Denting the armour of the war machine

Former Member

Logged in as wrong user sorry!

Former Member

Originally posted by Darth Fred
Oh really? As MacKenZie asked earlier, would you really prefer that we had sat on our hands while the Nazis tried to conquer the world, eliminating any "inferior" races along the way?

World War II was not justified as it resulted in the deaths of 55 million people and created 30 million refugees. Germany also didn't want to take over the whole world just a large part of Europe. The real reason for Britain and America getting involved in a war with Germany was because their economic interests were threatened by German expansion as this quote explains:

The slump led in 1931 to a major breakdown in the system of international payments. Production fell in country after country and trade plummeted. Gold became concentrated in the hands of the dominant capitalists in the USA, Britain, France and the countries associated with them. These states also had a monopoly of access to most of the sources and raw materials in the world. The world thus became divided into two groups; those countries which had the gold and raw materials and those which lacked them. Germany, Japan and Italy were in the second group and in a bid to solve the problems this presented, the governing parties organised on an aggressive totalitarian basis and resorted to policies which challenged the other, dominant group.

To get gold and currencies to buy essential raw materials the totalitarian states tried 'dumping', i.e. selling their products below cost. In their trade with other countries they used devices which avoided gold, such as barter and bilateral trade agreements and credits which had to be used to buy their goods. All these devices tended to tie their trading partners to them and thus take them out of the world market.

This decline in the use of gold threatened the financial centres of London and New York. London was also threatened as the centre of dealings in raw materials. Pursuing these aggressive economic policies Germany had considerable success in Southern Europe and Latin America, while Japan made headway in the markets of Southern Asia. In 1931 Japan used armed force in Manchuria to set up a trading monopoly there. In the past the imperialist powers had decided on an open door policy for trade with China as none of them was strong enough to exclude all the others. Now Japan was trying to do just this, a policy which inevitably led to conflict with America and Britain. Italy similarly used force to get an overseas market in Abyssinia in 1935.

By way of response, the dominant powers decided on a determined campaign to regain the markets lost to the totalitarian countries. German, Japanese and Italian goods were boycotted. Credits were offered to the countries of Southern Europe to win them away from dependence on Germany. The more successful these policies were the more desperate became the economic position of German capitalism. Without the funds to give credits, force appeared to be the only way. Hence the annexation of Austria in 1938, the breaking up of Czechoslovakia in 1939.

At this point the conflict of economic interests was coming to a head. Germany was trying to keep its gains in Southern Europe by all means, including force, and Britain and France were using credits to undermine German influence. There was no backing down on either side. War would break out as soon as Britain and France decided to resist force with force.

From "What Caused The Two World Wars" by the Socialist Party of Great Britain published in 1950.

Former Member

Originally posted by Darth Fred



Finally, whether you agree with the war or not, you really ought to understand that the prime function of the armed forces is the protection of the people. Why are you trying to make their job more difficult?

I do not believe that is any longer the case.

We are pledged to intervening in conflicts for humanitarian reasons and also to defending the interests of our allies.........

Former Member

But the war on terrorism is for the survival of the West. And Al Qaeda is playing on the tolerance for free speech etc. the UK, US, Canada and others are known for to gain the advantage and meet their goals. Their stated goals is the destruction of the West's economies.

Former Member

I'm not sure why you focus on the economies so much I think the fundamentalists are generally upset about our culture and the way we live our lives though that is tied in with the economics.......

Former Member

Angus, or Derek, whatever your name is, what would you propose be a better alternative to war?
Destroying our ability to defend ourselves is one of the most despicable acts someone can commit, and deserves the harshest of punishments.
Those, like you who seek to undermine the LEGALLY and DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and rulers of this nation should be punished as, or if not more severely.

