Opinions on the wars 1

Post Reply New Topic

There's too much killing in war. I see it as a necessity, but I rather there be less death. I think it would be best to have weapons whose goal is not to kill, or not just to kill, but to intimidate and discourage. A battle is over a lot sooner if the enemy runs away in a panic. However, with Islamic fundamentalists, this would not be so easy as they believe they have 70 virgins to rape once they die, so they are looking forward to death. But, even they have become cowards on the battlefield even in Medieval wars with the Byzantines, thanks to a man named Callinicus of Heliopolis:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aph-3zEacuw[/youtube]

It is absolutely insane for the U.S. and any coalition of Western allies to attempt to occupy, conquer or rule an Islamic domain. Muslims are crazy insane people who prefer dying to living.

The only sane things to do are stay out entirely or nuke them thoroughly.

ruveyn

Can't quite do that. We still have a moral responsibility on two accounts, or perhaps three, here. One, not committing genocide ourselves. Two, not allowing them to start their own version of the Apocalypse. Three, not allowing them to commit genocide in general, whether in their attempts to destroy Israel and their attempts to kill heretical sects of their own as well.

Perhaps if they ticked off China they could be in a world of hurt? As per the game Command & Conquer Generals?

I find it to be interesting that the Muslims in the middle east find no room for their "Palestinian" brothers. And it's not as if they can't live in Israel and become citizens, they just don't want to. Instead, they want to end the "unjust occupation" of the land of Israel,

If you seriously equate the UN as a tool by the ruling elite to impose global socialism, then you are more ignorant of political science than i thought possible. Considering the absurdity of your comments I can only assume that you have read very little on the matter and are conjuring up scenarios in your head that appear to fit the fantasy. As to your comments on China being openly socialist one only needs a cursory look at this regime to realise that it is a full blown capitalist regime, to think otherwise is bordering upon stupidity. The massive task to privatise previously state owned enterprises has almost been completed with the result of 10s of millions Chinese being thrown out of work, this process has been in train since Deng Xiaoping introduced his 'market reforms' to the Stalinist country back in 1979. (please note I use the term Stalinist State not socialist). China is now the workshop of the world, with its cheap labour, cheap infrastructure costs, and its brutal repression of the proletariat.

But then why bother to analyse a situation when fantastical conjecture is so much easier.

Sorry. I majored in Political Science.

I am correct. The UN is a socialist mandate FOR THE MASSES. Indeed it is elite/capitalist controlled and it's action favor only the elite capitalists, but its mandate is for global socialism FOR THE MASSES.

Well in that case I am astounded by how much you seem to have forgotten.



Some elements of social / humanitarian justice are present in the UN mandate but to call these 'principles' socialist is stretching the bow way beyond breaking point and anyhow it is actions rather than spin which ultimately describe a person, country or organisations political stance.

the UN is undoubtedly a tool for the expansion of capitalism, it functions to lead people to the false hope that worst ravages of imperialism and capitalism can be held in check, the falsehood of which has been demonstrated time and again.

Just the mere fact that 5 countries have permanent veto powers and all five are committed capitalist states goes a long way to disavow your claim that the UN is socialist.

Poli sci is a cakewalk major, very popular among meathead football players and drunken frat boys. Being a poli sci major means absolutely nothing for your understanding of politics, economics, or really anything in particular.


No, you are incorrect. If you truly believe the UN is socialist, you simply have no understanding of the history of socialist thought. For the record, I think socialism is idiotic, and I tend to be skeptical towards the UN, but to draw a link between the two is absurd. At the most, the UN expresses vague, lukewarm support for a weak sort of social democracy. At no point has the UN advocated direct worker control of the means of production, or any other pillars of a socialist program.

Israel is actually, or at least once was, socialist. The economic system really isn't the problem, but the leadership.

The Soviet Union could have done a lot better without leaders like Stalin, but in the early days leaders like Mikael Gorbachev would have been great.

The accuracy of this statement really relies upon your definition of a socialist state, to me the idea of utopian socialism as presented by the kibbutz system is an old, tried and failed idea, one that was experimented/philosophised by the likes of Robert Owen, Charles Fourier and Henri saint-simon. Socialism is not something that can be dreamt up, not something that can spontaneously spring into being. Socialism can only come into being through the result of class antagonisms. As Marx said of utopian socialists

"In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel"




I really do not understand your position here, are you suggesting that the workers state would have been better off being betrayed and destroyed by a capitalist, instead of a being betrayed and destroyed by Stalin

If so, it seems a strange perspective. Personally I would have preferred the original workers state to not have been betrayed at all. In which instance we would most likely be living in a very advanced, equitable social and economic system, and quite possibly not discussing the merits or otherwise of two imperialist wars.

The act getting a political science degree is always going to be tainted by the politics of the professor. Its like learning Judaism from a Catholic bishop.

Anyone that loves politics enough to teach it is going to be badly biased.

The UN is a third world kaffe-klatch which benefits a few functionaries who are by and large moochers and leeches. The UN is kept afloat for miserable third world types by the contributions of relatively prosperous industrial nations. It is a thing that lives on charity. It does not produce anything, but consumes what it can take or get. Anything the UN can do of a quasi-constructive nature could be done better and cheaper by private charitable organizations.

ruveyn

For the first one, I am referring to the economic condition of socialism, whereby the government is in control of industries. Communism is where the government has complete control of the "private sector", id est, all businesses small and large. In socialism, the government controls the larger industries, such a manufacturers and agriculture.

For the second, I am referring to levels of benevolence versus malevolence. As in, how the dictator regards their people, and human life in general.

Wow you have your very own quite unique definitions of Socialism and Communism. Funny that

regardless of the apparent justification for invading afghanistan, surely at the end of the day it differs little from the invasion of iraq? i am not aware of any evidence held by the aggressors to suggest that the september 11th attack was an orchestrated plan carried out by the afghan state, would this lack of such evidence not then suggest that declaring war on a nation on such a basis might also be a contravention of international law?

Actually, these "quite unique definitions of Socialism and Communism" of "[my] own" were in my textbook, Contemporary Business, by Louis E. Boone & David L. Kurtz, which was used in the Introduction To Business class, GEB 1011 Introduction to Business, Rasmussen College, Ocala campus. I.e., Business 101.