If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
War......Mankind!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I say this once again
People Who Engage In War are foolish, they know nothing, Because if they was Wise, They will not battle...
Jehovah Was peace before and after He Made mankind, Jehovah Is still is peace, So Why do We continue to fight?
Not trying to Disrespect nobody, just telling the truth....
People Who Engage In War are foolish, they know nothing, Because if they was Wise, They will not battle...
Jehovah Was peace before and after He Made mankind, Jehovah Is still is peace, So Why do We continue to fight?
Not trying to Disrespect nobody, just telling the truth....
0
Comments
This is my chance to get philosophical!! J - join in.
Basically, you say that the people who engage in war 'know' nothing - well there is a huge difference in knowledge and belief. So primarily, they are fighting on the grounds that they believe they are doing the best for their country, just like the 'other side' does.
Now this is a fairly relative point of view
However you claim to know the truth. Well, what is the truth? If you say that you know that war is wrong, well then you are basically holding the premise that everyone else is wrong and you are right as you say that the ones who engage in war 'know' nothing.
So to be honest, what is knowledge to you? Is it something mathematical or is it based on a belief? Because if it is a belief then it has the potential to be right or wrong. So a statement such as 'God exists' is meaningless since it cannot be proved. If you want your belief to be true, then it must satisfy two criteria: It must be justified and true. But there is a counter arguement to that but I am not going into that now!
This philosophical quip by go_away was filmed in front of a live studio audience <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Nice thought and all. But I don't think that is wise either to just let it be, and not defending one self. You have to fight to live. Some need to litterally fight, others need to psychologically.
I don't think that anyone has survived by doing nothing.
A lot of people however believe that fighting for a nation, or the greater good is a morally right think to do, as you know I believe this. Self sacrifice for the greater good. If I died, knowing I had died to protect our country, then I would die happy.
Do you really identify yourself with the cause of this nation so much (whatever it is? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> ) That you would die for it?
Think about this (in war-ish terms) Would you rather try to maximise pleasure or minimise pain?
*yayness at the philosophical side of things clawing their way to the surface!* <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
because some nations are essential to the continuance of mankind.
Whats the other evil that fighting for your nation is the lesser of.....?
It isn't for the greater good of mankind. it is for the greater good of the people I can identify and relate to.
Some people feel it is wrong to place one human life above another, however I feel that British citizens are more important to me than Americans, Iraqis, Russians e.t.c.
Maybe it is the territorial side of my personality, but I would fight, kill and die for Britain. No other country.
There is one exception, if humanity faced a greater evil, for example invasion from above, then i would fight for humanity. Howver until that happens I'd be quite willing to put the interest of the UK above the interests of another country.
I think as causes go, belief in one's nation is much more rational than fighting a war on the basis of religion.
Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of starting the wars, only defending my country.
Let me guess, this would be the western world. The world would still carry on, it would just be different to what we know now.
I don't think that wars will ever stop until either everyone is the same, or everyone works for the good of the world and not the land inside their bounderies.
Well, I wouldn't die for anything other than those I care about to be honest.
Ta-ta
My view? War is bad, but we have to accept its part of life.
Here are the economic reasons for the Two World Wars:
The particular background to this, the most destructive war ever, was the formation of the German-Italian-Japanese alliance in the 1930s and their concerted effort to expand at the expense of weaker neighbours and the older colonial powers, notably Britain, France and Holland. Italy and Germany had long before 1914 entered into the colonial scramble but they developed late and found all the best territories, strategic positions and trade routes already dominated by the 'older and fatter' bandits. The line-up before 1914 was, on the one side, the 'Triple Alliance' of Germany, Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and arrayed against their expansionist ambitions the 'Triple Entente' of Britain, France and Russia.
