Alternatives to war?
- Thread starter zanket
- Start date
in my opinion the only way we can abolish war is if we reduce humanitys growth rate to zero.
this means that for every person that is born a random person must die.
if we do solve that problem we will have to figure out what to do with the people that like to wage war, the military type.
this means that for every person that is born a random person must die.
if we do solve that problem we will have to figure out what to do with the people that like to wage war, the military type.
War cannot and should not be abolished. I do not believe it should be a first resort, but it does make a great last one. I believe in negotiation, sanctions, and peace talks, but the only reason they work is becuase war is an option. Both sides know if they keep messing around and trying to shaft everyone, that there will be consequence more severe than the cessation of the twinkie supply.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
So perhaps what we're living through--the precipitous decline of warfare--is a realization at the national level that everybody would just rather stick to the negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks for as long as it takes until their argument is finally resolved. Because at the national level everybody agrees that going to war is worse than the worst possible compromise resulting from negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks. So perhaps what we're experiencing is not the abolition of war by decree, but rather by reason and enlightened self-interest.TW Scott said:
Point. Naked human pyramids orchestrated by a pretty young woman sounds like something my brother would have gotten into in his wild college days. Definitely would be a story to tell the grandchildren.TW Scott said:
Willing to trust the government to control all aspects of your nation's economy?one_raven said:
You are a lot more trusting than I.
Fraggle Rocker said:
First not everyone agrees, just those who lament for "appeasement" and "peace in our time". The rest of us with fully operational brains know that when you do that the devils come out to play. If you are really so against war I suggest you go tell Ossama bin Laden in person. Tell him that no matter what he does you'll never wage war. That you will give him whatever it takes to appease him. I promise to only dance a little on your grave.
one_raven said:
Ok, so say we "understand" terrorists and their motives. What good will that do us? Muslim extremists will still blow themselves up. However, we "understand" they are doing a good deed in the name of Allah and the reward of virgins... and we must not offend them!
The key is tolerance that I hope you are getting at. However for it to work, both sides must do the same... but how do you trust and KNOW the other side isn't just shitting us? Nukes are good in this respect because it creates a static warfare environment. You are afraid that if you fuck up, the other side will nuke. And vice versa. Just so long as the wrong people, like Muslim extremists, do not get a hold of a nuke... they would not care what happens, so long as their message gets across.
Absane said:
Wrong.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and Israel due to what he felt was unfair foreign policy.
Most of the terrorists al Zawahiri was able to cull from a generation of frustrated young Muslims who had a great deal of anger and rage over what they see as injustuces around them and them feeling powerless.
Granted, much of the injustice was inflicted upon them by the Ba'athists, but that's really of little consequence at this point, because their rage was given a target and fueled by al Zawahiri's inflamatroy speeches and giving them a cause to fight for.
al Zawahiri and bin Laden are a couple of opportunistic chicken hawks.
None of this, of course, justifies terrorism, but that's not the point.
If you understand what fuels their hatred, you can take steps in the right direction of reducing the fuel.
War is not about individuals, it is about people identifying with a group and gathering around an ideal.
Did you ever see American History X? al Zawahiri is Cameron.
If you want to fight skinhead racist attacks, you an either attack the never-ending supply of pissed off kids who are looking for somewhere to put their anger, and have a never-ending fight on your hands...
Or you can understand what is causing these kids to cling to the people who are feeding them this shit, address the actual problems and, as a result, take the power away from the "leaders".
Without followers, you have no power.
Withour understanding the cause of the problem, you can't sway the followers.
When we saw what was happening with al Zawahiri, when he was first arrested in connection with Anwar Sadat, (which we DID see) we could have taken measures to head his movement off at the pass by addressing, diplomatically, the cause of the anger of the young Muslims that were creating a following around him BEFORE they became terrorists for bin Laden.
We could have NOT supported the Ba'athists in power, rather than simply acting blinded by the money coming in from being partners with the murderous, oppressive bastards.
We could have opened the door to the oppressed, abused people BEFORE they fell prey to the first person who promised them and end to their difficulties and convinvced them that America and Israel was behind all their problems.
We could have practoced better foreign policy in the first place to not give ammunition to those that would act as the chicken hawks.
We could have addressed the problem and taken al Zawahiri and bin Laden's power away from them by taking their followers away from them.
"Understanding" what causes individuals to become extremists can help us to garner and foster healthy, diplomatic relationships with nations of people, rather than simply temporary regimes.
"undertsanding" people does not mean that you are necessarily supporting their cause, idenitfying with them, or even relating to them.
