War

[Han]

discuss.

 

[Blabyboy]

this must mean it's discuss-ting*

*with apologies to eminem

 

[stonehart]

discuss.

War = The result of wealthy old men dreaming up new ways of sending poor younger men off to die for them.

 

[Pygar2]

"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything"

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

Whats to say.. War is hell on earth.

 

[stonehart]

"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything"

Interesting take and this reply is not a personal attack on you at all but simply musings on the statement.
On the surface what you have said is a reasonable enough assertion to have made but if we look deeper it is in fact not really all that accurate if we take the time to step away from the social programing each and every one of us has received from childhood.

The rise of Fascism/Nazism and Communism would not have happened if serious economic disparity had not been forced in each case, add to that ideological differences and profiteering you quickly come to the realization that war is not a solution but the inevitable result of a system break down.

Let me explain.

WW1 was more or less in fighting between the aristocracy of Europe (we could get into the ontonet treaties but for the sake of brevity they were more or less an excuse anyway). Regardless of Germany's guilt or innocence the net result of the the reparations was to burden them with a debt that was in retrospect a ticking time bomb.
To cut a long story short if the stock market had not gone tits up thanks to the greed of a few then Hitler would have remained little more than a fringe radical, as such the economic conditions created by the depression in Germany were the perfect breeding ground for Fascism to rise in this case. For sure War ended Fascism but war is the net result of a system fail and the sad extension of a lack of foresight and ethical leadership be it political or economic.

Ultimately the ideology had to be exterminated and war of course was the only means left to do so but all of that aside the war and the rise of the Nazis should never have happened in the first place.

War is very profitable for a few and in both WW1 and WW2 there are many examples of American (and others it is true) industrialists taking advantage of these situations and trading with both sides, hence we should all be very weary of those that sound the drums of war for in most cases the reasons are economic ones wrapped up in an ideological smoke screen. Take the time to think of recent wars that have been conducted this way... I can think of one or two.

As for the rise of so called Communism a fresh look is required.

Communism you may be surprised to learn existed in Russia for only a very short time, when we use the word Communism in regrades to Russia what we are in fact talking about is Bolshevism which is a dictatorship of the proletariat and Totalitarian by nature.. That is not Communism it is Totalitarianism with communist window dressing.

All of that aside Communism happened in Russia because of the aristocratic oligarchy's ignorance to the needs of the people, pure and simple it was the extreme economic disparity that was ultimately at the root cause of its rise.

So is Communism in fact bad?
Well to be blunt no one really knows because Communism has not really been tried as it has in each case become totalitarian and personally I doubt it would work anyway (Marx was an idealist but I digress).

To underscore what I mean, all regimes that call themselves Communist have not really been communist at all, Russia was Soviet Communism which is just a utilitarian way of saying totalitarian, Cuba is not Communist even if they call themselves that they are but again Totalitarian, China is much the same and as for North Korea a Necrotocracy (cult of a dead leader) would be a more fitting label.

Now has war ended communism the same way that war ended Fascism? nope not at all because if we insist on calling all the others communist then it has not worked thus far in removing the ideology yet now has it.

So then should we fight wars against them?

Well that depends on your point of view really and as such any war is purely an ideological driven one.

But what if the war is to be about human rights and freedom? Well then just maybe as the others have a fairly dismal track record in this department much like Soviet Russia had, but freedom form what exactly? and who is saying these people need to be free and what are the motives of the people in power calling for such war to happen?

(I guess in the case of North Korea an argument could be made that war may be the only option in the long run for the nation to enter the 21'st century and develop but that is an aside.)

This is where things start to get really really sticky.
Communism was a dead end in Russia and it was ultimately economics that brought it to its knees, the system was brutal and ultimately vulnerable to stagnation as a political system and don't even get me started on human rights.

But you know one must really check to see if there is blood on their own hands before we start throwing around the human rights card because the west has been very dismal in this department itself in the past and very much of late.

