I love war.

[Xanthien]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your point is that "War is necessary because without it we have no honor, honor is necessary because without it war would be so much worse". This is circular reasoning at best, and stating war is the only context in which someone can be honorable is kind of a stretch.

[BTGBullseye]

Without honor, there wouldn't have been a pause over Christmas during WWI, where German and English soldiers shared a meal and a football game...

 

Can be explained as each side viewing the other as equals (in a sense), and wanting to have a good time over continuing a horrible war, if even for a moment.

 

Without honor, soldiers would kill their superior officers for a quick promotion...

 

That has nothing to do with honor, and everything to do with soldiers scared of their superiors and retribution.

 

Without honor, the Civil War would have been far bloodier...

 

How? Because CS soldiers wouldn't respect their superior's decisions, is that what you're getting at?

Emphasizing my point that you are incapable of understanding what honor is.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your point is that "War is necessary because without it we have no honor, honor is necessary because without it war would be so much worse". This is circular reasoning at best, and stating war is the only context in which someone can be honorable is kind of a stretch.

Who ever said that? I most certainly didn't.

[Xanthien]

Then could you clarify exactly what you mean? Right now the only statements you've made are:

 

Modern society is killing people slowly with meaningless desk jobs

 

Nobody who disagree with me is capable of understanding my point

 

Without honor bad things happen

 

I really don't have any idea what your point is. It's not that I can't understand how you got to a certain point, it's that you have yet to take any sort of cohesive stance, leaving the rest of us to attempt to fill in the gaps.

[Luis]

You know what I do not like about war?

 

You, and hundreds, thousands of individuals born in the same land,, having a similar background and having even grow together are conducted to a battlefield to face some other hundred of individuals who are most likely just some other folks, born from the world into the system not by choice, being told what to do since day 1 and entering a schedule of mental programming long before you're even capable of awareness of your existence.

 

You're told that the only way to survive is to follow the commands that you're given by the upper hand and any irregularity or distortion from the order will compromise your survival and that of those around you and your only chance and way to make it is to be a subordinate of a meaningless system engineered to benefit a few dozens at the cost of the lives of millions.

 

And it is exactly the same thing that I hate about the mundate rutinary life that you war enthousiasts complain about. You're not fighting to secure the resources that will keep you and your family alive, healthy and happy, you fight for the interests of some faceless bankers who move the threads of the governments to extend the perpetuality of the dominance of their interests and doctrine on the world.

 

War is and has been bullshit for quite some centuries now. That authentic struggle for survival is gone for us as a society, we can't almot even tell what it is from all these bureocratic bullshit concepts we have in our heads because of the status quo. Not only it is a waste of resources and land, even the victors end up scarred and changed forever, thousands of people lose their lives, projects and future accomplishments just by being driven into the warzone against their will. Granted some will be meaningless and some will be assholes but, can you imagine how much has our species lost because of meaningless BS like this? Alexandria's library or the Mayan cultures are nice examples. Now we know we've been set back thousands of years in technological advances because of war and self-centered bullshit interests that drive war and the system.

 

War is bullshit and is bringing mankind down. We have so much damn potential. that's my take on it

[BTGBullseye]

The only difference I see from your statement, and reality, is that innovation usually increases significantly during war. (mainly due to the lack of restrictions, and desire to be better in every way than your enemy)

[Luis]

The only difference I see from your statement, and reality, is that innovation usually increases significantly during war. (mainly due to the lack of restrictions, and desire to be better in every way than your enemy)

 

We could probably have clean, free, safe energy and food by now for everyone if some blokes during the past century hadn't spent all those resources trying to make the biggest boom or the deadliest poison. From there, you can take care of lots of other problems. Innovation has been there but the focus that's driven it is bullshit from the roots. That innovation doesn't make up for all the damage that's been done/will be done by it.

 

Lack of war and an opressing system would drive innovation way further than our current system does. And with that, possibly progress. But we're too busy killing, suing and destroying ourselves.

[BTGBullseye]

The problem is that we seem to always build oppressive governing systems, and then accept it when the systems become even more oppressive, even when they violate the only few rules they are supposed to follow. In the USA its the US Constitution that the government is supposed to obey, and it has been repeatedly violated, and still is being violated, and the reason nobody is standing up against it is because it wouldn't change anything if we did. (or so we're led to believe)

 

War on the other hand, creates a major focus, bringing the majority of the attention of the government away from oppressing the people, and towards defending it's ability to actually oppress the people. This usually results in significantly increased personal freedom.

