Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal

[Dave B]

Hello,

When are these notes due? Should I include them with e1.1?

Thanks!

Dave B (Aaron Bullock)

[Linda H]

Week 1
a) The greatest problem in the world today is the increase of
intentional attacks on civilians. Socio-economic-political inequities
that accumulate may invoke utility as the motive, justification or
propaganda for the attacks. Our world still produces despots since
there are no deterrents. Inaction represents absence of justice and
lack of compassion. Procrastination breeds indifference and apathy.
Allowing eliminationism flies in the face of categorical imperatives.

b) Just because violence and wars have occurred frequently, doesn’t
mean they are inevitable components of humans. Humans are still
evolving. Our species is only beginning to emerge from the cave.
Conflict resolution is still new. Cognitive choices are still
wrestling with inter-societal ethics.

c) People of the world should work to stop military attacks on
civilians. The creation of NGOs have become the aristocratic form of
policy when nation/states are inadequate. The famous quote by
Secretary of State, James Baker, “We don’t have a dog in that fight.”
referred to the Balkan conflict and lack of involvement. The
restoration of Aristide by the Clinton presidency in Haiti is regarded
as an intervention with many errors.


Will, George F. (1995, June 12). A Dog In That Fight? Newsweek.
Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/1995/06/11/a-dog-in-that-fight.html

Bogdanish, Walt & Nordberg, Jenny. (2006, January 29). Mixed U.S.
Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Towards Chaos. New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/americas/29haiti.html

[oc]

DAB:

best is to do the journal in preparation for the upcoming essay

Linda:

good work, and thanks for posting first

o'c

[Sylvia C]

Although some nations and countries have acquired an approach to try
to prevent
genocide and eliminationlism, the human race is still craving the
power and control
to be #1. By the time intervention takes place, it is too late. The
lives of human
have been put at stake and the damage is done. Instead of waiting to
intervene,
nations need to prioritize the safety of innocent civilians in opposed
to to waiting for
the cause and effect pattern.

[Alice K]

a) is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
War in general in my opinion is not the greatest problem in the world
today. The human nature to manipulate and deceive the mass is.
Everywhere we turn we see lies and malicious contents, propaganda and
more. All there is in the current world are ways to cover faults up
and point the finger at the suggested terrorist(s). Mass media
supports these ideas due to the fact that most American households
have invested in a television and/or computers that are nonstop
producers of propaganda spams along with biased broadcast stations.
These lies that we face daily influence our daily livelihood, and
prevent us from ever achieving the American dream. The idea that the
rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor are embedded into our
mind along with the idea that there is war and peace is far from it.

b) are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?
War violence and warfare are two different terms. They share similar
definitions but when broken down, the two terms can be very ambiguous.
There are methods and possible precautions one can take in order to
limit or even eliminate warfare, but eventually warfare and war
violence will be an inevitable component of life and human nature of
all colors, shapes, and sizes. The greed and lust for power and money
is burried deep inside everyone, some deeper than others, that
eventually will be dug up and shown to life. All that the common
civilian knows are of good and evil. There is no in between. There are
people that are shooting and killing people on one side, and there are
people that are shooting and killing people on the opposite side.
People wonder as to why these combatants cannot come to a compromise,
but they do nothing to stop it themselves. Political activists rally
daily in the cities, but what actions have we seen that have actually
made a difference?

c) if military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them?
IF military attacks on civilians can be controlled, the people of the
world should take the initiative and action to stop them. Many would
agree that it is moral to help stop the attacks on civilians, but not
any aid in the process. I believe that the people of the world should
work HARDER in order to prevent any more mass murders and aid in the
process of recovery to those that have been inflicted with the
irreversible traumas of attacks. There are several methods and ways
the average civilian can aid in stopping these attacks through the aid
of groups like the Peace Corps, Co-ordinating Committee for
International Voluntary Service or CCIVS, and more. All that one has
to do, is to not get blinded by the mass media that sugar coats the
actual mass murders of the world to "accidental" attacks or
"prevention" of terrorism.

[Anita T]

a) Although war is one of the main issues in today’s society, it is
not the only important issue that needs to be dealt with. Goldhagen’s
opinion singles out genocide, or rather, “eliminationism”, as the sole
issue of today’s society. If we were to only look at genocide and its
effects, of course it is the greatest issue, and should be dealt with
immediately. However, a number of variables govern today’s politics,
like poverty and famine. It is unreasonable to assume that different
nations, for example, would put aside their country’s main issues to
focus on preventing, and ending, these heinous acts. The intentional
attacks on civilians are to enforce authority and, unfortunately, that
decision lies among their leaders.


b) Even though we continue to evolve and strive for perfection, we are
still flawed. If the possibility of ending the nature of war, or
violence, existed, if would lead us to believe that it is possible to
create a utopia. It’s a double standard to create a world of
perfection. History shows that there can be no peace without war. Man
is constantly on the climb for power, and history proves that.


c) Military attacks on civilians in the past have ranged from wars to
strikes in local communities. The military’s involvement in these
situations is usually to spread fear and intimidation, forcing select
groups to obey an authority. It is reasonable and probable to take
steps to end them, especially when they are in response to genocide or
war.

[Kimberly E]

Weeks 1-2 Research & Journal
a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem of the world today?
There are currently many problems in the world today. Natural
disasters, poverty, famine, and even pandemics are great problems that
affect people all around the world. However, the increase of
intentional attacks on civilians, causing war may be one of the
greatest problems throughout the world. The problem with war is that
no matter which countries are involved, it is always the civilians
that suffer. War is a greater issue countries’ leaders involved make
decisions without taking into consideration what citizens of their
countries feel about war.

b) Are war violence and attacks inevitable components of life or human

nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

Of course many people throughout the world have hope that one day
warfare will be completely eliminated. The human race, however, has
shown no progress in eliminating simple violence. Therefore, war
violence between countries is far from being limited or even
eliminated.

c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the

people of the world work to stop them?

