Is there a forseeable way to end war?

[Ando!]

Or shouldn't we try?

I read Kenneth Waltz's Man the State and War last year but forget most of it, and I saw something like this being discussed elsewhere. I probably won't contribute to this thread if it takes off, because I prefer to lurk in this forum.

[1338 h4x0r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvHuPoDkwF8

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

War is necessary.

[Der Übermensch]

No.

[TheDarkHorse]

End war in general, or a specific war?

If the former, good luck.

[Raayl]

War is natural, necessary and it isn't going anywhere.

[TheDarkHorse]

War is natural, necessary and it isn't going anywhere.

not necessarily.

[Raayl]

not necessarily.

sure it is and i'm not just talking about human beings

[1338 h4x0r]

Kind of dubious: a large number of countries haven't been at war for ages

[Iskandar]

Ending war totally, no but war will become less frequent with globalization.

Wow I just sounded like a major neoliberal when I'm really not but it's true.

[TheDarkHorse]

sure it is and i'm not just talking about human beings

no, its not.

what else are you including?

[Raayl]

Kind of dubious: a large number of countries haven't been at war for ages

democracies don't war with each other historically

but they also have problems lasting especially as we move forward into the scientifically dominated post-modern world in stage 5 of the demographic transition

stage 5 sees countries as effectively dying. some population geographers cite the west as "dying" and if or when we do in fact die there will always be a totalitarian power to step in.

hence

war

[Mr. Ron]

nope

[Ando!]

Ending war totally, no but war will become less frequent with globalization.

Wow I just sounded like a major neoliberal when I'm really not but it's true.


right, it's gotten to the point that it's totally inconceivable for one eu nation to war with another eu nation, for example

[Raayl]

no, its not.

what else are you including?

war as an abstract concept (violence, ruthlessness, etc) can include all matter of plant and animal life as well as the cosmos

the old cliche the universe is a deadly, violent, unforgiving place isn't false it couldn't be more true

[Raayl]

Ending war totally, no but war will become less frequent with globalization.

Wow I just sounded like a major neoliberal when I'm really not but it's true.

Until a world economy collapse that actually matters and china finds a way to mobilize its massive land army that is

[TheDarkHorse]

Until a world economy collapse that actually matters and china finds a way to mobilize its massive land army that is

:lol:

[Raayl]

:lol:

dude just you wait america will be the new place where actual world superpowers go for cheap labor

[Raayl]

ok im being facetious but the point is

war is always inevitable there is no such thing as perpetual peace plus keep in mind we're dealing with a mere sliver of history here in the post-modern world

democracies don't war with each other traditionally, but they also don't last nearly as long as governmentally condensed empires and also keep in mind there are very few actual democracies left if you ask me - america certainly isn't a democracy we're a republic heavily influenced by the roman republican system

and we all know how that ended

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

War will be on the internet soon enough. People will die using the internet.

Can you imagine?

[Iskandar]

K I just said war would become less frequent, not obsolete.
but they also don't last nearly as long as condensed empires and also keep in mind there are very few actual democracies left if you ask me - america certainly isn't a democracy we're a republic heavily influenced by the roman republican systemNo this is extremely silly.

Democracies are far more stable than authoritarian states (see: Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand) and there are more democracies now than there ever have been at any point in history.

Besides that, drawing comparisons between America and Rome is silly when they're completely different societies with different political structures in different time periods. It's like, dude.

[Raayl]

War will be on the internet soon enough. People will die using the internet.

Can you imagine?

i'm sure plenty of people have died already directly as a result of incessant 4chan surfing

[Raayl]

K I just said war would become less frequent, not obsolete.
No this is extremely silly.

Democracies are far more stable than authoritarian states (see: Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand) and there are more democracies now than there ever have been at any point in history.

Besides that, drawing comparisons between America and Rome is silly when they're completely different societies with different political structures in different time periods. It's like, dude.

I wasn't drawing comparisons I was citing a source of influence we were hugely influenced by roman government during the period of their republic to deny that is silly

democracies are a wonderful thing but they've not until recently been global nor do they last historically

plus if you ask me it's only a matter of time before we begin warring with other democracies too

but anyways, on point:

Compare the timelines of world empires with condensed singular government with the timelines of the world's most affluent democracies. Post modern society is not even old enough to be qualified as infants.

[Raayl]

also this really has nothing to do with war itself

all we have to go on in this discussion is history. what do the 10,000 years of human civilization tell us about our nature? we like to fight. 10,000 years of evidence seems kind of difficult to counter when the only argument is a new and incredibly undeveloped concept of globalization

[1338 h4x0r]

Oh and by the way, if a major world war occurs in the 21st century, it will be a gigadeath war if extrapolation from earlier statistics is valid

[TheDarkHorse]

dude just you wait america will be the new place where actual world superpowers go for cheap labor

I'd like to say that without getting laughed out of the room

man the fall of the dollar is gonna come like a thief in the night

[Raayl]

I'd like to say that without getting laughed out of the room

man the fall of the dollar is gonna come like a thief in the night

i was just being facetious but really is it that ridiculous of a scenario to consider i mean **** we're already over halfway there

[Iskandar]

I wasn't drawing comparisons I was citing a source of influence we were hugely influenced by roman government during the period of their republic to deny that is sillyNot really. Universal suffrage disagrees with you. So does separation of powers.
democracies are a wonderful thing but they've not until recently been global nor do they last historically
They are the most stable form of government in the present and have been proven to flourish outside of the Western milieu.
plus if you ask me it's only a matter of time before we begin warring with other democracies tooThis is completely unsubstantiated.
but anyways, on point:

Compare the timelines of world empires with condensed singular government with the timelines of the world's most affluent democracies. Post modern society is not even old enough to be qualified as infants.If this isn't an appeal to tradition I don't know what is.

The fact that this is how things were historically has no bearing on how they will be in the future. In the past, we lived in abode huts and worshiped the moon goddesses.

[Raayl]

Not really. Universal suffrage disagrees with you. So does separation of powers.
They are the most stable form of government in the present and have been proven to flourish outside of the Western milieu.
This is completely unsubstantiated.
If this isn't an appeal to tradition I don't know what is.

The fact that this is how things were historically has no bearing on how they will be in the future. In the past, we lived in abode huts and worshiped the moon goddesses.

Did you just seriously state that history doesn't indicate possible trends in the future? like, dude.

[Iskandar]

Did you just seriously state that history doesn't indicate possible trends in the future? like, dude.Not really.

But "this is history so that means it's always going to be this way in the future" is pretty dumb.

[Smokey D]

democracies are a wonderful thing but they've not until recently been global nor do they last historically

I can only think of 3 authoritarian regimes which you might be able to say have been around longer than the established democracies.

Compare the timelines of world empires with condensed singular government with the timelines of the world's most affluent democracies. Post modern society is not even old enough to be qualified as infants.

Um, 200 years is longer than most governmental systems.


PS the answer to thread title is nukes.


I'd like to say that without getting laughed out of the room

man the fall of the dollar is gonna come like a thief in the night

The decline of the dollar should be slow and relatively painless because the only countries with the ability to cause it to collapse have vested interest in it being stable.

[Iskandar]

The democratic peace > the nuclear peace.

js

[Smokey D]

Democratic nuclear peace theory.

[1338 h4x0r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvHuPoDkwF8

PS the answer to thread title is nukes.

:lol: gg

[Iskandar]

Democratic nuclear peace theory.You would.

I don't think the nuclear component is really necessary though. One might say you're overcompensating.





for something.

[Smokey D]

Hedging your bets is the phrase you're looking for.

[Raayl]

Not really.

But "this is history so that means it's always going to be this way in the future" is pretty dumb.

200 years vs. the 2000 years of rome? the perhaps 10,000 year old egypt?

and what is this nonsense like in these 200 years we havn't fought any wars as a democracy umm I'm sorry but what color is the sky in your world

[Raayl]

we're at war in america right now

[Smokey D]

Um, Rome's government changed hugely during its lifetime.


and what is this nonsense like in these 200 years we havn't fought any wars as a democracy umm I'm sorry but what color is the sky in your world

Democracies don't fight wars with each other. they fight wars with non-democracies.

[Raayl]

Um, Rome's government changed hugely during its lifetime.



Democracies don't fight wars with each other. they fight wars with non-democracies.

yeah exactly which is what i stated earlier but you're talking about the post-modern world like its this wonderful conflict and strife free place there will always be a totalitarian or authoritative state that will rival these democracies militarily war isnt going anywhere

also i wasnt aware when you take influence from a culture's style of government that means emulating them exactly i kinda thought it meant taking certain elements and improving upon them hrmm guess i was wrong

and rome evolved to sustain itself the republic didn't work it had to become authoritative under augustus

[TheDarkHorse]

The decline of the dollar should be slow and relatively painless because the only countries with the ability to cause it to collapse have vested interest in it being stable.
While this can go either way, you must also consider the mentality of Americans. We have this mentality that our currency is unstoppable. Without education + media coverage, it will virtually happen overnight.

