-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Well, really, I have to get this off my chest....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders. Oh, and of course, it's not cannons and rapiers anymore, but machine guns, gas, roadside bombs, etc. Nice.
Don't get me wrong, I think we should go in if you have a Hitler-type situation happening, if there's a chance the free world might be totally swept away in a wave of manaical tyranny, but really, anyone who tries to pretend Iran is that much of a threat is just misguided....
Anyway, aggression can usually be traced to economic repression, anyway, which is a favourite activity of the West, i.e. in the staggering reparations Germany was forced to pay to France following WWI, or the fact that the fundamentalist revolution only occurred in Iran following the instability that ensued after the West had their elected leader overthrown in 1953 because he nationalized their oil.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the starving, whether the bombs were dropped in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
-Gandhi
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Well, really, I have to get this off my chest....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders. Oh, and of course, it's not cannons and rapiers anymore, but machine guns, gas, roadside bombs, etc. Nice.
Don't get me wrong, I think we should go in if you have a Hitler-type situation happening, if there's a chance the free world might be totally swept away in a wave of manaical tyranny, but really, anyone who tries to pretend Iran is that much of a threat is just misguided....
Anyway, aggression can usually be traced to economic repression, anyway, which is a favourite activity of the West, i.e. in the staggering reparations Germany was forced to pay to France following WWI, or the fact that the fundamentalist revolution only occurred in Iran following the instability that ensued after the West had their elected leader overthrown in 1953 because he nationalized their oil.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the starving, whether the bombs were dropped in the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
-Gandhi
I find this to be true to an extent. War is the worst option to solve any problem. However, sometimes its the ONLY option (i.e. WW2). The difference between now and then is that Hitler invaded Poland, then Belgium, then France etc (cant remember the exact order of countries) whereas Iran has done......nothing, yet. I believe conflict must be reactionary, not preemptive, because a preemptive strike is just war sped up, starting a war before it's technically begun. That said, people usually rush into war out of fear; fear is the most powerful tool we have as humans.
"Humans are no strangers to war. After all, we've been fighting for as long as we can remember. War is all we know. In the past, we fought for Immulsion, we fought for country, we fought for freedom. But all that changed after E-Day. For 15 years, we've been fighting for our very survival, against inhuman, genocidal monsters. But it is a fight we cannot continue. Humanity faces extinction, unless we end this war now. We had hoped the Lightmass bombing would decimate the Locust Horde. But they survived, and they have returned stronger than ever. They've brought with them a force that can sink entire cities. Even Jacinto, our last bastion through these dark days, is now at risk. Soon, we'll have nothing left to defend. And that means we have only one option. Attack. Gears, what I ask of you now is not an easy thing, but it is necessary. If we are to survive, if we are to live long enough to see the seasons pass, our children grow, experience a time of peace that we have never known, we must now take this fight to the Locust. We will go to where they live and where they breed and we will destroy them. This is the day we take the battle to the heart of the enemy. This is the day we correct the course of human history. This is the day we ensure our survival as a species. Soldiers of the COG, my fellow Gears, go forth, and bring back the hope of humanity!"
-Chairman Prescott, leader of the COG, Gears of War 2.
THAT is what we would be justified in doing as humans.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
I find this to be true to an extent. War is the worst option to solve any problem. However, sometimes its the ONLY option (i.e. WW2). The difference between now and then is that Hitler invaded Poland, then Belgium, then France etc (cant remember the exact order of countries) whereas Iran has done......nothing, yet. I believe conflict must be reactionary, not preemptive, because a preemptive strike is just war sped up, starting a war before it's technically begun. That said, people usually rush into war out of fear; fear is the most powerful tool we have as humans.
"Humans are no strangers to war. After all, we've been fighting for as long as we can remember. War is all we know. In the past, we fought for Immulsion, we fought for country, we fought for freedom. But all that changed after E-Day. For 15 years, we've been fighting for our very survival, against inhuman, genocidal monsters. But it is a fight we cannot continue. Humanity faces extinction, unless we end this war now. We had hoped the Lightmass bombing would decimate the Locust Horde. But they survived, and they have returned stronger than ever. They've brought with them a force that can sink entire cities. Even Jacinto, our last bastion through these dark days, is now at risk. Soon, we'll have nothing left to defend. And that means we have only one option. Attack. Gears, what I ask of you now is not an easy thing, but it is necessary. If we are to survive, if we are to live long enough to see the seasons pass, our children grow, experience a time of peace that we have never known, we must now take this fight to the Locust. We will go to where they live and where they breed and we will destroy them. This is the day we take the battle to the heart of the enemy. This is the day we correct the course of human history. This is the day we ensure our survival as a species. Soldiers of the COG, my fellow Gears, go forth, and bring back the hope of humanity!"
