reply to post by ronnieray123
Clearly we disagree.
I appreciate the nod to my trying help around here as a moderator; but I must insist that's no basis to infer that any ‘extra’ respect is
required. Your opinion is no less valid than my own. I will try my best to debate this with you, and I think you may find it is quite frequently a
matter of definition that separates people like us from common ground. Your references to honor are a bit disturbing, but since you have stated that
I you find my post offensive, I accept that as the basis for the statement and will not dwell on that as a personal attack.
Are you saying that Germany is not a better more peaceful place because of the war?
Are you saying that without war Jews still found alive in concentration camps would be better off?
There is a problem with the line of questioning in my opinion. It is not a matter of “what if’s,” but of the applicability to the statement it
is meant to rebut. You are offering this particular example because I presume you mean it to be “common to war” and “explanatory of warfare”.
But World War II is just one instance of ‘war.’ You have asked a direct question which I will answer, but first I must show you the dissonance
which I feel the questions brings forth.
If I, for example were to respond; "Are you saying that Germany” could not
be a better, more peaceful place, without war?” Are you saying
that war “was the only possible way save people from the inhuman brutality of the NAZI/'National Socialist' executors?”
Such answers as one might provide can hardly be universally applicable and can be crafted into a word parsing contest which end with the dialog
fraying off into a hundred different "what if's."
The direct answer is that there were literally millions of ways to prevent the tragedy before
it started, while it was "gearing up"
well as after it began which do not include destroying the good works and properties of millions of civilians; or killing millions.
The German industrial base's preparations for war were hardly a 'secret;' those preparations required billions in funding.... are you saying it's
alright to have allowed that
to happen, to loan the regime money; was it OK to make international trade deals allowing them more tonnage in
warships (so they could be sold steel and aluminum) was a good idea? That it is correct to help the regime prepare for, and launch a campaign of
destruction ... so we can declare war on them and pretend we are surprised about the development?
I am not among those who believe that the spokespersons of the nations of the world "never knew" or "could never have imagined" what was happening in
Germany and Poland. I suspect all those things were not only known, but gleefully 'used' by some to arouse the ire of the industrial world causing a
massive up-ramping of military expenditures for the benefit of perennial suppliers of weapons and munitions to the world and the banks that loaned
them money to buy said weapons.
But that evokes an objection of mine which I will touch upon.... the idea that "Nations” war upon each other… as opposed to their leaders using
the nation’s resources and people to war upon other leaders.
Is it your opinion that when a nation becomes belligerent it should be allowed to proceed unimpeded?
“Belligerence” is an interesting diplomatic term... it is useful in that it's application creates the vague implication that an entire nation is
up in arms - and desiring to initiate hostilities as a matter of national compulsion. But that is hardly (if ever) the case, at least in the
industrialized world. It is the autocratic, theocratic, and ideological leaders of nations who advocate for war; as they are empowered by political
mandate to 'represent' the nation which they ostensibly serve. People acquiesce to the call based upon a stream of information which is provided to
them as fact ... or dissuaded from it by an equal application of information which is again, "provided." Actually, “belligerence” is a perception
of attitude – not an act.
Carl von Clausewitz' narrowed field of view falsely created a positive image of war by likening it to a natural tool of statecraft. This is not true.
In fact I believe in essence that "War" is a self-sustaining meme. Its invention was simply the institutionalization of the means for the powerful
elite to secure their own personally-envisioned aims. As a result of this institutionalization war has become its own culture.
So vital is the idea to the current paradigm, that nations spend exorbitant amounts of misdirected resources to “convince” those who will be
killing and dying that is it is not for their leaders’ agenda, but instead their own well-being that they engage in the supreme destructive
Once we can see exactly from where the call for the necessity of mass murder, terror, oppressive onslaught, and ‘salted earth’ comes from; we can
determine the true cause for war. This is why so much effort goes into “creating” the enemy in the minds of the information consumers and
rightfully patriotic class of the military.. If the people knew the true ‘desired outcome’ as opposed to the theatrically produced reason of the
exercise they might just say, “No.”
But this question of course can give rise to others… for example; if a nation is belligerent, who needs to be concerned…. their neighbors, the
world? We differ in that you seem to be inclined to think it’s “everybody’s” problem…. While I agree ‘everyone’ may likely be
affected… those most directly responsible for dealing with it are the citizens of the nation engaged in “belligerence.” Especially in that the
potential hostilities are being projected by their leaders…. And one could only “imagine” that their entire national consensus is chomping at
the bit to see the death and mayhem of war spread – even amongst their sons and daughters.
Do you mean to tell me that you have taught your children there was no honor to be found in liberating France?
liberate France? Can it not be argued that they liberated themselves? The maxim of “invasion” came to play – resistance makes
occupation an order of magnitude more resource intensive and counterproductive to pursue unless total destruction of the infrastructure is achieved
rendering the inhabitants totally dependent on your occupying apparatus . Germany could not have held France much longer even if it wanted to – not
without making it the focal point of their entire military strategy - which wasn't their aim.
