‘Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.’

a reply to: Gothmog

That right there should answer your questions for the rest of eternity.

I hear what you are saying but I didn't have a question that needed answering.

I was speaking of an earlier time, and as I said previously of that time.

"I was a child. I saw through the eyes of a child, and I thought like a child."

a reply to: DBCowboy
You and I have had our debates i the past. But dang , you on a roll

a reply to: DBCowboy

Every sane person wants peace. Not every person is sane though.

Peace comes with a price that few are willing to pay, that is why war rages on.

Whether sane or not so sane, both wants someone else to pay the price.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Then why this ?

I recognize the same feelings of incongruity, when I look at the American people today. History will show us as mindless citizens following the inventions of a corrupt and greedy government.

Nope , attempting to backtrack didnt work.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Then why this ?

I recognize the same feelings of incongruity, when I look at the American people today. History will show us as mindless citizens following the inventions of a corrupt and greedy government.

Nope , attempting to backtrack didnt work.

You are losing me here. How is that statement back tracking?

I didn't understand why people didn't do anything when I was a child. I am no longer a child but I am feeling like a child again because I can't make sense out of it.

You may have an agenda. I don't. So please don't twist my words to paint your picture.

originally posted by: Klassified
As long as we believe there is no solution, and nothing can be done. Nothing ever will.

Are you a parent? Have you ever overseen a group of even the nicest children playing?

If you have, then you know how far-fetched the idea is.

a reply to: Klassified

War is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, if a nation invades another, takes liberties with its citizens, then taking a diplomatic approach will necessarily embolden the issuer of the vexing behaviour, to continue to behave unreasonably, since there will be no repurcussion to them personally, other than having to sit through yet another go no where meeting.

Some organisations and national bodies have made dealing with diplomacy part of their itinerary in times past. The appeasement of the Nazis by the powers at large in other nations, during the first phase of their expansion would be a prime example. All the political toing and froing that was drawn together to try and work things out peaceably, only really served to give the Nazis time to bed down in places they had already dominated, and prepare secondary expansion plans to boot.

A firm, uncompromising response in the first twenty four hours after it appeared as if Hitler was getting too big for his boots, could have prevented millions of deaths, untold infrastructural damage, and world wide chaos. As it was, appeasement was preferred initially, leading to the situation which is now a matter of historical record, and indeed formed part of the formative impetus which drives the shape and use of our military resources today in some pretty significant ways.

But of course, as I mentioned, it is a double edged sword, this war business. For all that it is necessary to be capable of defending oneself and ones allies, all too often in this age of excess, our leaders use our soldiers not to protect us, but to secure resources to which we have no right, to enforce laws we have no permission to enforce, in lands over which we, the citizens of our respective nations, have no sovereignty or power of any sort what so ever. When you look at the foreign policy structure of both the UK, and the US for example, you see that both governments have used both their military might, and their intelligence agencies, to shape world affairs in order to favour their financial interests and their access to resources.

This is not what war is for.

War is for when ones land and life are in immediate and unquestionable peril. It is for those moments when ones allies face being wiped out, when the weak are being oppressed by the strong. It is to be made only in extremis, and not for petty things like the acquisition of resources, or the making of money. Our leaders seem oblivious to the fact that their actions over the last few decades have been nothing short of barbarous, dishonourable, and have achieved nothing but to bring shame upon our respective nations. Our nations created monsters and let them loose to promote their interests abroad, and now those monsters legitimise the excesses of war that we indulge in, merely by being present in regions outside our realms.

It cuts both ways. A nation must always be prepared to defend itself from attack, but in giving itself the tools to do this adequately and reliably, often the result is that a nation becomes capable of causing more trouble than it was looking to be able to finish. The only thing that can prevent the cycle from continuing, short of total devastation of our species, is leadership which has no desire to harm anyone to further its agenda, while being prepared to harm only if threatened with destruction in a very real and immediate sense. Leaders like we have, who buy and sell lives as if they were mere commodities to be traded, are not capable of presiding over military might, without compromising the very reason for its existence, without becoming more of a threat to the nation they lead, than the enemies of that nation.

