Warmonger Thread

sentence.yourdictionary.com...

Here are some examples of the "war monger" concept as defined.

=a person or agency that advocates war or tries to bring about a war

Dictionary Home » Sentence Examples » warmonger
warmonger sentence examples

•Stop the warmongers, he said, the world of labor demands a world of peace.

•This attempt to assuage some criticism over the war only reveals how weak the two chief warmongers are.

•Warmonger nations, the usa and britain, is to create and maintain fear and sell their arms.

•However, this alone will not create the organization necessary to defeat the warmongers.

•This must be devastating news for our leading warmongers: mr bush and mr blair.

•But we mustn't let the warmongers in the white house distract us from the fight against global capital as capital.

•The world is currently loosely in the diktat of the insane american empire warmongers.

•It was terribly depressing but the warmth and hospitality with which we were greeted was astounding and put the warmongers to shame.

•The same thing could be said of any other warmonger.

•These steps foiled the plans of the russian warmongers and the kremlin's political elite.

Notice how this is what comes to mind. Not the slight threat of disloyalty. No mention of patriotic dissent.

The only valid war is one of self liberation as the only valid war (defense) is of one self and one's own nation.

A rebel is no enemy. A enemy is no rebel.
An enemy is an attacking enemy. An ally is a defending ally.

He that argues the defense of something is no enemy.
He that argues the attack of something is an enemy.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ah yes. I'm in the way of your utopian by clinging to sense and logic. Sense and logic will surely get in the way of all human endevours towards peace and progress.


edit to add:

below Jean is using disambiguation. Rather than add a needless post to address this form of dishonesty, I thought I could just add it here.

www.dictionary.com

Sense:
Definition: a faculty or function of the mind analogous to sensation: the moral sense.
A mental perception or awareness: a sense of happiness.
Moral discernment; understanding: a sense of right and wrong.
Sound practical judgment or intelligence: he is a man without any sense

logic, linguistics
a. the import of an expression as contrasted with its referent. Thus the morning star and the evening star have the same reference, Venus, but different senses
b. the property of an expression by virtue of which its referent is determined
c. that which one grasps in understanding an expression

Idiom: come to one's senses, to regain one's good judgment or realistic point of view; become reasonable.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

The planet is small, and your world view is miniscule.

That's right, the world view that all people everywhere possess certain unalienable rights and are free and independent of the governing bodies established by they is miniscule and your world view of a more practical tyranny is what is the zeitgeist. Yet you want me to be afraid of Iran and China alone.

To which your solution is that we all instead live in a what? A libertarian anarchist globalism? That seems to be about where you are coming from. Where rights are perfect because anyone who would take them from you could never even concieve of such an act.

I wonder sometimes about you poor people. It is like you've never encountered bad people. Like you live in a bubble of bunnies and light. Or is it that you expect that the bad aspects of human behaviour will just magically disappear, or at least be banished to operate in a way that doesn't confound you?

Nevermind these are rhetorical. Is this what happens to people when they never have to struggle for anything or interact except with some small segment of likeminded people in an Ivory Tower? Reality has no hold on them.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Ah yes. I'm in the way of your utopian by clinging to sense and logic. Sense and logic will surely get in the way of all human endevours towards peace and progress.

Sense and logic are antithetical to each other. Senses, are by definition inherently subjective. While our viewpoints insist on an undeniable subjectivity, logic is a tool used to see things as objectively as possible. The similarities between logic and sense is that some sensory input can be misinterpreted, as can logical input. When data is lacking, logic will produce a correct answer based upon the data, and because it is lacking data wind up being useless.

Garbage in, garbage out.

If by "sense" you mean "common sense", most assuredly then what you might mean by common sense, has nothing at all to do with Thomas Paine's treaties on Common Sense, and all you seem to understand is the collective agreement of the many. However, this alliance with the cultural norms which make up your world view does not, in any way, qualify you as a logician, and any evidence you know how to employ logic is greatly lacking in your posts.