[Smokey D]

yeah exactly which is what i stated earlier but you're talking about the post-modern world like its this wonderful conflict and strife free place there will always be a totalitarian or authoritative state that will rival these democracies militarily war isnt going anywhere

Possibly. Although even non-democracies can be made parts of the international system.


also i wasnt aware when you take influence from a culture's style of government that means emulating them exactly i kinda thought it meant taking certain elements and improving upon them hrmm guess i was wrong

What

While this can go either way, you must also consider the mentality of Americans. We have this mentality that our currency is unstoppable. Without education + media coverage, it will virtually happen overnight.

Nah. I don't really see it happening like that unless there is some unprecedented crisis like another world war. Even as the US dollar weakens, it'll never be reduced like the pound was because America will always have considerable industrial capacities.

[Iskandar]

Since our good friend Smokey D already answered my point I'd like to contend his so called democratic nuclear peace theory.

The DPT applies equally to Canada and Switzerland as it does to the USA and France, suggesting to me that the key component is the democratic nature of these states, not their nuclear capability. Furthermore, the most peaceful countries do not have nukes nor do particularly large standing armies.

O ya and
they fight wars with non-democracies.Not nearly as frequently as non-democracies fight with each other.

[Raayl]

Possibly. Although even non-democracies can be made parts of the international system.



What

It just seems hugely unrealistic to assume that war is going away due to globalization.

And the latter was in response to your comment that rome's government changed so that somehow makes us less influenced by their republic and how effective it was during rome's early years

[Iskandar]

This is the third time that I've said that war won't go away, it will become less prevalent.
rome's government changed so that somehow makes us less influenced by their republic and how effective it was during rome's early yearsThe Empire fell too you know and it was not pretty.

[Smokey D]

It just seems hugely unrealistic to assume that war is going away due to globalization.

I doubt it'll go away but it'll become less frequent, at least amongst the globalised states. Internal wars rather than inter-state conflict will become more and more the norm.


And the latter was in response to your comment that rome's government changed so that somehow makes us less influenced by their republic and how effective it was during rome's early years

No, it was directed at your comment about Rome being 2000 years old. The Roman republic at most lasted for 450 years. The US republic has lasted over 200 years and about 100 years in its current form.


The DPT applies equally to Canada and Switzerland as it does to the USA and France, suggesting to me that the key component is the democratic nature of these states, not their nuclear capability. Furthermore, the most peaceful countries do not have nukes nor do particularly large standing armies.

Democracy means there are internal institutional limitations on a state's ability to wage war. Nuclear weapons mean there are strong external disincentives to wage war. Ergo, a nuclear armed democratic state is even less likely to go to war than one which only has nuclear weapons or democracy.

As for the most peaceful states not having nukes, it's because they are sheltered in the bosom of the hegemon.


Not nearly as frequently as non-democracies fight with each other.

the whole point of democratic peace theory is not that democracies don't fight wars it's that they don't fight wars with each other.

[Raayl]

I doubt it'll go away but it'll become less frequent, at least amongst the globalised states. Internal wars rather than inter-state conflict will become more and more the norm.



No, it was directed at your comment about Rome being 2000 years old. The Roman republic at most lasted for 450 years. The US republic has lasted over 200 years and about 100 years in its current form.

Yeah - I intentionally cited it as 2000 to confirm my point that democracies, in the long run, do not last and have to mutate to survive. Well, historically at least. The post-modern world is much different.

Not insinuating rome was a democracy, but definitely couldn't support itself using certain democratic principles.

[Smokey D]

Yeah - I intentionally cited it as 2000 to confirm my point that democracies, in the long run, do not last and have to mutate to survive. Well, historically at least. The post-modern world is much different.

Rome wasn't 2000 years old, and your point confirmed nothing except that the Roman state whatever its government was around for longer than modern democracies. It showed nothing about whether democracies are stable in the long term or whether democracies go to war.


Not insinuating rome was a democracy, but definitely couldn't support itself using certain democratic principles.

What.

[Iskandar]

Democracy means there are internal institutional limitations on a state's ability to wage war. Nuclear weapons mean there are strong external disincentives to wage war. Ergo, a nuclear armed democratic state is even less likely to go to war than one which only has nuclear weapons or democracy.If democracies don't go to war already, it's sufficient for most states to merely be democracies instead of having nukes as well.

That and an authoritarian state with nukes is scary any way you slice it.
As for the most peaceful states not having nukes, it's because they are sheltered in the bosom of the hegemon.Finland's right next to Russia and that doesn't seem to faze them. South Korea's right next to China. These states aren't exactly the best of friends.
the whole point of democratic peace theory is not that democracies don't fight wars it's that they don't fight wars with each other.Didn't claim otherwise.

But they do fight wars less frequently in general and the most authoritarian states are those with the highest rates of both inter-state conflict and internal violence.

[Raayl]

Rome wasn't 2000 years old, and your point confirmed nothing except that the Roman state whatever its government was around for longer than modern democracies. It showed nothing about whether democracies are stable in the long term or whether democracies go to war.



What.

If you include all aspects of the rise and fall of the roman empire yes it was 2000 years old

Also - I clearly said in the beginning of this discussion I consider america to be a republic very similar in structure to the roman republic. This is relevant because rome had to become authoritative to sustain itself. the senators were out of touch and the mob didn't want to go back to subsistence living they'd rather rely on slave labor and state welfare. Which of course then by correlation supports my claim that democracies (if you consider a republic a form of democracy which most do) always eventually descend into some type of authoritative rule once power becomes too out of touch.

Take our senators in america today. Do you disagree they live in an isolated bubble, completely out of touch with the rest of the country? I certainly think so. This is exactly what happened in rome and it makes the anthropological hypothesis that democracies don't war with each other invalid. Because it foregos the traditional definition of democracy.

[Smokey D]

If democracies don't go to war already, it's sufficient for most states to merely be democracies instead of having nukes as well.

Well, if democracies don't go to war, then there's no risk of nuclear weapons being used either.

That and an authoritarian state with nukes is scary any way you slice it.[/QUOTE]

Not really. Authoritarian states are just as much interested in self-preservation as non-authoritarian ones.

But ideally we wouldn't give nukes to non-democratic states.


Finland's right next to Russia and that doesn't seem to faze them. South Korea's right next to China. These states aren't exactly the best of friends.

Um, do you know how NATO and stuff works?


Didn't claim otherwise.

But they do fight wars less frequently in general and the most authoritarian states are those with the highest rates of both inter-state conflict and internal violence.

Well, the US probably fights more wars than any other country in the world.


If you include all aspects of the rise and fall of the roman empire yes it was 2000 years old

You were talking about the Republic.

I clearly said in the beginning of this discussion I consider america to be a republic very similar in structure to the roman society. This is relevant because rome had to become authoritative to sustain itself. the senators were out of touch and the mob didn't want to go back to subsistence living they'd rather rely on slave labor and state welfare. Which of course then by correlation supports my claim that democracies (if you consider a republic a form of democracy which most do) always eventually descend into some type of authoritative rule once power becomes too out of touch.

It's a completely false comparison. The US has virtually nothing in common with the Roman republic except the name of one of its democratic assemblies.


Take our senators in america today. Do you disagree they live in an isolated bubble, completely out of touch with the rest of the country? I certainly think so. This is exactly what happened in rome and it makes the anthropological hypothesis that democracies don't war with each other invalid. Because it foregos the traditional definition of democracy.

Um, America is democratic.

[Iskandar]

Well, if democracies don't go to war, then there's no risk of nuclear weapons being used either.And no need for them.
Not really. Authoritarian states are just as much interested in self-preservation as non-authoritarian ones.Authoritarian states will go to lengths others will not to preserve it.
But ideally we wouldn't give nukes to non-democratic states.I thought for the nuclear peace to work, everyone had to have them.
Um, do you know how NATO and stuff works?Tactical military alliance. Not necessarily tactical nuclear alliance although that is an option.
Well, the US probably fights more wars than any other country in the world.Exception to the rule. Norway probably fights less.

[Raayl]

you guys really need to get yourselves an avatar this whole picture-less mod thing isnt working out for me

[Iskandar]

you guys really need to get yourselves an avatar this whole picture-less mod thing isnt working out for meNever.

[Raayl]

Well, if democracies don't go to war, then there's no risk of nuclear weapons being used either.

That and an authoritarian state with nukes is scary any way you slice it.

Not really. Authoritarian states are just as much interested in self-preservation as non-authoritarian ones.

