54 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

DieChecker, on 11 December 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

What was the reason for WW1? The Korean War? Vietnam War? American Civil War? Afghanistan? Even WW2 was more about fulfilment of treatys then it was about resources. Most of these were driven by pride, arrogance and desire for power, not greed.

Economics certainly factors in, but it is only a fragment, not a majority of the reason most wars are fought.

Ultimately all those wars were extremely profitable for there banking backers and I think this was the main motivation behind most of them. The fact that they found political fall guys is the dressing. If there was no room for profit it is unlikely that they would have happened.

Bankers can be found financing both parties in any conflict.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 December 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[DieChecker]

Br Cornelius, on 11 December 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Ultimately all those wars were extremely profitable for there banking backers and I think this was the main motivation behind most of them. The fact that they found political fall guys is the dressing. If there was no room for profit it is unlikely that they would have happened.

Bankers can be found financing both parties in any conflict.

Br Cornelius

So you're going to go with Conspiricy Theory A? Fine....

I have a tiger talisman to sell to you. It keeps away tigers. Honestly... You don't see any tigers around do you?

The American Civil war was not about Slavery, but about selling rifles???

Edited by DieChecker, 12 December 2012 - 02:42 AM.

[F3SS]

Yep. The war was about slavery and the rifle makers were a necessity. The rifle makers reaped massive rewards but that wasn't the reason for going to war. Most of America actually didn't care for slavery. I know it seems like a seedy business today, and it probably is, but militaries need weapon makers and innovators and it's only fitting that weapon makers charge an arm and a leg to allow you to remove somebody else's. It's kind of a limited market and limited markets that produce quality always make out big.

[acidhead]

War is a racket.

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 11 December 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

War is a consequence of overexploitation. It requires the moral acceptance of overexploitation as a justifiable means of conducting society to accept that war is a justifiable means to an end. It is not.

Competition is not the only pathway to innovation - the most dynamic area of knowledge advancement at the moment is in the public commons field which is all about cooperation. Take the example of Linux - an entirely cooperative project which has produced results far superior to Windows and OSX (which is a derivative of Linux sold for profit). There is no imperative to indulge in war/competition to sustain innovation, innovation is the product of fertile minds who see a public need - it is a tragedy that most innovative minds are diverted into projects of War when they could be solving real public needs.

Advancement of knowledge is always most rapid when information is shared in a spirit of cooperation rather than been horded for commercial reasons.

It is a myth that we prosper by some neoDarwinist survival of the fittest - it is simply propeganda of the current victors in the war of ideologies - there is nothing Platonic about the inevitability of this outcome - we have choices.

Br Cornelius

War is not a justified means to an end.  And so long as governments take their nations to war, we must oppose governments because they are unjust.  Let the people decide.  

Wars are fought over resources.  Resources typically include land, power, profit, prestige, legal entitlements, and more.

[Br Cornelius]

DieChecker, on 12 December 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

So you're going to go with Conspiricy Theory A? Fine....

I have a tiger talisman to sell to you. It keeps away tigers. Honestly... You don't see any tigers around do you?

The American Civil war was not about Slavery, but about selling rifles???

Not conspiracy theory - well documented facts. Banks always profit from wars and always finance both sides because its the most profitable business in town. I repeat - if war wasn't profitable it wouldn't happen.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 12 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

War is not a justified means to an end.  And so long as governments take their nations to war, we must oppose governments because they are unjust.  Let the people decide.  

Wars are fought over resources.  Resources typically include land, power, profit, prestige, legal entitlements, and more.

I ask you to go live in a country without a functional government to realise the fallacy of your position - I suggest Somalia would make a good educational experience.

Governments are not evil - only certain governments.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

whats the point of this discussion?  the only solution is some coked up fairy tale

[Br Cornelius]

acidhead, on 12 December 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

whats the point of this discussion?  the only solution is some coked up fairy tale

The point is that if people aren't made aware of the issues which drive them to send their sons and daughters to war - we will continue to have more pointless wars.

Peace is an option we can choose to take if we become aware.

Br Cornelius

[lightly]

-Mr_Fess-, on 12 December 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Yep. The war was about slavery and the rifle makers were a necessity. The rifle makers reaped massive rewards but that wasn't the reason for going to war. Most of America actually didn't care for slavery. I know it seems like a seedy business today, and it probably is, but militaries need weapon makers and innovators and it's only fitting that weapon makers charge an arm and a leg to allow you to remove somebody else's. It's kind of a limited market and limited markets that produce quality always make out big.

... or  maybe not so much?      I think it was probably, really,  more about economic control of the south.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican administration, their peace and personal security are to be endangered  I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so!" Abraham Lincoln


Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 12 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I ask you to go live in a country without a functional government to realise the fallacy of your position - I suggest Somalia would make a good educational experience.

Governments are not evil - only certain governments.

Br Cornelius

Humanity isn't evil either, only certain individuals.  Tyranny and liberty are locked in perpetual conflict.   Move too far to either fringe and catastrophe can develop.   That said, I would prefer to err on the side of liberty when considering the necessity of government.  History is my guide in having that preference.

Massive abuse of power in the hands of the few and the powerful (kings and conquerors) are a menace to our capacity to live free.   I'll side with the freedom fighters who want to free people for their own good, over the tyrants who want to control people for their own good.

[Yamato]

War isn't inevitable, provided the institutions that take us to war aren't too powerful.  There must be checks and balances on power.  Power should be kept disparate rather than centralized, small to the point of being large enough, and closer to the people rather than disconnected by thousands of miles.

[F3SS]

lightly, on 12 December 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

... or  maybe not so much?      I think it was probably, really,  more about economic control of the south.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican administration, their peace and personal security are to be endangered  I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so!" Abraham Lincoln


Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

Whoa! My mind is blown! You've wrecked my view of Lincoln.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 13 December 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[DieChecker]

lightly, on 12 December 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Even after the outbreak of the war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his previous stand. He said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln

Quote

On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.^[17]

http://en.wikipedia....oln_and_slavery

[ninjadude]

and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it

and that's exactly what he did.