-Chairman Prescott, leader of the COG, Gears of War 2.
THAT is what we would be justified in doing as humans.
I agree, man...WWII was necessary, but very few are. Pre-emptive war is just an abomination.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
You could have a whole laundry list of wars that were a waste. If somebody had just sit down and had an open discussion a lot of them could have been avoided. But there are a lot of people making a lot of money off of war. Some how we have to remove the money making option of war.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
george bush was forced to crush iraq because saddam was going to nuke the usa...if anyone is to blame for all the death and destruction, it's hussein: he should have confessed to having the WMD george bush said he had so that the invasion would have been legal, and then in the distant future when history was written, the final page would say "george bush was the bestest president EVER!"
"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- President George Bush, October 2002
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Do I detect sarcasm, Maladroit?
I hope so because, as I recall, we didn't find any WMD's.
Anyway, I don't think it's our business to go to war unless the US is being threatened directly (as in soldiers pouring into the US), or if we have a Hitler-scenario going on.
Otherwise, it's really not our business.
And let's not forget that the people who run Iran were people we chose to run it after we overthrew their democratically-elected government. The Shah run the country. Ahmmedenijad or whatever his name is is more like a puppet than a dictator.
Wasn't Hussein appointed by us, too?
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Yeah but America loves a good war.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
The day we stop going to war is the day we stop being humans.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
To JakeMartinez:
Not to offend but I kind of think your wrong about us placing the Shah in power. It was in the 1950's when Britain decided to oust the democratically elected shah out of power with the help of the U.S due to the attempts at nationalizing its oil. Though he modernized Iran he was terrible to his people and in the 1970's there was a revolution which ousted him out of power. This is when Iran became a republic and its been that way up until today. This is also why we are hostile towards Iran. They want nuclear technology which could be used for Weapons technology or for energy but we (the common people) really don't know at this point. I have a hunch the U.S is using yet another scare tactic to get us on board with attacking Iran.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream of the iris
To JakeMartinez:
Not to offend but I kind of think your wrong about us placing the Shah in power. It was in the 1950's when Britain decided to oust the democratically elected shah out of power with the help of the U.S due to the attempts at nationalizing its oil. Though he modernized Iran he was terrible to his people and in the 1970's there was a revolution which ousted him out of power. This is when Iran became a republic and its been that way up until today. This is also why we are hostile towards Iran. They want nuclear technology which could be used for Weapons technology or for energy but we (the common people) really don't know at this point. I have a hunch the U.S is using yet another scare tactic to get us on board with attacking Iran.
PRIME MINISTER Mosaddeq was not that bad at all, and he was highly popular for the economic progress made nationalizing the oil. It's a fact that Britain and the United States did intrigue to bring him down, and that they then installed a pro-Western dictator who was very unpopular...this led to the 1979 radical fundamentalist revolution: we can think economic imperialism and the greed and Machiavellianism inherent in it for that one.
And personally, the idea of Iran having nukes doesn't scare me any more than the idea of the United States having nukes....of the two nations, I believe the United States has a much longer record for aggression, and of course, Christianity and the demands of Christian right lobbyists play a far-too-significant role in government. The only difference, of course, is that Iran is much more in the camp of the have-nots, and doesn't have nearly so large a monopoly on shaping the world status quo. And don't forget, they're very close to the dangerous tyranny called Israel, where a large population of Muslims live in apartheid. Considering they're located in very close proximity to a HEAVILY-armed nation with a long and ugly track record concerning brutalization of the Islamic peoples, maybe being armed isn't such an unreasonable request. You can draw many parallels between Iran and South Korea.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
First of all, I was thinking of the Iotola, I don't know why I confused them with the Shah.
Second, WE overthrew Mossadeq. Look up Operation Ajax, you can read all about it.
The countries we should really worry about having nukes are Russia (who hates much of the world, I think) and Pakistan, who harbors terrorists.
Both of those countries already have nukes, so we're too late. It's a MAD, MAD world.
Mutually
Assured
Destruction...
It's all that keeps us safe from nuclear attacks right now.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
i was being sarcastic but can reality be sarcastic? it's been an extremely weird administration
"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world."
--George W. Bush, addressing U.S. troops in Kuwait using future past perfect tense, Jan. 12, 2008
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
PRIME MINISTER Mosaddeq was not that bad at all, and he was highly popular for the economic progress made nationalizing the oil. It's a fact that Britain and the United States did intrigue to bring him down, and that they then installed a pro-Western dictator who was very unpopular...this led to the 1979 radical fundamentalist revolution: we can think economic imperialism and the greed and Machiavellianism inherent in it for that one.