But ideally we wouldn't give nukes to non-democratic states.



Um, do you know how NATO and stuff works?



Well, the US probably fights more wars than any other country in the world.



You were talking about the Republic.



It's a completely false comparison. The US has virtually nothing in common with the Roman republic except the name of one of its democratic assemblies.



Um, America is democratic.

I was talking about the relevance of how governments change to authoritative states to sustain themselves over long periods of time how many times do I have to repeat that? Are you just choosing not to read those parts of my posts?

Again, influence, Smoke, influence. We don't have to mirror their society to be heavily influenced by it. I'm influenced by Ani Defranco, does my music sound anything like hers no it most certainly does not. But the underlying principles remain intact.

Rome (combined with greece) provide the foundation for the western world. We build on and borrow concepts executed by these empires time and time again. To deny their influence is just retarded.

Also - this now again has nothing to do with war. This semantic discussion about the influence of rome on the west is relevant to make the democratic war theory void, but tbqh it doesn't have to be nullified to suggest there will always be war.

Always.

[Smokey D]

And no need for them.

DPT says that democracies are less likely to go to war, it doesn't mean they can't go to war. If our goal is no war, then we ought to do everything we can to make war as unattractive as possible. Nukes are the best way to do that.


Authoritarian states will go to lengths others will not to preserve it.

Um, when was the last time an authoritarian state used nukes?


I thought for the nuclear peace to work, everyone had to have them.

Probably not.


Tactical military alliance. Not necessarily tactical nuclear alliance although that is an option.

Read: sheltered in the bosom of the hegemon.

Exception to the rule. Norway probably fights less.

Which perhaps indicates that how warlike a state is is tied not to its democratic status but to its role in the international system.


I was talking about the relevance of how governments change to authoritative states to sustain themselves over long periods of time how many times do I have to repeat that? Are you just choosing not to read those parts of my posts?

I don't even know what that means.


Again, influence, Smoke, influence. We don't have to mirror their society to be heavily influenced by it. I'm influenced by Ani Defranco, does my music sound anything like hers no it most certainly does not. But the underlying principles remain intact

Okay so show me the influence of Roman Republic on the US.


Rome (combined with greece) provide the foundation for the western world. We build on and borrow concepts executed by these empires time and time again. To deny their influence is just retarded.


I'm not denying that. I'm saying the US government isn't structured anything like the Roman one.


Also - this now again has nothing to do with war. This semantic discussion about the influence of rome on the west is relevant to make the democratic war theory void, but tbqh it doesn't have to be nullified to suggest there will always be war.


Okay but the US is still a democracy.

[Raayl]

Never.

dude cmon you can be super saiyan goku and smokey can be perfect cell

omg do it

[Iskandar]

DPT says that democracies are less likely to go to war, it doesn't mean they can't go to war. If our goal is no war, then we ought to do everything we can to make war as unattractive as possible. Nukes are the best way to do that.War will will be virtually unheard of between democracies.

Therefore we just need more democracies which benefits people more than more nukes ever could.
Um, when was the last time an authoritarian state used nukes?When was the last time a democracy did. Wait it was 1945.
Probably not.Probably likewise for the DPT.
Read: sheltered in the bosom of the hegemon.Is New Zealand?
Which perhaps indicates that how warlike a state is is tied not to its democratic status but to its role in the international system.Idk, middle powers.

dude cmon you can be super saiyan goku and smokey can be perfect cellI don't know what these things are.

[Smokey D]

War will will be virtually unheard of between democracies.

What are you basing this on?

Therefore we just need more democracies which benefits people more than more nukes ever could.

I'm not disputing that democracy is an important part of nuclear democratic peace theory.


When was the last time a democracy did. Wait it was 1945.

The point being that states tend not to use nukes, even if htey're authoritarian.

Idk, middle powers.

Are you suggesting middle power peace theory?

Is New Zealand?

Yah.

[Iskandar]

What are you basing this on?It currently is now.
The point being that states tend not to use nukes, even if htey're authoritarian.My point being that authoritarian states are more unpredictable and less transparent and we shouldn't rule out Samson options and analogues.
Are you suggesting middle power peace theory?No.
Yah.Australia isn't nuclear silly.

[Smokey D]

It currently is now.

That's pretty rich given you just said to Raayl that " The fact that this is how things were historically has no bearing on how they will be in the future. In the past, we lived in abode huts and worshiped the moon goddesses" and " but "this is history so that means it's always going to be this way in the future" is pretty dumb."

My point being that authoritarian states are more unpredictable and less transparent and we shouldn't rule out Samson options and analogues.

Well, there wouldn't be a need for a Samson option because no-one would be invading one another.


Australia isn't nuclear silly.

America is the hegemon.

[Iskandar]

That's pretty rich given you just said to Raayl that " The fact that this is how things were historically has no bearing on how they will be in the future. In the past, we lived in abode huts and worshiped the moon goddesses" and " but "this is history so that means it's always going to be this way in the future" is pretty dumb."The present is indicative of trends, not the past.
Well, there wouldn't be a need for a Samson option because no-one would be invading one another.The fact they'd consider suicide missions in the first place implies they aren't terribly logical.

Authoritarian states are not very rational about choosing other nations to aggress against in general.
America is the hegemon.Is America the only truly global hegemon then. Is every Anglo nation in the Old Boys' Club.

[Smokey D]

The present is indicative of trends, not the past.

That's the most asinine and inconsistent thing you've ever said.


The fact they'd consider suicide missions in the first place implies they aren't terribly logical.

I'm pretty sure most people see a pretty big difference between suicide bombing and MAD.

Also, suicide bombing is a perfectly rational strategy.


Authoritarian states are not very rational about choosing other nations to aggress against in general.


Yes they are.


Is America the only truly global hegemon then.

Yes

Is every Anglo nation in the Old Boys' Club.

Yes.

More or less.

[Iskandar]

That's the most asinine and inconsistent thing you've ever said.I'm sorry, Grandpa. I won't do it again.
I'm pretty sure most people see a pretty big difference between suicide bombing and MAD.

Also, suicide bombing is a perfectly rational strategy.I said suicide missions not suicide bombings, which are a subtype of them.
Yes they are.USSR and Afghanistan. Imperial Japan and America. Iraq and Kuwait.
Yes.

More or less.I'm just curious who else is in the club. I have a pretty good idea already.

[jaredong]

dude cmon you can be super saiyan goku and smokey can be perfect cell

omg do it

seconded, lol that would be hilarious. I love how you two mods get into drawn out battles that last many episodes and never seem to end

In terms of the democratic peace, one problem i supposes is that democratic transitions are messy things... that end up in violence lots of the times. Even if democracies dont fight, the process to get there might entail a lot of war.

[Iskandar]

seconded, lol that would be hilarious. I love how you two mods get into drawn out battles that last many episodes and never seem to endCause we're secretly in love but would never admit it.
In terms of the democratic peace, one problem i supposes is that democratic transitions are messy things... that end up in violence lots of the times. Even if democracies dont fight, the process to get there might entail a lot of war.It requires more democracies. War isn't the best way to create those.

[Freiheit]

the answer is no what a silly question

[Iskandar]

the answer is no what a silly questionWe're discussing how war might be limited, not ended.

[Smokey D]

USSR and Afghanistan. Imperial Japan and America. Iraq and Kuwait.

Just because they eventually lose doesn't mean they weren't rational decisions.


I said suicide missions not suicide bombings, which are a subtype of them.

Okay but the point regarding MAD still applies.


I'm just curious who else is in the club. I have a pretty good idea already.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. Mexico. Some places in South America. I dunno.

[Iskandar]

Just because they eventually lose doesn't mean they weren't rational decisions.Invading Kuwait was colossally stupid.
Okay but the point regarding MAD still applies.Whatevskies.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. Mexico. Some places in South America. I dunno.K that's what I thought.

[Stig Caraveo]

war could be ended through a thoroughly totalitarian new world order or a philosophical revolution of a never-before-seen scale. but the second one could never happen. the first one probably couldn't either.

so no.

[Smokey D]

Invading Kuwait was colossally stupid.

Democracies and non-democracies both miscalculate from time to time.

[Iskandar]

Democracies and non-democracies both miscalculate from time to time.Do I need to list every stupid war that dictatorships have gotten into.

How about WWII.
war could be ended through a thoroughly totalitarian new world order War is Peace.

[Smokey D]

Do I need to list every stupid war that dictatorships have gotten into.

How about WWII.

The war the dictators nearly won?

I don't get your point. I especially don't get why it's relevant to nuclear peace. Even if authoritarian regimes are liable to make bad decisions, I struggle to see them as so irrational as to launch a war against someone who can annihilate them in a few minutes.

