Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are there Any Good Wars?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are all wars wicked? Some of you might be thinking that certainly there are exceptions, that some wars are so-called "good wars", such as WWII, and that those who wage such wars are motivated by decent and praiseworthy intentions? Well, let's just take a brief look at one of the historical characters who was responsible for waging the war to defeat the Nazis, ole Winnie Churchill.

Was Churchill really the champion of liberty and defender of the democratic way of life that he's conventionally made out to be? Hardly, he was a staunch believer in the British Empire, in the right of the British ruling class to dominate the masses under its dominion. No, he felt no great moral drive to dignify the people of India with their sovereignty and freedom, no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc. Churchill's real and driving concern was to protect British interests, and specifically, the interests of the British upper class. He and his country's power elite realized full well that if Hitler controlled Europe it would not exactly be good for business, to say the least.

Sorry to burst anyone's idealistic bubble, but Churchill and the fat cats of the Empire didn't decide to sacrifice the blood, sweat, and tears of their people to protect the victims of Nazi expansionism in Poland and Czechoslovakia. They didn't care about Polish liberty any more than they cared about Indian liberty. Once again, the ruling class was motivated to make war by its own self-interest, it just happened this time that they had a truly evil foe and so they came off looking noble. The ruling class always operates in a narcissistically self-interested fashion, and since they're the ones who get us into war it's always a certainty that our wars aren't initiated for the idealistic goals that are used to appease our consciences and fire up our fighting spirit. Wars are without exception evil affairs, and soldiers are always and invariably guilty of doing the bloody, dirty work of the rich & powerful when they participate in a war.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:32:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc.
Libertarianism is not concerned with "franchise" or "colonialism." It is concerned with "Has force been initiated here?" No amount of votes or nativity can justify such initiation, no amount of foreignness or autocracy can invalidate someone who limits themselves to retaliatory force.

And you're committing induction from a single case >_>
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 2:10:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wars are good for their own sake. Wars breed contentment with one's own community. People need war to come together and appreciate their fellow man. If there were no war, everyone would be a selfish prick moderator or homo. War is far more classless and asks alot less of the individual then "peace time"...

Wars also give jobs. Wars give men purpose. Be it medics, engineers, footsoldiers, whatever. Men of all sizes and creeds feel like they have a place in the world, and are appreciated for it.

War can be used as a moral ends, if the country we face is evil, then we have an obligation to destroy them at some point. Maybe not NOW, but eventually... However, I cannot say in good judgement any war we've been involved in was just in this regard. We were always the villain. Yes, even in world war two.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 2:17:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Wars are without exception evil affairs, and soldiers are always and invariably guilty of doing the bloody, dirty work of the rich & powerful when they participate in a war.

*Buzzzzt*

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Irish rebels fought for the rich capitalist elite?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 2:37:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 1:32:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc.
Libertarianism is not concerned with "franchise" or "colonialism." It is concerned with "Has force been initiated here?" No amount of votes or nativity can justify such initiation, no amount of foreignness or autocracy can invalidate someone who limits themselves to retaliatory force.

And you're committing induction from a single case >_>

Actually, in this instance, when I used the word "libertarian" I had the following definition from Webster's more in mind: "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty esp. of thought and action". I wasn't really taking a shot here at Libertarians with a capital L, at the adherents of the social-Darwinian ideology euphemistically called Libertarianism.

As for "committing induction from a single case", I simply chose to focus on everyone's favorite example (usually because it's about the only one most people can think of) of a supposedly "good war". I also give a general principle to explain why all wars are inherently unjust and immoral, i.e., that in truth societies only go to war when their ruling class deems it to be in its own selfish interest. Wars are always gang wars over turf and treasure, they're never noble crusades, not even WWII.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 2:56:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I like this charleslb fellow! He is a communist like me! I think he's a bit more liberal and would fall into the purviews of a Trotskist... but thats okay with me. I'm not maoistrebel or revleft, I don't hold anything against you for being maroon instead of crimson... lulz!

I sortof agree with you that most, if not all wars are imperialistic. But you say it like it's a bad thing. It's well worth it. If it brings a country together, and disrupts all that bourgoise attitude of class struggle, looking down on your fellow man, and living under wage slavery, then isn't it worth pitting nation, race, and religion against eachother?

I'm still researching the communist branches, but most say I'm a bolshevik.

Best song. Atleast for Stalinists... lololol
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 3:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 2:56:19 PM, JimProfit wrote:
I like this charleslb fellow! He is a communist like me! I think he's a bit more liberal and would fall into the purviews of a Trotskist... but thats okay with me. I'm not maoistrebel or revleft, I don't hold anything against you for being maroon instead of crimson... lulz!

I sortof agree with you that most, if not all wars are imperialistic. But you say it like it's a bad thing. It's well worth it. If it brings a country together, and disrupts all that bourgoise attitude of class struggle, looking down on your fellow man, and living under wage slavery, then isn't it worth pitting nation, race, and religion against eachother?

I'm still researching the communist branches, but most say I'm a bolshevik.



Best song. Atleast for Stalinists... lololol

I hope that you haven't suffered too many hardships under the occupation there in Bagdad, Kentucky.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
"Was Churchill really the champion of liberty and defender of the democratic way of life that he's conventionally made out to be? Hardly, he was a staunch believer in the British Empire, in the right of the British ruling class to dominate the masses under its dominion. No, he felt no great moral drive to dignify the people of India with their sovereignty and freedom, no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc. Churchill's real and driving concern was to protect British interests, and specifically, the interests of the British upper class. He and his country's power elite realized full well that if Hitler controlled Europe it would not exactly be good for business, to say the least."

Here you tell us why you think England entered the war, but what about all of the other countries in the allied forces? You know, the little countries. The United States(first and only country to use nuclear weapons), the USSR(modern day Russia), France,Canada, Belgium, etc. What about those countries? They weren't all threatened with losing an overwhelming empire. Canada wasn't even personally attacked, and there are conspiracy theories that the US government didn't give Pearl Harbor warning of the Japanese attack because they needed a reason to join the war. How do you explain countries other than England joining for imperialistic reasons?

I'd really love to see a reply to this.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 4:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 4:42:05 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
"Was Churchill really the champion of liberty and defender of the democratic way of life that he's conventionally made out to be? Hardly, he was a staunch believer in the British Empire, in the right of the British ruling class to dominate the masses under its dominion. No, he felt no great moral drive to dignify the people of India with their sovereignty and freedom, no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc. Churchill's real and driving concern was to protect British interests, and specifically, the interests of the British upper class. He and his country's power elite realized full well that if Hitler controlled Europe it would not exactly be good for business, to say the least."

Here you tell us why you think England entered the war, but what about all of the other countries in the allied forces? You know, the little countries. The United States(first and only country to use nuclear weapons), the USSR(modern day Russia), France,Canada, Belgium, etc. What about those countries? They weren't all threatened with losing an overwhelming empire. Canada wasn't even personally attacked, and there are conspiracy theories that the US government didn't give Pearl Harbor warning of the Japanese attack because they needed a reason to join the war. How do you explain countries other than England joining for imperialistic reasons?

I'd really love to see a reply to this.

Would it have been good for the interests of the business and political Establishment of the United States to let Hitler and Tojo dominate Europe and Asia? Isn't it really rather obvious that all the allies had their ulterior motives for taking Hitler on? As for Stalin, well, needless to say that he didn't fight back when invaded because he wanted to protect the blessings of freedom and socialism in mother Russia, throughout his political career the man was never motivated by anything except the desire to achieve, hold on to, and expand his power. Finally, if WWII was such a moral crusade to defeat the evil that Hitler represented then why was not a single finger lifted in the entire course of the conflict to put a crimp in the Nazi's ability to carry out the "Final Solution", why were there no RAF missions to bomb the train tracks to Auschwitz? Why no ops of any kind aimed at saving Holocaust victims? Could it be because stopping the Holocaust wasn't exactly one of the main objectives of the Allies? Could it possibly be that they were actually all fighting for their own selfish interests?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:01:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 4:38:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
WW2 was good...

Only its outcome, i.e., stopping the onslaught of Hitlers war machine and the mass murder that followed in its wake. But the actual motives for WWII were far less admirable.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:07:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 2:17:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Irish rebels fought for the rich capitalist elite?

My post is about the nature of wars fought by states, the "war" of the Irish rebels was a people's liberation movement, not a war waged by a state and initiated by its power elite for the defense and enhancement of its own selfish economic interests. Rather, it was fought against the ruling class of a large and powerful state.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:16:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
WW2 was good...

The only good that came out of it was the rapid progress in technology. World War 2 pretty much birthed everything we take for granteed today. But the badguys won world war two... The Nazis were the victims. They were a broken country, wracked with fear and panic of what tommorow would bring. It only makes sense that they'd project this imperialistic front and claim to be a super race, they needed that. That ethnic pride and ridiculousness was all they had left.

We didn't even care about the nazis, we attacked Japan because Japan refused to admit defeat. Japan figured the war ends when THEY say it ends, and we figured that was an oppurtunity to tryout our new toy. Our new toy that Einstien gave us because he wouldn't give to Germany. Thats the part of history people leave out. Albert Einstien was a traitor. He sold the secrets of the nuclear bomb to America instead of his homeland Germany. Unforgivvable. Science may transcend everyday politics, but that was his family, his life, his people... and he turned his back on them.

Ironically, he was the one Jew Hitler let get away. The only one who was actually everything he claimed in Mein Kamf they all were. Hitler was dellussional, and had alot of personal problems involving his health and the tragady of his wife's death, I think considering everything, Hitler was a goodguy. Maybe a bit misguided... but even when all hope is lost, he sought to regain Germany's pride, he built them up from poverty, and he moved scientific discovery forward. Hitler was a hero, Mussolini was a psychological genius, and Japan... ehhh... atleast they were on the right side... lol
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:17:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wars for self preservation are good
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:20:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You know you have good political philosophy when you rely on psychological arguments like "people will feel a certain way if you do X".
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 6:04:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 5:16:41 PM, JimProfit wrote:
WW2 was good...

The only good that came out of it was the rapid progress in technology. World War 2 pretty much birthed everything we take for granteed today. But the badguys won world war two... The Nazis were the victims.

LOL. k lets hear it...

They were a broken country, wracked with fear and panic of what tommorow would bring. It only makes sense that they'd project this imperialistic front and claim to be a super race, they needed that. That ethnic pride and ridiculousness was all they had left.

so because they were wracked with debt and high unemployment they were justified in the invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia, the random killing of civilians and oh yeah, the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews. Right, the Nazis were the real victims...

We didn't even care about the nazis, we attacked Japan because Japan refused to admit defeat. Japan figured the war ends when THEY say it ends, and we figured that was an oppurtunity to tryout our new toy. Our new toy that Einstien gave us because he wouldn't give to Germany.

Einstein may have done a lot of the pioneering work in nuclear fission, but he was only a tiny part of the Manhattan Project and wasn't really important in making the bomb a practical reality.

Thats the part of history people leave out. Albert Einstien was a traitor. He sold the secrets of the nuclear bomb to America instead of his homeland Germany.

He didn't sell anything. He moved to the US in 1933 just as the Nazis came to power and became a US citizen in 1940.

Unforgivvable. Science may transcend everyday politics, but that was his family, his life, his people... and he turned his back on them.

He was also Jewish (though non-practicing) which meant he would have been targeted for death by "his people". His works were destroyed in the Nazi book burnings and he was even on a Nazi assassination list as a "Jewish Intellectual". Why the fvck would he have wanted to help them?

Ironically, he was the one Jew Hitler let get away. The only one who was actually everything he claimed in Mein Kamf they all were.

meaning what exactly?

Hitler was dellussional, and had alot of personal problems involving his health and the tragady of his wife's death,

You mean Eva Braun? The one that committed suicide with him once the war was already lost? So thaats why he burned all those Jews...

I think considering everything, Hitler was a goodguy. Maybe a bit misguided... but even when all hope is lost, he sought to regain Germany's pride, he built them up from poverty, and he moved scientific discovery forward. Hitler was a hero, Mussolini was a psychological genius, and Japan... ehhh... atleast they were on the right side... lol

I really do hope you're joking... I can't quite tell.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 6:46:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 2:37:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:32:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
no libertarian imperative to enfranchise the victims of colonialism in Africa, etc.
Libertarianism is not concerned with "franchise" or "colonialism." It is concerned with "Has force been initiated here?" No amount of votes or nativity can justify such initiation, no amount of foreignness or autocracy can invalidate someone who limits themselves to retaliatory force.

And you're committing induction from a single case >_>

Actually, in this instance, when I used the word "libertarian" I had the following definition from Webster's more in mind: "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty esp. of thought and action". I wasn't really taking a shot here at Libertarians with a capital , at the adherents of the social-Darwinian ideology euphemistically called Libertarianism.
Ideology is lower case l. Capital L is party.
Key word is individual in that definition you brought in. And Social Darwinism is a concern of a minor number of libertarians.


As for "committing induction from a single case", I simply chose to focus on everyone's favorite example (usually because it's about the only one most people can think of) of a supposedly "good war". I also give a general principle to explain why all wars are inherently unjust and immoral, i.e., that in truth societies only go to war when their ruling class deems it to be in its own selfish interest.

That is not an argument sufficient to your purpose. Selfishness is not a magic wand that makes things bad. Indeed, things can only be good for a self.

Wars are always gang wars over turf and treasure, they're never noble crusades, not even WWII.
Incidentally, how then do you intend to wage war on the bourgeious?
And no, "turf and treasure" are not always the motives of war. WWII expended treasure and gained no turf for one thing.

Also, Churchill's motives are not the sole determinant of waging WWII. It takes a coalition to do that sort of thing. Other people with different motives were involved.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:10:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:28:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:25:53 PM, belle wrote:
...for god and country?

Why would either be good?
God might not even exist, and countries are just imaginary lines
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:29:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:28:00 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:25:53 PM, belle wrote:
...for god and country?

Why would either be good?
God might not even exist, and countries are just imaginary lines

Actually, most countries are separated by ethnic boundaries so it's not entirely imaginary.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:47:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Besides the fact that nothing can be proven to be "right" "wrong" "good" or "bad", most wars are bad. WWII contrary to popular belief was unnecessary. They ways war was fought and still is is really nonsensical. Instead of assassinating the leader with some deadly special forces mission, you waste millions of troops just to move a few hundred miles. And today, we have TANKS in afghanistan....TANKS! A terrorist in a cave with a sniper rifle will not be killed by a TANK! Get a special forces team to raid their big daddy cave and its all over.

BUT I am still very anti-war. War is a tool, not a toy that should be used only in the worst of circumstances, and only if it is a direct, PROVEN threat to the safety of people. The perfect country would have no wars and would have a spotless defense system capable of withstanding any attack, it could have anti-ICBM defenses, anti ship, anti air etc. If we devoted as much money as we did to the war to ANTI Nuke weapons we would have no troubles.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:50:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:28:00 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:25:53 PM, belle wrote:
...for god and country?

Why would either be good?
God might not even exist, and countries are just imaginary lines

naw, i was saying something i thought was manifestly untrue. for some reason the topic reminded me of the smashing pumpkins song....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:51:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:29:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:28:00 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:25:53 PM, belle wrote:
...for god and country?

Why would either be good?
God might not even exist, and countries are just imaginary lines

Actually, most countries are separated by ethnic boundaries so it's not entirely imaginary.

No that would be natural, and naturally you wouldn't want to be around anyone thats different, unless it was to gain something (traveling to get spices, different kinds of meat, different types of clothing, more money etc) there really is no need for boundaries. What are the differences of the US and Canada? The US sperated in war, Canada stayed and became independant without war, and kept ties with britain, a few laws are different such as 2nd amendment doesn't exist in Canada, but you wouldn't really tell any difference if you crossed that imaginary line, especially since its an open border (I think it still is, might not be now with all those islamic canadian terrorists or whatever they might be hiding THIS cat http://www.funnyreign.com...)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:53:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:50:33 PM, belle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:28:00 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:25:53 PM, belle wrote:
...for god and country?

Why would either be good?
God might not even exist, and countries are just imaginary lines

naw, i was saying something i thought was manifestly untrue. for some reason the topic reminded me of the smashing pumpkins song....



Oh okay xD, I know people really do believe that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 5:01:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 4:38:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
WW2 was good...

Only its outcome, i.e., stopping the onslaught of Hitlers war machine and the mass murder that followed in its wake. But the actual motives for WWII were far less admirable.

Poland's motive was pretty admirable I'd say. Though the greedy in Poland's elite ruling class just wanted to keep the country to themselves i know.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:16:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 2:17:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Wars are without exception evil affairs, and soldiers are always and invariably guilty of doing the bloody, dirty work of the rich & powerful when they participate in a war.

*Buzzzzt*

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Irish rebels fought for the rich capitalist elite?

You could probably make a case that they fought for the financial interests of the Irish middle class. I don't know enought about the matter to say, but if you extrapolate from most wars it generally comes down to the interests of a group of elites.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 7:16:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:16:44 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/9/2010 2:17:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Wars are without exception evil affairs, and soldiers are always and invariably guilty of doing the bloody, dirty work of the rich & powerful when they participate in a war.

*Buzzzzt*

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Irish rebels fought for the rich capitalist elite?

You could probably make a case that they fought for the financial interests of the Irish middle class. I don't know enought about the matter to say, but if you extrapolate from most wars it generally comes down to the interests of a group of elites.

Not everyone who fights for something is motivated by selfish economic motives, it's merely my argument that it's a good rule of thumb to judge the ruling class by, i.e., that they only commit us to war when they stand to benefit in some way.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2010 1:48:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 7:16:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:16:44 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/9/2010 2:17:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:21:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Wars are without exception evil affairs, and soldiers are always and invariably guilty of doing the bloody, dirty work of the rich & powerful when they participate in a war.

*Buzzzzt*

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Irish rebels fought for the rich capitalist elite?

You could probably make a case that they fought for the financial interests of the Irish middle class. I don't know enought about the matter to say, but if you extrapolate from most wars it generally comes down to the interests of a group of elites.

Not everyone who fights for something is motivated by selfish economic motives, it's merely my argument that it's a good rule of thumb to judge the ruling class by, i.e., that they only commit us to war when they stand to benefit in some way.

Which is exactly what I said.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2010 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 5:01:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 4:38:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
WW2 was good...

Only its outcome, i.e., stopping the onslaught of Hitlers war machine and the mass murder that followed in its wake. But the actual motives for WWII were far less admirable.

It did well for the economy.