Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Give war a chance.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 25, 2012, 11:40 a.m. EST by 1sealyon (434)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All we are saying is give war a chance. - P. J. The Great

Many great leaps in social change and improvement in the human condition came out of war:

English civil war of 1215. (Magna Carta)

US and French Revolutionary Wars (Solidified western democracy)

US Civil War (Freedom for millions of black Americans)

WWII (Defeat of fascism in Europe and Japan)

The Cold War (Freedom for hundreds of millions in the Soviet Union and satellite nations)

Humans are a barbarous race warring on one another for hundreds of thousands of years. Killing in genetic with us. It’s how we get things done.

http://workinghumor.com/quotes/warachance.shtml

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

A useful link about the OTHER SIDE........

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/

Go there to contemplate the other side.



[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Full disclosure, the post was inspired by P.J. O'Rourke and the NO WAR post. It's useful study both sides of the issue.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

So, now that its understood. What are we going to do about the 1%?

What? nobody out there got balls?

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

What about the rich people in other countries maybe they should be the first to go

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

But our problem is with the rich people here at home, and not those in other countries.

Too bad, its usually rich people waging war on poor people. Seldom is it the other way around. I suppose that is because poor people can't afford armies.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Do you have any evidence for that statement? Lol. The Russian revolution(s?) was definitely about poor people waging war on rich people, including the king or whatever.

Hm does that mean that our rich people become harmless if they more to Singapore though

[-] 3 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Not so fast about making assumptions about the Russian revolution!

Lenin and the rest of the Russian communist party were bankrolled by Western Banks (yes, the same Wall Street/London/Frankfurt creeps we are complaining about now.) Lenin was secretly wisked into Russia from Germany with the help of the German Kaiser for the purposes of him to make a revolution. The goal was to take out the Czar, take his money, and undermine Russia's ability to play on the western political scene. The Russian revolution had nothing to do with poor people. Che Guevara noted this problem with Russian communism; that it was financed, and thus run, by western capitalism. It was thus no model for Cuba.

Check out the book by Ernesto "Che" Guevara "Apuntes Críticos a Economía Política (Critical Points on Political Economics.) I don't know if there is an English reading version out there yet.

As to many of them other revolutions out there, I'm sure you'll find most, if not all, were done, and if not done directly than financed, by rich people who were trying to get over on some third world situation not too unlike what happened in Russia back in 1917. I must assume your surely joking.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Oh well, so rich people fighting against other rich people and the one with the support of lots of poor people wins.

I think it is a distinct point that revolutions, as the word implies, often end up in a similar position to where they started, but if people with political power were at one point poor I think that's still significant.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

A comment on this topic, emphasis added:

In general, the connection to an easily recognized, larger group goal is very significant for the community values that will tend to evolve and stabilize. The most healthy situation will always be one where the goals of the group that someone directly interacts with has a clear relation to a larger group, of which the group one works with is a subset. The standards and defined benefit of the larger group form a way of evaluating the progress and goals of the immediate group and provide an outside, stable way of justifying any lack of progress or complications that may arise for the immediate group.

The scale of the larger group is not, itself, particularly important, as long as interaction with members of the larger group by the individual is completely optional in clear contrast with the accepted closer connection to the immediate group. The larger group must be neutral in relation to the smaller group with which the individual is associated, meaning that the smaller group's influence is strictly limited by the legitimate goals of other entities within the larger group at a level where no conflict has a priority high enough to require immediate action by any involved subsets of the larger group.

When benefit to the larger group becomes unclear, motivations have the potential to become distorted within the smaller group. For WoW in particular, faction PvP rivalry once defined a benefit to the faction from the acquisition of PvE rewards by the group, in the absence of any other clear benefit to the faction or other larger groups to which an individual belongs. (guild, roleplaying origin, faction, playerbase, national origin, etc.) In many cases the potential benefit would be of a specific accurate standard of achievement or the discouragement of inaccurate evaluation of achievements in general through the promotion of complex goals, but the actions of much of the playerbase indicate that in their experience, 'hardcore' raiding does not provide either of these two results.

Consequently, there exists a clear benefit from ensuring that raiding goals in WoW are harmonious ("river crab") to the commonly recognized goals of a larger group with which the individual has no direct connection, whether by influencing the goals of the group or by changing the recognition of how that larger group will benefit.

(From the comment which preceded that one)

Also, it's almost certain that one barrier to guild alliances is the loot system, and everyone being "too nice". A need-based system provides the maximum potential benefit, but with no commonly known way to distribute costs/benefit. Within groups trust would work, but between groups stateless compensation method is essential for guild alliances, probably in the form of gold.

Very similar to many players being reluctant to group up for collection quests.

[-] 1 points by Bullmooseparty (21) from West Orange, NJ 2 years ago

You make a good point; sometimes war is necessary and completely just. Other times not so much. Anyone who is pure pacifist is insane. Much can be accomplished through war, but if you chose this honorable path you must accept the consequences of war.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

War is also a natural human proclivity. Asking people not to kill each other is like asking an elephant to refrain from eating its own dung.

[-] 1 points by Bullmooseparty (21) from West Orange, NJ 2 years ago

Yet people can chose not to kill. It is very important that you remember that people always have a choice in every situation.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

For the most part people choose not to kill out of adherence to a learned moral code or fear of the consequences. It is hard to suppress a million years of violent evolution. We manage about 500,000 murders per year world wide. Today we have a greater capacity to kill than any other organism on the planet.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

In the fight for suffrage (the woman's right to vote),

the national movement targeted the ruling party (Wilson democrat)

because they were not allowing passage for women voters.

.