 

It really comes down to "freedom or security, you can't have both"... Not an entirely accurate statement, but close enough for you to understand it's intent.

[ThePest179]

The problem is that we seem to always build oppressive governing systems, and then accept it when the systems become even more oppressive, even when they violate the only few rules they are supposed to follow. In the USA its the US Constitution that the government is supposed to obey, and it has been repeatedly violated, and still is being violated, and the reason nobody is standing up against it is because it wouldn't change anything if we did. (or so we're led to believe)

 

I would ask for sources, but you probably have none I can trust.

[RdClZn]

 

War on the other hand, creates a major focus, bringing the majority of the attention of the government away from oppressing the people, and towards defending it's ability to actually oppress the people. This usually results in significantly increased personal freedom.

 

It really comes down to "freedom or security, you can't have both"... Not an entirely accurate statement, but close enough for you to understand it's intent.

What? War is one of the few circumstances were whole populations that were, at least moderatly, free suddenly face a number of restrictions in their professional and personal lives. Examples? You can't consume over than X fuel in a week, it must be saved for the troops. Rubber, metal, plastic? Oh no, those must be saved for building weapons, consumer industry is restricted! Want to have a nice meal on your anniversary? Too bad: rations! Oh, so you wanna study to become an technician? I'm so sorry, you've been drafted! Oh, that money we could be using to actually improve the health and education of the people? Lel, nope, it's going for defense contracts! etc etc...

 

Many things can be said about war, but they sure as hell don't bring "more freedom"!

[Descriptor]

War on the other hand, creates a major focus, bringing the majority of the attention of the government away from oppressing the people, and towards defending it's ability to actually oppress the people. This usually results in significantly increased personal freedom.

Tell that to the Japanese people who were interred in camps in WW2.

The last thing a war does is increase personal freedom.

At best it increases paranoia and radical thinking.

If anything, at best, war helps us appreciate our freedoms, because it's one of the few times it is truly challenged.

[BTGBullseye]

You're looking at a few examples that contradict, but are ignoring the rest of what happened.

 

First, lets delve into the rations aspect... Until recently (the last 100 or so years) rationing was necessary all the time, or you wouldn't have enough food to last through the winter. Just because we no longer ration, doesn't mean it's a violation of freedom to end up having to ration again.

 

Next, the drafting... There is no draft anymore. That part of the argument is invalid in modern times until they reinstate the draft. (which is not likely to happen unless there is a sudden lack of willing personnel, but that would mean well over 2 million civilians would have to die first)

 

And now, the economic redirection... Throwing money at healthcare doesn't make for better care, it just makes richer doctors and companies. Just look at modern pharmaceutical companies to see what throwing money at a situation does. You get lots of sub-par drugs with massive side effects, and doctor subsidies for prescribing them to patients over other medicines.

Education on the other hand never really changed much. The military sends you through college for free when you go for officer, and makes sure you're high school equivalent for all others. The civilian institutes aren't affected at all.

 

Lastly, the WWII internment camps. Those were directed at a specific demographic, and were in place because the freedoms that were enjoyed. It was either security against attack at the cost of freedom, freedom at the cost of security, or lock up one specific demographic for the duration. Not saying that it was good or right, but it was logical.

 

When the government is focused on other things, (like war) they simply don't have the ability to focus on violating your own personal freedoms... It just isn't important at that point.

[Descriptor]

 

Lastly, the WWII internment camps. Those were directed at a specific demographic, and were in place because the freedoms that were enjoyed. It was either security against attack at the cost of freedom, freedom at the cost of security, or lock up one specific demographic for the duration. Not saying that it was good or right, but it was logical.

 

When the government is focused on other things, (like war) they simply don't have the ability to focus on violating your own personal freedoms... It just isn't important at that point.

That's exactly my point. All the war did is give the government a super good reason to oppress people.

And if none of the above are considered "violations of personal freedoms" than what the heck are?

 

Also, I will agree with the "throwing money at a problem won't fix it" argument, but I don't see what that has to do with the validity of war time behaviors.