Yes. Military attacks on civilians should be the first to go. Making
an example out of innocent people’s lives is definitely not an
acceptable action to anyone. At the end of the day, attacks on
civilians cause greater issues, and even distrust towards our leaders.

[Zita F]

Weeks 1-2 Research and Journal

a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on

civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
I do not believe that war, specifically the intentional attacks on
innocent people, is the greatest problem today. It is most certainly a
huge problem, but not as big as a problem as the evilness of men.
Truly, I believe that it all boils down to the struggle for power.
Governments will always be corrupt, as will people. Obviously, as
Americans, we don’t hear about our corruptness. Why would we? If we
watch the news, we are always made aware of the crookedness and
imperfections of other countries. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful
that I live in the United States; tt is definitely a lot better than
living in Iraq or Antarctica.

b) Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of

life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

War violence and attacks on civilians are inevitable components of
life. Things are only going to get worse. Sure, it may seem peaceful
for a while. But to think that warfare can be eliminated is
preposterous; as long as men walk on this earth, there will be war.
One cannot sit around thinking that they are safe forever. There
always seems to come along some evil and lunatic leader who is
more powerful and greater than the last; whose charming and
intellectual ways will capture the trust of the masses. Wars will be a
part of our lives, and that of the next generations to come. I don’t
mean to sound like a lunatic myself, but as long as evil roams the
world, so will evil and heartless events.

c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them?

If military attacks can be controlled, people of the world should work
to stop them. Everyone can contribute a little something to help out.
Of course, I truly don’t believe this will ever happen. If I did, I
would probably write an answer that would sound like lyrics to a
Michael Jackson song (Heal the world, make it a better place…). I just
can’t think of any solutions, because no matter how much a group of
people tries to put and end to genocide, there will always be another
group that will completely support it.

[Mark M]

We can persist in our malign neglect that consists of three parts:
failing to face the problem squarely and to understand the real nature
of genocide; failing to recognize we can far more effectively protect
hundreds of millions of people and radically reduce mass murder’s
incidence; and failing to choose to act on the knowledge. Or we can
focus on this scourge; understand its nature and complexity, and its
scope and systemic quality; and, building upon that understanding,
craft institutions and policies that will save countless lives and
also lift the lethal threat under which so many people live.

How can we not choose the second?
________________________________________________________________
It is my opinion that chapter one’s references to the dropping of the
atomic bomb on Japan is mostly subjective and filled with too many
‘what-ifs.’ The author’s utilization of selective quotes to support
his perspective of the use of the atomic bomb, and the opening salvo
of the literature lacks any sort of objectivity, with Japan portrayed
as the helpless victim.
For example, the author of Worse Than War, Daniel J. Goldhagen,
quotes former Commander of the Allied Powers-Europe and later
President Dwight D. Eisenhower as having stated, “Japan was already
defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and
secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking
world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought,
no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Is
President Eisenhower, and at the time commander of all the allied
forces in the European theater to include Africa, stating that had the
bomb been dropped earlier in war then he would have been more at ease
with President Truman’s decision? Also, is it that (Eisenhower) is
not so much concerned with the amount of lives lost, but rather what
the world would think of the U.S., when the world was at war?

1. Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on

civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?

*Responses are limited to readings of the preface, chapter 1 of the
prescribed text, and current events as reported by various online
sources, i.e. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Christian
Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times, and purposely avoided the
“Fair & Balanced-Fox News.
a. I do not feel that intentional attacks on civilians are the
greatest threat in the world today. Recognizing that genocide and
eliminationism are grave issues needing to be dealt with, I feel the
two are a by-product of a more systemic problem facing the world today
– one of greed. (Further elaboration required)
b. Keeping with the 20th century, 4 episodes and 1 thought immediately
come to mind when I hear the term genocide: my first thought is ethnic
cleansing followed immediately by three (3) episodes: 1) the Holocaust
or elimination of Jews throughout Europe (19xx-1945), 2) the mass-
murders, kidnappings, and tortures of the Pinochet regime/
administration in Chile (1973-197x), 3) the killing of Bosnian Muslims
in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991-1995), and 4) the killing of approximately
800,000 Tutsi in Rwanda.
The elimination of the Jews was what Hitler referred to as, “The final
solution.” (further research required)

2. Are war, violence, and attacks on civilians inevitable components

of life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

a. As long as there are opposing ideologies there will always be
conflict; be it religious, tribal, or political ideology. Regardless
if it is a war of words or a war with bloodshed. Today, civilian
casualties are endemic of war as they are used as an offensive/
defensive tool against an opposing force.
b. Referencing the Discover Magazine article, “Has Science Found a Way
to End All Wars?”(Horgan, 2008), Anthropologist Douglas Fry speaks in
contradictions of war not being inevitable, with 74 non-warring
cultures only to turn around and state, “lethal violence certainly
occurred among those nomadic hunter-gatherers.” And again attempts to
lessen the type of violence through the use of softer language. Using
terms “not of genuine warfare” and “fights”.
Anthropologist Seven LeBlanc goes as far as to accuse Fry of
“perpetuating ‘fairy tales.’”
Question: Define “War”. Define “Genuine Warfare”
c. In the New York Times book review of Worse Than War (Goldhagen,
2009) the article Patterns of Genocide, by James Traub, clearly sides
with the Goldhagen citing his work as “magisterial” and “profoundly
disturbing.”
If I were to have read solely this article and none of the book, I
would think that Goldhagen was a professor at Berkeley rather than
Harvard. The article portrays Goldhagen’s views as narrow minded or
limited to center, as opposed to left or right, and naïve. Which, in
my opinion, would be an accurate description of what I have read thus
far in the book. I am also left wondering what Goldhagen’s objective
is, and if he knows what it is. Is it to stop violence and all it’s
forms, all together, or just the ones that lead to “mass-murder.” Or
is his aim to prosecute those that do commit atrocities on a grand-
scale (number and type of atrocities to be determined at a later
date). In my opinion, which this whole paper is, I would say it is
the latter.
I feel like Goldhagen has Tom Cruise’s Minority Report on repeat at
home and in his office, and truly believes that we should be able to
have pre-cognitive abilities to see events before they transpire and
prosecute individuals for thinking of the 5 principal forms of
elimination.

