on your side.
Greta wrote: So yes, there is a lot of denial going on; humans have always thought themselves divine and special and any attempt to link us with other species is fiercely rejected from most quarters. Even so, birth rates in various socio-economic classes and cultures make clear that humans are increasingly dividing reproductive labour anyway. In the meantime, humans tick all other boxes for eusociality and our societies are clearly vastly more similar to those of other eusocial animals than any other animal grouping.
I don't have any problem relating to other species. In fact, we should be grateful to taxonomists, which have been very busy classifying organisms and have helped us understand where we are in relation to other living beings. And we DEFINITELY don't belong to the same categories as eusocial organisms, such as ants, bees and termites. Among mammals, we are high-order primates. And we're certainly special.
Greta wrote:Well, I'm personally glad there are police to protect me, and all I want my country's military is to provide strong enough display behaviour potential exploitation.
At least the basic police force can be said to promote law and order. As it gets more sophisticated with weaponry (militarized), it also becomes part of the repressive political apparatus. The military industrial complex of hegemonic powers are not there to defend anyone, but to open up business opportunities in foreign lands, far away from their citizens. Don't believe me, believe the former assistant to US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

It backfired and the wretched of the Earth are now knocking at their doors.
Greta wrote:Today, however, perhaps the greater risks are cyber attacks, which may be even more wide ranging and indiscriminate than conventional warfare.
Haven't seen people getting killed by cyber attacks, but I'm sure some guys are working on it.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 361
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Count Lucanor » December 31st, 2017, 12:10 am

Belindi wrote:
December 30th, 2017, 5:16 am

You were concerned about the post war trials of prominent Nazis.The rationale is that war crimes are unnecessarily aggressive. In the case of Nazism, Nazis are mistaken about their own intrinsic superiority; they may have been mad(unlikely) however they were held to be sane enough to be brought to justice.
My point was that if we followed Orwell's view of war, the Nuremberg trials would have been unnecessary, since they implied the notion that some things should not be permitted in wars. For Orwell, since wars are barbarous, anything that tried to make them less barbarous was dishonest.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Greta » December 31st, 2017, 2:06 am

Count, I care very much less about this thread than you, not enough to maintain the tete a tete. I find humans terribly dull, self important and over familiar - especially debates about bloody rules of engagement which I find about as compelling as mowing the lawn with a pair of scissors. So I am fleeing this conversational vortex.

Whatever, Orwell's point about women and children was clearly not a comparison of value.

Further, when you brought a new quote to the table, you spoke as though the point had already been addressed, and it had not.

Yes, militaries have increasingly been abused for resource acquisition and protection rather than national security but to judge Orwell by today's standards is inappropriate, given that his ideas were shaped by earlier times and earlier wars.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Burning ghost » December 31st, 2017, 2:49 am

It is probably not wisest to take select quotes from someone and paint them in the light of those particular words put in very particular contexts.

All the quotes were taken from a body of articles and letters pointed directly at particular problems with public attitudes toward bombing Germany, lack of criticism toward Japan, Russia, and even the US. And of course the disconnection of the general public towards what war actually meant for the soldiers; and there was reference to WWI where the British troops, at large, return from WWI with admiration for the Germans even though they fought to kill them.

And he was asking if it was right to let young men die in droves and protect the women and children. From a nationalist perspective it would effectively decimate the population to have all the youngest and fittest men killed (not that Orwell was saying that we should care about nationhood, he was simply making a point against the wailing of certain politically motivated members of the public in regards to their overt pacifism.

Orwell is a good read because he throws criticism in every direction without hatred. I would happily shoot someone on the opposite side if that opposite side was fighting to destroy freedom of speech and squash me down. It would not be out of hatred, it would be out of a simple refusal to tolerate ideas I don't believe in being put into action and applied to oppose me. It has nothing to do with hatred, only to do with my regard for the freedom I have and not wishing to have it taken away from me. I don't hate evil people, but I would oppose and destroy them because I don't want evil to infest my life.