[BTGBullseye]

The internment camps are based on the issue of security or freedom. They tried to give as much freedom to as many people as possible without compromising necessary security. And that is why everyone uses it as an example against freedom, except that it was not solely against, but also for freedom. There is a much larger picture that people are ignoring.

 

Modern times, they are just watching everything you do digitally, and even sometimes through many cameras, 99% of it is in violation of the 4th Amendment. A large war that ends up hitting our soil would force the government to redirect their gaze away from the people, and towards an actual enemy.

[Descriptor]

The internment camps are based on the issue of security or freedom. They tried to give as much freedom to as many people as possible without compromising necessary security. And that is why everyone uses it as an example against freedom, except that it was not solely against, but also for freedom. There is a much larger picture that people are ignoring.

 

Modern times, they are just watching everything you do digitally, and even sometimes through many cameras, 99% of it is in violation of the 4th Amendment. A large war that ends up hitting our soil would force the government to redirect their gaze away from the people, and towards an actual enemy.

Would it? Or would it make them gaze more intently, to ensure against subversion of the war effort?

The issue of security and freedom is one which is awfully easy to make many justifications with.

After all, this spying which you decry has come about exactly because of the paranoia of war. Recall that it wasn't civil disturbances that created bills such as the Patriot Act, but instead it was fear of an outside enemy infiltrating our society. The exact same rational that created those internment camps. So no, I don't believe that a full scale war will distract the government. Instead, it will only give it far more seemingly good reasons to tighten their grip.

[BTGBullseye]

That was a minor war, and none of it was actually fought on our soil. It may have started with the twin tower's destruction, but it never went beyond the one incident as far as I have been able to determine. Even the people who came up with the Patriot Act have said that it was never designed to allow the violation of the constitution, even though certain government organizations are using it as an excuse to do so.

 

War fought on US soil is something that hasn't been seen in 150 years, and unless it's another civil war, things will be much different than anything previously seen. You'll find that people that get kicked off their asses by an invasion will not stop when the invaders are defeated, but will also get pissed at a government that won't leave them be. The war would remove the complacency of the populace, even if only for a short time, and result in these violations of freedom by the government being removed, by force if necessary.

[ThePest179]

Throwing money at healthcare doesn't make for better care, it just makes richer doctors and companies.

 

Against my better will and judgement, may I see your proof?

 

It was either security against attack at the cost of freedom, freedom at the cost of security, or lock up one specific demographic for the duration. Not saying that it was good or right, but it was logical.

 

It was as logical as Jim Crow laws.

 

When the government is focused on other things, (like war) they simply don't have the ability to focus on violating your own personal freedoms... It just isn't important at that point.

 

No, that's the thing about governments; depending on what kind of government it is, it either believes in no personal freedom, a little, as much as possible, etc. Nazi Germany and the USSR were embroiled in one of the most violent theater of war on the planet, and yet they still took the time to kill or imprison as many dissidents as they could find.

 

Even the people who came up with the Patriot Act have said that it was never designed to allow the violation of the constitution, even though certain government organizations are using it as an excuse to do so.

 

I trust the people who came up with the PATRIOT Act as much as I trust a sack of mulch.

 

You'll find that people that get kicked off their asses by an invasion will not stop when the invaders are defeated, but will also get pissed at a government that won't leave them be.

 

On the contrary, they would likely be the ones campaigning for restrictions on freedom, as they are "necessary war-time measures".

[RdClZn]

First, lets delve into the rations aspect... Until recently (the last 100 or so years) rationing was necessary all the time, or you wouldn't have enough food to last through the winter. Just because we no longer ration, doesn't mean it's a violation of freedom to end up having to ration again.

After the second industrial revolution one could have food any season... Slaughterhouses and fisheries worked the whole year to provide and process food to sell to the population. But during war, that production was limited. During wars the government IMPOSES (even in the most democratic countries) where and how the industry should produce and how much a citizen can consume. Those are restrictions unseen in peacetime.

 

And even 100 years ago, war was usually accompanied with food, crop and wealth seizure (and, generally, no real technological improvement).

 

There's an argument to be made that some autocratic regimes did face an increase in "freedom" during the war years (I'm looking at you, USSR), but those are the exception, not the rule when we talk about war.