Moreover, this discussion was about arming democratic states with nukes not authoritarians.

[Freiheit]

lol WW2 wasn't just caused by the Axis.

[1338 h4x0r]

The Jews caused it

That reminds me, I would prefer the translation "We are coming back ......" for "Wir kommen wieder ......"

[Freiheit]

the allies cemented another world war by having all of their ridiculous demands added into the treaty of Versailles.

[Iskandar]

The war the dictators nearly won?The war they did not need to begin with.
I don't get your point. I especially don't get why it's relevant to nuclear peace. Even if authoritarian regimes are liable to make bad decisions, I struggle to see them as so irrational as to launch a war against someone who can annihilate them in a few minutes.Second-strike capability.
Moreover, this discussion was about arming democratic states with nukes not authoritarians.It inevitably came to encompass both since authoritarian states seem to be the ones most interested in developing them.

[Stig Caraveo]

the allies cemented another world war by having all of their ridiculous demands added into the treaty of Versailles.

This was only one of the factors that led to World War II. If this hadn't happened, WWII might not have happened. If Hitler hadn't happened, WWII might not have happened as well. So it's not that simple.

[Iskandar]

The Allies didn't intend to start a war with Versailles. Hitler and Hirohito did by invading Poland and China.

[Stig Caraveo]

High-five.

[Freiheit]

This was only one of the factors that led to World War II. If this hadn't happened, WWII might not have happened. If Hitler hadn't happened, WWII might not have happened as well. So it's not that simple.

I know its not that simple, however, it made Germans foster an extreme resentment. A people don't just forget something like that. The treaty was a mere interlude to WW2.


The Allies didn't intend to start a war with Versailles. Hitler and Hirohito did by invading Poland and China.

They didn't intend for it to happen but they certainly contributed to help German aggression and military build up in the 30's.

[Smokey D]

World War II probably wouldn't have happened without the Great Depression.

[Freiheit]

Thats true.

[TheDarkHorse]

World War II probably wouldn't have happened without the Great Depression.

what?

[Iskandar]

They didn't intend for it to happen but they certainly contributed to help German aggression and military build up in the 30's.Everyone knows that. They're still not the aggressors. Afghanistan can't be faulted for happening to be on strategically situated land that the Soviet wanted.
what?Despair, frustration and anger which found an outlet in trusting a strongman who promised to restore national pride and dignity.

[Freiheit]

Everyone knows that. They're still not the aggressors. Afghanistan can't be faulted for happening to be on strategically situated land that the Soviet wanted.

idk, many people at the time saw what the allies did in the treaty as ruinous for the future of Europe when it was written.

[Stig Caraveo]

But it wasn't an act of war.

[Freiheit]

But it wasn't an act of war.

i didn't say it was. Nor am I saying the allies are solely the ones to be blamed. I'm just saying they certainly had a hand in helping it along.

[Smokey D]

what?

The Great Depression was the main reason for the flight from the centre in 1930s Germany. If it had never happened, it would have been much more difficult for all that angst against the western powers and the Treaty of Versailles to translate into a call to arms.

idk, many people at the time saw what the allies did in the treaty as ruinous for the future of Europe when it was written.

I'd say that the Treaty was a cause but fault still lies with the Germans.

[Iskandar]

Its intention was the opposite though Ron. They were trying to contain postwar Germany but didn't realize the consequences of national shame coupled with the Great Depression would lead to the opposite result.

[Freiheit]

Its intention was the opposite though Ron. They were trying to contain postwar Germany but didn't realize the consequences of national shame coupled with the Great Depression would lead to the opposite result.

making them take blame for "causing" WW1 was absolutely BS. They didn't solely start anything.

[Smokey D]

The Treaty would have worked if Britain and France had enforced it when they could.

[Stig Caraveo]

So yes we are in agreement that it's hard to find causation and culpability for any event if you trace back along the historical chain of events leading up to it.

[TheDarkHorse]

The Great Depression was the main reason for the flight from the centre in 1930s Germany. If it had never happened, it would have been much more difficult for all that angst against the western powers and the Treaty of Versailles to translate into a call to arms.

I highly doubt this. Judging by Germany's dominant war history, and their national shame following WWI, I'd say a fight with the West was inevitable from their position.

[Iskandar]

making them take blame for "causing" WW1 was absolutely BS. They didn't solely start anything.Maybe.

But since when does the loser of a war ever get a good deal.

[Freiheit]

I highly doubt this. Judging by Germany's dominant war history, and their national shame following WWI, I'd say a fight with the West was inevitable from their position.

Hitler would not have been elected if the Germans were not poor. I can't really blame them for wanting him, either.

[Stig Caraveo]

Okay so a lot of things and people were partly responsible for WWII without intending to be, so it makes more sense to go by intention maybe. And Hitler intended to go to war.

[Smokey D]

I highly doubt this. Judging by Germany's dominant war history, and their national shame following WWI, I'd say a fight with the West was inevitable from their position.

It's impossible to disprove a counter factual, although I think a group like the Nazis were necessary for the war to unfold as it did.

[TheDarkHorse]

Hitler would not have been elected if the Germans were not poor. I can't really blame them for wanting him, either.

thats not what he said..or is it?

[Iskandar]

I think we can all agree the Depression was the most immediate cause of the war?

[Freiheit]

Sort of, sure why not.

[Iskandar]

It's telling that the 1930s saw the rise of fascists in nations that weren't key players in WWI, like Spain and Italy.

[Freiheit]

if only they just accepted him at the art school lol

[Smokey D]

What? The Fascists in Italy took control in the early 1920s.

[Iskandar]

What? The Fascists in Italy took control in the early 1920s.I'm aware.

Their rise to military power is what I meant. Early Italian fascism was nationalist and bordering on isolationist.

[Smokey D]

I don't think the Great Depression had any direct effect on Mussolini's ambitions.

[Iskandar]

It did on Hitler's and that gave him his major ally didn't it.

[Smokey D]

It didn't change Hitler's ambitions it just let him carry them out.

The rise of Nazi Germany possibly enabled Italy to act with greater impunity but I don't think it is right to characterise teh Depression as formative in Italian foreign policy.

[Iskandar]

I'd say that distinction is immaterial.

[Stig Caraveo]

Ending war totally, no but war will become less frequent with globalization.

Wow I just sounded like a major neoliberal when I'm really not but it's true.

Do you think we'll ever reach a point where nearly every country is so economically and politically entwined that going to war with one another would be self-destructive.

[Iskandar]

Do you think we'll ever reach a point where nearly every country is so economically and politically entwined that going to war with one another would be self-destructive.Um sort of.

Or just pointless.

[Smokey D]

I'd say that distinction is immaterial.

Why?

His goal was always to create an Italian colonial empire.

Just to clarify, what are you trying to show here? that Fascist states became more belligerent during the Depression and that therefore the Depression caused WWII?

[Stig Caraveo]

God does every discussion in PNWI end up like this?

[1338 h4x0r]

The Jews forced the peace-loving Aryan race into war and Japan's only aim was to end discord in East Asia

duuuuuh

[Iskandar]

Why?

His goal was always to create an Italian colonial empire.

Just to clarify, what are you trying to show here? that Fascist states became more belligerent during the Depression and that therefore the Depression caused WWII?The Depression was part of the milieu of the times, with angry desperate people who enthusiastically supported fascism as a means of restoring full employment and national pride. In this environment fascists swept to power and their imperialist ambitions could be made reality.

It's all interconnected. The Axis did what Mussolini or Franco couldn't have done alone. If it hadn't been for the Depression, fascism would not have gained the foothold it did and Mussolini would not have found an ally in Hitler.

It's actually very simple. I'm just explaining it poorly because I'm exhausted.

[1338 h4x0r]

No, the parasitism of the Jewish race upon the body of the great Aryan nation forced Germany into war

How many times must I tell you Alex

[Iskandar]

Okay.

My last post looks even more incoherent now that I've had a night's sleep, but I hope it suffices. Oh and the Jews did WTC.

[Freiheit]

No, reptilians did 9/11

[1338 h4x0r]

Jackpot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0aFplGQ7NU

ILLUMINATI Reptilian 2012 Planet X HISTORY OF SATANISM

"Protocols of Zion" is the NWO Blueprint

......

Reptilians ov der ZOG

[Freiheit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibjgKrCrwYk

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

Do you think we'll ever reach a point where nearly every country is so economically and politically entwined that going to war with one another would be self-destructive.

the EU is already there

[Raayl]

good luck anchoring in the middle east and any islamic nation into the democratic war-theory

[Against Miik!]

Day The Earth Stood Still shi mebe

[mph4ever]

hitler never wanted a war. he wanted to recreate the empire for the germanic people that included lebensraum. he also wanted to create an empire that could co-exist with the french, spanish, english, american empires. it was the english and americans that really brought the war on

i wonder how many potential hitlers died in the trenches in world war one?

