VILEPLUME
Well-Known Member
I am, because if everyone is anti-war and we still go to war every 10 years, something is wrong...
Is anyone Pro-War?
- Thread starter VILEPLUME
- Start date
really comfy slippers
Active Member
If the Golden Rule is a dangerous idea for your country to practice, something is wrong
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
We go to war so often because it's profitable.
If you took the profit out of the equation, war would cease to exist as we know it.
What's wrong is that that's not apparent to your average person.
Farfenugen
Well-Known Member
Is anyone here pro common sense?
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
Must read book if you guys actually want to learn the history of foreign policy since the founding fathers:
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Nation-Americas-Earliest-Century/dp/0375411054
Amazon Description -
"Robert Kagan strips away the myth of Americas isolationist tradition and reveals a more complicated reality: that Americans have been increasing their global power and influence steadily for the past four centuries. Even from the time of the Puritans, he reveals, America was no shining city up on a hill but an engine of commercial and territorial expansion that drove Native Americans, as well as French, Spanish, Russian, and ultimately even British power, from the North American continent. Even before the birth of the nation, Americans believed they were destined for global leadership. Underlying their ambitions, Kagan argues, was a set of ideas and ideals about the world and human nature. He focuses on the Declaration of Independence as the document that firmly established the American conviction that the inalienable rights of all mankind transcended territorial borders and blood ties. American nationalism, he shows, was always internationalist at its core. He also makes a startling discovery: that the Civil War and the abolition of slaverythe fulfillment of the ideals of the Declarationwere the decisive turning point in the history of American foreign policy as well. Kagan's brilliant and comprehensive reexamination of early American foreign policy makes clear why America, from its very beginning, has been viewed worldwide not only as a wellspring of political, cultural, and social revolution, but as an ambitious and, at times, dangerous nation."
http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Nation-Americas-Earliest-Century/dp/0375411054
Amazon Description -
"Robert Kagan strips away the myth of Americas isolationist tradition and reveals a more complicated reality: that Americans have been increasing their global power and influence steadily for the past four centuries. Even from the time of the Puritans, he reveals, America was no shining city up on a hill but an engine of commercial and territorial expansion that drove Native Americans, as well as French, Spanish, Russian, and ultimately even British power, from the North American continent. Even before the birth of the nation, Americans believed they were destined for global leadership. Underlying their ambitions, Kagan argues, was a set of ideas and ideals about the world and human nature. He focuses on the Declaration of Independence as the document that firmly established the American conviction that the inalienable rights of all mankind transcended territorial borders and blood ties. American nationalism, he shows, was always internationalist at its core. He also makes a startling discovery: that the Civil War and the abolition of slaverythe fulfillment of the ideals of the Declarationwere the decisive turning point in the history of American foreign policy as well. Kagan's brilliant and comprehensive reexamination of early American foreign policy makes clear why America, from its very beginning, has been viewed worldwide not only as a wellspring of political, cultural, and social revolution, but as an ambitious and, at times, dangerous nation."
really comfy slippers
Active Member
Thanks for sharing Guy.. Just ordered a copy...
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;UsC-ZaMPq5s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsC-ZaMPq5s[/video]
After watching this does anyone feel the same about war.
After watching this does anyone feel the same about war.
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
The book only covers up to 1900 I think. Another great book that helps to understand why we are in the predicaments we face today is this book by Gaddis. Gets into the down and dirty of running a superpower while managing foreign affairs.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Cold-War-New-History/dp/1594200629
In 1950, when Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il-Sung met in Moscow to discuss the future, they had reason to feel optimistic. International communism seemed everywhere on the offensive: Stalin was at the height of his power; all of Eastern Europe was securely in the Soviet camp; America's monopoly on nuclear weapons was a thing of the past; and Mao's forces had assumed control over the world's most populous country. Everywhere on the globe, colonialism left the West morally compromised. The story of the previous five decades, which saw severe economic depression, two world wars, a nearly successful attempt to wipe out the Jews, and the invention of weapons capable of wiping out everyone, was one of worst fears confirmed, and there seemed as of 1950 little sign, at least to the West, that the next fifty years would be any less dark.
In fact, of course, the century's end brought the widespread triumph of political and economic freedom over its ideological enemies. How did this happen? How did fear become hope? In The Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis makes a major contribution to our understanding of this epochal story. Beginning with World War II and ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union, he provides a thrilling account of the strategic dynamics that drove the age, rich with illuminating portraits of its major personalities and much fresh insight into its most crucial events. The first significant distillation of cold war scholarship for a general readership, The Cold War contains much new and often startling information drawn from newly opened Soviet, East European, and Chinese archives. Now, as America once again finds itself in a global confrontation with an implacable ideological enemy, The Cold War tells a story whose lessons it is vitally necessary to understand.
To war!!! God Wills It!!! lol.. seriously, why would any sane human being want war or blow up other counties? I think everyone WANTs a utopia. However, we cannot deny that there are times when wars NEED to be raised. To h*ll with that b*llcr*p of "everything can be resolved diplomatically". The past world wars would never have happened if this sh*t applies.
MixedMelodyMindBender
Active Member
Exactly. I think it would be extremely hypocritical of the American society to say its against war. It's frankly the American way. If it does not go the American way they simply wage war. And in America they don't just like to wage war against foreign nations but against their own as well. Lets not forget the War on Drugs is still the longest running "war". Granted their was no declaration by congress, but since when has there been???