 

Next, the drafting... There is no draft anymore. That part of the argument is invalid in modern times until they reinstate the draft. (which is not likely to happen unless there is a sudden lack of willing personnel, but that would mean well over 2 million civilians would have to die first)

Your post seemed to refer to "war" in a general sense, not just "war in the last 30 years in the United States of America". I don't disagree with your point here, although if we use Bill Hicks definition of war ( two countries fighting each other) the U.S doesn't face a war in a long time...

 

And now, the economic redirection... Throwing money at healthcare doesn't make for better care, it just makes richer doctors and companies. Just look at modern pharmaceutical companies to see what throwing money at a situation does. You get lots of sub-par drugs with massive side effects, and doctor subsidies for prescribing them to patients over other medicines.

Education on the other hand never really changed much. The military sends you through college for free when you go for officer, and makes sure you're high school equivalent for all others. The civilian institutes aren't affected at all.

Not at all. Funding can affect the outcome of an institution (specially the ones dedicated to R&D). Simply put, you want funding to your research? Just think of one great military application for it! Or join a company that deals with defense contracts in a frequent basis. When you give funding priority to arms developers, the intellectuals of your country will tend to work in the military field, because it's just easier to get the funds...

 

Also, instead of training soldiers and giving then education, you could just as easily provide the education, without the training [costs].

 

When the government is focused on other things, (like war) they simply don't have the ability to focus on violating your own personal freedoms... It just isn't important at that point.

If the government suddenly loses the ability to "violate your freedoms" then the war is lost. During war it's utterly important that dissidents get detected and arrested, that the economy is well controlled and directed towards the State's needs and that there's a continuous material and intellectual supply towards the Armed Forces. In order to guarantee those, personnel preferences and will must be set aside, and the government must (forcefully) carry its projects.

[Vapymid]

You'll find that people that get kicked off their asses by an invasion will not stop when the invaders are defeated, but will also get pissed at a government that won't leave them be. The war would remove the complacency of the populace, even if only for a short time, and result in these violations of freedom by the government being removed, by force if necessary.

 

I would say - yes and no and it depends.

 

I base my opinion on Russia's experiences in various types of wars - colonial and limited v "patriotic"

 

Where the war in question was initiated by Russia and fought on a foreign soil - the civil liberties would usually be further curtailed and the regime would take the opportunity to crack down on any internal opposition/dissent.

 

Where there was an existential threat - such as in the Napoleonic invasion of 1812 or the WWII, the incumbent regime would indeed try to buy popular support with democratic concessions, promises of civil liberties etc. For example, when Germans invaded, Stalin promptly made a deal with the Orthodox Church as he feared that the Communist ideology alone will not be enough to motivate the population sufficiently.

 

In addition, of course, it is difficult to exert the same amount of control over people who think they are likely going to die anyway during such conflicts and the government has to accept that it must allow people to vent their steam.

 

However, as soon as the threat is neutralised the government usually had no problem with cracking down again, on the strength of the victorious mood, renewed popular support and enthusiasm for rebuilding and reconstruction.

 

Having said that, even with the crack-downs and renewed repressions there was a long-term and irreversible effect driving social transformations and reforms but it was evolutionary and it took decades to materialise.

 

As far as the US is concerned - I don't know. Firstly, I don't think that either Canada or Mexico would be willing to invade and no other nation in the world can technically do it. Secondly, there isn't enough clear polarisation in the society around any specific idea to generate a civil war similar to the one of the XIXth century. Is there a sufficient ethnic division to spark a racially-driven internal conflict? I doubt it.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

As far as the US is concerned - I don't know. Firstly, I don't think that either Canada or Mexico would be willing to invade and no other nation in the world can technically do it. Secondly, there isn't enough clear polarisation in the society around any specific idea to generate a civil war similar to the one of the XIXth century. Is there a sufficient ethnic division to spark a racially-driven internal conflict? I doubt it.

China quite easily could... They have enough manpower to do an invasion.

 

As for a civil war, you would be surprised just how close we are to having one now, focusing around the current US government violating the constitution repeatedly, and not being held accountable.

[ThePest179]

China quite easily could... They have enough manpower to do an invasion.

 

A year ago I would have agreed. A year ago I was very uninformed.

 

The US navy, intelligence services, armed forces, and the sheer distance and natural barriers in the way would turn it into a disaster before it began.

 

As for a civil war, you would be surprised just how close we are to having one now, focusing around the current US government violating the constitution repeatedly, and not being held accountable.

 

This is a bullshit far-right delusion. The US government is not violating the Constitution.