[Freiheit]

lol what

[Smokey D]

good luck anchoring in the middle east and any islamic nation into the democratic war-theory

Islam is pretty clear that you can't go round killing everything you see. Even the radicals who believe in suicide bombings or whatnot wouldn't go in for nuclear annihilation of the Islamic world.

And I already said that we should only give nukes to democratic states not to the Taliban.

hitler never wanted a war. he wanted to recreate the empire for the germanic people that included lebensraum. he also wanted to create an empire that could co-exist with the french, spanish, english, american empires. it was the english and americans that really brought the war on


No, he wanted war. He would have preferred not fighting the British and the Americans at the time he did, but he definitely wanted a war in the east.

[Jude]

only if everybody starts acting like Jesus and that will never happen so no

[mph4ever]

No, he wanted war. He would have preferred not fighting the British and the Americans at the time he did, but he definitely wanted a war in the east.

i'm not sure, military conquest doesn't always equate to war. if britain had not stepped in then he may not have ended up with war

[Iskandar]

It's still a war even if Poland lost it.

[mph4ever]

war is a conflict between two nations, the poles were just overrun, they were never really at war. hitler was just taking possession

[Iskandar]

They fought back.

[mph4ever]

they were never really at war though, same as the czechs, austrians, belgians, dutch et al. even the french where just steam rolled. i just can't call it war. he didn't set for war with them, he set out to take what he thought he would get away with

[Iskandar]

Unless they didn't actually declare war I don't see how. They put up an armed resistance to invasion, just like Russia did, but lost quickly. Wars have been fought in a matter of days before.

[mph4ever]

ok, whatever. i'm just saying that i think hitler felt he could achieve a lot of his objectives without going to war. it was only when the english stood up that he realised he was getting dragged into a war. he even tried to avoid the whole situation by sending hess to sort it out. even if hess had been successful hitler would have wanted to keep his land and expand lebensraum but by agreement with england and america, not by conflict

[Iskandar]

He did go to war. He committed a war of aggression against most of Europe.

[mph4ever]

act of aggression

[Iskandar]

I don't think you understand what a war of aggression is.

Hitler attacked his neighbours, unprovoked just as Japan did with the sole aim of expanding his territory. He faced resistance and conquered it. That makes it a war. If all of Europe had surrendered immediately, it would have simply been an invasion, not a war. But that's not what they did.

[Smokey D]

war is a conflict between two nations, the poles were just overrun, they were never really at war. hitler was just taking possession

Well of course he would have preferred a quick conquest over a protracted war with all the world's major powers, but that's pretty much the most asinine distinction ever.

I don't think you know what war means.

[mph4ever]

we are not trying to define war

[Iskandar]

No, we're trying to explain the definition of a war and why Hitler's earlier conquests meet those criteria, because you seem a little confused about this.

[mph4ever]

i didn't say he didn't end up in a war. he really didn't want war.

[Smokey D]

Your argument is stupid. The distinction between 'war' and 'military conquest' is arbitrary and basically useless.

I doubt any statesman at the time wanted a protracted war, not in the way WWII turned out anyway. Nonetheless there is an intelligible distinction to be made between Hitler, who wanted to use the military to carve out conquests in the east, and Neville Chamberlain (and others), who was basically happy with the status quo.

[Raayl]

i didn't say he didn't end up in a war. he really didn't want war.

speculative - could debate his intentions all day so in the end its irrelevant

[Smokey D]

No we couldn't. His intentions were plain and unambiguous. He wanted to invade Poland.

[McP3000]

dude cmon you can be super saiyan goku and smokey can be perfect cell

omg do it
this is the single gayest thing ive ever read

[This Life is Genocide]

i remember hearing something in terminator II (i know, but here me out) that it is in our nature to destroy ourselves

am i crazy to agree with this?

[McP3000]

also ive decided that intelligent posts have a half life of 2 PNWI pages

[Raayl]

this is the single gayest thing ive ever read

dont lie to yourself you know you love it you want it you need more of it

[Raayl]

No we couldn't. His intentions were plain and unambiguous. He wanted to invade Poland.

...

his actions are unambiguous his intentions are much harder to gauge

[mph4ever]

he wanted access to east prussia which was isolated after versailles. the danzig corridor was in the way. he asked poland to agree to a route which they did. his intention was connectivity. poland withdrew from the agreement on the basis that the uk and france would support them. this support was offered because they feared that hitler was not going to stop with his conquests in the east and his desire for lebensraum. at this point his intentions were still not war

[Raayl]

he wanted access to east prussia which was isolated after versailles. the danzig corridor was in the way. he asked poland to agree to a route which they did. his intention was connectivity. poland withdrew from the agreement on the basis that the uk and france would support them. this support was offered because they feared that hitler was not going to stop with his conquests in the east and his desire for lebensraum. at this point his intentions were still not war

his intentions regarding war really aren't relevant because it's not like he wasn't commanding one of the most (if not the most) effective land armies in the world at the time and obviously had no quarrel with violence to further his agenda

well that and he was insane

[Pop music sucks]

Not for a long while, not until massive globalization occurs.

Even bacteria engage in destructive warfare between similiar cultures

[Iskandar]

...

his actions are unambiguous his intentions are much harder to gaugeWhy would he invade half of Europe if he didn't intend to subsume other nations into Germany territory.

See: Generalplan Ost.

[Raayl]

Why would he invade half of Europe if he didn't intend to subsume other nations into Germany territory.

See: Generalplan Ost.

i'm honestly not that familiar with the history of this particular period my degree is in the western history leading up to the enlightenment and industrial revolution so i'm not familar with the details. i'll read up on what you just cited. however - it seems pretty obvious to me hitler wanted war

it was part of his world view and ideology

but the point is also, does it really matter what his intentions were, when in the end war occurred? that was my original point

[Iskandar]

Fascists glorified war and conquest and stuff.

You know, New Roman Empire and all that crap.

[Raayl]

Fascists glorified war and conquest and stuff.

You know, New Roman Empire and all that crap.

i see what you did there

it must be nice to not read the posts of those you discuss with and just make stuff up ill have to give it a try sometime

[Iskandar]

i see what you did there

it must be nice to not read the posts of those you discuss with and just make stuff up ill have to give it a try sometimeWhat are you even talking about.

[Raayl]

What are you even talking about.

That's pretty rich given you just said to Raayl that " The fact that this is how things were historically has no bearing on how they will be in the future. In the past, we lived in abode huts and worshiped the moon goddesses" and " but "this is history so that means it's always going to be this way in the future" is pretty dumb."

i never said nor did i even imply such nonsense. like it or not, history is the best indicator of how things will be in the future. you and smokey entertain ignoring that fact because it doesn't fit into your pacifist world-view. also, regarding rome, and it'll be the last i mention it - i brought it up solely to render the democratic war theory invalid in the context of the anglo-american republican systems. thats all.

of course, though - to you, i was saying we're identical to rome and blahblahblah. after clarifying several times, you still decided to ignore that distinction - which is critical.

thats what im talking about

[Iskandar]

Huh. I was talking about fascism in Europe, not posts from days ago.

Or empires from over a millennium ago.

[Raayl]

Huh. I was talking about fascism in Europe, not posts from days ago.

Or empires from over a millennium ago.

well it seems we had a miscommunication

anyways i wanted to address that post but ive been busy since the other day. so there, i did it - now we can move on to more important, pressing matters. like fascist expansion

[Iskandar]

Yes 'cause I was talking about Mussolini's "New Roman Empire" which was an exercise in propaganda which has nothing to do the historical Rome. I was using it as an example of fascist militarism and imperialism, much like Hitler's Drang nach Osten.

[Raayl]

Yes 'cause I was talking about Mussolini's "New Roman Empire" which was an exercise in propaganda which has nothing to do the historical Rome. I was using it as an example of fascist militarism and imperialism, much like Hitler's Drang nach Osten.

Werd. I'll read up on it, never really historically or academically studied anything post industrial revolution in depth.

EDIT: outside of Hitler and germanic history, that is

[Iskandar]

Okay. What it basically boils down to is the idea that fascism would restore the glory of Rome and create a new empire blah blah blah. Fascism occupied more or less the same borders too. In fact, considerably more territory.

[mph4ever]

Yes 'cause I was talking about Mussolini's "New Roman Empire" which was an exercise in propaganda which has nothing to do the historical Rome. I was using it as an example of fascist militarism and imperialism, much like Hitler's Drang nach Osten.

but it was based on historical rome. how can you say it has nothing to do with it?


drach nach osten wasn't hitlers, was it? lebensraum was hitlers. he wanted to restore the old settlements of the east to the german empire.