So when it comes down to it, in the end, do we have a right to tell any other nation what political system they can or can not have? Or is it that those with a vested interest in financial gain wish for war to either make profit from it or remove a political system that is not conducive to said profit making in the first place? The cold war was very much an economic war punctuated with proxy hot wars and super power entanglements (Vietnam for the US and Afghanistan for Russia) but make no mistake that economics was very much a main player in this.
If we are then to say that war stopped Communism are we saying that it stopped its spread? Well yes we could argue this in the case of Malaysia, Afghanistan and to a degree Korea, but then what of Vietnam? and lets face it democracy is not really doing all that well in Afghanistan either now is it.

In a nutshell if war is the answer then we are asking the wrong question.

Just some things to think about and really it is only a rough sketch of things.
Oh and by the way I have the up most respect for the men and women that have fought and died in all of these wars as they are not the cause of it only the pawns in the game, so when you meet a veteran thank them and take time to honor them on your given remembrance days wherever you may live.

 

[boomerang]

Do nations fight for the same reasons individual humans fight?

 

[stonehart]

Do nations fight for the same reasons individual humans fight?

Interesting question I must say.... do they fright for the same reasons?
My initial answer would be no they do not but I also guess it depends on the nature of the conflict to begin with so I do not think there is any clear cut black or white answer to it.

as deep thought from the hitchhikers guide say's "Tricky, I'm going to have to think about it".

 

[Pygar2]

And yet there were bankers and industrialists on both sides of every war, and an earned profit is in no way unjust. The fact that some, while they can, are neutral enough to sell to both sides is just good business sense, when you have no dog in the fight- or if the other dog seems friendlier than the one on your side of the line. FDR's all too successful attempts to keep America's economy from recovering (never waste a good crisis) would have made some lean towards any solution other than That Man. When the problem is a lack of circulating cash, closing the banks is not a wonderful idea... neither is seizing the deposit boxes. I read in the late Seventies of a huge cache of these being found in a warehouse- firing the employees got rid of anyone who knew where they'd been put- and I am sure that very little of the goods made their way back into the hands of the rightful owners. So all that wealth, that could have helped, wound up warehoused. Just my favorite examples of what you were speaking of.
I agree that no government can actually be Communist, since no known form of life higher than a bee can make such selflessness work. For everything else, there's "what's in it for me", soon followed by "and my ever-enlarging circle of friends and family". This is the fatal flaw of *all* forms of Leftism; since the government produces nothing, it first must take... and take, and take, and then start doing it at gunpoint, and take, and take... When the leech gets larger than the patient, and has more of a vote, don't bet on the patient to survive long...
And so such *must* be fought.

 

[Charlie Prime]

"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything"

When you see a person regurgitate this catchy gem, you know they are ignorant of both history and economics.

 

[Charlie Prime]

...

Stonehart, your post is thoughtful and contains much truth, but is too long.

> WW1 was more or less in fighting between the aristocracy of Europe

True.

>... if the stock market had not gone tits up thanks to the greed of a few then Hitler would have remained little more than a fringe radical

Both the American stock market crash and hyperinflation in Germany were engineered, not accidental.
Hitler's rise to power was funded and directed by American bankers. The narrative that Germans merely went insane in the 1930's is false.


> For sure War ended Fascism

WWII did not end fascism, the melding of government with corporate power. WWII merely decided which group of fascists (Anglo/American) would get the assets of a different group of fascists (Japono/German).


> Ultimately the ideology had to be exterminated and war of course was the only means left to do so

The ideology of fascism was not exterminated. It morphed into a more sophisicated form.


> Communism happened in Russia because of the aristocratic oligarchy's ignorance to the needs of the people

"Communism" was designed and installed by bankers just like fascism was. See Dr. Anthony Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution


> do we have a right to tell any other nation what political system they can or can not have?

This is a good question. Let's apply it universally, not just to nations, but also to people.

Keeping in mind that self-defense is not aggression, is it ever moral to aggress against another?

 

[Bob Watson]

War is hell..us grant..
War has no winners or losers only the dead..
We honor those who fought..forgetting those on the other side..for every one american who died 10 germans died..in the pacficic it was 100 to 1..those who died..the were humans.. not germans not afgain..humans..war is hell..
And war never changes...

 

[Pygar2]

When you see a person regurgitate this catchy gem, you know they are ignorant of both history and economics.

The truth hurts that much, hmm? Quoting the facts may bother you, even when condensed into one "catchy gem", but quoting such a truth, relevantly, is hardly "regurgitation".

