war

2

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    icarus wrote:
    your outlook may be slightly utopian or idealistic, but i agree that that is the path that humanity, at least in the western world, is taking. will killing or warfare ever be completely eradicated? probably not. could killing and warfare become worse? possibly. it depends on what level we're discussing. on the level of the individual or on the level of the state. both are completely different circumstances.

    I don't think they are so different. After all, the state is composed of individuals.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    metsfan531941 wrote:
    i agree but not enough is being done bout it, how often do u hear bout sex slaves on the news

    The point is you're hearing about it. That's a good thing. It's becoming an issue of great concern and people will work against it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    icarus wrote:
    i think they are very different. the parts are always different from the whole. is a tire the same as a car? a state can exist as completely domestically safe with no murders or crime while still participating in international warfare. on the other hand, a state could be internationally peaceful, while having high levels of crime and murder.

    The state can not participate in warfare if the people in the state find it unacceptable.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Gary Carter
    Gary Carter Posts: 14,077
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The point is you're hearing about it. That's a good thing. It's becoming an issue of great concern and people will work against it.
    i agree im hearing bout it, but other people arent and we as humans beings need to work at that,not saying u and i, i mean this world
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    icarus wrote:
    i thought we were discussing the theoretical phenomena of war. in my personal history i have never directly experienced warfare as experienced by states. i'm making theoretical assumptions.

    You're philosophizing war as just something humans seem to do: "history proves it."
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're philosophizing war as just something humans seem to do: "history proves it."

    Exactly. The past dictates nothing. It is done, dead. There is only one instance and it is now.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    there are plenty of cases in which a state could participate in warfare or any kind of foreign relation without the consent of the people. look at most dictatorships.

    so, what we're arguing is semantics?

    it's still against the will of the general populace
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    icarus wrote:
    there are plenty of cases in which a state could participate in warfare or any kind of foreign relation without the consent of the people. look at most dictatorships.

    and dictatorships are another thing that's seeing such a large decline. Individual will and human rights are on an upswing.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    we're discussing whether war is rational or irrational, whether its with or against public opinion is a moot point.


    then i don't see how public opinion could possibly be a moot point, it has everything to do w/ it, in fact!

    not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>

    if the general public is not supportive of (a) war/b] then engaging in such and continuing it, actually escalating it to a certain extent would be against reason

    the ppl engaging in the war are being irrationial, illogical, going against reason...maybe it is a dictator, then what you're arguing is a few ppl think it's rational, not the overall population
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    And about the point of being idealistic vs realistic. Realism is basing your views on the past and what you think it possible based on those events. Idealism is based on all possibilities being open and there for the taking. Idealism says I'm going to pick the best path possible because I believe in it not because the past has dictated it. The past is old news and we're supposed to learn from it, not continue to repeat it just because we have before. You learn from experience. You don't continue down the same path that has shown no signs of working, especially when it has used such irrational methods that have only hindered our development as a species not progressed it.

    Only a fool will continue to put his hand into the fire after he has been repeatedly burned. The more intelligent person learns quickly after the first time and moves on.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    you still don't have a valid argument. you're saying engaging in war that the general public isn't supportive of is irrational. how so? you haven't provided an argument. you're making a blanket claim that its irrational.

    i'll make an example. the massachusetts state legislature recently decided not to allow a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to go before a public referendum. some polls have shown that a majority of the citizens of massachusetts would back such a ban. even though it was the view of the general public that gay marriage should be banned, the legislature blocked this. under your argument, this is irrational and letting the majority decide minority rights and banning gay marriage is rational.

    lets take another example. lets say hypothetically that a majority of the citizens living in nazi germany supported the extermination of the jews, under your argument it would be irrational for hitler to NOT exterminate the jews.

    i have made a point, and you have made a counterpoint 1/2 way...

    take your example of nazi germany, that would still be irrational, why would be easy to prove, it's not remotely the same w/ iraq or certain other wars/actions

    i'm not trying to make a blanket statement, either, everything has to be on a case by case basis, but where is this 'proof' that something like iraq is rational?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i have made a point, and you have made a counterpoint 1/2 way...