[Iskandar]

but it was based on historical rome. how can you say it has nothing to do with it?No it wasn't, not besides general imperialism and militarism (which is hardly a feature unique to Rome).
drach nach osten wasn't hitlers, was it? lebensraum was hitlers. he wanted to restore the old settlements of the east to the german empire.Similar idea. Germanic expansionism and displacement of Slavs.

[mph4ever]

No it wasn't, not besides general imperialism and militarism (which is hardly a feature unique to Rome).

where was the idea of new roman empire was based on then?

Similar idea. Germanic expansionism and displacement of Slavs.
it wasn't just similar, lebensraum was based on drach nach osten

[Iskandar]

where was the idea of new roman empire was based on then?This is stupid. Borrowing the name of a past empire doesn't imply the remotest similarities between their respective political structures, any more than America's being the "New Jerusalem" suggests it resembles the Kingdom of Israel and Judah.
it wasn't just similar, lebensraum was based on drach nach ostenSame basic concept. What's your point.

[Smokey D]

Lebensraum was a state policy, Drang nach Osten was a historical trope used to describe the 'national destiny' of Germany after the fact. Lebensraum is a manifestation of Drang nach Osten, but it doesn't really go the other way around.

he wanted access to east prussia which was isolated after versailles. the danzig corridor was in the way. he asked poland to agree to a route which they did. his intention was connectivity. poland withdrew from the agreement on the basis that the uk and france would support them. this support was offered because they feared that hitler was not going to stop with his conquests in the east and his desire for lebensraum. at this point his intentions were still not war

While of course we cannot conclusively say what Hitler's intentions regarding Poland would have been in the absence of war with the western powers, it is pretty hard to imagine he would have limited himself with just the Polish Corridor. The fate of Czechoslovakia probably provides a pretty good comparison to what would have happened to Poland even if the western powers hadn't declared war. Moreover, the fact that he had arranged with the USSR to dismember Poland before the invasion also suggests his designs were always greater than reincorporation of the Corridor.

Also, the whole idea of lebensraum was about expanding into the western territories of the Soviet Union. Are you really going to argue that lebensraum does not implicate a desire for war?



his actions are unambiguous his intentions are much harder to gauge

Well, maybe we could distinguish between intentions and goals but it's not like he accidentally invaded Poland or whatever.

[Raayl]

Well, maybe we could distinguish between intentions and goals but it's not like he accidentally invaded Poland or whatever.

yeah, which is my point. i agree with you.

[Smokey D]

Wait, I thought your point was that his intentions were ambiguous. I'm saying they were clear.

[Raayl]

Wait, I thought your point was that his intentions were ambiguous. I'm saying they were clear.

No I'm saying I really don't think it's relevant what his intentions were, and that saying Hitler didn't want war is kind of silly. It's pretty clear he did - and the invasion of Poland is just one example.

EDIT: his intentions regarding not wanting war, to be specific. I mean, he very well may have privately not wanted to go to war because of insufferable anxiety and paranoia, who knows. My point is that doesn't matter, cause in the end - he did go to war.

[Iskandar]

Speculating on Hitler's personal feelings before he gave the order to invade Poland is kind of silly.

[Raayl]

Speculating on Hitler's personal feelings before he gave the order to invade Poland is kind of silly.

yeah exactly

[pedro durruti]

war will end, as long as we keep the flames of revolution, real revolution, which is naturally nonviolent, alive

[Iskandar]

No.

[pedro durruti]

you're a pessimist, delusional

[Iskandar]

I'm a realist, delusional.

[pedro durruti]

realism is a confusion... a CUN-fusion, a conmingling fusion of pessism and optimism. we all think we're realists. but as far as i know we are all wrong just as much as we are right in a number of instances. we don't know what reality really is, all the time. you may know that i am somewhat overly optimistic, but i know you are very cynical. war is only perpetuated by the violent and stagnating attitude of hate, delusion, ignorance, greed...

[Iskandar]

Should I ban you or something.

[pedro durruti]

you are absurd

[McP3000]

and that's how the cookie crumbles

[Raayl]

courage wolf says:

you are never taller

than when you stand up for yourself

[mph4ever]

courage wolf says:

you are never taller

than when you stand up for yourself


and the earth shall weep

[Meatplow]

it would seem humans cannot exist without drama

[Raayl]

this forum is a microcosm which proves war is inevitable and everlasting imo

[McP3000]

courage wolf says:

you are never taller

than when you stand up for yourself
this is greatness

[Raayl]

McP3000 is probably in my top five posters right now idk man you just bring the ****in lolz

[Against Miik!]

this forum is a microcosm which proves war is inevitable and everlasting imo

No one here beside Chad would go so far as to kill members of a respective granfalloon though. There is a difference between disagreement and war. People who take disagreements too far are considered irrational, do you not agree?

[Raayl]

No one here beside Chad would go so far as to kill members of a respective granfalloon though. There is a difference between disagreement and war. People who take disagreements too far are considered irrational, do you not agree?

I do agree. However I think the metaphor of conflict is very well defined here. Many of these posters have the qualities of a fascist dictator. Quick to criticize, short to comprehend, and always absolutely correct no matter what. It's just the "air" here - its very, very confrontational, cold, and unforgiving.

This is due to several factors. One of the biggest being, of course - compensation. I know it's a cliche, but can we not agree that the MX photoalbum really illuminates why everyone is so hostile? Most of them are all horrendously ugly. So they have to be violently confrontational about their belief system and intellect - to not be so would be just another failure they cannot cope with.

Psyche of militant dictators 101.

[Against Miik!]

So you think conflict stems from personal insecurity?

I'm not arguing, I was just pursuing a normative argument of sorts.

[Raayl]

So you think conflict stems from personal insecurity?

I'm not arguing, I was just pursuing a normative argument of sorts.

Yes I do think so. And not insecurity in the sense of "I feel unsure about myself cause I'm sensitive." I mean insecurity as in general life-stress. You could argue that the alpha wolf in the pack is insecure, and must consistently prove himself to be said alpha. This is the definition of insecurity I'm using.

We all fight because we're unsure about things.

Now if we're talking about the history of war itself, that is very clear. The most common cause of war among human beings of any time period is fear of natural disaster. We're afraid of the unpredictable elements, so we raid other peoples for their goods and supplies. Whoever has the most grain, lasts the longest winter. Etc.

Insecurity, do you see?

[Against Miik!]

If we make insecurity synonymous with fear, then I sort of agree. Or at least a combination of both.

The irony is that neither of those are particularly admirable or "powerful" traits. Both represent weakness.

Obviously finding a broad cause for war is important to being able to make it less prevalent, instead of just saying its inevitable. I personally believe that nothing is inevitable, not even death.

[McP3000]

McP3000 is probably in my top five posters right now idk man you just bring the ****in lolz
:-*

[Raayl]

If we make insecurity synonymous with fear, then I sort of agree. Or at least a combination of both.

The irony is that neither of those are particularly admirable or "powerful" traits. Both represent weakness.

Obviously finding a broad cause for war is important to being able to make it less prevalent, instead of just saying its inevitable. I personally believe that nothing is inevitable, not even death.

There are always exceptions, but I'm a pragmatist. The world is bleak and wrought with war and devestation. We are a fortunate few - a serious fraction of the world's population - who enjoy such liberties, wealth, and prosperity, as to make these conversations even possible.

Keep in mind, however - that 97% of all the people who have ever lived on this planet have lived and died in strife, conflict, and war. I get this percentage from the anthropological system of residence - us being the 3% that practice what is called "neolocal residence" or the ability to move out of your parents house at a young age due to wealth.

History is laden with constant shifts in power which are always followed by war. Human beings are tribal and we will fight tooth claw and nail. It is the way of the natural world. Civilization and post-modern society have cultured us to be non-violent, but time and time again we see what we really are. We're not some sentient, higher-lifeform. We're just animals who can build fancy machines and toys to do our bidding.

That is my personal perspective on history. Obviously we can take it and interpret it as we will, but in studying it for the past 4 years I've come to this conclusion, bleak and cynical though it may be.

And yes, I agree - we fight due to weakness.

[Against Miik!]

Being that most forms of progress are exponential, I guess we can only hope that this is not the case forever.

[Raayl]

I'm not sure about progress being exponential. Depends on the circumstances.

IE Roman progress was not exponential because their society lacked innovation. They eventually deteriorated almost directly as a result of this. Modern society isn't exponential so much as just a straight line upwards, as well.

[JohnXDoe]

nah

[Against Miik!]

I'm using scientific progress as a template I suppose. The difference with other forms of progress is for one, the speed at which they progress. For example, with war, we used to, at one point, go to war over literally everything, before rules of law were established and such. War still exists, but it does not dominate all parts of life. That is progress, although slow.

