Does an argument cause a war?

[CharleyH]

Irregardless of where it starts? Here? There? With Bush? Terrorsist? On a smaller scale, perhaps ... with us? Banning people from our posts? Arguing? Maybe. And how does it fuel itself?

 

[Dar~]

My husband was deployed to Saudi Arabia when Bush got elected president the first time. A bomb was dropped right outside the Saudi airspace by Sadam, b/c he was angry that another Bush was in office. Looks to me like he may have been precognitive. I don't know if the Gulf War will be considered an arguement, but it sure made an impression on Sadam. He hates the Bush family.

 

[elsol]

The decision to stop or not argue causes war.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[CharleyH]

My husband was deployed to Saudi Arabia when Bush got elected president the first time. A bomb was dropped right outside the Saudi airspace by Sadam, b/c he was angry that another Bush was in office. Looks to me like he may have been precognitive. I don't know if the Gulf War will be considered an arguement, but it sure made an impression on Sadam. He hates the Bush family.

Good one, but does an arguement between you and I, cause a war? A feud?

 

[Dar~]

Good one, but does an arguement between you and I, cause a war? A feud?

I'd never Argue with you, you're too hot!

 

[elsol]

I think it depends what you mean by 'cause'. I would say more that an 'argument' is an excuse/justification to go war.

An argument is no more a 'cause' in war than horniness is a cause in rape.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[CharleyH]

I'd never Argue with you, you're too hot!

Me too -

BUT

War? A miscommunication, or want what you do as a country? A person?

 

[SeaCat]

Charley,

I think it would depend on the people doing the argueing. I have seen and heard of people who got into an argument over something small and usually stupid escalate it into murder. I have also seen and heard of people get into an argument over something extremely important to them who talked it out and stopped it from escalating it into something much worse. The same thing can be said of countries.

Cat

 

[CharleyH]

Charley,

I think it would depend on the people doing the argueing. I have seen and heard of people who got into an argument over something small and usually stupid escalate it into murder. I have also seen and heard of people get into an argument over something extremely important to them who talked it out and stopped it from escalating it into something much worse. The same thing can be said of countries.

Cat

You think the, and relatively "PEOPLE", dont have agenda's then? Even in government? (thats where I am headed )

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Irregardless of where it starts? Here? There? With Bush? Terrorsist? On a smaller scale, perhaps ... with us? Banning people from our posts? Arguing? Maybe. And how does it fuel itself?

If we're talking government, then it's hard to say really. Sometimes, yes there can be an agenda beforehand. That almost goes without saying, doesn't it? But as to what the problem is that begins things, and what it escalates into... That would pretty much depend on everything involved, down to the basic fibers of a person's existence.

Just my .02

Q_C

 

[SeaCat]

You think the, and relatively "PEOPLE", dont have agenda's then? Even in government? (thats where I am headed )

Of course I do, which is why I said it depends on the people in question.

Cat

 

[CharleyH]

If we're talking government, then it's hard to say really. Sometimes, yes there can be an agenda beforehand. That almost goes without saying, doesn't it? But as to what the problem is that begins things, and what it escalates into... That would pretty much depend on everything involved, down to the basic fibers of a person's existence.

Just my .02

Q_C

Good - good we are getting somewhere.

 

[CharleyH]

Of course I do, which is why I said it depends on the people in question.

Cat

Damn I am no Madonna-Amicus.

 

[SeaCat]

Damn I am no Madonna-Amicus.

LOLOLOL

Sorry didn't want to seem wishy washy on you, but the truth stands. It all depends on the people involved.

We'll use individual people as an example. (It's easier to keep from getting confused.) If Joe and John get into an argument over the last beer it can be easily resolved, as long as one of them doesn't have an Ulterior Motive (or agenda) for getting into the argument. If the argument really is over the last beer then they can resolve it by splitting the beer. If the argument isn't over the beer at all but rather to impress a girl at the party where they are then it won't be easily resolved and can end up with someones head getting split. (Unfortunately for Joe and John the girl at the party they were trying to impress is usually there with her boyfriend and isn't impressed at all. Instead she sees them as the Weasel Dicks they are.) Unfortunately the same example could be used as a simplified version of international politics.

Cat

(And before the Poli-Sci majors out there try to crucify me for the example I A) Said it can be used as a simplified version of international politics. and B) Want yu to show me where any war that has been started recently couldn't be boiled down to one or all of the following. Trying to impress the world with their might. Trying to take something which was not theirs. Trying to destroy something or somebody they either didn't like or didn't understand.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

LOLOLOL

Sorry didn't want to seem wishy washy on you, but the truth stands. It all depends on the people involved.

We'll use individual people as an example. (It's easier to keep from getting confused.) If Joe and John get into an argument over the last beer it can be easily resolved, as long as one of them doesn't have an Ulterior Motive (or agenda) for getting into the argument. If the argument really is over the last beer then they can resolve it by splitting the beer. If the argument isn't over the beer at all but rather to impress a girl at the party where they are then it won't be easily resolved and can end up with someones head getting split. (Unfortunately for Joe and John the girl at the party they were trying to impress is usually there with her boyfriend and isn't impressed at all. Instead she sees them as the Weasel Dicks they are.) Unfortunately the same example could be used as a simplified version of international politics.

Cat

(And before the Poli-Sci majors out there try to crucify me for the example I A) Said it can be used as a simplified version of international politics. and B) Want yu to show me where any war that has been started recently couldn't be boiled down to one or all of the following. Trying to impress the world with their might. Trying to take something which was not theirs. Trying to destroy something or somebody they either didn't like or didn't understand.

