What was the first humanitarian war?

Shorty

What was the first humanitarian war? Has there ever been one?

PH01

That stopped the Nazis killing more Jews, Gypsies and others on the target list.
But on the other hand, it left Stalin to enslaved central Europe. God knows how many died because of him

Clintons Cat

Actually the 2 world war accelerated hitlers ethnic cleansing of jews and gypsies and trade unionists.Prior to the war the only group to be systematically eradicated,bar the occasional progrom were the mentally infirm and the phsically disabled.Both of which programs were halted after Protestations by their reletives.

First Humanitarian war,that is war fought for humanitarian reasons rather than Collective security or Possession of Resources...probally Nato ending the Bosnian War or intervention in Kosovo.

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
jews and gypsies

Just being pedantic, but it was the Romany, not "gypsies", wasnt it?

jc

Clintons Cat

Well if we are being pedandic it was the Sinta as well as the Roma.

Resource

Road to Porrajmos.

PH01

Now stop it you two - stop fighting, or I'll send you to your rooms!

Shorty

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
First Humanitarian war,that is war fought for humanitarian reasons rather than Collective security or Possession of Resources...probally Nato ending the Bosnian War or intervention in Kosovo.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks.

Shorty

So the concept of a war for humanitarian reasons, is a relatively new one?

Victor

What about Somalia? What about the Vietnamese deposing Pol-Pot?

Of course there is a huge range in the words "humanitarian" and "war". There are innumerable "interventions" over time where the objective wasn't directly selfish. I'm sure the Crusaders and the Spanish imperialists saw themselves as saving the locals.

Clintons Cat

What about Somalia? What about the Vietnamese deposing Pol-Pot?

Well somalia was always portrayed as a peacekeeping mission to protect aid convoys rather than a full blown war.

Vietnams intervention in cambodia would be an intresting area of study though, as would be the interventions in Uganda to end the reign of Idi Amin and the Syrian invasion of Lebonon to end the Lebonese Civil war.

Of course there is a huge range in the words "humanitarian" and "war". There are innumerable "interventions" over time where the objective wasn't directly selfish. I'm sure the Crusaders and the Spanish imperialists saw themselves as saving the locals.

Yeah got to agree with that Victor,every army in the history of ever has marched into battle with "God/The Gods/Right On Their Side".
Look how the most murderous sickos can justify throwing a pipebomb into a famillies house based on some PERCIEVED injustice carried out some 400 years ago like the Battle of the Boyne Or the Field of Blackbirds.

Having said that the Conquistadors were driven onwards in their missionary zeal by a lust for gold.Whilst the crusaders who were initally spured into action by desire to protect the Eastern Christian Orthodox Church from the rise of Islam ended up sacking Constatinople the centre of the Byzantine Empire.

Éomer of Rohan

No war has ever been humanitarian or ever will, especially when it is carried out by

A) Religious zealots; in most cases this means they wish to stamp the dominance of their religion on the society the invade.

Any Imperialist power, including:

Russian Empire / USSR
Britain and Commonwealth
USA
China / PRC
France
Germany
Holland
Spain
Portugal
Serbia
Turkey

Get the drift??

C) Just to highlight this point - the self serving bastard nation of the USA

TomF

Let's not forget the wars inflicted by the humourless zealots of the left-wing: The Russian Revolution, The Chinese Revolution including the Great Leap Forward, the crushing of the revolt in Czechoslovakia, the orgies of killing in Cambodia and the terror in Peru, the huge slaughter in the Mexican Revolution. No group in recorded history has been as perfect a murder machine as the screwballs of the collective left wing.

Éomer of Rohan

TomF has officially proved he either can't read or is stupid. How many times am I going to state this - no country you mentioned was communist/socialist. And did you just ignore my post where I listed the major imperial nations of the world and the USSR and PRC were included? Yep looks like you did. I don't care what you have to say about the so called 'communist' nations but don't associate their values with those of real socialists and communists, for whom democracy is a better system.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
TomF has officially proved he either can't read or is stupid. How many times am I going to state this - no country you mentioned was communist/socialist. And did you just ignore my post where I listed the major imperial nations of the world and the USSR and PRC were included? Yep looks like you did. I don't care what you have to say about the so called 'communist' nations but don't associate their values with those of real socialists and communists, for whom democracy is a better system.

Eomer, would you kindly lay out your proper vision of a communist govenment? Is it a society with no currency? A society where all people are allocated equal resources regardless of the value of the task they perform? etc...

Thanks.

Éomer of Rohan

This is a thread on humanitarian wars. If you wish for information with regard to socialists and communists who are not Stalinists and not rabid imperialists, murders blah di right wing blah visit the website contained in my profile where you will find links to the Committee for Worker's International and more than enough material. Alternatively, do yourself a favour and read Lenin, Trotsky, Engels and Marx. I personally recommend 'Bolshevism and Stalinism' by Leon Trotsky who lays out the difference between the two and explains in historical imperative why the rise of one does not mean the rise of the other.

BattleBoar

Eomer, please do not lecture me on the topic of the thread (which I am well aware of thank you very much). You said:

I don't care what you have to say about the so called 'communist' nations but don't associate their values with those of real socialists and communists, for whom democracy is a better system.