3. If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the

people of the world work to stop them?

First, a definition for the term “controlled” must be established in
order to develop measures that must be implemented in an effort to
achieve the desired outcome. Does the term ‘control’ mean to limit or
minimize the attacks on civilians? Or does the author use the term
‘control’ to convey eliminating attacks on civilians all together?
Not being a fatalist, rather a realist, how does one control either
of the two? At what point (what number) is intervention required on
the part of the host nation or the international community without
infringing on another nations sovereignty. I believe that asking a
nation to surrender her sovereignty is just what Einstein, when
corresponding with Freud in attempt to solicit Freud’s help in
establishing an “association of intellectuals,” stated would be
required of the participating nations. Ironic, that Einstein in an
effort to end wars and establish an independent body, would ask
nations world wide to surrender their sovereignty, the one thing that
all or most had fought for at one time or another. There must be wars
to end wars. Is that not what was said about WWII; “The war to end
all wars.”

[marie d]

Week 1 research and journal

a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on

civilians, the greatest problem in the world today? One of the
greatest problems today is the fact that our leaders value power and
money over human lives, they would be ready to do anything to reach it
even intentional and calculated attacks on civilians causing wars and
genocides. To me the main problem of our world is the unimaginable
thirst for power and enrichment. Until people will be driven by this
incomprehensible will there will be hostilities in the world.

b) Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

Violence is not human nature. Human being possess an intelligence
which gives him abilities to choose between good and bad, peace or war
and tolerance or intolerance. War can be controlled not entirely
eradicated because human beings are not perfect but at least it can be
minimize. Attacks on civilians, by soldiers are an order from leaders
with power. Should we blame the soldiers? Are they doing what they are
required to do?

c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the

people of the world work to stop them? Definitely, if military attacks
on civilians can be controlled the people of the world should work
together to stop it. Such organization as the U.N. which is suppose to
prevent and find a solution to it does virtually nothing, if it not
just assessing the damage. And there are organizations like the
European Union, African Union, NGO’s and may others. I think there are
too many for wars and genocides to still be going on, like in Darfur.
Might be that theses organizations are too weak to respond or governed
by people with power who caused it or who careless about the ongoing
situation.

[LizaG]

a)Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on

civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?

The war is one of the world’s many problems, but not the biggest one.
Innocent lives are being lost, not only to war and genocide, but to
hunger and diseases. If the US government is going to get involved and
resolve a worldwide problem, hunger and lack of medical care should be
at the top of the list. Once hunger and health are taken care of, we
can focus on the attacks on civilians.

b)Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life of human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?
Warfare can be controlled to eliminate the loss of innocent lives.
Although there will always be war, the war strategies should be
controlled so that there are no longer attacks on civilians.

c)If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the

people of the world work to stop them?

The work that will need to be done to control these attacks will
unfortunately come from more war. War is the way power is obtained,
and no leader will give up their power without a fight. It seems that
more lives need to be lost before we can stop the killing of innocent
people. Many leaders need to come together and come to an agreement as
to how these attacks will be controlled without the loss of so many
lives.

[Lucenda L]

A) I believe that War is a problem, however after reading Goldhagen's
preface and first chapter, I believe an even greater problem is the
targeting of specific groups in accordance with his theories on
Eliminationism. I hadn't thought of famine possibly being another way
of controlling a group or eliminating them. I have read about the
ongoing droughts in certain countries and their government doing
nothing to help the population. Or, the government refusing outside
help, which could possibly save thousands of people. I agree that
being removed from the atrocity, ( it's not saturated in the media)
I don't think about the far reaching implications and the sometimes
tens of thousands affected.

B) Civilian casualties are an inevitable part of War, however as
Goldfarb stated, it is much different when the perpetrator
specifically sets out to destroy a certain population under the guise
of a political agenda. Or better said veiled as a threat to the
"greater people". In John Horgan's article, "Has Science Found a Way
to End all Wars? Frans de Waal a Researcher that studies primates
concluded after studying primates concluded that primates and
especially humans are very calculating and will abandon aggressive
behavior that no longer serves their interests. James Traub's book
review gave me the impression that he felt that Goldhagen was off base
in much of his theory however, he did agree that structural
explanations of eliminationism have achieved a near-consensual
status. In the Einstein and Freud letters, Freud believes that it is
innate human nature for humans to engage in War and struggle for
power. He goes on further to say that there is a need to have higher
thinkers for the mass and the mass would go along with what the higher
thinkers deemed necessary for the masses. I believe that basically he
was right for the period and time that the correspondence was written,
however as human beings have gained independence and a higher level of
awareness his assumptions may not apply to advanced countries or the
human spirit as a whole.

C) I believe that the people of the world have a moral obligation to
work to stop military attacks on civilians, or any attacks that have
the possibility of being a case of eliminationism, or mass
slaughter. Traub points out that the United Nations has adopted a
somewhat similar principle, however he points out that they haven't
done anything to put the principles into action.

[Sandra O]

I posted here. You can erase my dicussion started. thank you.