The other problem is that not all societies have the same starting place. If we were all in the same place, technologically, economically etc...then I suppose the need for war would be substantially lessened.

[Raayl]

I'm using scientific progress as a template I suppose. The difference with other forms of progress is for one, the speed at which they progress. For example, with war, we used to, at one point, go to war over literally everything, before rules of law were established and such. War still exists, but it does not dominate all parts of life. That is progress, although slow.

The other problem is that not all societies have the same starting place. If we were all in the same place, technologically, economically etc...then I suppose the need for war would be substantially lessened.

1) America is at war right now, and was formerly supported by the UK militarily as well as 70+ other countries.

2) All the major wars that we've seen occur just in the last hundred years...how can you ignore these?

I think that we're a little too used to feeling "distant" and "untouched" by war. We're at war right now, rest assured. It's just as terrible and horrible as ever - but because we live in an age of disconnection and distance, it seems like peace prevails. it doesn't. we live in a bubble in the west - believe that.

[Against Miik!]

I'm going by a general theory (gawd I forget the name but its legit) that democracies tend to not go to war. Groups with common and mostly noncompeting interests tend to not go to war.

So I am saying that if we were all more similar (economically, philosophically, not necessarily culturally), that there would be less need for war. Don't take that as endorsement of Communism or anything.

[McP3000]

1) America is at war right now, and was formerly supported by the UK militarily as well as 70+ other countries.

2) All the major wars that we've seen occur just in the last hundred years...how can you ignore these?

I think that we're a little too used to feeling "distant" and "untouched" by war. We're at war right now, rest assured. It's just as terrible and horrible as ever - but because we live in an age of disconnection and distance, it seems like peace prevails. it doesn't. we live in a bubble in the west - believe that.
War is relatively low for how high its been even 50 years ago. Iraq is a joke compared to Vietnam and Korea. Not to mention that you are focusing on the united states, versus the entire global social climate which was much more tense 50 years ago.

[Raayl]

War is relatively low for how high its been even 50 years ago. Iraq is a joke compared to Vietnam and Korea. Not to mention that you are focusing on the united states, versus the entire global social climate which was much more tense 50 years ago.

Iraq is a joke? Excuse me, but have you been to Iraq, been in the army, or fought in a war?

Or are we just marginalizing and dehumanizing war to a mere numbers game.

EDIT: My point is - war is war. It doesn't matter how much of a "joke" anyone thinks it is - if even one soldier dies, it's a war, its armed deadly conflict - and it counts.

[Raayl]

I'm going by a general theory (gawd I forget the name but its legit) that democracies tend to not go to war. Groups with common and mostly noncompeting interests tend to not go to war.

So I am saying that if we were all more similar (economically, philosophically, not necessarily culturally), that there would be less need for war. Don't take that as endorsement of Communism or anything.

I just call it the democratic war theory. I know what you mean. Democracies don't war with other democracies.

It's a shame the world will never be made up of democracies, and that democracies, historically, don't last. I know some members here refute me on that, but history is history after all.

[McP3000]

Iraq is a joke? Excuse me, but have you been to Iraq, been in the army, or fought in a war?

Or are we just marginalizing and dehumanizing war to a mere numbers game.
No ive never been there and i am by no means marginalizing the conflict

im stating that compared to past American wars, that this has had very little overall toll on American and Military life.

my point is that the state of the wars that America is involved in are getting substantially less detrimental to the overall nation the further we progress.

[Raayl]

No ive never been there and i am by no means marginalizing the conflict

im stating that compared to past American wars, that this has had very little overall toll on American and Military life.

Iraq has devastated our military, and been a huge factor in crippling our economy by exponentially expanding our financial bubble.

[Raayl]

No ive never been there and i am by no means marginalizing the conflict

im stating that compared to past American wars, that this has had very little overall toll on American and Military life.

my point is that the state of the wars that America is involved in are getting substantially less detrimental to the overall nation the further we progress.

total death toll? you may be right.

but the rammifications of war are still very real.

[McP3000]

Our economic problems have more to do with the Real Estate and mortgage market. If anything, wouldnt the Military spending all that money help the economy?

and on death toll. I dont know the Iraq death total, but im pretty sure its not even over 7000 yet. Vietnam was 50,000. Quite a bit different.

Not to mention each soldier costs money, so human life is financially linked to the country as well.

[Iskandar]

I don't even know if you guys are talking about anything anymore.
It's a shame the world will never be made up of democracies, and that democracies, historically, don't last. I know some members here refute me on that, but history is history after all.The world has more democracies than it ever has had historically, which have proven to be far more stable than any other form of government we currently have.

You have some very funny ideas about history.

[Raayl]

Our economic problems have more to do with the Real Estate and mortgage market. If anything, wouldnt the Military spending all that money help the economy?

No, because we're spending billions that we don't have. The financial "bubble" is this giant ring of debt in which america exists. Military spending is a huge, huge contributor to that bubble. Much larger than the mortgage market ever was or could be - that's simple economic dodge tactics to keep american citizens from rioting in the streets. Smokescreen.

[Against Miik!]

It is a numbers game, to an extent. A single individual being thoroughly tortured to death is certainly less of an atrocity than a large city getting nuked, causing the immediate, painless death of millions.

[Raayl]

I don't even know if you guys are talking about anything anymore.
The world has more democracies than it ever has had historically, which have proven to be far more stable than any other form of government we currently have.

You have some very funny ideas about history.

I refute your claim that democracies are stable. I know that you've cited several, but the simple truth is a few hundred years and the length and energy required to run them doesn't compare to authoritative states in history or in the present.

all democracies inevitably collapse into authoritative states due to stress and lack of energy.

[Iskandar]

I refute your claim that democracies are stable. I know that you've cited several, but the simple truth is a few hundred years doesn't compare to the length and energy required to run them. They all inevitably collapse due to stress and lack of energy.Every state collapses. Authoritarian states are much less stable however.

What are you basing this on? Rome doesn't freaking count.

[Raayl]

This is happening in america right now. We don't have enough energy to support the will of a 300 million strong population. We have to turn authoritative, because once the people realize they can vote themselves goodies, there is no end to the benefits. Authoritative states control energy and can spend it wisely. Without energy, there is no civilization.

[Iskandar]

This is happening in america right now. We don't have enough energy to support the will of a 300 million strong population. We have to turn authoritative, because once the people realize they can vote themselves goodies, there is no end to the benefits. Authoritative states control energy and can spend it wisely. Without energy, there is no civilization.You're talking out of your ***.

What the heck is this "energy" you keep talking about?

[Against Miik!]

I think he literally means resources, or fossil fuels or something.

And if we want to talk longevity when it comes to civilizations, I think monarchies or something similar take the cake.

[McP3000]

What are you talking about Raayl, obviously the economic stronghold that is the state of Texas will survive and eventually militarily conquer the rioting city-states of the past America

[Raayl]

Every state collapses. Authoritarian states are much less stable however.

What are you basing this on? Rome doesn't freaking count.

Yes Rome does count. Most certainly.

When I say Rome btw, I mean the entirely of the roman period. This includes many germanic societies - the huns, the greek remnants, the persians, and the chinese. All of these societies began democratic, and turned authoritative.

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

The Fertile Crescent, dawn of civilization - authoritative culture which spawned from oligarchical tribal governments. These societies in the middle east were governed by priests who lived in ziggurats to help control the production of energy via agriculture.

As civilization spreads south to greece, we see another authoritative state develop. Of course, this spawns an empire of democracy in Athens - but Athens is inevitably cut down by Sparta in the Pelopennensian Wars. Athens also was not a modern democracy but merely run by an aristocratic elite - which we can most certainly call authoritative.

Then we have the Macedonians who sweep in - most certainly another authoritative, militant state which decimates the remnants of the Pelopennesean Wars.

After that? The romans. We've already discussed them. Republic fails due to militant dictators fighting for control, and it turns into the famous Roman Empire.

Then the germanic tribes, which began oligarchially, began converting to authoritative states to sustain themselves in the post-roman fall era.

Etc etc.

[Raayl]

I think he literally means resources, or fossil fuels or something.

And if we want to talk longevity when it comes to civilizations, I think monarchies or something similar take the cake.

Energy is quite literally energy. Electricity, food, agriculture, gasoline, anything that powers our world.

If we run out of energy, our civilization dies. Energy is the leading crisis that democracies face.

[Raayl]

You're talking out of your ***.

What the heck is this "energy" you keep talking about?

You want to debate history with me yet you don't understand the absolute critical element of civilization?

[Iskandar]

Yes Rome does count. Most certainly.

When I say Rome btw, I mean the entirely of the roman period. This includes many germanic societies - the huns, the greek remnants, the persians, and the chinese. All of these societies began democratic, and turned authoritative.

