Why We Fight

[Lucius]

I saw the docu on Swedish TV (it was either that, or some old yahoo Navy Seal flick on Danish TV), and it was very interesting, to say the least.

It was basically a rundown of US military engagements, support of dirty regimes, and how the military industial complex has gained much influence in the US government, which was what Eisenhower once warned might happen as a result of the arms race, a prospect which troubled him a lot.

Also something about how the US has become, whether you want to admit it or not, a militaristic society. Taking advantage of patriotic feelings, lack of media coverage in wars (ie. not showing body bags, propaganda, stuff like that).

 

Oh and Julian, there's plenty of nations in Europe which are, dare I say it, more democratic than the US. Not with a huge army though, no need for that.

[julianw]

Oh and Julian, there's plenty of nations in Europe which are, dare I say it, more democratic than the US. Not with a huge army though, no need for that. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I just feel fortunate that US is the only superpower left instead of Soviet Union. US is still going to abuse its superpower status, but to a much more limited extent.

[Dark Moth]

Well, I, for one, feel way more secure with the U.S. being a superpower than, say, North Korea, China, or Saudi Arabia. And there's no problem with having a huge army, so long as you don't abuse it.

[Lucius]

Well, I, for one, feel way more secure with the U.S. being a superpower than, say, North Korea, China, or Saudi Arabia.    And there's no problem with having a huge army, so long as you don't abuse it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But having a budget that is bigger than all NATO members, Russia and China together is going to create a somewhat militaristic society, where the military might gain too much power over politicians, this was one of the issues the docu adressed.

[julianw]

China is actually already a superpower, but its government is not all that aggressive in foreign affairs since the 90s. I fear that might change now that China has declared allegiance along US and UK on the war on terrorism.

But a war between China and US is not very likely since Bush recently stated that Taiwan is not within the perimeters of US military defense.

 

There is also a funny theory that US will not declare open war on any country with a MacDonald . And China has tons of those.

[Dark Moth]

There is also a funny theory that US will not declare open war on any country with a MacDonald . And China has tons of those.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess they don't want any distractions for the troops while they're away.

 

"Hey Sarge, I want a Happy Meal!"

[213374U]

I'm not so sure.  If the US didn't have a large military, Sweden would need one to protect it from who?  The Russians, I suppose.  But the Russians mostly have a large military to protect themselves from the Americans and the Chinese.  Disarmament in parallel would be possible, and I think the Russians would welcome it because of the cost savings.  I'm not advocating getting rid of the military entirely (I'd like to, but that's a whole separate argument for another day) - I think most countries want to keep a military for prestige, and Russia more than most because of its superpower past.

Yeah, and then we could all live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate...

 

Idealism is beautiful, but impractical. There is no such thing as a global peace based in the goodwill of governments worldwide, nor there is a chance for global de-militarisation. The Roman Empire was strong until their military decayed (for whatever reasons). Then they got their asses kicked for good, and the Dark Ages followed. I'd rather not have that happen again, thank-you-very-much.

 

 

Well, just from the basic standpoint there are two major reasons why a western goverment engages in non-defensive military action abroad

 

 

1. To secure economical interests in the region

 

2. To secure political interests in the region to ensure a more prosperous economical climate that domestic companies can benefit from.

Bingo!

 

 

Also something about how the US has become, whether you want to admit it or not, a militaristic society. Taking advantage of patriotic feelings, lack of media coverage in wars (ie. not showing body bags, propaganda, stuff like that).

Again, your misunderstanding of what patriotism is leads you to wrong conclusions. Hitler and Mussolini took advantage of patriotic feelings, as did Stalin. The US do not. I wonder, when will Europe get over the nazi stigma attached to patriotism?

 

And I find it somewhat disturbing that you associate adequate "media coverage" with showing the body bags. I guess that by your standards then, Ogrish and Rotten.com are the world's premier news sites.

[Azarkon]

Yeah, and then we could all live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate...

 

Idealism is beautiful, but impractical. There is no such thing as a global peace based in the goodwill of governments worldwide, nor there is a chance for global de-militarisation. The Roman Empire was strong until their military decayed (for whatever reasons). Then they got their asses kicked for good, and the Dark Ages followed. I'd rather not have that happen again, thank-you-very-much.

 

There is something to be said for idealists who believe that everything is impractical except the status quo. Sometimes we call that branch of idealism realism, but how real is it, I wonder, if realists had existed since the dawn of human history? After all, they couldn't have been all right, or we'd still be living in caves and clubbing the opposite sex for our carnal pleasures :D

[Guest GroinOfDespair]

No one will ever truly disarm globablly because there are always people who desire power, and those on the outs will be bitter about those who currently hold power.

 

It is human nature. Why are people surpised by anyone of this today?

[Azarkon]

Human nature is one of those terms that's been thrown around so much that it's lost all meaning. So human nature is desire for power? Then... Why aren't we all fighting each other for power? Why are most people content to live their lives in peace and quiet, instead of perpetually wrestling the reins of power from the hands of those who possess it?

 

Maybe what you mean is that *some* people desire power, but that ain't human nature if it only applies to some. And perhaps if we understood the underlying sociological and psychological reason why those few are willing to go such long distances to achieve power at the expense of others, then maybe we can fix it. Who knows?

[Guest GroinOfDespair]

Name one human society and culture that hasn't made any effort to exploit others or establish power for itself?

 

We like to believe that humans have it in them to be good natured. Sure individuals might choose actions that seem self-serving, but are they? Psychologists in studying base motivations have never once seen a reason for this, nor have anyone ever truly suggested that humans in their base desires are selfless. We have needs that we attend to, though the heirarchy of needs tends to change levels as others are met.

