Will People EVER Be Enthusiastic About War Again?

Great Debates
41

So to recapitulate:

  1. Every other nation besides the US forms a danger to the USA when it has or developpes WMD.
  2. The USA, which has enough WMD to blow this planet into oblivion tens of times in a row, does have the right to have and further develop such WMD which it uses to threaten all other nations on this globe.
  3. That doesn’t represent for you a “Clear and Present danger to ALL our sanity” because the US is in fact the only nation that ever used nuclear weapons to destroy two cities in Japan. Plus the USA did talk about using WMD on Iraq. Plus the USA did make it clear that there is talk and plan to encourage further development of so called “mini-nukes” to hold ready to deploy on other nations.

To you the rest of the world forms a threat to your safety, but the US with the capacity to elect lunatic fanatics as president who can command the use of its WMD on the rest of the world, forms not threat at all to the rest of the world.

OK.
I see your reasoning. However I think you shall permit me to say that it contains at the very least a few obvious flaws.

By the way:
If Belgium ever starts thinking of developing a nuclear weapon I guess it shall be because the rest of the world does, with the US in the lead, no?
Yet I trust on the sanity of mind of Belgian politicians now and in the future to avoid even leaning towards such way of thinking.
In my opinion one can’t say that US politicians posess the same mental sanity.

Tons and tons of WMD + fanatical lunatics who are able to be voted into White House and government is not enough reason to the development of that stubborn idea in the rest of the world that the USA forms a threat to world peace and to the globe itself?

If it can enlighten you: in fact it is.

So maybe you can press your government to clean up their own stockpiles of WMD if you think that the presence of such weapons on this globe represent a “Clear and Present danger to ALL our sanity” ?

If you start doing and promoting that, you might gain some credibility.
Salaam. A

42

XT,

I overlooked your insistence of calling me Master.
It breaks my heart but I must let you know that by doing so you gravely insult other people who understandably have objections to it that a US’er would come on the same level.
Whenever you are ready to drop your nationality, just let me know and things can be arranged for you to your satisfaction.
Salaam. A

43

It’s known there is a “war buff” gene but it hasn’t been located yet on the DNA chain.

At 20, it’s almost always recessive but becomes less so with age. It’s also known that the gene can become dominant in many individuals once they reach 60 or 70, particularly if they happen to have been elected to high government positions.

44

Erm… yeah. Thanks for the catch, I blame spanish class and constantly refering to DC as republica dominica… However:

“moving up”? sounds like tourist board for conquered. Also, as a part of the UK, Dominica technically fought in both WW1 and WW2.

C

45

Go back and re-read it again Aldebaran. I’ll give you a hint. I wasn’t talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was talking about Weapons of Mass ALDEBARAN. For the humor impaired, this was a joke. And I’ll call you Master if I want to call you Master…to me, you ARE the Master of double talk and the screed. If its an insult to ‘others’…well, they can always tell me about it themselves and I’ll take that into account. :slight_smile:

As for Ale…if you want to maintain that you didn’t say what it was fairly clear you WERE saying, thats fine by me. No need to get insulting about it. Was there a reason you chose to go the insults path? I didn’t insult YOU after all. I’m just curious as to your rational there.

Since I’m obviously dense and stupid (and can’t do math, whatever the hell THAT means), why don’t you lay out your position then? Its obvious you either didn’t say it or have backed off the “Well some countries don’t believe in war” thing when asked about the issue from a historical perspective…so what exactly ARE you saying? That some countries right NOW happen to not have militaries? And this proves…what? That for a short period of time…years, maybe even decades…that a few countries can decide not to have a military and get away with it? And? How does this disprove what noone special was saying that you disagreed with?? It doesn’t preclude them from NEVER having a military again…or from ever needing one for that matter.

You are, of course, aware that the US went through great periods of time where their military was pretty much a joke, right? Where our military budget was basically nothing? For most of the 19th century and even the early 20th century (excluding the civil war) the US military was definitely minimal. Yet no one could make that claim about the US military today, no? Things change…but war is something that seems to periodically rear its ugly head no matter what your good intentions are.

-XT

46

Aldebaran, I generally agree with your point of view, but feel very frustrated at your inability to argue it coherently. I wish you could get the point across without all the gratuitous insults and attitude. Without it always being about Aldebaran. I wish the Muslim view of things had a better representative. You showed promise with all your learning and intelligence, but your style of arguing consisently disappoints. I never spoke up about this before, but really, you have to admit your argument in this thread fell flat on its face as soon as it began. It’s distressing to see someone who knows better spew such ignorance. If I knew you to be just an ignorant clod, like some other posters, it would be easy to dismiss you or ignore you. But I know that you know better, which makes your ignorant post inexcusable. It gives me pain to see the Muslim point of view so ill-served by you. I want the Muslims to be understood by Americans, but most of the time you’re not helping.