Only honourable leaders, men and women who believe that death is preferable to murdering innocents for little to no reason, would be able to produce the sort of leadership we need to prevent the capacity for wanton destruction, from becoming the reality, as opposed to mere potential.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Part of the price of peace is to be willing to protect it because there are and always will be monsters who would burn people alive in cages or gas them and dispose of the bodies in ovens or line them up and shot them in long lines for no other crime then thinking, living, believing differently.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: misskat1

You'll answer that question when every single last child on the face of the earth learns how to be flawlessly nice and respectful without fail to one another on their own without compulsion.

In a word, never. It's sad, but it's true. So long as there are damaged and flawed people who can rise to positions of power. So long as there is evil, they will raise armies of their own, people who will like what they say, and there will need to be good people with the will to oppose them.

I wish that weren't so, but it is. It is as deep as human nature. We might as well wish to cease to be human.

Yes it is sad and you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to share with you the reasons why war is waged. I am trying to understand this scourge upon humanity.

www.hawaii.edu...

War arises because of the changing relations of numerous variables--technological, psychic, social, and intellectual. There is no single cause of war. Peace is an equilibrium among many forces. Change in any particular force, trend, movement, or policy may at one time make for war, but under other conditions a similar change may make for peace. A state may at one time promote peace by armament, at another time by disarmament, at one time by insistence on its rights, at another time by a spirit conciliation. To estimate the probability of war at any time involves, therefore, an appraisal of the effect of current changes upon the complex of intergroup relationships throughout the world. ---- Wright, 1965: 1284

a reply to: olaru12


Just curious,

How many shelters have you built for battered women? You personally, with your own hands.

How many shelters for homeless kids have you built? You personally, with your own hands?

How much food and water have you brought to people that haven't had food and water for days?

How many schools have you opened in countries so that little girls could get an education?

How many sleepless hours have you spent patrolling the neighborhoods of those schools to ensure the kids got a chance to get back and forth to school without being shot and killed because their parents were the wrong sect?

How much of yourself have you sacrificed to make any part of the world a better place?


Again, just curious.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT - For the Record

When you beat your swords into plowshares, you'll soon be plowing your field for men with swords.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Klassified
As long as we believe there is no solution, and nothing can be done. Nothing ever will.

Are you a parent? Have you ever overseen a group of even the nicest children playing?

If you have, then you know how far-fetched the idea is.

Kets, we're not talking rocket science here. Nor are we talking about changing the nature of humans. Of course, there are going to be times when war is unavoidable. We're not talking about a utopian fantasy that can never be. We're talking about an end to needless wars perpetuated not by the people of the countries involved, but their leadership. We're talking about a time when the people, who never would have gone to war unless they had been lied to and goaded, stand up and say "No more!"

And yes I have, btw.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Well said sir. I think you got the gist of the authors thinking.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yes it is sad and you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to share with you the reasons why war is waged. I am trying to understand this scourge upon humanity.

Not really. She projected MissKat's post onto the OP, and went off on a tangent that had little to do with what the author was trying to convey. As did others after her.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: InTheLight

Yes it is sad and you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to share with you the reasons why war is waged. I am trying to understand this scourge upon humanity.

Not really. She projected MissKat's post onto the OP, and went off on a tangent that had little to do with what the author was trying to convey. As did others after her.

Carl Sandburg was a poet and although he volunteered for military service, was never called to battle. The poets can muse all they like and, of course, have their opinion, but let everyone else have theirs too.

a reply to: 200Plus

I served. No need for veiled insults.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: InTheLight

Yes it is sad and you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to share with you the reasons why war is waged. I am trying to understand this scourge upon humanity.

Not really. She projected MissKat's post onto the OP, and went off on a tangent that had little to do with what the author was trying to convey. As did others after her.