And personally, the idea of Iran having nukes doesn't scare me any more than the idea of the United States having nukes....of the two nations, I believe the United States has a much longer record for aggression, and of course, Christianity and the demands of Christian right lobbyists play a far-too-significant role in government. The only difference, of course, is that Iran is much more in the camp of the have-nots, and doesn't have nearly so large a monopoly on shaping the world status quo. And don't forget, they're very close to the dangerous tyranny called Israel, where a large population of Muslims live in apartheid. Considering they're located in very close proximity to a HEAVILY-armed nation with a long and ugly track record concerning brutalization of the Islamic peoples, maybe being armed isn't such an unreasonable request. You can draw many parallels between Iran and South Korea.
The truth hurts don't it. But it is the truth. America has created more problems in the last 50 years than it has solved and it has no problem persecuting anyone who believes otherwise. Isreal has done nothing in the last 50 years to promote peace. Its easier to control the people when you're at war. Just as us Americans have found out in the last 7 years.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
pakistan's top nuclear scientist illegally shared it's nuclear weapons technology with north korea, iran, libya, and more unfriendly countries...after he got busted, el presidente musharaff personally gave him a full pardon, and allowed him to retire as a national hero...that didn't stop george bush from supporting musharaff and inviting pakistan military dictator over to the white house for dinner and romantic walks in the rose garden
the same week musharraf was forced to retire by the newly minted *democratic* government, george bush started the unmanned drone missile attacks inside pakistan (about 20 airstrikes this fall)
pakistan's national hero:
A. Q. Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
For all its delusions of moral superiority, the United States government has never had any problem whatsoever with tyranny...that's just a justification they use for the slaughter of an economically uppity or problematic nation. Why, for example, is the U.S. with all their integrity and condemnation of non-democracy, best buds with Saudi Arabia? Or why in 1975 did they not just ignore, but actually BACKED, the Indonesian slaughter of East Timor's people?
No, American administrations target other countries for purely economic reasons. Their international monopoly on perspective teaches us that they are the good guys in whatever war they happen to be fighting, but really they are the bloodthirsty villains.
Oh, and let's not forget when the Congo elected socialistic Lumumba, only for the CIA to whack him and replace him with the tyrannical, pro-Western despot, Mubutu. Nice.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
the usa is not always the bloodthirsty villans...they changed the course of WWII...they protected south korea...they protected south vietnam (sort of)....they implicitly protect the sovereignty of many countries...the concept of free nations harnessing an economic system to protect sovereignity and economic cooperation is still a great idea
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
the usa is not always the bloodthirsty villans...they changed the course of WWII...they protected south korea...they protected south vietnam (sort of)....they implicitly protect the sovereignty of many countries...the concept of free nations harnessing an economic system to protect sovereignity and economic cooperation is still a great idea
All thanks and gratitude for World War II, but no war is ever fought to be nice--wars are fought to defend a national interest. The Korean and Vietnamese Wars were all to do with an anti-communist agenda, which had to do with economics and status-quo threats, not at all to do with freedom. Communist states were usually oppressive, so were others who were the USA's close friends; as long as they were capitalistic and pro-Western, they were free to brutalize their people all they wanted. East Timor was a particular disgrace.
And yes, if a sovereign state was pro-Western and had an ideology and an economic policy that sat with their agenda, measures would be taken to protect them, however unjustified (i.e. Israel). If, however, a state is some sort of economic nuisance, they have to go, by force if necessary, i.e. in Vietnam, in Iraq (Hussein was about to start selling oil in Euros), in the 1953 Operation Ajax in Iran, in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to restore the brutal puppet Batista...you get the idea. This shit really started in 1812 with the invasion of Canada, continued with the Philippines war, etc....then a half-century period of non-interventionism followed by a post-war explosion in the hellish global despotism that continues today.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders.
i think you're confusing technological advancement with ethical advancement. take away all our technology and you'll find nothing more than a bunch of hairless apes running around fucking everything that moves and beating each other over the head with sticks. we value only the material, in the form of power and things, and ignore philosophical and intellectual pursuits unless they might lead us to material wealth. hell, we even find it necessary to enforce charity with legislation! we are a primitive species, still catering to our baser instincts and mostly devoid of the empathy it takes to really give a flying fuck about each other or the rest of the world.
