[lit-ideas] Re: War and Panic
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:23:01 -0500
It's a no brainer that if you kill the other guy, he won't bother you.
Hanson has to be talking about defensive wars. It might be why we're
having our butts kicked in Iraq. Most losers in war are the ones who
started the war. Even Napoleon eventually. It takes nothing to get people
psyched for war. Especially it doesn't take any brain power. It's all
visceral, adrenaline, emotion, like a giant football game. It's fun.
Peace is boring. It takes brain power, it has to be worked at. Who needs
more work? It's curious that Hanson says that war has been the mainstay of
mankind and peace the interlude, yet peace comes from war. That's like
saying a play comes from the intermission. What am I missing about his
premise, other than he likes a nice bloody war to end all wars?
> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 11/2/2005 1:26:17 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: War and Panic
>
> >>True we have the sterling examples of Athens annihilating
> Melos and Rome erasing Carthage but in neither case did it
> produce peace for those states.
>
>
> Sorry, you missed the whole point of the post.
>
> The viewpoint Hanson chose is that of the
> victor-in-relation-to-the-vanquished. Carthage never attacked
> Rome again. Of course Rome fought other wars; that wasn't the
> point.
>
> However if you want to refute Hanson, start naming lasting
> periods of peace in world history that resulted from indecisive
> wars. Do that and his whole thesis crumbles. I thought somebody
> might try to do that, or at least think of one exception. I can't
> think of a historical situation that runs counter to Hanson's
> thesis. Can you?
>
> For Hanson, war is the norm of human history. Peace is the brief
> and fortunate interval between wars. Hanson asked, "What caused
> those brief and fortunate intervals of peace?" He concluded that
> the longest periods of peace in human history followed decisive
> conflicts, where one side annihilated another. If the adversary
> remains unconvinced of their total defeat, new wars break out
> soon enough. Without those decisive defeats, peacemaking is just
> an impotent Neville Chamberlain act.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