 

Our selfless individual actions may simply be a thin veil for societal guilt, or a social contract that we abide by for our own security. Having a welfare system means that we might benefit from it ourselves someday. These are investments.

 

We do what we must to survive and ensure our needs are met, no more and no less.

[Azarkon]

We do what we must to survive and ensure our needs are met, no more and no less.

 

Yet the society we have built is hardly one that ensures our survival or our needs. The threat of nuclear war and total annihilation is a far cry from an ideal society for any organism attempting to carve out its existence amidst uncaring nature, don't you think?

 

Selfishness is one thing that we have learned to compromise through the theory of enlightened self-centrism. We have come to learn that if society was a case of every man for himself, then the result would be anarchy and no one would be happy. Therefore we form the contracts you so speak of - yes, to benefit ourselves - but in a much more efficient and secure way. This is how cities and nations arise.

 

How is, then, the end of war - that time bomb ticking above our heads - any less a case of enlightened self-centrism? Clearly no one wants to die, so in disarming all of humanity, we would have come closer to ensuring our continued survival and the meeting of our selfish needs. Similarly, though resources are limited, enlightend self-centrism would dictate that a firm sense of societal responsibility and birth control would in the end benefit us more than allowing nature to curb humanity through war and disease.

 

If cave men could learn to form thriving civilizations - who were previously competitors for the same resources, no less - to ensure greater long-term security and survival, then modern man can learn to form a united world and to end the threat of apocalyptic war. If we cannot, if we destroy ourselves, then I daresay that it's more a problem with our choices than our natural instincts.

 

Human nature? Pffft. More like excuses.

[Cantousent]

A good point... and yet I believe that humans are, at heart, good natured. We live in societies that could not exist if we did not, for one reason or another, adhere by rules. Is it fear that keeps us in line? I don't think so. Fear, over the centuries, has been a very poor motivator to the criminally minded.

 

The United States, far more often than folks around here concede, acts because it believes in the righteousness of its cause. Sometimes it is misguided, that is true. Moreover, the United States has been far more benevolent than any of its predecessors, although there is a strong case to be made for our friend, the United Kingdom. The world has been full of powerful civilizations. By comparison, the United States weilds greater power with more restraint.

[213374U]

It just doesn't work like that. It probably would if we were flawlessly emotionless machines, but we're not.

[Azarkon]

Eldar: Eh, I'm not sure the Age of Imperialism is something to be praised, in the UK's case And as for the US, well, the Native Americans might have something to say about that, and let's not forget the slaves.

 

I get what you're saying though: the modern US could be so much worse than it is compared to other countries, but that, I think, has more to do with the fact that the US had gotten past that brutal stage of national history and is now free to be a tad more... Shall we say, benevolent.

[Azarkon]

It just doesn't work like that. It probably would if we were flawlessly emotionless machines, but we're not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So emotions are to blame?

 

*assumes a gun-kata stance*

 

We can deal with that

[alanschu]

Reminds me of a neat quote I saw, and I chuckled, probably because I recognized some truth in it:

 

 

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

[julianw]

Spanish and Portuguese colonizers were much more ruthless towards Native Americans during the Age of Imperialism, so maybe we should be glad that UK eventually dominated during those years.

 

And in US history books, they teach you about slavery, the injustice towards Native Americans, and their fatal mistakes in Vietname War over and over again from middle school all the way till college. US even pays compensation money to those people who were oppressed by its past government. There really aren't many governments that can measure up to what the US has.

The founding fathers of America were really onto something when they wrote the Constitution and set up all those checks and balances.

[EnderAndrew]

Very true. We are also the only country ever to fight a war to give rights to slaves.

[Lucius]

Again, your misunderstanding of what patriotism is leads you to wrong conclusions. Hitler and Mussolini took advantage of patriotic feelings, as did Stalin. The US do not. I wonder, when will Europe get over the nazi stigma attached to patriotism?

 

And I find it somewhat disturbing that you associate adequate "media coverage" with showing the body bags. I guess that by your standards then, Ogrish and Rotten.com are the world's premier news sites. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just can't make one single post without being a prick, can you? I mean, I can be a prick, but I try not to be in every post I make, you must be a miserable man to know in real life. Anyway let's see if your trollish brain can comprehend the following; I was making a short resume of what the docu was about and how it presented things (like the body bags, for instance, you raving moron), because someone on the thread requested it.

 

Now please, go hang yourself and trouble me no more.

[213374U]

I could flame you as I usually do, but I know it just feels better to have your posts deleted by moderation. You have been reported.

[Lucius]

It sucks to screw up so badly, huh?

 

Have fun reporting me, my dear troll, we all know that your only purpose around here is exactly that.

[213374U]

Screw up? Interesting notion you have.

 

The only one that has screwed up is you. I didn't attack you in my post, and therefore your streak of trolling was uncalled for and only served to derail the thread. I expect it to either be closed or pruned very soon, starting with your post.

 

So, whatever.

[Lucius]

Screw up? Interesting notion you have.

 

The only one that has screwed up is you. I didn't attack you in my post, and therefore your streak of trolling was uncalled for and only served to derail the thread. I expect it to either be closed or pruned very soon, starting with your post.

 

So, whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You attack everyone you have an argument with, only you do so in a bit more subtle and extremely arrogant way. You provoked me because you couldn't present your argument (let alone understand that I was simply writing a short resume) without coming off as a prick.

 

Hey, how about this, WATCH the goddamn docu yourself.

[EnderAndrew]

I have never seen 213374U attack anyone.

 

And according to the mods, even calling someone a troll now constitutes as flaming, so your posts will be deleted.