Carl Sandburg was a poet and although he volunteered for military service, was never called to battle. The poets can muse all they like and, of course, have their opinion, but let everyone else have theirs too.

I am familiar with Mr. Sandburg's background.

Absolutely nothing wrong with opinion, as long as one understands the topic and content of what they are giving their opinion on. Building a straw man, or projecting the content of a subsequent post on the OP, is not an opinion based on understanding. Just my opinion, though.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I would say it is much more complex than a double edged sword. More like a swimming pool with hundreds of whirlpools endlessly eating at each other until the inevitable happens and they eat each other up or be forced into some kind of balance.

See, the very idea of being prepared for war or defence means you have somebody already in mind as a potential adversary. Intelligence is a key part to warfare whether that be for offensive or defensive measures, war has never and will never be some idealistic game where everyone has an equal footing of some kind akin to a chessboard. The chivalrous orders of the past liked to think this idea to be applicable but then nobody was so idiotic to apply such ideals. Sportsmanship in war equals events like Agincourt, which from my understanding pretty much nullified chivalry in warfare.

I mean the main reason you and I cannot keep a baseball bat for defensive reasons is that the use of that bat was preordained when you decided to use it in defence i.e. hitting a burglar. You cannot have an army without planning to kill.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you cannot have your pudding and eat it. The very idea of being prepared means you have a potential enemy in mind. Warfare needs greed in the very essence of it's nature as we know it, economic gain is just another potential queen on the proverbial chessboard.

When I was young I was always perplexed by one thing when I looked at the map of the world. That was just how condensed the idea of nations was when you looked at places like Europe, I never quite understood why it was the way it was, why was land so divided in key areas around the globe?

Warfare was the answer.

Once people have an identity they are always looking to secure their lands and their people, well at least when you look at the west. You only have a chance to defend your people if you evolve militaristically and that involves all manners of naughtiness and in the struggle of national identity nothing is off the cards and nowhere on Earth shows that better than Europe, where the kings of war once span in relative equilibrium.

In Europe, when one nation gains too much strength it has always been a harbinger of doom, bringing a huge shake-up and ultimately more and more new lines to draw in the dirt.

War is a big human trait, I think we've evolved too far into it for it to be romanticised and even if we could go back to the chivalrous old days we'd only be conquered by the smarter chap who found a cheap and easy way to best you.

Whirlpools... They will always keep spinning regardless of how many people you throw into them. The key is not having whirlpools in the first place then everyone could go for a nice swim.

a reply to: olaru12


I had a SGM with 27 years in and no deployments. He served too.

But, that's not what I asked.

I wasn't being insulting, just looking for clarification. I got it.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: InTheLight

Yes it is sad and you have hit the nail on the head. I'd like to share with you the reasons why war is waged. I am trying to understand this scourge upon humanity.

Not really. She projected MissKat's post onto the OP, and went off on a tangent that had little to do with what the author was trying to convey. As did others after her.

Carl Sandburg was a poet and although he volunteered for military service, was never called to battle. The poets can muse all they like and, of course, have their opinion, but let everyone else have theirs too.

I am familiar with Mr. Sanburg's background.

Absolutely nothing wrong with opinion, as long as one understands the topic and content of what they are giving their opinion on. Building a straw man, or projecting the content of a subsequent post on the OP, is not an opinion based on understanding. Just my opinion, though.

Did Sandburg understand the topic? Or should I also say Phillips. No wonder there is a split here.

www.english.illinois.edu...

We live in some of the most peaceful times in human history. War between nations is very rare and internal conflicts are also less common. A large part of that is do to the fact that the US is such a dominate power that invading your neighbor to take their land, people, and resources is simply not a viable option so long as the US remains dominate and allied to most of the planet. The worlds militaries have shrunk to a fraction of the sizes they once were. The world is no longer an armed camp. The Soviet army in WW2 had more men under arms than the entire planet does at this time.

Could things be better? Sure. However any look at human history shows we are doing better now than ever.