This is why you have to rely on mystical incantations and utter dire warnings of super secret unknown unknowns of covertly covert cabals conspiring to make the tyranny even more miserable. It is amusing prattling, but it ain't logic.

reply to post by Aeons


I understand all of what you have been saying and where you have been coming from with it, but if I had eternity to decide I would still view your decision as a hasty one with problematic consequences..

the future potential of humanity is one that may extend towards eternity, if it does not combust now, tomorrow or the next day.

Of course the government officials of Iran who deceive the people are terrible and wrong, and tying in religious beliefs to enslave their point is even worse, the worst of the worst, a long with the individuals and factions of individuals in all countries and hidden dimensions of this world america not excluded,

Is there no way america can shine a light on these truths, for fellow americans, and for fellow humans ( peaceful and innocent iranians) to not allow corrupt men acquire means of power, something we should lead by example with.

I am not on anyones side but the innocent, good and truthful, no matter the situation those actions stand and shine as absolutes of humanity ... how can anything that goes against those wills be viewed as anything other then evil?

Again, I'm a Canadian.

There is no such thing as a perfect world. Only a perfect idea in one's mind of it.

Reality is one of validity of survival, established by the strength and cunning of the way you live it. Because of this It is the summation of individuals that make a society, but without the order of them by hierarchy and system of leadership, a society does not exist.

The nomadic anarchist is the true enemy of not a nation but the whole world. Anarchism is an age old habit of some to lose faith in humanity so much as to not trust one in the name of many. The anarchist trusts no one in the name of himself. He defies ALL leadership, even that which is necessary and good for the people. He would have us wallow in ignorance and insignificance, as a single person with God like personal rights.

The anarchist wants good leadership to be abolished as well. His perfect world is one where he decides how much of his personal influence he can impose on the world. The anarchist is not concerned with how much society can prosper by our humility and sacrifice.

It is not easy coexisting as a complex society. It is harder though to live in a meaningless blur of libertarian socialism.

just demand good leadership, not the right to impose on the world your own personal freedom. We are already a people, why not have us decide who leads us. Leadership is key to progress. Who is anyone to say we can't have structured leadership.

reply to post by casenately


The relationship between Nazi Germany and Iran is often overlooked. It’s easy to understand Iran’s undying hatred for Jews and the West once you understand Iran’s history. They were on the side of the Nazi’s and conspired against allied forces. Islamic participation in the murder of Jews in the Mideast and Eastern Europe is well documented.

Iran's axis with the Third Reich began during the prewar years, when it welcomed Nazi Gestapo agents and other operatives to Tehran, allowing them to use the city as a base for Middle East agitation against the British and the region's Jews.

Iran believed its people where the pure race of the middle-east and Nazi’s were the pure race of Europe. Talk about delusional!!!

Relations between Berlin and Tehran were strong from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, Reza Shah Pahlavi's nation was known as Persia. The shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Reich's help in reducing British petro-political domination.

Iran admired Nazi’s so much they renamed the country in their honor.

So intense was the shah's identification with the Third Reich that in 1935 he renamed his ancient country "Iran," which in Farsi means Aryan and refers to the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.

link

To this very day, the Iranian military still look an awful lot like the Nazis.



Does anybody advocate Hitler having nukes? Considering the close ties between Iran and Nazi Germany, are we to believe that Iran’s radical views have changed since that time? After all, it is Iran that still denies the holocaust and continuously threatens to wipe Israel off the map, carrying on the tradition of its great idol, Hitler.

reply to post by Aeons

To which your solution is that we all instead live in a what? A libertarian anarchist globalism?

I am not big on labels, but that is just more of my "miniscule world view" charm. Instead of a solution, we have to understand that successful solutions lead to actual answers to problems. The answer to the problem of tyranny is freedom. Under the rule of law, freedom is defined in terms of unalienable rights of the individual. The solution is for you and everyone else to start respecting the rights of others.

Call a world wide free market whatever you want. When people are free to purchase whatever they want and that purchase does not violate the rights of anyone else, that is a free market solution. When people are free to supply those demands that do not violate the rights of anyone else, then that is a free market solution. It begins always with the profound respect for the rights of the individual.

