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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Do you have proof or are you speculating?
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
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.
So back to war. The only logical reason one should ever engage in war is in defensive response to acts of violence and aggression.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by mnemeth1
I'm a little.. perplexed. I thought that mentality died in the 40's...