It’s time you face the fact that you really do have an anti-American attitude problem. This makes it harder for those of us trying to present serious criticisms of U.S. government policy. The jingoists seize on attitudes like yours to tar all criticisms with the brush of “anti-Americanism,” which is ridiculous. It’s as ridiculous as saying all criticism of Sharon’s policies are “anti-Semitic.” But when you inject actual anti-American attitudes, as in your post here, that just muddies the real issues.

Everyone else, I’m sorry for continuing the hijack. I see a genuine overall and permanent revulsion against war taking hold worldwide. But the old war-glorifying attitude is still clung to by some diehards. I think their mindset is slowly dying out, but much too slowly. How many more thousands of senseless deaths do humans have to inflict on each other before the warmongers get a clue? Why the hell would anyone in their right mind get jollies from war, unless they’re arms manufacturers and profiteers?

47

No, I am afraid the human race seems to learn nothing when it comes to changing basic instincts like war.

Never seen Black Hawk Down but my take on a good war/anti-war book is “Dispatches” by Michael Kerr. IIRC there is a quote on the back along the lines that “MK have travelled to the limit of blah blah blah…and come back with the worst possible news. War still thrives because men love it so.”

And BTW Aldebaran, read well what Jomo Mojo says. I could not have put it better myself. If fact if you recall I tried to say similar some months ago but was not so good at it. You have some valid viewpoints but some of issues which hide them.

48

I see other posted about the images.

In my view, when looking at them, they are printed and next hand coloured but it isn’t possible to be sure of that when only having a scanned picture.
And even if so, the colouring can also be added at a much later date. Taking in account the brightness of the colours -especially the red - and the inaccuracy I would even think that must be the case and done by an amateur.

But one simply can’t say much if the document is not directly in front of you.
Salaam. A

49

Sorry for the post above, it belongs on a thread in GQ. If a moderator would be so kind to delete these two? Thank you.

50

Whoa!, hold it right there!, what insult? you said:

“The answer of course is, they can afford to have no military (which is a huge economic benifit)”

Correct if my interpretation is wrong, but I read that as:

A) Having a military is an economic benefit
B) Some countries can afford to NOT have a military

Now, I don´t know you, but by and large militaries are great budget suckers.
Either you made a mistake typing that sentence or you did intend it to say so; and saying that your argument goes astray of any logic is not much of an insult in my book. I could have said instead “that doesn´t make sense”, if that is more palatable to you.
As for the rest, and I´ll try to make it as clear as possible, what I meant to say, since my first post in this thread is that some societies are more inclined towards militarism in different grades. Some are right out beligerant while others are plainly pacifist, on averge, of course. I don´t like absolutisms.
Besides, societies are usually dinamic; there are evolutionary changes on their morals, ethics and whatnot. I pointed you to some countries that took a step towards de-militarism; I´ve never ever said that such countries were since always like they are structured now, and I think is the third time I point that.

51

Correcting as requested. :slight_smile: What I MEANT to say (and thought I HAD said) was that, having no military is a huge economic benifit to any nation. Imagine what the US would be like if they had zero military budget! Thats what it was like in the US for much of the 19th century and early 20th century, and is one of the big reasons we were a military pygmy but and economic giant. A great deal of Europes present prosperity IMO comes from their de-emphasis of things military atm…which they can do because of those crazy Americans who insist on pouring vast resources into THEIR military (again, IMO).

I’m really not sure how you interpereted the above to mean that having no military was bad for the economy to be honest, but I’ll conceed my statement could have been clearer and leave it at that.

As to the rest of what you say…well, I don’t know anyone is denying any of that. Ya, societies change, and go through restructuring. Ya, societies go through periods of war like behavior, pacifism, etc…and tend to cycle back around, depending on circumstances (like, oh, being invaded or threatened by an outside power). This happens fairly frequently, if you look at the long term. Pick a country, any country and follow its history. I’ve used the US a lot because I know a bit about US history…but its valid for any nation I know of.

The point of this OP was, will humans in the forseeable future give up on the idea of war as being glamourous, noble, honorable, etc etc? I’m not seeing how a country thats CURRENTLY pacifist (or simply de-emphasizes a military) proves this point one way or the other.

My answer was…I’m not seeing it. Certainly today, just this moment, peace has generally (but far from universally) broken out and war mania or whatever is at a low world wide. Many of the major powers have a stake in keeping the peace (generally…note Iraq for a counter example to this), and this allows many of the smaller, and even some of the larger powers to (wisely, at least from an economic perspective) ignore having a substantial military.

But this trend has happened before in our history, and generally after a few generations (and throw in some nationalism and national rivalry) I think its safe to say that humans will once again cycle through thinking of war as all that bullshit its cracked up to be again. Its part of our very nature IMO…conflict that is. Also, if folks are right about this Peak Oil thing, then we are bound to see some major movement on this front as resources get scarce and the major powers begin more vigorously competeing for the available oil.
-XT

52

First, it is *República Dominicana * (Dominican Republic in English); nothing to do with Dominica.