No nation need stockpile a nuclear arsenal in order to protect freedom. Non-acquiescence to tyranny is a for more powerful weapon. The ability to arm oneself individually is a far more powerful threat to tyranny than the dog and pony shows of national leaders doing their painted war dances and rattling sabres. It is patently absurd to think that it would be sane if every individual could arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Such a notion is insane. It is equally insane to argue that governments, collectives, states, or nations should arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

We are amidst a world filled with insanities, and advocating more of the same is hardly sane.

Where rights are perfect because anyone who would take them from you could never even concieve of such an act.

Is this your vaunted expansive world view? Come on, why do you ignore what I actually say in order to build these straw men arguments? I just replied to you earlier today that I have been in a long and seemingly never ending battle with local, state, and the federal government over rights violations.

Here is your world view, based upon the sentence of yours above: Rights are given and taken.

Here is what you declare my "miniscule world view" Rights exist and are trampled upon.

Perhaps this is just too nuanced for your zeitgeist mentality, and perhaps you represent a majority of people who cannot conceive of any freedom that might exist that wasn't first given to them by some tyrant. It matters not how many of you are out there, it only matters that you are, and that you are as much, if not more, a threat to the rights of individuals than any Iran or China threat.

I wonder sometimes about you poor people. It is like you've never encountered bad people. Like you live in a bubble of bunnies and light. Or is it that you expect that the bad aspects of human behaviour will just magically disappear, or at least be banished to operate in a way that doesn't confound you?

When your done patting yourself on your back for having invented such fanciful tales let me know and perhaps we continue discussing this solution to tyranny and how we might achieve the answer of freedom.

It has to be one or the other, the Natural order of the natural world,

or the most humane order of humans...

right now it is a mishmash of both, you establish laws and rules and orders and as generations pass certain members of society have now benefited greatly from this order their ancestors created... and then use "natural" laws of nature within the society as excuses for the failings of others...

survival of the fittest and such? really i thought we werent playing that game anymore, i thought we were playing community, if it is survival of the fittest let all the poor of all the nations storm the gated communities of the world... and this is why you have your neurotic armies...


the world the elite race of human has established is a game of keep away the life from the poor

it is how evolution occurred in the natural world until mans meddling and contriving established intelligent and fair order, a group of species stalked an area of food or nutrients kept away from lowers, they would die, the winning specie would progress and evolve.

of course individuality is important, it is the will of the human that is the engine of life, makes all decisions and choices, has the ability for creative ideas and passionate genius, but you have to understand the individual is nothing without the community... could you build a car, can you build your home, can you build your nukes, can you write books, can you grow all the food you eat,

reply to post by Aeons


Ahh way didnt you say so eh?

i didnt know you guys got fox news,

and replace my sporting metaphor earlier with hockey..

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

There are no good reasons. There are merely unavoidable reasons.

The clash of civilizations is deep and ignored, and is the subcontext that nobody wants to touch. The clash is not simply between the civilizations, but a vertical clash between the middle and super-rich/corps here and the superrich/theocrats there, none of whom are necessarily acting on anyone's behalf but their own.

The vertical clash doesn't repair itself by cow towing to Iran. Let us get Iran to heel, and then we can deal with the vertical clash which is adding complexity which is unnecessary. Or at least bring them to heel as well.

edit on 2012/1/18 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

This vertical angle is an interesting new perspective for me.
I will think about it.
However, I am pessimistic about the success of getting Iran (i.e. Ahmad etc.) to heel because of the Russian factor...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

This is why you have to rely on mystical incantations and utter dire warnings of super secret unknown unknowns of covertly covert cabals conspiring to make the tyranny even more miserable. It is amusing prattling, but it ain't logic.

It is no secret the lies are complex and truth is not hidden in lies by its very simplicity that defines it. Logic is the duality of reality organized. The double printed page of the mind passing through the press of self expression.

To argue for logic is no claim on truth itself, since logic is but the system of its knowable expression of truth.
Simply argue truth. Do not deny lies.
If you can I will see the logic.
what is the truth?
your logic?

no.

reply to post by casenately


Logic remains a tool and does have its uses, but when the word logic is used to dress up irrational fears and arbitrary beliefs, this only does a disservice to logic. Logic is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Kokatsi

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

There are no good reasons. There are merely unavoidable reasons.

