It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War Is Always Pointless

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
After thinking about what war actually entails, I've come to the conclusion that it is always unnecessary.

That is not to say violence is always unnecessary - as I feel people are perfectly entitled to defend themselves against the initiation of violence (to include violence initiated by the State). However, war as defined by two State powers fighting each other is always unnecessary.

What is war other than two State powers fighting over control of tax and regulatory powers?

Think about a few scenarios.

If the Russians invaded America and were met with absolutely no resistance from anyone, what would they do?

What could we rationally expect them to do?

Throw out our politicians and install puppets right?

Isn't that what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What else do nations do when they go to war?

How would life change if our lives were directed by Russian puppets rather than American banker puppets?

Any change at all?

What if there were no government at all - what would the Russians do? Try to build a new one? Who would obey them? What would the Russians attack? The Google headquarters?

No

War is nothing more than two States fighting for control over the tax farm; where humans are cattle to be milked for their productive resources. To the common man, ultimately there is no difference over who the farmer is.




edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I said something similar on a thread about staying away from aliens...very relevant to this discussion as well -


Originally posted by quantum_flux
I have a theory based on zero sum games that (1) war is an inefficient use of precious resources and (2) that each war presents the opportunity of either losing or perhaps deficit winning whereby the outcome from the spoils gained is much less than the resources expended in fighting the war in the first or perhaps forming a trade pact with the other side. Anyhow, any civilization that attempts too much wars will probably wipe themselves out, plus making new enemies is never a smart survival move either, ergo a warlike civilization is much more likely to go extinct in the long run than a peaceful civilization, plus they are much less likely to advance technologically as quickly as a peaceful civilization (just look at the dark ages when there was a war all the time, every side was weakened by that). Starting wars is thereby the cause of demise for any civilization, and thereby it is much less likely a warlike civilization will advance to the point of traveling the galaxies.

ALSO of note is that the process of doing scientific research makes civilizations more capable of resolving their situations without resorting to primitive zero sum games such as war. Their competition for resources will probably be much more subtle than blowing things up. They will probably try to hack and brainwash us into giving them what they want instead.
edit on 10-1-2011 by quantum_flux because:




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
It all depends on who you are my friend.

War is pretty senseless for you and I.

But was has made a lot of elites very rich.

War has culled the population of the ordinary people.

War has allowed us to be corralled and controlled by TPTB out of fear of more war (think League of Nations, UN, Patriot act).

War has advanced technology, industry and Western Nations into the powers they are today.

War has created superpowers and dominated world politics. (Imagine how different it would have been if WW2 was fought on US soil and Europe was left untouched!)

I think war is far from pointless for a few hundred ruling elites.

For us it's all a load of cobblers, because we're the ones that fight it!! Lose lose situation.

Love is the key man........

edit on 11-1-2011 by kiwifoot because: eerror



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What is war other than two State powers fighting over control of tax and regulatory powers?





No, it's almost always over resources...and crazy people in power will do whatever needs to be done to attain these resources.


And what of belligerent nation/states that threaten the livelihood of the populace..?

That is not to say violence is always unnecessary - as I feel people are perfectly entitled to defend themselves against the initiation of violence (to include violence initiated by the State).





Did you really think this one through..? War sucks dude, but sometimes you are left without any other options.


Now, if you want to discuss the rationale for war, we might get somewhere...





posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by facelift
 


Taxes and regulatory power IS control of resources.

That is how all States control resources.



edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
War is always rewarding for a certain people, my example would be ww2.

ww2 was pointless for the jews, you may say it wasnt their war but it was.

as much as it was about resources, ww2 was also a war against the semite jews, in order for the zionist jews to claim palestine they first had to kill off most of the true jewish population who followed the true teachings of judaism, and second use it as an excuse for themselves...

War is not pointless if you're fighting for you're freedom...

Many sematic jews still reject israel to this day, now imagine there was no holocaust, then there would be no reason for the zionists to be there, they would have no support and the large jewish community would oppose them...

an intresting fact is that the jews were moving to palestine way before hitler came to power, but it was very hard and long process, they simply had no reason to be there and there was very little support from the rest of the world... another fact was that the zionist jews started using terror techniques on the palestinians as early as the 1920s... where do you think the palestanians learned the techniques from?


edit on 11/1/2011 by RizeorDie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 


Fighting for freedom is not a war.

Freedom fighters necessarily can not be State actors.

Even the revolutionary war was fought over whether the power to tax was held by Britain or by the sovereign states.

