Thread: Is there ever a justification for war / military action?

No food -> diminished populace -> low production of goods and food -> less wealth -> less reserve -> further social collapse -> total economic collapse -> forced search for resources through war, or merging with a stronger economy as a dependent client state.

Result = end of independent state.

Originally Posted by ENT

No food -> diminished populace -> low production of goods and food -> less wealth -> less reserve -> further social collapse -> total economic collapse -> forced search for resources through war, or merging with a stronger economy as a dependent client state.

Result = end of independent state.

Oh dear! Looks like the end.

Yet, there is a perfect resolution.

A purposeful and systematic mass extermination of those whom consume, waste, and wage war the most.

Problem solved.

That's been tried before, it didn't work.

The answer is in non-competition.

Seems like many of you can't accept the fact we're animals. Since we're living a life style outside our genetic coding how could we not have relapses? We are predisposed to be hunters and gatherers yet we pride ourselves in our restraint to do what we were meant to do.

The battle between the Id, Ego and Super Ego. Freud had it right on that account.

Originally Posted by ENT

That's been tried before, it didn't work.

Refresh me....when did these activities take place?

Originally Posted by Camel Toe

Seems like many of you can't accept the fact we're animals. Since we're living a life style outside our genetic coding how could we not have relapses? We are predisposed to be hunters and gatherers yet we pride ourselves in our restraint to do what we were meant to do.

The battle between the Id, Ego and Super Ego. Freud had it right on that account.

Freud was a narrow Eurocentric charlatan.
Worthless towards any competent reference.

^^French and Russian revolutions.

Originally Posted by ENT

^^French and Russian revolutions.

Historiographical short comings.
Just as I suspected..

Mai phen lai.

^

Chinese cultural revolution, Cambodian genocide, Stalin.


Every time a new power with a new idea get in charge they seek to wipe out the old/competing idea. A systematic, mass extermination of those who may object.

The humans are just the carriers, the idea is the infection.

Double edged sword, to be sure.

I guess it depends which edge you choose to use.

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"

And when we eliminate politics, war will also fade away.

What you don't know about Freud is that after 80 years of Masters and PhD candidates ripping him to shreds two of his contributions survived .. oral/anal types and Id/Ego/super Ego. Of course there are still plenty of folks on here who still believe Nixon was innocent of all charges, the war on Iraq wasn't about oil and the GOP has a chance at the presidency.

Speaking of which, A Dangerous Method looks like a good film for anyone who ever imagined themselves back with Sigmund and Karl at the beginning of it all.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Speaking of which, A Dangerous Method looks like a good film for anyone who ever imagined themselves back with Sigmund and Karl at the beginning of it all.

The beginning? Of what?

Originally Posted by mao say dung

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"

And when we eliminate politics, war will also fade away.

Always the pseudo intellectual. Aren't you ever off the clock? Will you ever learn to express yourself like a human and without the aid of your Thesaurus?

^Aw shucks. And just when I thought I'd caught the tone of all the pseudo-pompous one-liners that preceded mine.

Ajarn forum crossover has polluted the thread.


Chi, if you're shagging a mod, now would be a good time to call in a favour.

I think that while there can be justification for war, in practise the case for war in recent history has been routinely (and often dishonestly) oversold in the US by interested parties, whether this exaggerated 'interest' is based on ideological or more venal considerations. Whilst it would be nice to postulate a world in which everyone beats their proverbial swords into ploughshares, my answers are more routine, and less idealistic. I think that the decision to declare war on a foreign country, or in a foreign country, should be subject to much higher scrutiny, public consultation and accountability than is the case now.

If I were a businessman that sold a new product development to my Board, but it cost over sixty times what I budgeted, and did not make money, I would rightfully pay with my head. Likewise a Politician, who dishonestly oversold a policy to a gullible public. Yet in the last decade, we have had this happen with Iraq- and the question, if ever asked, is just shrugged off. Those that sold these outright lies and gross exaggerations are not even being asked- Why? Your figures were based on what? Your 'welcome us with flowers' spiel was based on what? etc. Yet this was a trillion dollar lie- and some of the most aggressive salespeople had a vested financial interest in the decision. Win or lose, the likes of Halliburton win big time off war. Dick Cheney and others should be in Jail.

^Point being, though, that whoever has the power to decide to go to war in a given state may tip their hat in the general direction of rationalization because people need to be motivated to pay for it or die in it, but it's not real.

Politics and business are very different fields of human endeavour, no matter how connected they may be.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Politics and business are very different fields of human endeavour

They are, but that is not tantamount to saying a businessman can be held accountable for his claims- but a politician can not be. Actually, a politicians or political insiders false or exaggerated claims can be far, far more damaging than a business executives. As was the case with Iraq. Even ignoring the human cost, and the massive destruction wreaked on Iraq, the plain fact is the cost of the Iraqi misadventure is over one trillion dollars more than the Bush administration stated- over sixty times more than the original stated budget. Is it not fair to ask for an explanation? In the case of Afghaisrtan, we were told we were going there to unseat the Taliban and install a more 'friendly' government. Ten years, and untold billions later, we are still there- and very obviously not 'winning' anything. Is it not fair to ask why?

Originally Posted by sabang

oversold in the US by interested parties

If it was only the US who took this route one could have doubts regarding there sanity. Unfortunately other smaller countries join the club and set a trend.

Of course it's fair to ask why. It's not wise to expect an honest answer, though.

Imagine:

"We needed to send a wake-up call to the "governments" and people of that region to remind them what kind of death and destruction we can actually rain down on their heads if we so wish. People around the world seem to be forgetting what actually happened in, say, Vietnam, preferring instead to remember that the USA lost the war. Think Caesar in Gaul when a tribe refused to enter the tribute system.

We needed to establish more and bigger forward bases in the general region.

None of our allies really care about Iraq, some of them actively hate Hussein. Let's give them a show.

We needed to ensure that that particular source of oil remains solidly within our sphere and more importantly to demonstrate what we can and will do to recalcitrant suppliers in the general region.

We wanted to pay back political friends and contributors with contracts for all kinds of shit.

We need to work on some of the finer points of how military operations and occupations are going to operate in the new amalgam of private security and public military.

We need to remind the Chinese just how far they have to go before they start throwing any real weight around. The Russians need a taste as well.

Etc... etc... etc...

Bottom line: we are the global hegemon and this is the sort of thing hegemons do. We have to consider our rep."

Suddenly the so-called left has nothing to say, because all the so-called left does any more is trumpet out the "real" reasons behind a given war and go on about brainwashing. So that's that for the left.

The right won't be able to spoot false patriotism and moral rationalizations as a way of defining what a "real" American is, so they are out of a lot of business.

Truth in war might attenuate domestic politics for a generation. Can't have that. Wither democracy?

Bottom line: we are the global hegemon

No, you are a Canadian, insignificant blowhard. The mouse that roared. Mexico City is more a force than your entire country. They got some hot babes too .. Oh, and yummy food.

Chickens and Countries both participate in the pecking order.


When one chicken tries to get above it's station, the other higher chickens peck it down.