A) War and the intentional attacks on innocent civilians is the
biggest problem in the world today. There should be something being
done to prevent and eliminate the mass slaughter of innocent
civilians. Besides being morally wrong, it is unnecessary. If war is
inevitable, noncombatants should be kept out of it. If this problem
is
understood, confronted, and dealt with, we can benefit from it and be
able to deal with other issues in our world today. Many of the issues
in the world today are also not dealt with because of lack of
resources. Many of the resources are being spent on warfare and
malicious attacks on innocent civilians. If warfare and attacks on
innocent civilians are controlled, then the resources can be put to
good use to solve other issues.
B) It seems impossible to abolish warfare completely. However, it can
be limited to only combatants. War and violence is the effect of
greed
and desire for control of others. This greed and desire can be said
to
be an inevitable part of human nature. Attacks on civilians, however,
are not parts of human nature and can therefore be eliminated by
setting restrictions and limitations.
C) Military attacks towards civilians need to be controlled and
prevented. In the novel, Worse than War, Goldhagen states a
reasonable
and effective way we can prevent mass murders from happening. He
states that,
“A new, more accurate, more powerful anti-eliminationist and pro-
human
discourse about mass murder and eliminations must develop…How much
harder would it be for anyone abroad-foreign leaders, media, ordinary
citizens-to pretend these butchers were legitimate leaders
representing their people’s interest, fit to be supported, or dealt
with as anything but colossal criminals and menaces to humanity. With
the information and power of the Internet and satellite television,
local elites, and peoples…would see how the world regards their
murderous leaders of yesterday and today.”

> > > situation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brooke Griffin]

I totally agree!


I Will just post my notes with my comment since most of the notes are
here but there is no, discuss this page button on this one.



A. To singly point out one problem of the entire world and decide to
call it the biggest
is probably one of the most biased opinions I've ever heard. In my
experience, everything
is subjective based on that particular person's experiences or
beliefs. I have a lot of cancer
that runs in my family. Both my father and his mother had past away
from lung cancer by
the time I was 19. My grandmother suffered breast cancer in her 60's.
Two of my friends
just lost their amazing, active, marathon running mother to the
disease. For me, because
of experiences I've faced, the battle with cancer is a big priority.
At the same time,
it would be extremely bigoted of me to say that cancer is the biggest
problem the
world faces today and ALL of our financial means and resources should
go into
ending this battle.

B. As disheartening as it is for me to say, I truly believe that there
will never be an end
to war here on earth. It is in our human nature to lie and cheat and
work our way to get
what we want. Even though a person may not indulge in such behaviors,
it is still in their
blood. A pit-bull, no matter how domesticated and loving one may be,
he is still born with
the fighting instinct they have to, when provoked, lock their jaws
tight around something
and not let go for anything. The Holocaust, started with one man, with
one flaw in the mind,
and a great personality. He had the charisma and power to brainwash
thousands of soldiers
to carry out his twisted idea of what should be. This seems to me,
inevitable. Not to stop this
pattern once it become apparent, but to put an end to all the flaws in
the minds of thousands
of humans who may just happen to be charming enough to make people
believe he they are
right.

C. All that said, if we can see the behaviors starting to arise, and
we have the means to
put a stop to the dreadful outcome that may occur, of course we should
do anything in
our power to put an end to military attacks on civilians! If there
were a means to end
poverty should we carry them out? Of course! If we could combat
domestic abuse, or
animal cruelty or cancer, should we? Of course! The question now is,
Can we?

[Antonio S]

A) War is one of the biggest problems to deal with today, yet it is
not the most crucial to deal with at this time. There are many more
things going on in the world that need to be dealt with than mass
murders. We, the US, cannot possibly help fix every nation with mass
murders. We must first handle our own bigger problems before we can go
ahead and try to fix other country’s problems.
B) Violence and attacks are inevitable parts of human nature. There
will always be a battle for territory, control, and power. Violence
and attacks will most likely lead to war, which will then be
inevitable as well. There will always be some form of wars going on in
the world that may lead to mass murders. Goldhagen believes that one
fails to explain and morally evaluate the reason for mass murders.
Although not morally correct, the greed for the most control will
blind people of what is morally right and wrong. Although there is
justification for warfare and war violence, I do not believe that wars
should escalate into attacking innocent civilians.
C) If military attacks can be controlled, there should definitely be
something done to prevent it permanently. There should be restrictions
of keeping innocent civilians out of the war and reduced to attacking
combatants who willingly decided to be part of it. However, this
restriction may seem impractical to other parties due to it being a
war. The idiom “all is fair in love and war” may be applied since many
other parties may support mass murders in order to intimidate and
control.

[oc]

Zenaida P
Sep 11, 10:15 am

A.) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem of the world today?
War is not the greatest problem in the world, there are targets that
we have created as well there are natural, from diseases, starvation
to poverty and natural disasters. In the article they mention about
invasion, but the truth invasion is of our natural resources (our
globe in general) and invasion of other countries, these are the
elements that are creating a problem to the world. By taking natural
resources we experience natural disaster and from taking over other
countries the effect is war (cause) and the effect are disease,
murder, and poverty.

B.)Are war violence and attacks inevitable components of life or human

nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

The only way it can be eliminated is stopping globalization. What is
causing is making rich, richer and poor, poorer. Globalization
processed to invasion, invading the weak (3rd world countries) and of
course civilians. The invasion develops into war, and the country
becomes enslave to the country. It is inevitable because everyone
wants more, every develop country wants more, the attack of civilians
makes the country paralyze and that is when invasion occurs.