At this moment in time, numerous nations around the world, with dicatorial governments are plotting to destroy our nation with the most heinous and terrible weapons known to man.
We have 2 options, we can sit back and let them, or we can destroy them while we have the chance.
It is irrelevant what we have done in the past to cause these nations to want to harm us, it's irrelevant that we armed Iraq to fight Iran, or Osama to fight the soviet union. Those events are IN THE PAST.
Whilst bombs are going off in our major cities, most people will be wanting to know what can be done NOW, and not what might have happened to cause these catastrophes. War is the only solution, after we have fought the war, THEN we can change our foreign policy, but it's a bit late for that at the moment.

Former Member

Bizzarre........

Alternative - peace? :crazyeyes

What are all these terrible threats you talk of that require such drastic action?

Bombs going off in our major cities?

If we go to war then we perpetuate the cycle of violence, you don't just destroy threats or do you actually advocate exterminating whole populations?

Former Member

Do you deny there is a hge threat of being attacked with suitcase nukes or biological weapons?
Those weapons are in the hands of terrorists, and nations such as Iraq, and are distributed all over the world.
If killing a few thousand people means the lives of several hundred million being saved then so be it.

As for peace, we've tried that, we've told Saddam and co what would happen if he continued trying to make those sorts of weapons, he doesn't care for the consceqeunces. More fool him.

Former Member

Toadborg, Al Qaeda has been mentioning the economies. Bin Laden too. Even though they can't reach the targets, I think they think their words can hurt the stock markets.

I know lot's of people in the airline business worldwide have lost jobs because of them.

Former Member

Whereas I agree with the principle of defending ourselves and neutralise direct and clear threats to ourselves, what we obviously disagree on is what threat Iraq poses. Contrary to you Whowhere I believe Britain is at more danger of being attacked by 7-headed aliens from Pluto commanded by Elvis than by Saddam Hussein. I also believe we have been forced-fed the illusion that Saddam presents a danger to us by a USA that has lost the plot in the ‘war on terror’ and continues to pursue its political agenda throughout the world.

Former Member

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
But the war on terrorism is for the survival of the West. And Al Qaeda is playing on the tolerance for free speech etc. the UK, US, Canada and others are known for to gain the advantage and meet their goals. Their stated goals is the destruction of the West's economies.

Al Qeadas argument with the west is its foriegn poilcy, they were allies of the west at one time remember during the 1980s Soviet Afghan war!

Al Qeada's main grievance is America's continued arming of Israel and the stationing of American troops in Suadia Arabia which they consider sacred muslim land as well as the wests treatment of the Iraqi people of whom over one million have been killed by western economic sanctions!

Al Qaeda are taking the wrong route of international terrorism which kills innocent but they do have a genuine greivance!

The Wests' so called war on terrorism is in reality nothing of the sort it is a war for western dominace and economic control over the whole world in which any country that gets in the way of thew west is likely to be a target for destruction such as Iraq!

The alternative to war is for the working class to simply refuse to take part in any of their rulers wars as the working class of each country has no quarrel with the working class of other countries, out alternative to war is simply global workers revolution to bring about a global socialist society. "NO War But The Class War" has always been the slogan of socialists!
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Do you deny there is a hge threat of being attacked with suitcase nukes or biological weapons?
Those weapons are in the hands of terrorists, and nations such as Iraq, and are distributed all over the world.
If killing a few thousand people means the lives of several hundred million being saved then so be it.

Yes?

A huge threat, it has never happened, it never will happen, there is no proof it is ver likely or that any of these organisations possess weapons of this kind.

Why people think this could happen is beyond me.........

Also it is incredibly easy for you to say that we should kill these people when there is absolutely no danger to yourself.........

Former Member

So you think we should simply accede to all of Al Qaeda's demands then? No matter how justified you feel these demands are, acquiescing to the demands of terrorists only encourages further acts of terrorism.

Former Member

Originally posted by Lawnmower
From "What Caused The Two World Wars" by the Socialist Party of Great Britain published in 1950.

Now there is a well-regarded historic source... :rolleyes: