and the common denominator? ... poor countries held hostage by world powers ... if there was a classic example of people preying on complex histories - this is it ...
who do you thnk funds these wars?
the common denominator is greed or a sense of superiority by a group of people in those countries.
Canada
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
out of 193 UN countries. That was 66 back then, some of which have split or renamed. My point is, is that most of those countries have been at war since then. Here's a list of the wars / conflicts in Africa since 1945. MOst of these countries weren't included in the WW2 list. If you think all countries want peace except for the US, iraq, israel you are gravely mistaken. I'll concede that some countries do want peace and can live in peace...but they are the exception NOT the rule.
wars and armed conflicts since 1945 - AFRICA
x ALGERIA 1954-1962 war of independence
1992- civil war and civilian unrest
x ANGOLA 1961-1975 war of independence
1975- 2002 civil war, power struggle for natural resources
x BURUNDI 1972 massacre
1988- ethnic conflict continuing despite peace process
CAMEROON 1955-1960 war of independence
CHAD 1980-1987, 1990-1995 civil war and factional struggles
x CONGO-Brazzaville 1993-1995, 1997- ethnic violence and
aftermath
x CONGO DR 1960 - 65 political and ethnic violence
1998 - civil war, some moves towards peace
DJIBUTI 1991 regional civil war
x ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
x ETHIOPIA 1998-2002 interstate war
ETHIOPIA and ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
GHANA 1981, 1994 ethnic disputes
GUINEA-BISSAU 1962-1974 war of independence
1998-1999 civil war and aftermath
IVORY COAST 2002 civil war
KENYA 1952-1963 war of independence
1990- ethnic violence
LIBERIA 1985-1988 coup reprisal killings
1990-1996 civil war and aftermath
2000- rebel insurgency and cross-border conflicts
LIBYA 1996 civil war
MADAGASCAR 1947-1948 war of independence
MALI 1990-1995 regional civil war
MOROCCO 1953-1956 war of independence
MOZAMBIQUE 1965-1975 war of independence
1981-1992 famine and civil war
x NAMIBIA
NIGER 1991- regional civil war
x NIGERIA 1997 - recurrent ethnic, religious and political conflict
x RWANDA 1956-1965, 1992,
ethnic conflict and aftermath
1994-1995 ethnic conflict and aftermath
x SENEGAL 1960-2001 separatist conflict
x SIERRA LEONE 1991-1996, 1997- 2001 civil war and aftermath
x SOMALIA 1988- civil war and factional struggles
SOUTH AFRICA 1976 civilian uprising
1983-1994 political violence
SUDAN 1963-1972, 1984 - civil war
TOGO 1991
TUNISIA 1952-1954 war of independence
x UGANDA 1966 ethnic unrest
1971-1979 brutal dictatorship
1981-1987 civil war
1990- rebel/ethnic violence
WESTERN SAHARA 1975-87 unresolved war of independence
ZAMBIA 1964 ethnic and political conflict
ZIMBABWE 1972-1979 political conflict
1983 - 1984 political and ethnic violence
who do you suppose supplied the weapons in the majority of these conflicts? go ahead and take a wild guess
who do you suppose supplied the weapons in the majority of these conflicts? go ahead and take a wild guess
i already guessed canada...but i guess that's not right...this below address the inflow of arms since 1994
Weapons flows to Africa come from a variety of different sources - licit and illicit - and through a wide variety of different means. For most of the Cold War period, the patterns of arms transfers was from the superpowers to African allies fighting in proxy wars. After 1990 the pattern changed, with the former Warsaw Pact countries becoming the major source of weapons entering Africa. As these countries reduced their arsenals, and in some cases upgraded stocks for NATO membership, large supplies of surplus military equipment became available for sale to developing countries, including Africa. Economic hardship in Central and Eastern Europe, the lack of effective arms export legislation and poor law enforcement capacity has also facilitated this trade.
More recently, the main source of arms to Africa has shifted further east, with Belarus, China, Moldova and Ukraine becoming large-scale suppliers. Moldavia is a particular concern because of the enormously insecure arsenal of arms in the TransDniestra region.
Of the G8 countries, Russia is the main supplier of Arms to Africa. Over the last decade it has supplied significant quantities of equipment to Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Angola. President' Bush's self declared 'war on terror' has introduced a new dimension into weapons transfers in the region, with the US providing increasing levels of military assistance to countries in North, West and Eastern Africa, despite poor human rights records in some of these countries.
The UK exports relatively little military equipment to Africa (excluding South Africa), but a number of recent licensing decisions give cause for concern. This includes equipment licensed for export to Angola, Cote D'Ivorie, Ghana, Namibia and Nigeria.
Many of the arms fuelling conflict within Africa comes from within the regions. Large quantities of weapons are recycled from conflict to conflict moving across the continent's porous borders. One source of arms is the diversion or quick resale of arms imported by one African country and then re-supplied to another: for example, arms from Iran diverted via Guinea to Liberian rebels. Governments also supply other governments and rebel groups from their existing stocks." http://www.arcuk.org/pages/apology-9m-deaths.htm
who do you suppose supplied the weapons in the majority of these conflicts? go ahead and take a wild guess
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
the thread has quickly grown to back and forth bickering between each other... arguing over african wars, justified reasons for war, who fought in WW2 (paraguay? costa rica?), who supplied hezbollah (we know who supplied israel to the teeth)... and so forth... this is exactly what the elite and wealthy prefer... me and you arguing, while they stuff their pockets WITH OUR FUCKING MONEY! they could care less about the justification of war, they could care less about civialian casualties, they could care less about democracy (actually deathly afraid of it), ALL THEY WANT IS MORE OF OUR FUCKING MONEY... war is the biggest business on this planet, and my country represents this trend to the fullest... we spend the most, we "lend" the most, we export the most, and we USE IT the most... we have 400 military installations in FOREIGN COUNTRIES... there is only approx 200 nations TOTAL... we have more foreign bases then there are countries? and this all takes OUR money to do it... and our semi-consent (not really, we seem to only need the slightest provocation to let loose the hounds of war, then once it has started we seem to be nearly powerless to stop it)
STOP THE BITCHING AT EACH OTHER AND FOCUS ON THE REAL PROBLEM
before it is too late for all of us (dont think for a second that is over-dramatic)
~~ "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."~~
agree 100%. War is profitable, it helped us come out of the depression. I'm not saying that justifies war, but people are making money off of war and always will. I don't think the motive behind war is making money, but it certainly is a side effect you won't hear the gov't complain about.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
Yeah we get it. War is always "supposedly" going to be there. You don't think that if you actually had to fight somebody then stand 300yrds away and pull a trigger that they would start for no reason other than an instilled greed. If America had to go into every country they have been in for whatever justification you people seem fit and actually had to fight the people instead of bombing or shooting, you wouldn't be in 99% of the places you are or have been.
So to your question. I don't think 3/4 of the wars would be waged if they didn't have the satisfaction of hiding and killing.
I do find if funny that the Yanks defend war to the end. May be a problem with the way you are raised. Hate, war, hate, war, they are out to get me. A sad truth that you just can't accept.
the common denominator is greed or a sense of superiority by a group of people in those countries.
Canada
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
the issue isn't whether or not there would be wars without guns ... the question is whether or not a gazillion dollar industry can accept a world in peace ... and if not - what are they prepared to do to ensure there is no peace ...
wars need triggers - the difference between mass profits and not sometimes are these triggers ...
I don't think the motive behind war is making money,
always has been, and always will be (of course nothing is absolute 100%)
war has typically been used to seize power, resources, land, labor, secure corprations (kingdoms) interests, etc... and the flip side is that the elite and wealthy always come out on the good side, profiting from the war machine churning, while it is always the average citizenry that suffer tremendously...(and there is NO disputing that)
always has been, and always will be (of course nothing is absolute 100%)
war has typically been used to seize power, resources, land, labor, secure corprations (kingdoms) interests, etc... and the flip side is that the elite and wealthy always come out on the good side, profiting from the war machine churning, while it is always the average citizenry that suffer tremendously...(and there is NO disputing that)
i guess i should clarify, when i said motive for war making money i meant for the business sector. I agree war is about resources and control and occassionally for noble causes. But i dont' think the motive is for the rich to get richer...can't deny that they do...i just don't think that's the motive...could be wrong.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
the common denominator is greed or a sense of superiority by a group of people in those countries.