However, if you don't understand them at all, you end up at "war" with hundreds of thousands of people who hate you, and young skinheads beating immigrants, blacks and Jews and you don't even know why.
The force and power of this "Holy War" has little or nothing to do with Islam at all.
Just as the force and power of the skinhead movement has little or nothing to do with racism.
They are both used as a tool by a relatively small group of individuals who find mainly pissed off and confused teenage males who are highly open to suggestion and manipulation.
Hitler was a brilliant man because he knew to indoctrinate the youth and give them a cause or purpose.
There is an entire generation of young Muslims whose parents were rich and influential people in Iraq.
Those parents were stripped of their money and power or killed by the Ba'athists and these kids ended up being stripped of their dignity.
Now they are mad.
People like al Zawahiri and bin Laden come along and give them that purpose.
Not only are they mad, but they have nothing to lose and now they have something to fight for.
And unless the causes of their anger and rage are understood (and addressed), we have absolutely no chance at ever "winning" this.
Just as the force and power of the skinhead movement has little or nothing to do with racism.
They are both used as a tool by a relatively small group of individuals who find mainly pissed off and confused teenage males who are highly open to suggestion and manipulation.
Hitler was a brilliant man because he knew to indoctrinate the youth and give them a cause or purpose.
There is an entire generation of young Muslims whose parents were rich and influential people in Iraq.
Those parents were stripped of their money and power or killed by the Ba'athists and these kids ended up being stripped of their dignity.
Now they are mad.
People like al Zawahiri and bin Laden come along and give them that purpose.
Not only are they mad, but they have nothing to lose and now they have something to fight for.
And unless the causes of their anger and rage are understood (and addressed), we have absolutely no chance at ever "winning" this.
Yeah, the Cold War worked like a charm, didn't it?Absane said:
We outspent the Russians and their economy collapsed before ours did (not too long, before, at at that).
Not to mention the torture it was on the people who loved under a constant cloud of Nuclear Holocaust.
Are you old enough to remember that?
Do you remember it clearly?
Also, if there are ANY nuclear weapons, there is NO WAY of keeping them out of the hands of your enemy.
Quite the contrary, actually.Clockwood said:
Allowing the Government to base policy on the market trends and the whims of the heads of business is what opens the door to bribery and corruption in government.
At least the politicians can be hled accountable to the people - that is if the people are willing to learn what is actually happening and had the balls to stand up to it.
In a Capitalist system, the government and policy is, by matter of course, controlled by the bottom line.
Cost should never be a factor in problems such as healthcare, education, housing, food, clean drinking water...
But when you have a government that is driven by the needs of a profit-driven private sector (which, of course is controlled by a smaller and smaller group of peole in the age of uncheked coprorate proliferation that we have now) then such social needs as these get the shaft in preference of the profits of these businesses (which amounts ot money and more power in the pockets of the same select few who are unaccountable to the public).
The laws concerning business and industry should all reflect the Democratic ideal of the people being the beneficiaries of their work and efforts.
Right now the average CEO is making 400 times what the average emplyess in his business is making.
In the fifties and early sixties it was closer to 25 times.
We have created a finanical aristocracy that runs this country, ad there is only one way around that.
Every law, when considering the validity of it, should pass one simple litmus test: Would this have the greatest amount of benefit to the greatest number of people.
If the answer is "No", it should not be law.
Follow the money. Who is the greatest beneficiary of the vast majority of corporate law? Not the citizens - the CEO's and other executives.
What is the social benefit of allowing farms and ranches to be run by corporate conglomerates, for example?
It puts smaller, privately run, family farms and ranches out of business.
It put thousands of people out of work, and those who can find work get paid less.
It gives the Agribusiness a greater ability to lobby congress and get around public health restrictions.
It removes accountability for food quality.
What is the benefit?
Food costs a little less?
If more people were working and making a decent living and the corporations were more tightly regulated the slightly higher cost of food would be a welcome price to pay.
In the fifties and sixties, someone could raise a family, buy a house, put their kids through school and retire with a pension on a single income, working in a factory.
Now, with two parents working fulltime, people are just barely scraping by.
Last year was the first time in history, since the Great Depression that Americans have borrowed more than they have saved.
Why?
Because the government is a corporate bitch.
The only way to fix it is to take the money out of politics, and enact laws that benefit teh masses, not the aristocrats.
I am not talking about Communism, not even Socialism, but Democracy, the way it SHOULD work!
draqon said:
That's a little like how the Constitution works. The people can change it for short term gain, but that's hard to do. People could rip out the switch en masse and start warring, but if it's hard or painful to remove then that would be a good deterrent and promote alternatives. I like it! Ideally the switch would be activated by warring only; i.e. it cannot be hacked.