C.) It cannot be stop because the military it is the tool (or
instrument). It is used to stay in power, and to take over the weak.
This is the reason why this country is so powerful

[oc]

gi jung. S
Sep 11, 3:53 pm

A) War and its associated increases in attacks on civilians is not the
greatest problem in the world today. The greatest problem in the
world today is hatred. Hatred comes before war. By creating hatred
or having it already inside individuals, politicians are able to
foment it. Once the hatred is fomented, leaders are able to rally
individuals into a group call for action. For example, if someone
hates snakes and others hates snakes as well, there is a naturally
bonding that will occur. Humans tend to enjoy company with those who
have a common understanding. If there is a leader who identifies this
hatred and uses it for his political benefit, he can stir up those who
hate snakes to get others to hate snakes. Then, when there are
incidents such as a snake killing a human being in one city and
another snake killing a baby in another city, etc, the leader can
utilize the power of modern communication to link these events as a
planned effort of snakes to attack human beings. He can then tell a
story of why society should work to get rid of snakes. If there is
enough agreement about this hatred, then action can be taken. This
action may use any of the five aspects of eliminationism that Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen writes in “Worse than War”: transformation,
repression, expulsion, prevention of reproduction, and extermination.
“They are different technical solutions to the perceived problem of
dealing with unwanted or putatively threatening groups, to fulfilling
the most fundamental desire of somehow getting rid of such groups.” In
this case, if there is enough hatred about snakes, snakes may be
sterilized. If this doesn’t stop the attacks, then expulsion may be
the next action. If this doesn’t work, then leaders can argue that
there is no choice left but to exterminate them. This is why hatred
is the start of the problem that starts eliminationism.

B) Daniel Jonah Goldhagen believes that eliminationism needs to be
stopped. Warfare as a part of elimination can be limited but not
eliminated. As mentioned above as long as there is hatred of others,
leaders will utilize this hatred to gain political advantage. Once
societies make this identification, action must be taken to limit or
remove the leader from taking the most extreme measure of mass
murder. For action to be taken by societies, proof that war for mass
murder will result will be required. For this to happen, some
fighting and killing must occur for societies to take action to stop
it. Even if societies take action, what will still remain is the
hatred in the individuals. This hatred needs to be corrected through
education in order to avoid future threats of mass murder.

c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, the world
should work to stop attacks on civilians. Although there will always
be some attacks on civilians, it does not mean that the world should
not set a goal to limit civilian casualties. If the world sets this
goal, then people who want to kill will feel pressure to avoid killing
civilians. For example, there have been civilian casualties in the
war in Afghanistan. To win the support of the Afghani’s as well as
the world, the United States is trying to avoid hurting civilians.
Whether Afghani’s will be convinced is still in question, but if the
United States targeted civilians, then there would be no chance to win
their support. In addition, if the United States fought with no care
about civilian casualties, then there would be no nothing to see what
the United States is doing from what the Taliban and Al Qaeda are
doing. The original goal in Afghanistan was to destroy the Al Qaeda
training areas because Al Qaeda was fomenting hate against westerners
and proved this with their attack on 9/11. The United States went to
stop Al Qaeda from growing and becoming part of the Taliban controlled
Afghanistan and having the ability to start a nation supported war
against westerners. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda does not follow this
philosophy of avoiding civilians. As a result many societies of the
world were angered by Al Qaeda’s actions. In addition, many in the
Muslim faith are condemning Al Qaeda’s tactics.

[oc]

millie phillip
Sep 11, 10:23 am

According to Goldhagen, people that do mass murder should be killed
too.

[oc]

Sandra O
Sep 11, 8:43 am

I am unable to reply to a discussion. No button appears at the bottom
of each discussion.

-->look at the end of each message for "reply,"

I have tried unsubscribing and joining the group again.I have also
clicked on the "help" link to try and solve the
problem and no luck either. However, I am able to post new discussions
and reply to pages.

-->that's the way to do it: "discuss this page," if you're first,
"reply to this discussion" after

I am posting my journal in this page and my essay in its
corresponding page.

A) War and the intentional attacks on innocent civilians is the
biggest problem in the world today. There should be something being
done to prevent and eliminate the mass slaughter of innocent
civilians. Besides being morally wrong, it is unnecessary. If war is
inevitable, noncombatants should be kept out of it. If this problem is
understood, confronted, and dealt with, we can benefit from it and be
able to deal with other issues in our world today. Many of the issues
in the world today are also not dealt with because of lack of
resources. Many of the resources are being spent on warfare and
malicious attacks on innocent civilians. If warfare and attacks on
innocent civilians are controlled, then the resources can be put to
good use to solve other issues.

B) It seems impossible to abolish warfare completely. However, it can
be limited to only combatants. War and violence is the effect of greed
and desire for control of others. This greed and desire can be said to
be an inevitable part of human nature. Attacks on civilians, however,
are not parts of human nature and can therefore be eliminated by
setting restrictions and limitations.

C) Military attacks towards civilians need to be controlled and
prevented. In the novel, Worse than War, Goldhagen states a reasonable
and effective way we can prevent mass murders from happening. He
states that, “A new, more accurate, more powerful anti-eliminationist

and pro-human discourse about mass murder and eliminations must

[oc]

Narine A.
Sep 10, 9:58 pm

a) Are wars and other types of muss murders the greatest problem in
the world? It is hard to answer because, of course, there are many
other problems that carry disasters and death on larger scale. In
other hand, bloodshed brings so much destructions and grief that I
cannot say it is something unimportant. Actually war, murder are not
products of our age, they exist since living organisms appeared on the
Earth - the great fish eat the small - and this is the law of nature.
Since human society appeared, people make a war, but only in XX
century war was called as a world problem. Why civilians are afraid of
particular war more than other disasters? Different infections kill
millions of people every year (flue, in particular, sweep off half of
million lives every year), cardiovascular diseases and cancer take
similar "harvest", accidents happen often, I even don't talk about
undernourishment and malnourishment. In comparision with these
problems the most terrible war looks like playgame. Why people pay
such great attention to murders even though the risk to die of flue is
higher than to be killed by crazy person? I think the reason is
psychological. People are afraid of their own self, they usually think
that they can control diseases and avoid accidents, but to be
unprotected victim of somebody's evil will is much worse, especially
in our time then mankind have such strong weapon that it is enough to
kill every single person in the world several times.