Nicely said, but I'd add something (or change it) had I made this point. Sometimes, when more than one problem persists, it creates a larger issue out of a smaller one. Case in point:

Joe and John both want the last can, but anger and mistrust from a previous situation (Joe saw John hug his ex-girlfriend, we'll say) may surface to cause the possibility of Joe thinking that John will simply pour him less. Plus, the issue of unresolved anger from other things trivial or not, can affect whether or not the beer can is shared, or used as a weapon.

Long-story short, it's easier to be an ass hole to the guy who fucked your ex. That said, I get the last beer. That resolves the entire Middle East conflict, yes?

Q_C

 

[Dar~]

I think every war regardless of what people in gov't say, is caused by an argument. Tow people disagree, or one person decides that the others point of view isn't realistic or true. Then ensues the war. The gov't says they have weapons of mass destruction (for example) but in reality, its a grudge between two leaders.

In the example I gave above, the war on terror . . .is it a valid war, or is it just daddy's grudge being vindicated by the son??

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I think every war regardless of what people in gov't say, is caused by an argument. Tow people disagree, or one person decides that the others point of view isn't realistic or true. Then ensues the war. The gov't says they have weapons of mass destruction (for example) but in reality, its a grudge between two leaders.

In the example I gave above, the war on terror . . .is it a valid war, or is it just daddy's grudge being vindicated by the son??

You have to remember that "The War on Terror" does exist, but may not necessarily apply to Iraq. Afghanistan was most likely perfectly condonable in its intent. ANd Bin Laden and other terrorists are targets of the countries involved.

Q_C

 

[CharleyH]

Sorry - O just got home and the talk is distractin But good.

 

[Dar~]

I realize that the war on terror is a real war, what my question is, is did it turn to Iraq from searching for Osama Bin Laden, because he was really a percieved threat, or did it turn there b/c Bush had to settle a score.

 

[Op_Cit]

The only difference between war and argument is a matter of scale.

It seems the nature of argument is to try to force the other person to accept one's view, and is therefor fundamentally without reason. That is, when arguing, neither side is listening or seeking to understand the other perspective. Neither side is trying to find Truth, and one fundamental aspect of Truth would be the best solution in the sum of all contexts.

But man perpetuates the myth of that there is some validity to belief, and that, "it's OK to believe what you believe." As long as this is, there will be argument. Because of that basic-- but not thought about-- reality schism: I believe this, but you don't believe it... therefor you think I'm wrong/idiot/stupid... just how OK is it then if not enough agree with me... goddamned republicans cause all the problems (ain't that what the political threads are about?). As long as people argue, people will war.

Am I like the only one here who ever studied Aikido?

 

[erise]

The only difference between war and argument is a matter of scale.

Doesn't a war have to have a conflic of some kind of material interrest? Be it land of economic or cultural value, water, oil, grazing grounds, and so on. An arguent can be just a conflict on opinion between people who have no competition over resources.

 

[oggbashan]

Doesn't a war have to have a conflic of some kind of material interrest? Be it land of economic or cultural value, water, oil, grazing grounds, and so on. An arguent can be just a conflict on opinion between people who have no competition over resources.

Oops. Many wars have been caused by religious differences. Those who deviated from the TRUE FAITH (whatever true faith) have to be persuaded of the error by force of arms before they corrupt our followers of the true faith with their specious arguments.

Do you know the difference between Sunni and Shia? Could you tell one from the other at 100 yards? It matters. One might shoot you. One might not.

In Northern Ireland the physical difference between the two sectarian groups of terrorists could be the difference between a pair of twins but they would have bombed you for being on the wrong side. (In that war I am pleased to be able to use the past tense) Do you know the difference in RELIGIOUS belief between a Northern Ireland Catholic and a Northern Ireland Unionist? I don't. I know that one side thinks they won the Battle of the Boyne in the 17th century and the other thinks they lost and they want a rematch.

Wars are started by politicians. I think that one of the most common causes of war is a desire to direct attention away from the state's internal problems.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

yes, an argument can start a war. If you are willing to simplify things greatly, arguments have started most wars. On a more limited scale, the famous Hatfield-McCoy fued was over an argument about some land and a pig.

But that's really only a valid argument if you are willing to really simplify the terms. Someone once said war is just a continuation of Diplomacy by other means. I think it's a pretty apt observation. Wars usually happen after the failure of intense diplomatic negotiations that end up deadlocked.

Someone, on one side or both, usually decides that diplomacy isn't going to get them what they want, and that the goal is more important than peace, lives of men, material loss, etc

In some cases, the man who made that decision was probably right. Fredrick of Prussia decided upper Silesia was worth a war with Austria. It became part of Prussia and Prussia became a contiental power and ventually the nucleus of a united Germany. In some cases, the decision was hideously and obviously wrong. World War I is a prime example.

I would say, arguments don't lead to wars very often. Wars occur most often because smeone, somewhere, within the Halls of power, makes a consious decision that there is more to be gained than lost by exercising the military option.

 

[SummerMorning]

Someone once said war is just a continuation of Diplomacy by other means. I think it's a pretty apt observation. Wars usually happen after the failure of intense diplomatic negotiations that end up deadlocked.

Clausewitz. And he actually said: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." A much uglier statement, true alas.

 

[SummerMorning]

Wars are started by politicians. I think that one of the most common causes of war is a desire to direct attention away from the state's internal problems.
Og

Wars are generally great for redirecting internal tension against somebody external.

Ex: "You and me, we don't get along too hot, but instead of us brothers beatin' one another up let's go up to that tribe over yonder hill and knock us-selves some extra ladies so we stop bickering over sister, okay?"