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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Great post by the way S & F. I always enjoy all of your posts. Please keep up the good work. Hopefully you'll help to wake some people the hell up!




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
War is pointless.

It's a great soundbite, I'll agree. I'll even go so far as to agree with you that many of them are, indeed, pointless.

However... (you knew that was coming, right?)

When a group of people decide that you, and yours, are an unneccessary blight on the world, and come to, amongst other things, remove you, and yours, from this world, war becomes, not pointless, but a tool for survival.

I can't help but find your response to Agit8d Chop somewhat disturbing. The Jews would have suffered, but the average French citizen, you imply, would have been better off...? Would you be so kind as to explain that? What exactly are you saying there?


1. Having a State is not necessary to "fight for your survival"

America has 65 million gun owners, and if we were ever invaded by a nation that was just hell bent on killing innocent civilians for no particular reason at all, 65 million gun owners DWARFS the largest military in the world (namely our own.)

2. The French could have spent 1/1000000th of the money they spent fighting the Germans on simply relocating their Jews out of the country.

Then peacefully resisted German occupation by not complying with German mandates.

Eventually the Germans would get fed up and leave.

Other than mess with the Jews, please explain what Germany would have done to France if the French simply did nothing to physically resist an invasion.

Raise their tax rates?

This is France we are talking about after all.

Further, Germany never would have bothered to invade France in the first place if the French hadn't threatened him for his invasion of Poland - which by the way - was fairly amicable as far as invasions go. Danzig was 95% German speaking.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 



Private profits, public losses.


That is not capitalism.

That is Italian Fascism, predominately called corporatism in modern American terminology.

I request that you refrain from calling corporatism capitalism, since it gives voluntary trade interactions a bad rap that they don't deserve.
With all due respect, that is what capitalism has evolved into. If you choose to use some archaic definition of capitalism that is your perrogetive ( ouch!) and I honor your choice. However. Why are we so caught up in terminology? Governments and other pyramidal paradigms (religions) are nothing more than methodologies of control and oppression. Elite sociopathic, murdering, theiving bastards alway rise to the pinnacle of the pyramid. Quite frankly, I don't care what you choose to call it, a fecalith is still just a turd.

edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by HUMBLEONE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


With all due respect, voluntary trade between individuals does not "evolve" into violent theft and warmongering statism.

The State "evolves" by ever expanding its theft and warmongering.

Private markets do not give rise to corporatism, since in order for corporatism to exist a State must exist in the first place.

Once a State is established, then the monied interests will assume control of it - but they can not go about creating a State where one does not exist in the first place.

Statism was brought to America on the Mayflower and has been in place ever since.

Had the pilgrims and their progeny rejected violent statism from the beginning, there would be no American government today at all. There would be nothing but private individuals voluntarily interacting with each other.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Had the pilgrims and their progeny rejected violent statism from the beginning, there would be no American government today at all. There would be nothing but private individuals voluntarily interacting with each other.


No, there would be a State. It would be called Britain.

You may want to change your headline from "War is Pointless" to "War is Pointless unless it is to protect my property". This is more accurate of your views.

If you think it is ok to raise your own private army to defend your interests, then you support war. You just prefer to be the one calling the shots.

Whether it be on a grand scale of Nation against Nation, or the smallest scale, individual against individual, wars are fought primarily over resources, people, land, and sea. Religion, Nationalism, even Racism has only been the tools used to unify a people behind the common cause of gaining more resources.

Now we have already established that you believe you have a right to raise your own army to protect YOUR resources. Thus, you have fallen from your initial point that War is pointless. War has a point, to protect your resources.

It is a fair view to have, but be honest about it.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


For God sakes! If to you Capitalism is me trading eggs to my neighbor for goods and services then, hip, hip horay for Capitalism. If you still want to use the term, then so be it. but.. we don't use the term queer because it no longer means odd. It is now a political incorrectness of refering to gay's in a derrogatory manner . Aside from this, I think we on the same frequency.

So back to war. The only logical reason one should ever engage in war is in defensive response to acts of violence and aggression.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


If the people that came to America rejected Statism from the beginning, no amount of British warmongering could alter the eventual demise the British-American State.

None.

The British would have had to expend enormous amounts of capital to impose a State on an unwilling population.

They would have eventually tired and left.

Having a State requires that a population consent to the State at some level. If the population had rejected British rule, just as Afghans are rejecting American puppet rule, no amount of warmongering could change this.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Ultimately there is little difference, since States always grow in power until they implode.
Certainly no war has ever been fought for real freedom.


As long as people seek food, shelter, and reproduction, there's no such thing as real freedom, anyway. We're all driven by our own needs, and organize states in ways that we think will help us take care of those needs. The only thing we can do is keep churning the genetic mix, keep adapting, keep living. And war is a perfectly good way to accomplish that. Not the only way. But a good way.

Otherwise, war is part of our social interactions and psychological makeup. War allows us to have heroes, and proves to us that our gods are more powerful than our opponent's gods, and that our way of thinking is right. It supports our egos. It allows us to be great. You rarely if ever hear about how great a person is for growing a bountiful field of corn.

Far from being pointless, war is necessary. And it's even "good," if you happen to be on the winning side.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If the people that came to America rejected Statism from the beginning, no amount of British warmongering could alter the eventual demise the British-American State.

None.

The British would have had to expend enormous amounts of capital to impose a State on an unwilling population.

They would have eventually tired and left.


Do you have proof or are you speculating?


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Having a State requires that a population consent to the State at some level. If the population had rejected British rule, just as Afghans are rejecting American puppet rule, no amount of warmongering could change this.


