A Philosophy of War and Conflict

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That doesn't address the question.

Does it ever?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

This is not a false statement. When you give up critical thinking entirely you become vulnerable to becoming a dogmatic person (like all the rest). So yes, spirituality is still a demanding issue which is why I respect the agnostic / atheist approach. What I am saying is that atheists too can become more compassionate human beings if they choose to do so. All that I am saying is that there is a certain sense of urgency. Like we need to respect our planet for instance. Most people in the environment movement are atheist. SO that’s what I am emphasizing.

Everytime you say this I inform you that there is no atheist/spirtuality binary.  Here in the us, "spiritual but not religious" is cultural code for "atheist".  Sure, in general, we could all work on being more compassionate, however compassionate we already are.  I don't think ukraine, particularly, has the luxury of a faux compassion under pressure of concern trolling propaganda about all that poor russian grain.  

- Yes, and this is when you need to let me in here. I am the one who can challenge them and tell them: “Wait a minute, how is this related to God? This isn’t about God this is your own Ego who is talking. SO would you please shut up!”

Bit of a problem there.  You can't challenge them.  Not just because that's not how moralizing or theosophy works..but because they're going to bury you in very non-compassionate absolutely legit quotes from whatever shared magic book you conjure up.   The three involved in my example..and we could add israeli expansionists and iranian clerics to this list for completeness, believe in a warlords god.  A god that...allegedly...did absurdly fucked up things because it was a tuesday and his guy needed a solid.  They are following religions that were palpably and very successfully invented and reinvented over the centuries, both within and between their respective faiths, to split people into two groups at the very least..with different sets of rules covering in and out group dynamics.  Your peaceful god is not their yahweh, not their jesus, not their allah.  In the us and russia, they're pretty convinced that jesus is a queer plot to trans and or feminize everyone.  

I think you're on to something, you might want to consider that it also applies to you.  Maybe all this true spirituality stuff t is what you would do, what rules you would make, as a god?  How does it apply to war and conflict?  Do you have thoughts on the issues of countries a-z in general, if not in particular to this war?  Do you think that, generally speaking, war should be waged in such a way that it does not upset either population, even if that civility prolongs a war and is directly against the interests of ones own soldiers?  Is it limited to grain shipments that don't pay for military operations?  I ask, because that's already part of the contemporary theory of just war in not-shithole countries.  The russians go on human safaris daily in Kherson.  Western soldiers might not be permitted to return fire when fired upon if that fire is deemed ineffective.  Ukranian pows are raped and tortured, russian pows are fed and clothed and cared for and given a telephone call back home.  If they're north korean they might even get a ukranian paid for trip to south korea.  Ukraine targets military hardware, decision making centers, production facilities, and dual use entities.  Russia has a hell of a track record with maternity wards, apartments, and public parks.  Sometimes they manage to cram multiple categories into one, like bombing theaters full of children, then bulldozing over their crime to build a gala site for the dissemination of kremlin propaganda.

Ukraine is waging a remarkably "civil" war precisely because they need to keep western backers on-side.  Look...not because western nations are moral paragons in war and elsewhere, but because western politicians in general do not like to be attached to those actions counter to the narrative of a civil dominion.  It didn't start out that way.  In the beginning, it was, as a war commentator whose name escapes me put it so well, a large soviet army attacking a small soviet army.  The ukranian leadership is still almost entirely comprised of combatants from that paradigm...and alot of ukraines troubles, aside their sometimes friends in the west, stem from that.  Still, you have concerns.  The question this all seems to beg, to me, is just how much more civil need the ukranians (or anyone really) be, in your understanding of ethics, in this (or any) existential fight?  

The thread has evolved into something else. But generally speaking: There is morality in War. So how are all these “Holy Warriors” acting like in a situation of conflict we can hit however we want, however we want, do all the harm we want and do that as much as we want as if we weren’t even human beings to begin with?

The holy warriors may be acting that way...but ukraine isn't.  There's this underlying suspicion amongst the various aggressors that all of this morality in war stuff is for losers.  We're on a real tear about that here in the states.  Gotta get the woke out of the forces!  That this, too, is a reason that ukraine is a lost cause.  They can't do their worst and russia is giving that goal their level best. In general, if not in reference to this particular conflict, do you see civility and morality in warfare as a liability, or a display of strength?  Both? More generally, do you think that war should be so civil that there's little civil reason to end one, or not start them?  Conversely, have you ever considered the opinion that war should be allowed to be so brutal, so cruel and petty and full of carnage...that it strongly dissuades a given public from supporting (or signing up and waging) one?