The First and Second world wars were directly linked in that the settlement imposed on the defeated states after the former succeeded in deepening the antagonisms which led to the latter. The background to the First World War was the clash in the Balkans. Germany aimed to move through the Balkans across the Dardanelles and onwards, taking in the Middle East with its oil resources and strategic importance. It was given dramatic expression in the planned Berlin-Baghdad railway. Such a thrust meant cutting off Russia from its Balkan proteges and an outlet to the Mediterranean, and meant severing the British Empire life-line through the Suez Canal to India and beyond. France with its African interests was as vitally concerned as Britain to stop this German dream of world power.
When the war came in 1914 Italy deserted the Triple Alliance while Turkey joined it. Part of the Allied bribe to Italy was the secret promise of a rich share in the spoils of victory - a promise which Italy claimed was never kept. Later on, in the early 1920s, with Germany prostrate and Russia weakened by the civil war and Allied intervention, Europe was dominated by France and the French system of alliances with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania, a system aimed both against the revival of Germany and against Russia. The British Government, following its traditional European balance of power policy, saw the need - in the interest of British capitalism - of helping Germany recover to offset French preponderance. A new factor, however, came into being after the world slump which followed on from the Wall Street Crash of 1929: the coming to power in Germany of the Hitler dictatorship.
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.
[ 24-04-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]
Additionally, the concept of state hood is not one which expands via invasion; economically, they would just trade more. It is human nature and economics, not one or the other.
War will continue as long as capitalism does, a system that creates war through global competition between countries!
Quote:I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
Smedly Butler from War Is Just A Racket.
Places with little economic and strategic value. Now explain wars before capitalism.
You cant so shut up
*highfive* sorry had to do that. That was one hell of a mouth-shutter! Respect <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Conflict, maybe not war, (that might be a synonym to some folks, but for me it's different) is human nature. Most people, if threatened, will attempt to defend themselves in some form, either directly, attacking back, or indirectly, sueing someone. I reckon this applies in a wider setting, i.e in a country. If a country is invaded etc then the natural response is to defend what you see to be yours. The difference with war is that it is deliberate and pre-meditated, the result of planning and scheming. Yes, I feel war is wrong, but the people of a country have a right to defend what is theirs. And don't anyone say that what's the point of fighting over a piece of greenery and dirt, aliken it to me coming into your flat and taking your favourite shirt, you wouldn't be happy. I know that, and I might contradict myself at this point, if push came to shove and Scotland (maybe even Britain) was invaded by anorak wearing Russians, I would defend it, I might think it was wrong, dumb, dangerous etc, but I'd still do it. I might not be very clear on my argument here (in fact I know I'm not...) and I do apologise for this in advance, but I'd be happy to attempt to clear any discrepancies up in future posts.
Which means I agree with you.
Humans are territorial. We are pack animals with guns and tanks. We will defend to the death what is ours, if we cant keep it we destroy it.
Name any other animal in the animal kingdom that won't put up a fight to defend it's habitat.
Umm, head lice...
[ 24-04-2002: Message edited by: TheKingOfGlasgow ]
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
you were onto a winner then...you just ruined it. you are hereby banished from the politics forum <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The military operations in Sierra Leone and Indonesia were peace keeping roles not wars! There was great economic and strategic importance though in Bosnia and Kosovo for a start there was a planned trans Balkan oil pipeline and also the west wanted to open up the former Yugolsavia to western style free market capitalism so that western firms could exploit there area. Western firms also gained from contracts for the rebuilding of Bosnia.
There are loads of indepth articles on all major conflicts here that show why capitalism was to blame.
Wars before capitalism were due to imperialism as I have explained before!!! Imperialismn is very similar to capitalism in that countries invade other countries inorder to gain wealth and to gain foriegn markets for their own goods! This was the reason for empire building and wars between countries over colonies.
Imperialism is the system that was around for thousands of years from the first civilisations and because it was based on economic competition like capitalism it led to wars!
As for wars between primitive tribes, those wars were over land which was used for hunting off.
This article explains indepth why capitalism creates war.
[ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]