Did other forces help speed the outcome? Certainly, they did. Some did it with honor, some most certainly did not.
“Honor” however is a personal thing. Not a showpiece for the proselytization of war. That thinking hails from the glory-days of empire building.
Honor cannot be ‘found’ in anything, moreover it can be ‘inserted’ into anything. It is a concept of man. As such it is a matter of
perspective. Many North Vietnamese enemies of my nation were very honorable. Many of our soldiers were too. It had nothing to do with the outcome
of the war, the accomplishment of the subjugation of other people, nor the measure of kills. Honor is about the self, not others. If we rely on
others for validation of honor, then we are not truly honorable.
Preventing Germany from further harming England is not an accomplishment? Really?
In your view, what would have been the proper response after Pearl Harbor? Surrender?
Preventing Germany from further harming England was desirable, and correct… but not an accomplishment. An accomplishment should not depend on
“war” to exist. An accomplishment would have been preventing the outbreak of war, stopping the brutality of the regime by the efforts and
strength of the German people – none of whom, outside the tight circle of sycophants and power-mongers, could have ever articulated, or desired, as
a goal. However the German people were mesmerized by a person they were told “everyone loves” and was a “glorious leader” who could restore
her lost “honor.” They wanted to believe it was possible, and got suckered into acquiescing to war – a war which would never have brought them
what they really wanted… the individual prosperity of absolute peace.
By the way, England did not "need" us to win the war (but it would have been much more devastating, and painful without the help) because the German
regime was self-destructive by its own design. Outlasting a regime set on destroying the world and rebuilding it to their liking is easy… they
always self-destruct under their own leaders’ ambitions and what they have to implement to maintain control. No exceptions in history there.
I hope this will be the millennium where we as a species learn that war is a trap; and in the end – you cannot control ‘humans’ nor ‘force’
them to be anything other than what they are. Unless you are willing to consign yourself to apply forceful control of humans forever, empires simply
don’t work. And war is the quickest way to achieve empire… which doesn’t work. So what’s the point?
Pearl Harbor? I’m surprised. The “proper” thing to do was not to allow it to happen, nor to encourage the conflict… instead our leadership
pushed and waited… the sad truth is there were many people in our own country who sought war with Japan. Pearl Harbor was a politically-expedient
convenience to them. Tell me, do you think that Japan and or Germany were going to cross the Pacific or Atlantic and destroy us? Please.
But even if we pretend that we didn’t taunt and aggravate the Japanese into it, and the attack was truly “unforeseen” – what would
“surrendering” have accomplished?
As I said in the post that disturbed you so, I do not equate defense with war. War is an institution – codified and regulated, self-defense is a
constant of natural law…. There is a sizable difference.
I could spend days rebuking your words, I can peer back through history and give you example after example of your views put to practice
Honestly I think you confuse war with aggression and with conquest, I do not like aggression, but what you are saying in no uncertain words is that
aggressors should be allowed to act unimpeded, because innocent people may perish.
I find your posting distasteful. It paints you as a person devoid of honor and with a concern only for himself and of self-well-being and that is sad.
War is never pretty, it was never intended to be, but that does not mean it is never justified and righteous.
What you are saying in your post is that while England was being subject to blitzkrieg the proper course of action would have been to allow it to
continue.....I truly hope you will reconsider your stance on war or articulate it in a way that shows you to be an honorable man and not a mere
I saddens me to think that you believe this is moral and would pass this to your offspring.
War is not defense, war is not conflict, war is not “fighting”…. War is a declared state of affairs between two or more sovereign states.
That declaration sets in motion a plethora of events that do nothing to serve to end the war. Of course, embedded in your objection I see the bait
which summons ‘preemptive attacks’ (like Pearl Harbor or maybe 9/11?) because “someone has to do something about those hostile and belligerent
I don’t recall any blitzkrieg taking place in England, and I don’t see how our aiding in England’s defense belies my assertion that war is a
dead end road. It certainly has been for most aggressor states… if not all in the long run.
Wars – as they are carried out now – have no real objectives other than resource control and revenue stream creation (either by seizing the
battlefields’ resources or perpetuating the war). It is not for the “security” of anything, it’s not to “protect the people of a state.”
It is a commercial affair – driven by profit…. It has been this was for many decades. Mercantilism has become the new pitfall.... it's forced
intermingling with the institution of war has only caused grief for the weaker nations of the world.
It seems you’ll want to point to atrocities we are told being carried out that “we should go to war to end.” And you might even say that
knowing that war isn’t pretty (what an understatement that is).
In a world where atrocities are executed daily all over the globe, how do we choose which to ignore and which to advertise as “outrageous?” The
answer is we
don’t choose…. And those who do - don’t choose for “us,” they choose for “themselves.” In the end our children –
and even some notional enemy’s children die and become psychologically mauled for ‘their interests’ – not ours.
I will not forgive any further declarations as to my being dishonorable. I know what I am. I do not grant you the station to negate my life and the
honor I have pursued and achieved. I’m uncertain how characterizing me as dishonorable serves to make your point… except perhaps to inflame
edit on 13-8-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)