 

[flipper]

 

[flipper]

Whitewashing Human Atrocities in the Middle East and Africa
Whitewashing Human Atrocities in the Middle East and Africa - YouTube
Search | Global Research
Obama, the US and 5 Million Deaths in The Congo

 

[Randall]

If you read it right in the first place Remembrance Day is about the fallen and Veterans and families pay their respects.

The First World War was supposed to be the "War To End All Wars". Look how that turned out. Here's something most people don't learn in school:
​

"Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie", the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930,
and was under the control of Rockefeller "Standard oil". Morgan, through "General Electric", controlled the German radio and electrical industry via
AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned "General Electric") through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone
network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company "Focke-Wulf". "General Motors", belonging to the DuPont family,
established control over "Opel". Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of "Volkswagen". In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller
Bank "Dillon, Reed & Co." the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after "I.G Farben" emerged — metallurgical concern
"Vereinigte Stahlwerke" (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry
and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.

Source: Hitler Was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England - Fort Russ​

There's absolutely no disrespect here for the individual soldier who is caught-up in circumstances beyond their control, forced into action, or sucked into it by propaganda. They're all victims of the war machine and all deserve to be remembered, but at the same time we have to remember who and what the real enemy is, what gets people into wars in the first place. Otherwise we're doomed to repeat it, and IMO that carelessness disrespects the very people you have chosen to pay your respects to. We're on the same side here. Every soldier who puts themselves into service for good and honorable reasons deserves to fight for truly good and honorable reasons, not be used as pawns or tools by politicians and financiers.​

Documentary On War Propoganda

 

[Randall]

Creating War For the Masses

 

[Randall]

Day of Deceit

​

 

[Han]

Day of Deceit

​

Pearl Harbour is not the half of it. After cracking the Enigma code and later Purple, the allies had to keep the secret at all costs, including letting untold numbers innocent people die in preventable (with the secret information) attacks.

I would never want to be in the position of having to make those kind of decisions.

Also regarding whether the US let the Japanese attack pearl harbour or not, is a bit of a side issue, because the Japanese were going to attack anyway, for a whole host of reasons, not least opening up and exploiting a new "front".

By the time pearl harbour was hit, the Japanese had already invaded and brutalised China (Manchuria) and with Japanese Imperial expansion and invasion, conflict in the pacific theater was inevitable.

I don't want anyone to think that I am defending any decisions to act or not act, I am just trying to make sense of a very dire situation.

History can be a harsh judge, and we can never know: what could, should or would of happened, and in some cases it is very hard to see what actually did happen, in my opinion the "fog of War" only increases with time.

 

[Randall]

Pearl Harbour is not the half of it. After cracking the Enigma code and later Purple, the allies had to keep the secret at all costs ...

One would think that the whole reason for cracking a code in the first place is to gain a strategic advantage, and in the process save lives, so what's the point of having it if it's not going to be used? And let's not forget that the whole build-up and pretext for war is driven by propaganda and high powered people in the shadows in the first place. So there'd have be no need for secret codes and hard decisions if they'd never start the damn wars in the first place. But since they did, let's assume that certain circumstances might have warranted secrecy to "save lives". The Pearl Harbor attack was cited as a reason the USA was dragged directly into the war in the first place!

So what are we supposed to make of that? Since the war they all planned to get into was inevitable anyway, they just fed Pearl Harbor to the enemy to keep a code breaker intact that they wouldn't have needed if there had been no war to begin with? Not to mention the other evidence. Ground observers had also provided repeated written warnings that were ignored. Then there are the hearings that cleared the commanders at Pearl Harbor of wrongdoing and condemned the government. Han, when it's all broken down, there's just no excuses for it. In that case it looks like the silence was designed to drag the nation into the war rather than save lives.

Large scale wars are entirely preventable. The two videos above should be enough to make that clear. The more that people insist that there's nothing they can do about it, or worse yet, endorse the wars or somehow justify them, the easier it is for the war machine, including it's propaganda mongers, and high powered players in the shadows to get away with them, and it's rarely they who are the victims. It's always the common folks, particularly the lower socio-economic classes. Only after the fact do a few of the instigators and power players get put on trial for war crimes, and of those, few are convicted, and usually only those on the losing side.