We also have to accept that no matter what side we choose to help they'll always be evil on boths sides of the fight. In fighting would corrupt the fight against the main evil though, so certain problems can be dealt with later.

Orwell lied to the public when working fo rthe BBC because he understood it as partially necessary.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 1614
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Eduk » December 31st, 2017, 5:30 am

I am not sure Orwell did think lying was necessary. After all he did write a book carefully explaining how governments lie and exploit fear. It's available for anyone to read.
This situation reminds me of a passage in Plato's republic where he carefully explained the made up religion which the masses needed. Personally I lost respect for his philosophy at that point and to be fair philosophy, as it is presented by philosophers. I mostly think of philosophy books as being everything that doesn't have any use. Or science with all the useful ideas taken out.
This is not to denegrate philosophy as a whole. I'm just saying that Plato, Descartes, philosophy degrees etc don't own philosophy.
When I think of useful philosophy I think of, for example, how a doctor might diagnose a desease or lead research.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 361
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Count Lucanor » December 31st, 2017, 11:55 am

Greta wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 2:06 am
Count, I care very much less about this thread than you, not enough to maintain the tete a tete. I find humans terribly dull, self important and over familiar - especially debates about bloody rules of engagement which I find about as compelling as mowing the lawn with a pair of scissors. So I am fleeing this conversational vortex.
I do find myself compelled to tackle the arguments in favor of war or its rules of engagement. Nothing deserves more condemnation than warmongering, as one the most distinctive signs of human stupidity. It doesn't succeed without the glorification of soldiers and the heinous acts of combat. That's why I also think it is such a disgrace for humanity that a journalist is hiding in an embassy from his prospective killers because he made them look bad committing their war crimes, shattering the discourse of the war propaganda.
Greta wrote: ... but to judge Orwell by today's standards is inappropriate, given that his ideas were shaped by earlier times and earlier wars.
I concede that, you're entirely right on this one. Yet, there were those contemporary to Orwell that envisioned war being less barbarous, and so we got the Geneva Conventions. Undeniably, as it usually happens, they are used selectively when they clash with the political interests of their signatories.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Greta » December 31st, 2017, 6:14 pm

Yes, different eras. That was a time when the US were thought to be defenders from tyranny; even Vietnam could be seen as a miscalculation of power and reach, a mistake from which to learn. However, the Middle Eastern military adventurism of the west this millennium has been shocking.
Count Lucanor wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 11:55 am
I do find myself compelled to tackle the arguments in favor of war or its rules of engagement. Nothing deserves more condemnation than warmongering, as one the most distinctive signs of human stupidity.
I have attended just two demonstrations in my life and one was prior to Australia's amoral involvement in the Iraq war thanks to some desperate trickery, lying and obfuscation by our PM at the time, John Howard. I will never forget how he airily brushed off demonstrations including about half a million protesters with "Everyone has the right to an opinion" and claiming to have not yet made a decision while the warships were already at the Gulf.

Generally, today, we have more subtle means of conflict, although with a population of seven billion, you have to expect an increasing number to fall to warfare; it's simply too many people to keep peaceful, given resource and systemic limitations.

Eduk
Posts: 1614
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Eduk » December 31st, 2017, 7:11 pm

Greta do you know the pm? Are you privy to intelligence reports? Have you helped run any wars? I'm not saying the Iraq war was right, I myself would be pessimistic. But I'm ignorant of the reality.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6965
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Comments about killing and war by Orwell

Post by Greta » January 1st, 2018, 9:27 pm

Educk, the only wars I have fought have been those with my personal demons. So far the demons are winning about two million to ten, but I'm quite pleased with that ten and still hold faint hopes of making a comeback!

A couple of days after Howard said he'd not made up his mind, somehow our warships magically appeared in the Gulf. Note that this is a man who was described as "a lying rodent" by a member of his own party, the man who claimed that he did not lie because the promises he broke were not "core promises". The only moral reason for Australian soldiers to be be in the Middle East today is to work to undo the damage we helped to cause by that remarkably counter-productive military disaster and moral failure.

Post Reply