Personally I take to heart a quote of Mahatma gandhi ; " If I had the ability to remove one capability of the human it would be to remove the ability to wage war". Logically, I think it's sick to think that any "good" could ever come from war. Its a true lose-lose situation.
But, with the population at the point it is at in today's world, I don't believe it's logical to expect war not to exist. Simply to many people to ask for that. It's an inevitability of our species, and the more of us, the more of war.
I am 100% for war, but we need much bigger wars and a shit load more killings than we presently have. The population is still growing, perhaps a new world war that lasts for 20 years might be able to pare that number of people on this green earth down to an acceptable level.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I disagree with that sentiment.
I'm sure it would have been easy to sit back in 1700 and say "you can't be serious, we will never reach the Moon, that's an absurd idea..".
I think the idea of something seeming impossible contributes to it's demise. What ever happened to 'nothing is impossible'? What gets me is even if it was impossible, shouldn't we still try? It's like saying "this fire in the pan is too hot!" then walking away and letting it engulf your whole house because you thought it was impossible to put out. Saving your house, like ending war, is worth the effort, however impossible it might seem. That realization, coupled with removing the profits war creates for certain industries and a steady decline in organized religion (along with a dozen other things) are, imo, probably what will lead to the abolition of war, and I think it'll take at least a century or two from today for any of that to actually make a difference, but I think we're on the right track.
What I think would be interesting is getting some kind of international petition going, something completely apart from the governments that rule the world. Strictly civilian. When you take away all the barriers and borders, most of us want the same things. We want to live peacefully and raise a family without fear, violence or intimidation, live our own lives as determined by ourselves in ever aspect of life, just live happy and be free. Governments are the organizations that put up barriers, make our neighbors enemies one decade and friends the next. They're the ones who benefit from ongoing conflicts. The ones that scare us into submission.
An international peace treaty, with hundreds of millions or even billions of signatures couldn't possibly be ignored. If you could organize something and get that many people to declare war is an inhumane practice of the human condition, it couldn't be ignored. Something would have to happen.
Get all the nations of the worlds civilians to cooperate with this simple treaty, with the internet, the possibilities are endless...
I'm sure it would have been easy to sit back in 1700 and say "you can't be serious, we will never reach the Moon, that's an absurd idea..".
I think the idea of something seeming impossible contributes to it's demise. What ever happened to 'nothing is impossible'? What gets me is even if it was impossible, shouldn't we still try? It's like saying "this fire in the pan is too hot!" then walking away and letting it engulf your whole house because you thought it was impossible to put out. Saving your house, like ending war, is worth the effort, however impossible it might seem. That realization, coupled with removing the profits war creates for certain industries and a steady decline in organized religion (along with a dozen other things) are, imo, probably what will lead to the abolition of war, and I think it'll take at least a century or two from today for any of that to actually make a difference, but I think we're on the right track.
What I think would be interesting is getting some kind of international petition going, something completely apart from the governments that rule the world. Strictly civilian. When you take away all the barriers and borders, most of us want the same things. We want to live peacefully and raise a family without fear, violence or intimidation, live our own lives as determined by ourselves in ever aspect of life, just live happy and be free. Governments are the organizations that put up barriers, make our neighbors enemies one decade and friends the next. They're the ones who benefit from ongoing conflicts. The ones that scare us into submission.
An international peace treaty, with hundreds of millions or even billions of signatures couldn't possibly be ignored. If you could organize something and get that many people to declare war is an inhumane practice of the human condition, it couldn't be ignored. Something would have to happen.
Get all the nations of the worlds civilians to cooperate with this simple treaty, with the internet, the possibilities are endless...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
OK, but who would enforce such a treaty, and how? It always devolves to "quis custodiet custodes?" cn
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Enforcing a peace treaty seems like an oxymoron. I think it would have to be on an individual kind of level, a decision you make to yourself and a responsibility you keep as a signer of it. Some bitch ass government comes in and tries to shame you or scare you into fighting, you look em right in the eye n say "go fuck yourself, fight your own goddamn war".
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The question is honest, Pad. Seeking, amassing, holding power through violence (on all levels, one-to-one through international war) is hard-wired into human nature. We are a territorial and predatory species. So simply signing a treaty for outlawing war is simply an invitation to those who will see advantage in not signing it. Would you compel dissenters to sign? How? Someone will always have to I see no way to make this work long-term and not descend into truly spectacular chaos. cn
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't have all the answers. I'll be the first to admit that.
"Holding power through violence is hard wired into human nature." - what exactly do you mean by that, and what does it mean to say "hard wired into human nature"? Do you think that means it's impossible to overcome?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I don't think it's impossible to overcome by individuals or small, highly cohesive groups. But it's unnatural imo, like keeping a secret ... the larger the group, the harder it is not to fail.
My musing/hope is that one day we'll be able to modify the physical substrate of our behavior. But that would be fairly far in the future, since so much more than our current primitive genetic/medical knowledge will be needed. Until then, we are a warlike species, tribalists, pack hunters ... and I think it's a sort of self-deception to insist that "we're all better than that", a very very popular deception among the current crop of postmoderns, crypto-Marxists and general champions of political correctness. We're actually not, as Rwanda etc. graphcally illustrate. OK end rant. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Global culture is an inevitable result of progress. Will we progress through war?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
If we build the global culture before we have crises centered on arable land, water, energy etc, then *maybe* we'll dodge that "bullet". But I'm wagering we won't get there in time, and a near-century of deferred warfare will be dumped onto our collective heads, with the sort of "interest" that accrued in the refinement of the tools of war. cn
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Excerpt from War is a Racket by Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, pub. 1935