Hence the revolutionary war was not a war for freedom, it was a war to determine who held control over the coercive power of taxation and regulation.




edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I come over to you're house and start building fences around you, then i put a few guards to make sure you dont escape, my aim is to control what you see, hear, say, eat etc. you fight back for you're freedom.

we are now at war!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 



War is defined as a confrontation between two States.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hi, Great post, and totally agree. But it does go a little deeper than this. I will explain soon, Just trying to get my 20 post up, Seems to be taking for ever at the moment lol. Keep you eyes open



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by RizeorDie
 



War is defined as a confrontation between two States.



not necessarily, war can be as simple as good vs evil. good and evil resides in every human. theres a war going on within you. its good vs evil all the way, its been like this since the start...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
war is about power and conquest, it can be about revenge, bigotry or in the case of the u.s. 99.9% of the time, money and economics.

that makes sense for america, because its a capitalist and market based society. america only goes to war if it makes business sense.

they are not going to commit resources and equipment that have cost billions if not trillions in time, research and development unless they are going to get a return in the investment.

it's never pointless, there is always an agenda and goal, even if the general public is not aware of it.

saying that, it is evil in every imaginable way unless it's a war of self defense against an aggressor that wasn't provoked.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



War is defined as a confrontation between two States.


What about gang wars?


edit on 11-1-2011 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OneMoreChance
 


I've thought about it for a while.

I don't think it goes much deeper than that, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

I like the revolutionary war as an example, because people so frequently associate it as a war for freedom.

But in the end, it simply resulted in a change in tax farm ownership.

If Britain had won the Revolutionary War, America would simply be a clone of the UK today. It is interesting to think about it though, since I doubt we would have involved ourselves in a civil war. - which again was nothing more than a war over who controls the power to tax and regulate.

Lincoln was on record as being a racist that wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa and would have voted to keep slavery if it meant keeping the union together.

Lincoln's sole concern was keeping regulatory and tax power over the southern states firmly in Washington.



“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”



but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.




My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union ...





edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
You are absolutely correct my friend, war is absolutely pointless. As for resources, there is no greater waste of resources than war. For every piece of war material in the field, minus the big ships and bombers, there is a brand new on in storage in caves in Norway. When one is destroyed, a new one is shipped form the stock pile in Norway and fielded while a new one is built to go back into storage.

The amount of food, materials, and personnel used our the conflicts around the world could feed, house and train every person on earth in every clime to be self sustaining, educated, and working toward a better living for all.

Peace is the only way to achieve peace. The problem is that the power structure feeds on power. It must continue to grow or it becomes no longer needed. With all the ecological disasters facing mankind, the soon to be evident food shortages, and growing hostility around the globe, it is up to the people to take back the control. No man has a right by divine proclamation or mutual consent to rule another. We are all free willed intelligent beings and have a right to live at peace and pursue our destiny together.

The only way our governments are going to release their grip on the populace is if the people the world over unite and say, No More!

Take back the reigns of power and let the people decide our destiny.

Thats my Plan anyway.

Unfortunately, the power structure has many unable to see life without the power structure. Many have truly become dependant on it. Opening peoples eyes to the possibility may only be possible after the greatest tyrrany mankind has known is unleashed on the world.

On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Ecological disasters can be averted by strong private property rights.

No one is going to pollute their own land, and if people are held accountable for polluting the land of others, nothing else needs to be done.

Private "loser pays" civil courts could preform this function quite well without any State at all.

The oil spill disasters have all been a result of NO property rights, and then the government stepped into limit the liability of the oil companies against the coastal property owners.

If the oceans were treated like land in terms of property rights, it is highly unlikely this disaster would have occurred.

edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
War is nothing more than two States fighting for control over the tax farm, where humans are cattle to be milked for their productive resources. To the common man, ultimately there is no difference over who the farmer is.


Are you saying that there's no difference in the quality of day-to-day life for people living under different political or socioeconomic systems? If so, I disagree with your proposition, and suggest that sometimes war is necessary to dislodge entrenched, stagnant, and abusive power structures, and offer citizens alternatives. As a positive side effect, war, as a stressor on society, accelerates technological development which can arguably be seen as improving the general quality of life for those not directly affected by combat. War also has the positive aspect of "stirring the genetic pot" of humanity, as different types of people are forced to move into new areas, freshening the genetic mix.

The wars of the future may also serve as an alternative to starvation and disease as a means of limiting human population growth to more functional levels, although it has been shown that war casualties numbering in the millions only have a slight effect on continued population growth. However, a war that severely damages the ecosystem might have enough of an effect to keep the population to acceptable levels.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


War being pointless is different from war being unnecessary.

It all depends who you are.

I'm pretty sure the french in the 40's thought war was rather critical and necessary.
I know the Germans in 1930 thought the war was valid and very much NOT pointless



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Ultimately there is little difference, since States always grow in power until they implode.

Certainly no war has ever been fought for real freedom.


edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I think the French would have been better off under German rule.

Perhaps the French Jews would have suffered, but the French people as a whole would probably have been better off if they simply did nothing to fight off the Germans.

All the resources that were spent and destroyed fighting the Germans could have instead been put to use in a productive fashion.

There would have been zero French war casualties if the French decided to do nothing.


edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join