i don't suppose you can really blame the common man for this evolutionary dead end we find ourselves in. we are nothing more than herd animals, banding together for safety and looking to our leaders for direction, and the power of the individual has never been of prime importance. we seem to be only a step or two above the mindless hive, buzzing about on our pointless tasks and building a structure that is only designed to house more drones. warfare may be the only thing that has saved us from extinction through the sheer tedium of our meaningless existence.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
the korean war wasn't totally about communism...north korea illegally invaded south korea, and the united nations went in there and legally kicked their commie asses back over the border...it was the same situation in the first gulf war
the usa does a lot of good in the world...that doesn't erase all the bad things it does but uncle sam still deserves credit for the good stuff
us government foreign policy is a combination of manifest destiny and exceptionalism...the government believes it is their moral duty to control the world, and therefore it isn't immoral if they have to break laws and spill innocent blood on the path to achieving that lofty objective...even when it ends badly, exceptionalism kicks in again and they ignore defeat/failure (like in the war of 1812, the vietnam war, iraq, and afghanistan)
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
the korean war wasn't totally about communism...north korea illegally invaded south korea, and the united nations went in there and legally kicked their commie asses back over the border...it was the same situation in the first gulf war
the usa does a lot of good in the world...that doesn't erase all the bad things it does but uncle sam still deserves credit for the good stuff
us government foreign policy is a combination of manifest destiny and exceptionalism...the government believes it is their moral duty to control the world, and therefore it isn't immoral if they have to break laws and spill innocent blood on the path to achieving that lofty objective...even when it ends badly, exceptionalism kicks in again and they ignore defeat/failure (like in the war of 1812, the vietnam war, iraq, and afghanistan)
I agree some good is done, but I maintain that the motives for that good are purely self-serving, the good being coincidental. The policy of exceptionalism is a very frightening one, since they can in no way legitimately declare themselves morally superior. World domination is inherently immoral.
And delusionsofnormality, if you'll remember from the Nietzsche thread, I agree with basically everything you said. Sometimes I feel like suffocating in cynicism and despair. Just sometimes.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
i think you're confusing technological advancement with ethical advancement. take away all our technology and you'll find nothing more than a bunch of hairless apes running around fucking everything that moves and beating each other over the head with sticks. we value only the material, in the form of power and things, and ignore philosophical and intellectual pursuits unless they might lead us to material wealth. hell, we even find it necessary to enforce charity with legislation! we are a primitive species, still catering to our baser instincts and mostly devoid of the empathy it takes to really give a flying fuck about each other or the rest of the world.
i don't suppose you can really blame the common man for this evolutionary dead end we find ourselves in. we are nothing more than herd animals, banding together for safety and looking to our leaders for direction, and the power of the individual has never been of prime importance. we seem to be only a step or two above the mindless hive, buzzing about on our pointless tasks and building a structure that is only designed to house more drones. warfare may be the only thing that has saved us from extinction through the sheer tedium of our meaningless existence.
I don't know. The Amish seen to lead a nice quiet life. And there are other examples. We don't need technology to survive. We just use it to make life easier for ourselves. Maybe life isn't supposed to be easy.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
what's wrong with doing good if it's purely self-serving? rational self interest good is still good
i agree the world domination is inherently immoral but don't despair - there are many good people in america who work for NGO's and help protect people around the world, or just donate money to charities...their government is screwed up but that can be fixed...i think america would be a different country if it's government accurately reflected the people instead of the special interests
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
what's wrong with doing good if it's purely self-serving? rational self interest good is still good
i agree the world domination is inherently immoral but don't despair - there are many good people in america who work for NGO's and help protect people around the world, or just donate money to charities...their government is screwed up but that can be fixed...i think america would be a different country if it's government accurately reflected the people instead of the special interests
I'm just saying it's a world without justice where you'll prosper if your economic agenda is on par with the U.S.'s and different ideologies or competative practices result in a blacklisting. Countries prosper the way an aryan individual would have in the Third Reicht.
And of course, nothing at all against the American people...I merely oppose their dangerous government and its practices.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
We go to war for the banks. They finance the war and make lots and lots of money. Then we have the defense contractors who get filthy rich too.
We are screwed right now. Either we get another depression or we start another war. Dunno which it'll be, but both options suck for us.
Watch the movie Money Masters, it explains it all in 3.5 hours and you'll wonder why the fuck you spent so much time in school and didn't learn this shit.
If you can't stand to watch the video on your computer, download the DVD off a torrent site. Worst case scenario, pay $30 for the DVD and make copies for friends & family.
War sucks, but it isn't going to change in our lifetime.
-
Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century
I mean, imagine if it were reversed...let's say most of the Western world had been mandated by the Middle East for most of the last century, and let's say the United States elected a president in the '50s who gained popularity through trying to bring the wealth to the people, and then Iran had him overthrown and replaced with a pro-Middle Eastern unpopular tyrant.
Had that been the situation, do you really think the U.S. would be a prosperous and peacefully democratic country today? Not that it's really any of that anymore, but it would be far less so if it had been so badly fucked by another corner of the world. I'd bet you anything there would be a fundamentalist Christian dictator with an extremely hostile stance towards the Islamic world...even more so, I mean.