b) Being a normal animals (maybe more advanced and smart) we share the
same characteristics as entire living world and we cannot escape it
because ignoring laws of nature leads to destruction. Aggression as
way of selfdefence and elimination as a way to neutralize competitors,
enemies and to possess goods and values are the part of animal
behavior. To liquidate aggression means to stay without defence (it is
interesting that animal with reduced aggression often have worse
immune system). In the nature intolerance of representatives of the
same specie is normal because they claim same resources (territory,
food, females). Humans are different - they are collective animals,
they have to be together, to work together. That is why they have to
have good fellowship into their group (or at least regularize their
behavior), in other case they couldn't coordinate complex activity and
establish stability. And whole human history of civilisation and
religion is a big effort to temperate animal instincts by selfcontrol
and set a peace into the group. The rub is that in our age groups of
insiders become wider than in ancient world. Ancient moral allowed one
tribe to hit on other, now people around the world feel more and more
as one "tribe", one big groupand don't want conflicts. In think it is
possible to reduce warfare in the world but not in this life.

c) Should the people to make something to stop military attack on
civilians? I think this question is not correct. Of course they
should, they have to in any case. Innocent people have not to suffer
and to be toys in other's games. Indeed, if we let this to happen we
increase our chances to find ourself in similar situation. The correct
question must be "What can we do to stop attack on civilians?" Do we
strong enough to affect on government politics? Can we put ourself in
the skin of other people who became victims of somebody's strategy and
to sacrifice our comfort for peace on the Earth? For me these
questions to hard to answer, I'm not prepared for this.

[Jimmy G]

a) is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today? I don't think it's
the greatest problem in the world we have. I do however think it's one
of the major problems society faces today. It's a sad tragedy that
innocent people have to be killed in order for someone to be taken
seriously or to gain power and control.

b) are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of

life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

Warfare can be limited or even eliminated if more countries were
better educated. People in some countries grow up thinking it's ok to
kill because that's all they see. If more people were educated then
that education would allow them to pursue different life choices.

c) if military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them? I think people of the world
would love to stop them. Most just don't know how. In some countries,
people are just too scared to take a stand for fear of being killed
themselves. As I stated before, I think with more education people
have, the will better understand how to make things easier and better
for their lives.

[Dave B]

a) _Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?_

The greatest problem in the world today is power, more specifically
the lack thereof. Not power, that which corrupts absolutely, but the
physical energy required to run our society. Life requires energy.
The brunt of our world’s energy is derived from fossil fuels. Those
fuels, mined from the ground, create an imbalance of power, both
physical and political. That imbalance is tied directly to location
and control of land.

If your country sits atop large reserves of oil, or controls countries
that do, it has power. If your country sits atop large reserves of
oil and is weak, it will soon be the target of aggressors. This
aggression leads to war.

Without the need for fossil fuels, a great number of past and present
wars would never have occurred, and many future ones can be
prevented. Cheap, clean and sustainable energy, wether from solar,
wind, nuclear, nanotechnology or something yet to be developed, will
solve most of the world’s problems.

With unlimited energy available to all nations and people, our world
would be changed forever. Thus location-based energy is the greatest
problem in the world today.


b) _Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?_

Violence and warfare are not inevitable and in the future could very
well be eliminated. Many societies have avoided war. Although these
groups are the exception to the rule, man’s violence towards his
fellow man is avoidable. Primates, often used to indicate the
inherent and inherited violence of our ancestors, do not always murder
if other paths can solve the same problems. War is seldom waged when
the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

Scarcity of resources: food, water, wealth, shelter and energy, are
frequent initiators of war. Provide amble resources to all people of
the world and nearly all need for war is eliminated. Create
interdependence of peoples across borders and the likelihood of
territorial disputes is greatly reduced, if not negated.

Warfare is a symptom of greater societal problems that can be solved
through innovation and cooperation. All problems have solutions.
Working toward the greater good of mankind instead of focusing our
collective energy on destruction in the name of security, freedom and
power will eventually eliminate war.

c) _If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them?_

Controlling military attacks on civilians does not solve the problem
of war. Killing others to fix societal wrongs is not logical. As
Ghandi so eloquently stated “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world
blind”.

Instead of reducing or preventing what our military so callously calls
collateral damage, we should be working toward the elimination of war.


i) _Read the New York Times review of Worse than war for e1.1 (http://
www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html?_r=1)_

Although I am only now finishing the third chapter of _Worse Than
War_, I am currently leaning towards Goldhagen’s view that
perpetrators of mass killings are willing participants. They know
wholly their intended outcomes and the horror resulting in their
acts. Their choices are made consciously and cruelly. Excusing them
for their acts by saying they were just part of a large bureaucratic
machine is disgusting.


ii) _Discover magazine article Has science found a way to end all
wars? (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-
over-now)_

Very interesting discussion as to our society’s inherent violent
tendencies. I tend to agree with the side that says we are not hard
wired to kill. It seems logical to me that violence is frequently
used as a means to an end only because it is the easier route. I used
points from the article in my notes above.

[Dave B]

On Sep 9, 12:29 pm, Anita T <anitabonita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is unreasonable to assume that different
> nations, for example, would put aside their country’s main issues to
> focus on preventing, and ending, these heinous acts.  The intentional
> attacks on civilians are to enforce authority and, unfortunately, that
> decision lies among their leaders.