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

The Fertile Crescent, dawn of civilization - authoritative culture which spawned from oligarchical tribal governments. These societies in the middle east were governed by priests who lived in ziggurats to help control the production of energy via agriculture.

As civilization spreads south to greece, we see another authoritative state develop. Of course, this spawns an empire of democracy in Athens - but Athens is inevitably cut down by Sparta in the Pelopennensian Wars. Athens also was not a modern democracy but merely run by an aristocratic elite - which we can most certainly call authoritative.

Then we have the Macedonians who sweep in - most certainly another authoritative, militant state which decimates the remnants of the Pelopennesean Wars.

After that? The romans. We've already discussed them. Republic fails due to militant dictators fighting for control, and it turns into the famous Roman Empire.

Then the germanic tribes, which began oligarchially, began converting to authoritative states to sustain themselves in the post-roman fall era.

Etc etc.Um none of these states were democracies as we know them.

You want to debate history with me yet you don't understand the absolute critical element of civilization?You want to debate statecraft with me yet you don't understand what democracy is?
And if we want to talk longevity when it comes to civilizations, I think monarchies or something similar take the cake. No that's silly. Monarchies were incredibly unstable and plagued by constant infighting, subterfuge and intrigue which manifested itself in character assassination, revolt and constant war.

[Raayl]

by the way Iskander, that little basic outline of the western rise spans thousands of years. Dating from the Fertile Crescent to now, we have a full 10,000 years of constant warfare and turmoil. Almost EVERYONE lived and died in strife and conflict of some sort. It was just how the world was.

And if we want to go back to pre-civilization, I can outline that for you too, beginning with our eradication of the Neanderthals. We were fighting before we even had states to fight for.

[Raayl]

Um none of these states were democracies as we know them.

You want to debate statecraft with me yet you don't understand what democracy is?
No that's silly. Monarchies were incredibly unstable and plagued by constant infighting, subterfuge and intrigue which manifested itself in character assassination, revolt and constant war.

Yet these institutions persisted for thousands of years - compared to our meager what, 300? In 2000 years, we can discuss the longevity and impact of democracies. Until then, we must appreciate that it is simply far too soon to tell.

[Iskandar]

by the way Iskander, that little basic outline of the western rise spans thousands of years. Dating from the Fertile Crescent to now, we have a full 10,000 years of constant warfare and turmoil. Almost EVERYONE lived and died in strife and conflict of some sort. It was just how the world was.

And if we want to go back to pre-civilization, I can outline that for you too, beginning with our eradication of the Neanderthals. We were fighting before we even had states to fight for.That's great, you know that humans have historically fought each other a lot. Now that's out of the way you can address my actual point that democracies (understood to be secular liberal democracies of the modern age) rarely war with each other and tend to be far more stable than authoritarian states (when was the last time you heard of a coup in Denmark?).

[Raayl]

Also, Iskander. You tell me that democracies are more stable, but what exactly is "stability." Stability to me, in a historical context, is simply longevity. If your society lasts, who cares just how stable the logistics are.

But if we're talking about governmental stability, there are plenty of examples of cultures in which authority has not been wrecked by insurrection. Most of those societies are in the east, and are pre-greek/roman influence.

[Raayl]

Also, I will agree with you that democracies, as we know them today, are more stable internally, than the empires and authoritative states of the past. I tend to think of history holistically, and how these societies will last in a globalized environment. I may have missed that point you have made, but I do agree with it looking back.

[Iskandar]

Also, Iskander. You tell me that democracies are more stable, but what exactly is "stability." Stability to me, in a historical context, is simply longevity. If your society lasts, who cares just how stable the logistics are.

But if we're talking about governmental stability, there are plenty of examples of cultures in which authority has not been wrecked by insurrection. Most of those societies are in the east, and are pre-greek/roman influence.Stability is not longevity at all or the Qin dynasty was far more stable than modern Norway.

I strongly suggest you look up the Failed States Index. Stability is a state's ability to maintain its monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

[Iskandar]

Also, I will agree with you that democracies, as we know them today, are more stable internally, than the empires and authoritative states of the past. I tend to think of history holistically, and how these societies will last in a globalized environment. I may have missed that point you have made, but I do agree with it looking back.
You should have said so bébé. <3

[Raayl]

Stability is not longevity at all or the Qin dynasty was far more stable than modern Norway.

I strongly suggest you look up the Failed States Index. Stability is a state's ability to maintain its monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

No, I just said I agree with you. Again, I was being a tad too confrontational due to you insulting me - but in the context of internal, governmental, political, and social stability - I do agree with you. Democracies are the best and most stable governments that have ever existed. No doubt.

However, how these democracies fit in to the inter-connectedness of a globalized world is difficult to say, hence my statement that it's far too soon to make any definitive statement regarding this. We simply have to persist, and see if it works - balancing the crisis of energy and threats of militant, authoritative conflict

[Raayl]

I'm also a little cynical regarding the world as it exists today, because I just honestly can't see the entire world as a post-modern democracy. Not only that, but I don't think it's economically viable. Hence, there will always be an authoritative state willing to challenge us militarily. That's just my, albeit speculative, opinion.

[Iskandar]

Well that's sort of a complete reversal of what you were saying but k. You mean that democracies are stable internally, but may not prove as lasting as other states have? Well it may indeed be too early to say but the general trend seems to be that democracies are indeed more stable and war less than other states, and I would argue have smarter energy policies, at least in the developed ones so I think the prognosis is looking pretty good right now.

[Raayl]

I'm also interested to see how you respond to that outline of western civ that I gave in the context of war. How would you counter that historical perspective to justify your world view that war is the exception instead of the norm?

[Raayl]

Well that's sort of a complete reversal of what you were saying but k. You mean that democracies are stable internally, but may not prove as lasting as other states have? Well it may indeed be too early to say but the general trend seems to be that democracies are indeed more stable and war less than other states, and I would argue have smarter energy policies, at least in the developed ones so I think the prognosis is looking pretty good right now.

Yes that is exactly what I was trying to say.

I was never trying to argue that democracy as we know it today is bad, or in any way worse, than authoritative states. I was merely trying to persuade you into believing, as I do, that there will always be an authoritative state that exists in the world to challenge democracies in the west, like ours. I was trying to say that by citing the devolution of historical democracies, (although they are different than contemporary democracies yes) we can see the mutation of them into authoritative states.

[Iskandar]

I'm also a little cynical regarding the world as it exists today, because I just honestly can't see the entire world as a post-modern democracy. Not only that, but I don't think it's economically viable. Hence, there will always be an authoritative state willing to challenge us militarily. That's just my, albeit speculative, opinion.There probably always will be but it's in our interests for the rest of the world to democratize if we want to see anything resembling a lasting peace.

[Raayl]

There probably always will be but it's in our interests for the rest of the world to democratize if we want to see anything resembling a lasting peace.

Yes, I agree ideally.

[Iskandar]

I'm also interested to see how you respond to that outline of western civ that I gave in the context of war. How would you counter that historical perspective to justify your world view that war is the exception instead of the norm?War has become significantly less advantageous thanks to increased political, social and economic ties.

[Raayl]

War has become significantly less advantageous thanks to increased political, social and economic ties.

Well, alright. We could contest this all night, but I'll be satisfied with just that trend, as it does seem logical.

Alas, a conclusion has been reached.

[McP3000]

how cute no one has spilt their tea tonight in PNWI, biscuits all around

[Raayl]

PWNI's first thread in the HISTORY of mx with a happy ending

PS iskandar where is your DBZ avatar

[Raayl]

how cute no one has spilt their tea tonight in PNWI, biscuits all around

you totally typed that as i typed my post

we're destined to be together

[Iskandar]

PWNI's first thread in the HISTORY of mx with a happy endingk sweet
PS iskandar where is your DBZ avatarI don't like DBZ.
how cute no one has spilt their tea tonight in PNWI, biscuits all aroundThank you, dear.

[McP3000]

you totally typed that as i typed my post

we're destined to be together
i live in Texas you probably dont like us country folk

[Iskandar]

On behalf of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, I hereby declare war on the Republic of Texas. Casus belli: Being Texas.

[Raayl]

i live in Texas you probably dont like us country folk

im from the backwater podunk redneck uper inbred swamp known as northern wisconsin bro im just as nasty and unappealing as you

[McP3000]

On behalf of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, I hereby declare war on the Republic of Texas. Casus belli: Being Texas.
On Behalf Of God's Country and finest cowboys to ever gunsling, I hereby declare that we're all laughing. We didnt even know you had an army

[Iskandar]

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c17000/3c17100/3c17176v.jpg

[McP3000]

your forces look pretty two-dimensional on the battlefield