The clash of civilizations is deep and ignored, and is the subcontext that nobody wants to touch. The clash is not simply between the civilizations, but a vertical clash between the middle and super-rich/corps here and the superrich/theocrats there, none of whom are necessarily acting on anyone's behalf but their own.

The vertical clash doesn't repair itself by cow towing to Iran. Let us get Iran to heel, and then we can deal with the vertical clash which is adding complexity which is unnecessary. Or at least bring them to heel as well.

edit on 2012/1/18 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

This vertical angle is an interesting new perspective for me.
I will think about it.
However, I am pessimistic about the success of getting Iran (i.e. Ahmad etc.) to heel because of the Russian factor...

Russia doesn't want Iran doing this either. They are more likely to end up a target of their extremists than North America is. It will add to the race for nukes in the region, all of which effect Russia's trade and security. Escalation will proceed from Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey as it is now is constantly trying to fight for regional dominance and isn't playing nicely with Azerbaijan because they are more cooperative with trade and security with both Russia and the US.

Closure of useful trade routes to the South can cause escalation in Russia to look North for its "way out" to its market. A factor that seems not to have eluded some of the Northern European states.

Non-proliferation. Iran can sign as many deals about it as they want, they damn well know that they are causing proliferation.

reply to post by seabag


The Nazi connection can also link to bush and most bad leadership. The same leadership that destabilized Iran and now wants to sweep it under the global carpet of rewritten history. The thing is they have to erase it before it can be rewritten.

We equate them to the most evil thing ever while forgetting that the same psychos that lead us once endorsed their leadership when it was submissive to their whims. Since the day the Iranians expelled their first tyrant, the royalty, the CIA has had a blood lust for its true enemies in Iran, which is, the people themselves who dont want them there. As a people they have suffered the wrath of some sick people. Even when they achieved their freedom and took its first step, they have had enemies that find them as inconvenient as much as you or me.

It's all a play thing. The risks are real but these sick mad men have run us into perpetual war with each other.

like getting the fat kid and the skinny kid to fight in the playground and taking bets on it. Both the losers fighting each other. Grunt against grunt.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


yes, that´s what I said. It is not the answer. Truth is. Logic is simply the expression of that truth.

One cant rationalize disorder based on order. It is a lie and so not truth, even if logic is used to rationalize it. Reality validates truth. Society exists so its structured order must exist as well.

To humanize it, or personalize it only reaches for that tool of logic to validate a lie (personal good is in line with social good.)

This from a standpoint that society can impose nothing, even if it is something we all want and democratically decided, through leadership. Democratically elected leadership protecting the good of the people.

Structured in a way we see fit.

But structured, not a free floating vacuum of power the loudest or strongest can fill. No,

a firm ground where the people are represented by the people. There is nothing wrong with that. We can choose some of us to lead, as long as we can choose fairly.

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by seabag

 

The Nazi connection can also link to bush and most bad leadership.

Bush connected to the Nazi's? Source?

It's all a play thing. The risks are real but these sick mad men have run us into perpetual war with each other.

like getting the fat kid and the skinny kid to fight in the playground and taking bets on it. Both the losers fighting each other. Grunt against grunt.

I don't consider it a game by evil men....more like a necessary evil. I think you are too conspiracy minded.

reply to post by seabag


Everyone knows everything Hitler did is wrong, duh.

Hitler wore clothes. That's why I am a nudist.

Hitler had one wife. That's why i am going to have ten.

Hitler died and failed to become the ruler of the world. That's why I am going to live forever and take over the world.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by seabag

 

The Nazi connection can also link to bush and most bad leadership.

Bush connected to the Nazi's?

Source?

Have you heard of Prescott Bush? Oh my, what a lot of catching up you've got ahead of you!




Also, as a country that has practiced its own version of 'The Final Solution' (source later, it's at home, I'm at work on lunch break) I don't think I would/do trust the U.S.A. with nuclear weapons either.