You are correct, the population must consent at some point. Today the population consents because while they may not like the state, it sure beats the hell out of Sharia Law, Communism, or Chaos. What the population is hooked on is the security provided by the state. They like owning things. They like to be able to rise up the pyramid over there peers. They like to flaunt the wealth they have over others. They know if they tried all these things without the state, they would get taken down quickly. It's a dog eat dog world for now.

So as much as you complain about the state, you cling to it. As much as you decry it's war making, if in a similar position, you too would make war against your fellow man. To protect your things.

It is an ugly truth of Mankind.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Since the use of State violence leads to depressed economic states, I fail to see where you are coming from.

Obviously the poor are better served by free markets that induce prosperity rather than through the use of State sanctioned violence that deprives industry of its potential.

Clearly the great depression and our current depression were caused entirely by government (the Fed) meddling in the economic markets.

That's a lot of people that government put in the poor house.

Government has impoverished FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more people than it has ever helped climb out of poverty.

Further, welfare induces people to stay in a condition of poverty, rather than to try an improve themselves.

No government welfare program has ever reduced or eliminated poverty.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Do you have proof or are you speculating?


See Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our current invasion of Afghanistan.

As well as dozens of other historical examples.


You are correct, the population must consent at some point. Today the population consents because while they may not like the state, it sure beats the hell out of Sharia Law, Communism, or Chaos. What the population is hooked on is the security provided by the state. They like owning things. They like to be able to rise up the pyramid over there peers. They like to flaunt the wealth they have over others. They know if they tried all these things without the state, they would get taken down quickly. It's a dog eat dog world for now.

So as much as you complain about the state, you cling to it. As much as you decry it's war making, if in a similar position, you too would make war against your fellow man. To protect your things.

It is an ugly truth of Mankind.

With Love,

Your Brother


Umm, no - I think I've been pretty clear that I don't want a State, so I'm not sure how that means I "cling to it"

Americans today cling to the State because the State has made a large portion of them dependent upon it. The markets do not make people dependent upon the State, the STATE makes people dependent upon the State.

That is the only reason the State still exists today.

The dependent class attacks their fellow men, just as you are doing now to me.

During the early colonial period, after the first few failed experiments with socialism, the pilgrims were more than able to care for themselves without a welfare State.

If they could manage to get by in such hostile conditions, I'm sure modern Americans could get by without the use of violence.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


For God sakes! If to you Capitalism is me trading eggs to my neighbor for goods and services then, hip, hip horay for Capitalism. If you still want to use the term, then so be it. but.. we don't use the term queer because it no longer means odd. It is now a political incorrectness of refering to gay's in a derrogatory manner . Aside from this, I think we on the same frequency.

So back to war. The only logical reason one should ever engage in war is in defensive response to acts of violence and aggression.


Whatever word I chose to use to describe voluntary trade between individuals, it will eventually be demonized and subverted by the statist horde.

Capitalism has come to mean statism.

Anarchism has come to mean chaos or state control of all property.

Free markets have come to mean violently imposed regulations.

It doesn't matter what word I use, it will be subverted by those who hate freedom and peace.

edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
oh yeah, let me address this:


So back to war. The only logical reason one should ever engage in war is in defensive response to acts of violence and aggression.


There is NEVER a logical reason to engage in war.

There IS a logical reason to use violent resistance against imminent danger to yourself or others.

War assumes two States are engaged in conflict with each other. This is NEVER necessary.

You could make the case that an insurgency is justified against an occupying army, but never a war.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
You bring forth interesting points, and those points being well appreciated. Quite interesting.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Get your point, definitely do...though I wonder...the planet is who's property? Is it one's property or everyone's property? Some complain about government and conspiracy though wouldn't those people (government) be the same that keep those borders remaining? It's all rather interesting in my opinion.

If war must be, having only times of peace, then a non-violent approach should be considered to factor which fighting party/country won. If violence is a must then certainly robots in a field....human life shouldn't be used to make a point. It may be more beneficial to apply life towards the improvement of life, and it can be achieved without taking the well-being of another's and/or other's lives.

I don't know, not trying to make a point....simply appreciate your post because it stimulates thought, thank you.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by reddinasourshoes
 


Libertarian property rights propose that land that is not put to use is open for anyone to stake a claim on.

So if you hold a large amount of land (like the Federal government) that isn't being used, someone could come along and start using it simply by staking a claim on it and then working it.

The working may entail living on it, mining it for resources, harvesting it for crops, etc... etc.. etc..

But basically all land needs to be in use in order for a property owner to have a legitimate claim on the land. Otherwise it is like any other piece of property that is discarded, free for the taking.

If a person wants a piece of property that is already in use by someone else, they must purchase that land from the current user at market price.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You think the French would have been better off under German rule?

Exactly how would France be better off under the rule of Nazi's?

It's every Frenchman's god given right to defend their homeland.

I'm a little.. perplexed. I thought that mentality died in the 40's...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm a little.. perplexed. I thought that mentality died in the 40's...


What are you implying?

What mentality do you refer to?

Anarchism did not die in the 1940's. Mnemeth1 is an anarchist.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


People have historically for what every reason chose to form states or have been bamboozled into support for them. I say, do away with them all together. Excrement floats and in a state (which is a pyramidal structure), it floats to the point of the pyramid. War, violence? I am not for any of it. My perfect Planet would be a civilization in which all are telepathic which would eliminate secrets. The structure would be holographic. Each person knowing all the information available to the entire civilization. So that if necessary anyone could lead. Yeh, and no money. You work at what you love to do for the good of humanity and all of your needs are taken care of, Everyone has everything they need, without the greed. But we are not there yet....it is on the way! Peace.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join