I was simply asking for you to elaborate on this in your own words, NOT give me a hyperlink and reference works of Trotsky. I want to hear your opinion, not you parroting theirs.

Éomer of Rohan

Quite simply **** you. I do not parrot anyone's views. Mine are my own but my philosphical method of thinking is dialectical materialism. The reason I gave you the link was because I have neither the time nor the patience to lay out views which I have laid out in countless past arguments. It is generally better to allow people to see generally what my viewpoint is based on and allow them to attack from that basis.

We do not have a stated view of what a society should look like but we follow a method of thinking which would shape such a society.

My reference point for forward thinking (naturally enough) is the state of the world today and what I perceive to be wrong in it. Thus my opinions are clearly laid out elsewhere. If you wish to view them, they are freely available. If not, I don't care and keep to the topic please.

Shorty

Actually from what I have read, Marx had in fact put forward an organisational theory based on communalism. He was heavily influenced by the Paris commune. The ideas of a one party state, the politburo, apparatchiks, etc. seem to have stemmed from Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky to start with/name a few. These are actually quite antithetical to Marx's view.


Okay, back to the thread. From my reading of this, there has never been a humanitarian "war". It would be considered more of an intervention or peace keeping mission.. So if there hasn't been a war for humanitarian reasons. What are the reasons for war?

Éomer of Rohan

Marxism, as with most dialectic based philosophy does indeed follow the thesis, antithesis, synthesis pattern of ideas but your reading that Lenin and Trotsky as compared to Stalin are antithetical is false. Lenin and Trotsky expanded Marxist doctrine in some ways but at all times the end result or synthesis was that the 'apparatchiks' as you call them would fade and communalism as you call it would form itself into an institution. Stalin broke the mould however and changed the goal posts; his idea was that the politburo should always exist and were an end in themselves. Thus he provided not an antithesis but an entirely different thesis, nearer Nazism than Communism/Socialism.

Back to the topic.

Reasons for War in the present world.

1) Greed.
2) Better Disguised Greed.

Manach

I have to go with the Simpson's: Star Wars. Cause no war, by it's very definition can be claimed to be humanitarian.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Quite simply **** you. I do not parrot anyone's views. Mine are my own but my philosphical method of thinking is dialectical materialism. The reason I gave you the link was because I have neither the time nor the patience to lay out views which I have laid out in countless past arguments. It is generally better to allow people to see generally what my viewpoint is based on and allow them to attack from that basis.

My, my...aren't we testy, haha.

Do me a favour Eomer, why don't you go through and reread all the threads in which you have somehow worked in your diatribe about the evils of capitalism and the brilliance of socialism/communism. Then, after you've counted them all up, PM me an apology.

ta ta

gandalf

Eomer either you calm down and stop, calling people stupid and saying **** off to others or you will be banned from here. I expect everyone to respect each other and put their opinions across in a adult manner.

If you cannot do that then don't bother posting.

Plus I consider people who resort to flinging personal insults at others to have lost their arguement.

Gandalf.

Éomer of Rohan

Battle Boar, I am not going to apologise for anything because I have nothing to aopolgise for. In sum total you fail to realise that my diatribe as you call it is based on a method of thinking, a way of life if you will call it that. Thus when I comment on any topic involving politics, I, like everyone else on these boards, use my innate ideas to argue with or agree with whatever else I read on these boards. You and your ilk, the right wing, do exactly the same thing. Hence we rarely find common ground.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Hence we rarely find common ground.

No - common ground is rarely found because neither side is willing to admit openly that both of their systems are inherently flawed, and that ultimately a "right" solution would involve some hybridisation of many classical systems, and perhaps even more radical shifts in societal dynamic.

However, having said that, I'd now like to formally ask that threads stop getting hijacked to discuss commuinism vs capitalism / left vs right, or whatever you guys want to classify your belief systems as.

Next time - take it to another thread instead please.

jc

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Battle Boar, I am not going to apologise for anything because I have nothing to aopolgise for. In sum total you fail to realise that my diatribe as you call it is based on a method of thinking, a way of life if you will call it that. Thus when I comment on any topic involving politics, I, like everyone else on these boards, use my innate ideas to argue with or agree with whatever else I read on these boards. You and your ilk, the right wing, do exactly the same thing. Hence we rarely find common ground.

Interesting how you classified me as, "the right wing", when to the best of my knowledge I had not done anything more than ask for your opinion on the matter. Is the substance of your argument really so weak that you have to resort to classifying people in such ways?

Oh, and I did decribe your constant harping on the matter as a diatribe, which webster's defines as:

a bitter and abusive speech or writing

Reading your posts, I think its quite safe to say they fall under this classification.

However, having said that, I'd now like to formally ask that threads stop getting hijacked to discuss commuinism vs capitalism / left vs right, or whatever you guys want to classify your belief systems as.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not with this Bonkey, but I wasn't debating anything on this thread, merely asking for an opinion which was not forthcoming. What was forthcoming was a f-bomb (I assume). That is why I posted about this in the thread dealing specifically with capitalism/democracy. Thanks for your concern, however.