I tend to agree with the basic premise of our point, but disagree to
focus on prevention of warfare and genocide countries need ignore
their other important issues. We as a species and as a society have
the ability to focus on multiple tasks. We should be working hard to
help one another and to stop eliminationist atrocities, just like we
should be working hard to prevent starvation, poverty and general
warfare.

> b)      Even though we continue to evolve and strive for perfection, we are
> still flawed. If the possibility of ending the nature of war, or
> violence, existed, if would lead us to believe that it is possible to
> create a utopia. It’s a double standard to create a world of
> perfection. History shows that there can be no peace without war. Man
> is constantly on the climb for power, and history proves that.

The past doesn't have to be a predictor of the future. I am an
optimist, we have the power to shape our society however we want. I
don't think that a lack a utopian society is required for a lack of
warfare. There can only be peace without war.

[Nadezhda N]

a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on

civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?

The question of whether war, specifically the increase of intentional
attacks on civilians, is the greatest problem in the world today or
not is subjective by its own nature, therefore and answer to which
could only be subjective as well. It’s outside of human nature to
fully understand what wasn’t experienced before, if person have never
been in the midst of military attack he or she could only
hypothetically imagine the feeling. It’s also in human nature to not
to get involved in the conflict until direct harm threatens their
family, home, state, nation or beliefs. United States didn’t get
involved in World War Two until Perl Harbor got attacked. Many people
have never seen the reality of a war, but many people have seen and
felt the face of cancer. Almost every family has a member or a friend
who’s been diagnosed, and no one is secured from its threat. (NUMBER)
of people around the world die every year from cancer, which exceeds
the
number of victims of genocide in Rwanda. Than what makes genocide more
dramatic? Is it the people killing their own people? The savage nature
of their soulless existence? One can argue that for every “tyrant”
there is two “saviors” otherwise human race would be exterminated long
time ago. Every war could be stopped or contained by proper political
means, but what do we have against cancer? Still outgoing research and
hope that soon enough this disease would be just a memory of the past
like a plague. What brings me back to the subjective nature of this
question. Is genocide the worst problem in the world today? For those
people, who find themselves in the middle of the conflict it is the
worst problem, but for all others who have never experienced it there
would be another problems in their lives of similar scale.

b) Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of

life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?

War is violent by its own nature. There was no war in the history of
mankind that didn’t involve violence or attack on civilians. Although
casualties of war unfortunately is inevitable component of warfare,
attacks on civilians, whether it’s genocide or terrorism, is not
necessarily part of the warfare and could happen without any military
intervention. Perhaps warfare can’t be eliminated, but at least it
could be controlled and to some extend limited by the means of
international organizations such as United Nations. There might an
opinion exist that there’s nothing being done by those organizations
since there’re still wars currently going on. Unfortunately it’s being
unnoticed that in last few years alone few very dangerous conflicts
arose, which without the intervention of UN and international
publicity would outgrow into warfare.

c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the

people of the world work to stop them?

United Nations was established solely for the purpose of preventing
any violence and military attacks on civilians.

[oc]

Akhi Hamid
Sep 11, 11:10 pm


Shazeda Sharmin
English 101
*Journal*

Of course, War is a problem, but in Goldhagen’s novel he also talked
about more importantly about Eliminations. Some government are
supporting war a lot but they are less caring about their population.
They should understand that war is one of the most tragic and terrible
events, and it can never bring happiness, but death . War produces
irreversible effects on human psyche and deprives a person of a chance
to restore his/her system of values . Eliminations are the biggest
problem now. Our current government things that it will benefit them
but they should understand that killing lives cannot benefit anyone.
It is a world widespread problem now a day. The past governments tried
to to stop it but their afford didn’t work very well.

Pick up any newspaper or point your web browser to any major or minor
news publication and questions like these will be all over them. A lot
of people feel that the War on wil be end soon. Are they correct?
Should we pull out and call it quits? Should we have another repeat of
the Vietnam War? Believe it or not, that's how a lot of people view
this war, as another Vietnam. A war
can be justifiable when it’s needed for a country and will not affect
other innocent people. him or he didn't like anyone, he found a way to
"eliminate" them. become a threat not only to himself, but to his
neighboring countries.

Any citizen should have right to tell the government to stop any war
that affect them and a government has to listen to them because they
work for us. In Goldhagen’s novel “Ending our age of Suffering” he
talked about war and he mentioned that what happen in Rwandan
genocide, and many death. We do not want to see the same picture
again.

[Kareem A]

a) I think war, especially when it leads to intentional attacks on
civilians is one of the biggest problems in the world today. I think
that Goldhagen makes a good argument for this in his article. As he
states “eliminationism not only its most murderous variant, genocide--
is a widespread problem, and that it is a form of politics, and that
it is pursued by leaders who believe (almost always correctly) that it
will benefit them…”. I believe genocide helps these people by
allowing them to mask their wars and commit mass murder without having
to worry about repercussions because the U.N and the ICC do not
respond to them as though they were war criminals. Instead they spend
most of their time deciding whether or not genocide is taking place,
and when they find out it is they are slow to move. So I believe that
because of the amount of lives involved, the lack of any real justice
for those who commit crimes and the slow response of those in power to
react to genocide. That it can be considered one of the greatest
problems in the world today. Just because these reasons make it such a
desirable form of politics for dictators.

b) I believe that genocide can be eliminated. I think that Goldhagen
gives us a pretty good solution in his article. However I do not think
it would be as simple as he makes it seem. A world without war I feel
needs to be based on trust and I don’t think that any country anytime
soon would be willing to make itself so vulnerable. Stopping genocide
seems to be possible. However war seems like something that as long as
it’s in our past it will continue into our future. Until a day that we
either destroy ourselves or our population is reduced so vastly that
war would mean extinction.

c) I feel that the people of the world should defiantly work to stop
military attacks on civilians, but then that leads to insurgency and
more fuel for the militaries propaganda attacks. It’s a catch-22
situation. If they don’t fight they put it in the hands of people who
in the past have been extremely slow to react if they react at all,
and if they fight and don’t overtake their military quickly then they
risk the military using that as an excuse to get support, delay
trials, and continue murdering civilians. So it’s a tough situation I
think Goldhagens anti-eliminationist system would be a good place to
start.