The woman's activist worker on getting women votes state by state

denounced the the national suffrage party

because they felt the democrats would keep the US out of world war 1.

.

Once the democrats committed to the war,

the national suffrage party force the issue of women's right to vote

by hunger strike an getting arrested.

.

To make the issue of suffrage was in line with the war effort,

the US claimed to be more democratic than the Kaiser

by giving woman the right to vote.

.

While social issues are often entangled with war,

war is not responsible for their inception.

[-] 0 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

I'm not certain we could resolve our social proclivity to murder with a civil war but maybe.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

We cannot afford another war.

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

In the past cost never seemed to be a determining factor.

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

That may be for the past but certainly not the present as proven by Iraq and even Afghanistan.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Did the projected cost of the wars prevent the US congress and president form approving and executing the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Remember, the wars were accompanied by tax cuts >_>

If everyone cared about wars, it would be easy to finance them with high taxes because people would feel a moral obligation to pay taxes. Since not everyone does, there is a limit to tax rates during wars and so they are financed by borrowing or inflation.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Those wars were not going to be stopped under Bush. Even you should be able to see the numerous sources of pressure to end those wars. Can you truly say fiscal strain is not one of the sources? Can you also say that fiscal strain was not a component to limiting our involvement in Libya? Is fiscal strain also not a factor preventing war with Iran? Really?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The point is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not stopped in the face potential cost by either Democrats or Republicans.

Cost was not a factor in the Syrian action and Iranian in-action. Both were motivated by political concerns, not financial.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Well of course, since our government does tend to keep the fact that the civil war debt has never been paid off, secret and a non-issue.

[-] 0 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

Have a house party, keep it in house - that should help reduce cost.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

It's pure DUALITY 1sealyon.

However, if you enjoy the school of hard knocks, and believe you and everyone else can only learn this way, then why bother with easier ways to do things.

Maybe after ALL the suffering, inhumanity, torture, hate, and confusion what we really need is more of it. Much more.

WOW, for now on, I deem 1sealyon, the Duality KING. Someone will always need to point out the other side, and for that, we will always look to you to fill us in.

Just one quick question on the way to these greater heights, What is it, your thoughts, ideas, --- Mind, or Body?

Good Luck to you 1sealyon, you will be carrying a great weight on your shoulders as you enlighten us. Please, tell all of us immediately when this Duality Crisis Ends. We glow in the basking comfort of solving the great mystery of something from nothing.

Peace My Friend. Forever!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

In the short list of examples above the outcome was probably an unforeseen consequence of war, but a consequence none the less. Changes for the better can come from less violent means, war just tends to speed the process.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

It's one hell of way to go. But you have a point. I don't disagree. Order usually always inevitably follows chaos. It's the reality that human history paints for us.

What I would say, in my opinion, we need to remove ourselves away from that horrific cycle and aim for a higher good. Let's evolve to a better place. I'm sure this crap won't be happening there! Let's dream a little and harbor hope.

1sealyon, the difference here really comes to an attitude, realist, or idealist. It's a choice. We all vacillate from one mode of thought to another dependent on many factors. Tomorrow I can change my mind. Or I may be in a pessimistic state of mind. Our ideas are colored by our emotions.

You show promise by showing this side. It's completely correct that we have to look at these ideas from all the angles. Your angle tells us something about ourselves and where we fit in this historical curve. We won't learn anything properly if we don't consider all reasons and facts. Esp facts.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is some good news.

Since the first use of atomic weapons in 1945 the % of the population killed in wars dropped for the first time in 1000+ years, and has remained at a low level ever since.

Right now we are enjoying one of the most peaceful periods in history.

[-] 0 points by pavonianewport (11) 2 years ago

who love war are those who have never been in one

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Gandhi had no love for yet he supported them.

[-] 0 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 2 years ago

Psychotic people who love death and have no regard for human life love war and destruction. They get off on it because they are sick in the head plain and simple. Stop letting psychopathic control freaks run our lifes and try to boss us around and force their evil and hate on us.

Human race, get up off your knees.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

War is often precipitated or accelerated by some pretty rational folks:

George Washington

Abraham Lincoln

D. Eisenhower

FDR

JFK

Margret Thatcher

There were even a few wars that Gandhi liked:

http://rupeenews.com/2008/03/which-war-did-mohandas-gandhi-support-all-of-them-there-wasnt-a-war-that-the-prophet-of-non-violence-gandhi-did-not-support-he-was-sergeant-major-and-won-a-british-medal-for-war-duties-all/

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Ok, so maybe JFK was pretty and possibly even rational. Maybe GW was rational.

The rest of them, especially Lincoln, you've got to be shitting yourself.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Lincoln was somewhat melancholy but sane.

What about FDR?

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Lincoln was sane?

Not even close.

Many are certain he was one of the most evil and un-sane persons to ever be elected president.

FDR, seriously?

Let me guess, you were educated long after the early 60's, right?

[-] 0 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 2 years ago

So acording to you, it's such a wonderfull thing to bomb and kill people and shoot them. That way everything is made right....demonize your opponent and get the masses to hate them with your propaganda then they will support your murdering them....why killing and bombing other countries is as patriotic as apple pie and mom...don't you love and support mom and apple pie and baseball?... well don't you? We have to bomb other countries to bring mom and apple pie and baseball to those under priveldged scum over seas because you know they don't have that... and if they don't like it we should carpet bomb them out of existence right? Because when we bomb them back to the Stone Age and slaughter them they will be made 'democratic" and free and liberated...liberated of their lifes that is.....

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Humans are violent creatures that frequently war on one another to solve problems.

Occasionally however the wars produce laudable outcomes.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It's kind of a good-news-bad-news thing.