    take your example of nazi germany, that would still be irrational, why would be easy to prove, it's not remotely the same w/ iraq or certain other wars/actions

    i'm not trying to make a blanket statement, either, everything has to be on a case by case basis, but where is this 'proof' that something like iraq is rational?
    I don't think he's even making the half-point you gave him. Lol.
    You're a kind and generous man, El Kabong.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    lets say the US went to war in iraq to gain control of iraqi oil reserves. this could be argued as rational behavior since most experts estimate that in the next 10 to 20 years global oil supplies will peak and the ratio of oil supply to demand will decline rapidly and prices will skyrocket. you could make the argument that this is rational behavior for a state. this is just one example.


    are you making that argument? many things could be argued and rationalized...

    you are going by 'well, it could be argued and i'm saying maybe, but that's not the case the majority would seem to make, i think the majority would say so much loss of life and injured is not a rational consequence for control of oil, i think they would say 'let's make something else'...oh, shit, that is what they're saying!

    :)
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    icarus wrote:
    lets say the US went to war in iraq to gain control of iraqi oil reserves. this could be argued as rational behavior since most experts estimate that in the next 10 to 20 years global oil supplies will peak and the ratio of oil supply to demand will decline rapidly and prices will skyrocket. you could make the argument that this is rational behavior for a state. this is just one example.

    Make a rational argument for yourself.

    Fuck government, fuck the economy, fuck the warmongers. Will you survive when the oil is gone?

    Of course you will.

    The obsession with fossil fuel and the sliver of a splinter fragment grasp it has on what is available to the energy of powering this civilization and it's people onward, is just idiotic.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    how am i not making a point? others are arguing that its irrational not to base governmental decisions on public opinion. my point was that public opinion is very often irrational. people here are saying the iraq war is irrational, yet most of the american public supported it. according to your arguments, this would make the iraq war rational. you're contradicting yourselves. or can you not understand logic?

    check the polls, my friend, the majority didn't support it until they started talking about mushroom clouds, imaginary iaea reports saying they were 6 months away from a nuke "i don't know what more evidence we need!" , "it's pretty well established mohammed atta was in iraq", "this isn't speculation, it's fact"....do i really need to list the many lies and mischaracterizations that were thrown about that pushed the public opinion towards it??

    so, yes, that's still irrational b/c they based changing their minds on lies

    ppl aren't as easily lied to now compared to viet nam
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    icarus wrote:
    plus elkabong, you're still making the claim that what the majority thinks or wants is rational, when i've already shown you that its not. popular opinion has nothing to do with rationality or reason.

    War.

    99.99999999999999999999999999 percent of the world's population, in the known HISTORY of people, have never participated in war.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    icarus wrote:
    well then why are we having this discussion? everything is theoretical. you don't know the real reasons why the US went to war, you can only guess the most logical and probably reasons why the administration wanted to go to war so bad.


    i don't know, you keep replying to me...that's why, i guess

    i don't have to guess, they said so in the wolfowitz doctrine in 92 and they wrote about it in september of 2000:

    "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." as well as other mentions of it has to be our role to control strategic resources and locations....
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    War.

    99.99999999999999999999999999 percent of the world's population, in the known HISTORY of people, have never participated in war.

    Which is why i kinda like you.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    icarus wrote:
    que, you're obviously drunk tonight :)

    It's true.

    Consider, in a simple educated guess, how many in all of human history have actually taken up arms against another.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    icarus wrote:
    plus elkabong, you're still making the claim that what the majority thinks or wants is rational, when i've already shown you that its not. popular opinion has nothing to do with rationality or reason.

    How is the majority of people being irrational exactly? Because they've chosen to value life over money and oil? Being against violent solutions is far from being irrational. It's the sign of an evolved populace. If you want to keep backing violent means instead of intelligent ones then I would have to say you are the one being irrational.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde

Categories