[Mark M]

To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
• Father is a holocaust survivor
• Has a personal interest

All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
Wikipedia, navy.history.mil

I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki:
a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
War, Goldhagen, 2009

b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
deaths from 1937–1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan

c. China government claims over 20 million men, women, and children
alone, lost their lives in the Sino-Japanese War from 1939-1945. With
nearly 4 million deaths due to Japanese war crimes. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

d. New Zealand: 12,000

e. Australia: 39,000

f. United States: 100,000

Goldhagen purposely fails to include the millions killed by the
Japanese during WW II. Failing to recognize that President Truman’s
utilization of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
legitimate course of action to end the brutal and ruthless killing by
the Japanese, not just against American service members, but against
Allied Forces as-well, is irresponsible as a scholar and “professional
intellectual.”

The fact that China lost between 10 and 20 million of her citizens and
Japan lost approximately 2.5 million of her citizens seems to be lost
on the author and many other critics. I also find myself wondering
what specifically those that are or were opposed to the dropping of
the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are actually opposed to.
Eisenhower was opposed to the timing of the dropping of the bomb,
however, not the use of the atomic bomb as a weapon. The same could
be said for former Secretary of War Stimson; in the New York Times
article dated August 6, 1995 and titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,”
the author claims Stimson viewed the atomic bomb as a legitimate
weapon in the post-World War II-U.S. v. USSR saga. Goldhagen quotes
Truman’s Chief of Staff-Admiral Leahy, “My own feeling was that in
being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common
to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in
that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and
children.” I find it ironic that a Navy admiral, whose career is
based on the employment of the type of weapons that are almost as
indiscriminate in the havoc they wreak as the atomic bomb, would state
that wars could not be won by destroying women and children. Does
Admiral Leahy think a 2000 lb. shell is exacting in whom it kills?

Comment Against: On page two of the Asahi Shimbun article, “65 years
after Hiroshima,” Takahashi states that he wants Obama to visit
Hiroshima to see the effects of the devastation that a nuclear bomb
can cause and that such a gesture would be a step forward toward non-
proliferation. The author of the article states the feeling must be
shared by the 220,000 hibakusha (survivors) across Japan whose average
age is 76. The author, like Goldhagen, fail to mention the number of
lives taken by the Japanese. What would the survivors of Pearl
Harbor, military or civilian, say of what the Japanese did by
attacking the U.S.? And what of the 10-20 million Chinese killed by
the Japanese during World War II. Losers like to portray themselves
as victims in an effort to gain sympathy and ease the agony of
defeat. I can understand where a Japanese survivor would feel like
the victim, but I cannot understand why Goldhagen would portray Japan
as the hapless victim.

II. Psychological Argument: REQUIRES FURTHER ELABORATION
• Freud’s theory that people are inherently bad: Author asks questions
of how one person in a given situation can commit various atrocities
while another person in a similar situation does not; an argument can
be made that people are inherently bad and as they grow and mature
they channel the negative energies or thoughts into a constructive
nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was talking about with
the ‘Id’. An example would be an adolescent child has subconscious
desires of wanting to be around and touch children in a manner that
society deems inappropriate. As he or she grows and matures those
subconscious thoughts are channeled in a constructive way that the
child grows up and becomes a doctor-specifically a pediatrician. The
Id is balanced by the Ego. Another example more in-line with the
author’s theme of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As
he matures, the subconscious knows that killing for killings sake is
illegal and the feelings are repressed in the subconscious. However
as he comes of age he enters the military as an infantryman. The
sole job of the infantry is to seek out and kill the “enemy.” The
subconscious, guided by the Ego, is seeking satisfaction in a way
deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society. However, what if the
Id, in combination with external influences dominates the psyche of
the person from childhood to adulthood? If a child grows up with
little or no guidance, no sense of right or wrong (which could be
argued is subjective), and in an environment of kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest, and they’re the enemy?

• The author asks a good question towards the end of chapter one,
“What makes people commit these atrocities?” Psychologists the world
over have developed theories of human nature. Renowned psychologist
and scholar, Alfred Adler, best known for his theory on the
‘superiority/ inferiority complexes,’ wrote a book titled, “
Understanding Human Nature.” FURTHER ELABORATION REQUIRED

• These theories do not lend justification as to why people commit
mass murder, genocide, or manslaughter on a grand scale, but they
cannot be discarded or discounted either.

III. Opinion
• Establishment of a new international body? Dissolve the UN and
replace one entity with another:
• Change the name, but the players are the same. What change can be
expected when the various nations have a competing interest?
• Specifically, what nations would comprise this body? In China,
Amnesty International reports, “500,000 people are currently enduring
punitive detention without charge or trial.” Would the Chinese be
extended a membership invite and would they be subject to, or held to
the binding resolutions declared by this international body/ committee
and/ or allow for international military intervention?
• Iran’s opinion that Israel should be, “wiped off the map,” or “ the
regime in Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.” Should
this be considered a threat where immediate military intervention,
sanctions, or binding resolutions are required?
• Hindsight 20/20/ Monday Morning Quarterback Truman’s decision
• TO BE CONTINUED