Canada
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
who do you suppose supplied the weapons in the majority of these conflicts? go ahead and take a wild guess
i already guessed canada...but i guess that's not right...this below address the inflow of arms since 1994
Weapons flows to Africa come from a variety of different sources - licit and illicit - and through a wide variety of different means. For most of the Cold War period, the patterns of arms transfers was from the superpowers to African allies fighting in proxy wars. After 1990 the pattern changed, with the former Warsaw Pact countries becoming the major source of weapons entering Africa. As these countries reduced their arsenals, and in some cases upgraded stocks for NATO membership, large supplies of surplus military equipment became available for sale to developing countries, including Africa. Economic hardship in Central and Eastern Europe, the lack of effective arms export legislation and poor law enforcement capacity has also facilitated this trade.
More recently, the main source of arms to Africa has shifted further east, with Belarus, China, Moldova and Ukraine becoming large-scale suppliers. Moldavia is a particular concern because of the enormously insecure arsenal of arms in the TransDniestra region.
Of the G8 countries, Russia is the main supplier of Arms to Africa. Over the last decade it has supplied significant quantities of equipment to Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Angola. President' Bush's self declared 'war on terror' has introduced a new dimension into weapons transfers in the region, with the US providing increasing levels of military assistance to countries in North, West and Eastern Africa, despite poor human rights records in some of these countries.
The UK exports relatively little military equipment to Africa (excluding South Africa), but a number of recent licensing decisions give cause for concern. This includes equipment licensed for export to Angola, Cote D'Ivorie, Ghana, Namibia and Nigeria.
Many of the arms fuelling conflict within Africa comes from within the regions. Large quantities of weapons are recycled from conflict to conflict moving across the continent's porous borders. One source of arms is the diversion or quick resale of arms imported by one African country and then re-supplied to another: for example, arms from Iran diverted via Guinea to Liberian rebels. Governments also supply other governments and rebel groups from their existing stocks."
http://www.arcuk.org/pages/apology-9m-deaths.htm
here's more...the us leads but there are plenty of other countries that are [url=involvedhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0925-07.htm]involvedhttp://www.commondreams.org/hea ... 925-07.htm[/url]
again I'll ask to everyone, if weapons (guns / missles) weren't available would these conflicst's be occuring. I submit they would b/c of the ideology of the people waging wars. If they don't have guns they would use something else.
STOP THE BITCHING AT EACH OTHER AND FOCUS ON THE REAL PROBLEM
before it is too late for all of us (dont think for a second that is over-dramatic)
~~ "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."~~
~~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 ~~
agree 100%. War is profitable, it helped us come out of the depression. I'm not saying that justifies war, but people are making money off of war and always will. I don't think the motive behind war is making money, but it certainly is a side effect you won't hear the gov't complain about.
Yeah we get it. War is always "supposedly" going to be there. You don't think that if you actually had to fight somebody then stand 300yrds away and pull a trigger that they would start for no reason other than an instilled greed. If America had to go into every country they have been in for whatever justification you people seem fit and actually had to fight the people instead of bombing or shooting, you wouldn't be in 99% of the places you are or have been.
So to your question. I don't think 3/4 of the wars would be waged if they didn't have the satisfaction of hiding and killing.
I do find if funny that the Yanks defend war to the end. May be a problem with the way you are raised. Hate, war, hate, war, they are out to get me. A sad truth that you just can't accept.
the issue isn't whether or not there would be wars without guns ... the question is whether or not a gazillion dollar industry can accept a world in peace ... and if not - what are they prepared to do to ensure there is no peace ...
wars need triggers - the difference between mass profits and not sometimes are these triggers ...
always has been, and always will be (of course nothing is absolute 100%)
war has typically been used to seize power, resources, land, labor, secure corprations (kingdoms) interests, etc... and the flip side is that the elite and wealthy always come out on the good side, profiting from the war machine churning, while it is always the average citizenry that suffer tremendously...(and there is NO disputing that)
i guess i should clarify, when i said motive for war making money i meant for the business sector. I agree war is about resources and control and occassionally for noble causes. But i dont' think the motive is for the rich to get richer...can't deny that they do...i just don't think that's the motive...could be wrong.