Now on to the OP.
It is nice and dandy to fantasize that we could survive long-term without a military, but it could only work with trust, and I don’t see us suddenly blindingly trusting our fellow humans. It is not like we (humans) can’t be back-stabbing bastards at times. Ignoring peace-treaties is no biggie for us.

There have been societies that had no inclination (or use) for war. The Tainos (native inhabitants of what is today Dominican Rep. and Haiti) were like that, they didn’t even have a word for war. That didn’t help much, less than a hundred years after the arrival of Spaniards there were none left. So much for Utopia.

People might eventually dislike war enough to avoid it, but I entertain not such hopes.

53

I do not believe in using utilitarian calculations for deciding who lives and who dies. OTOH, if you are faced with a situation where the status quo is a huge number of deaths, what should be done?

Saddam was using food as a weapon to starve his people. He wanted the sanctions lifted. Had the sanctions been lifted with Saddam in power, the potential death toll is heard to estimate.

Then you factor in the systematic torture. Would it have gone up or down over the average had he remained in power under the sanctions? Without? Would he have invaded neighbors, or fired ballistic missiles (“provoking”-understatement) again? I can’t be sure. There was no way to help the Iraqi people with Saddam in power.

I’m glad that few people are enthusiastic about war. That will always be a healthy sign.

Just for example, I’ve been debating North Korea. To “free” North Korea might cost millions of lives. That place is like a volcano. As many people as Kim Jong Il murders, millions, a war would likely kill more people than that – in a short period of time.

The Iraq War OTOH, historically speaking, if we can actually get out in a few months, fingers crossed, might turn out to be one of the least bloody major wars in history (as usual, excluding al Qaeda). I’m not selling war generally --or making any predictions.

It is hard for me not to feel pride in the poor soldiers that must die over there to allow the Iraqis to govern themselves. I’m sickened every time I see a huge blast that wipes out Iraqis trying to build a government. Wars of conquest, ancient war, “kill the men, enslave the women and children, sew the ground with salt” is not the reality of US mission planning. Al Qaeda planning, OTOH…

54

Your constant pleas for cultural sensitivity will have little effect, if you continue to intentionally use the term “US’er” to describe Americans. The term, “American”, is not some sort of cultural domination that you need fight. Just as you wouldn’t call an Mexican, a “US’er” (United States of Mexico), or call a British citizen, a “UK’er” (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), or call an Afghani, a “IR’er” (Islamic Republic of Afghanistan), it is inapproriate to call an American, a "US’er’.

55
  1. I don’t “plea” for anything.
    I simpley provide XT with cultural info. As far as I know, XT has nothing against it to become informed about other cultures.
  2. Everyone around here knows by now why I write US’er since that is explained alraedy several times. (I could also shortwrite Am’s which is even much much easier for me but I had the feeling that people wouldn’t like that.)
    Salaam. A
56

Not at all, since I don’t see where it “fell flat on its face”, let be as soon as it began.
The rest of your post to me is not something I want to go into because of the hijack it would bring to this thread.
One thing I must correct immediately though, since you make it look otherwise:

I do not claim to “represent the Muslim point of view” on issues that are not related with Islam. I wouldn’t even know how this could be the case.

I bring my point of view. I don’t see what my religoin has to do with that.

If I ever bring “the Muslim point of view” then it is only on issues that have a connection with Islam or that are related to Islam. As far as I don’t bring my view on them as historian, which can make quite a difference.

Of course you have good intentions with your remarks, so maybe we can discuss them elswhere to come an understanding of views.
Salaam. A

57

OK… But maybe you could shorten it to WeMad ?

The “others” don’t read English so that solution is out of the question.
Why you want to follow a master that brings your sanity in danger goes beyond my comprehension. The more since I let you free to escape.
Oh well… OK then if it makes you happy, but don’t come with complaints when you end up in the madhouse XT. However, since you show such true loyalty I am prepared to pay the bill.

Salaam. A

58

lol, Aldebaran. You may be a flaming US hater, but you are always good for a smile or a laugh. I have to give you that. WeMAd it is!

As to the sanity thing…well, my wife already thinks I’m around the bend, and her’s and my childrens opinions are the only ones that count. :wink:

I guess the government DIDN’T hunt you down in Belgum and throw pies at you??? To me, this proves there is no god as I said in the Is there a god? thread. :smiley:

Salaam to you also,
XT

59

Calling USers bloodthirsty is a bit of a stretch. My pappy’s pappy was gassed and shelled in the GREAT WAR TO END ALL WARS, and my pappy was captured in the next big one. Belgium: shortcut to France. Eban-Emal Eggshell Enamel (If I ever start an Easter egg dying company)

Most Americans are “pro-war” when we are fighting one. Ending the damn thing with a victory is better than letting it drag on for years. Which, of course, is the terrorists’ strategy…

60

?

For your information: My mother was Flemish = That was her first language. French was her second. It was the first language of her mother though.

You do know Belgium has 3 national languages, do you?

Salaam. A