Your philosophy on war.

[ComradeDavo]

Free-marketers are the true force for change and progress, revolutionaries if you will. Socialists, social-democrats, fascists and etc are mere reactionaries who afraid of change and competition.

Choose your choice of words more carefully, including Social Democrats in that list is pretty ill informed. I can think of a whole host of ways which the Liberal Democrat party, which included the old Social Democrat party and thus many Social democrats, want to 'change' things.

 

[luiz]

Choose your choice of words more carefully, including Social Democrats in that list is pretty ill informed. I can think of a whole host of ways which the Liberal Democrat party, which included the old Social Democrat party and thus many Social democrats, want to 'change' things.

I was beign provocative, but it is a good point nonetheless.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I was beign provocative, but it is a good point nonetheless.

Take for example the UK, Labour are meant to be a Social Democrat party and they have been managing the economy much better than the Conservative party was.

Also, your only thinking of progress in regards to economic growth, I would say that socially Social Democrats are far more progressive than right-wing parties who tend to limit people's freedoms, plus of course the issue of social justice and eliminating poverty.

 

[Rambuchan]

I personally think that peace should be preserved as long as possible. War is not something that you just jump into. I agree with Sun Tzu's notion that the soldier that fights for, and succesfully preserves peace should be awarded more glory than the solder who demonstrates genius in combat.

If it must come to war, it will only be when all diplomacy has failed. Such is the honorable way to wage war. The objective should be to neutralize the belliegerence against your country. WMD's would be avoided. Misconduct (massacres, corruption, Geneva code violations) on the part of my soldiers would be met with austere punishment. My soldiers would be professional service men, as opposed to government sanctioned thugs.

When occupying the country I would make some changes to the government, but I would try to give the populace as much free-reign over installing it as possible. Maximum courtesy would be in order amongst my troops, so as to deter the motivation for an insurgency.

blah, i'm bored.

This is pretty much my philosophy to the letter.

 

[onejayhawk]

War will always be a part of our existence. It is fruitless to claim we should not, because the roots of war are too deep. One might as well outlaw gravity.

War is amny things. Often, to paraphrase Clancy, it is armed robbery on the scale of nations. Occasionally its fought for less obvious reasons than I want what you have, though rarely is economic advantage absent entirely.

Also war is ALWAYS started by the defender. The aggressor takes until the defender forces the fight. War is often fought by frightened people, and very often by desperate ones. War represents the ultimate breakdown of diplomacy, but paradoxically it is diplomacy's constant flip side.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Also war is ALWAYS started by the defender. The aggressor takes until the defender forces the fight.

I think that cruise missles have changed this statement.

 

[Aramazd]

When should it be waged?

When the nation's citizens are in danger from the opposing country

How should it be waged?

Total War. Anything that could aid the enemy should be destroyed. Although this will cause more enemy casulties, it will reduce the casulties of the nation that is invading.

What should be done afterward?

Either annex and rebuild or install a puppet.

 

[Narz]

My philosophy about war is to aviod it at all costs.

 

[Kayak]

My philosophy about war is to aviod it at all costs.

All costs? I can't imagine that you would accept all of the consequenses of that statement. But if so, get me your location so I can send someone to round you up to come work in my fields.

 

[MobBoss]

Also war is ALWAYS started by the defender.

Uhm, very silly statement. Poland in no way started the war with Germany in WWII and by and large agressors start wars, not defenders.

War represents the ultimate breakdown of diplomacy, but paradoxically it is diplomacy's constant flip side.

Not according to Clauswitz. War is just a means to an end and is part of politics and diplomacy. Without the threat of war, diplomacy is futile.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

When diplomacy (and it usually does) fail, by any means necessary to win (but nukes are a last resort, however napalm and white phosphorus are in), and the conquerors should stay around and help in the rebuilding process, and maintain order whilst the conquered nations government and nation is being rebuilt.

If you have seen how I play civ, you would not want to be my enemy. First I nuke all their cities to nearly oblivion, then I send in my armies and burn all their cities to the ground. Unless of course they have a wonder that I desire.

@Kayak: not even a regular exception, Abu Graib is the only exception in our current "war". I'm in no way painting halo over my American head, but you must admit that since the beginning of the 20th century, the overall number of that kind of thing has dropped.

Also, don't bash veterans, that's just evil, they have or are doing a great service for their nation. Even if they just dug trenches in Alabama, they have still done more for their country than the average citizen. Because at any time they were willing to fight and die for their homeland. That requires respect, and they have mine.

@MobBoss: I agree, war is just diplomacy at the point of a lance or in this modern day, a bayonet.

 

[mrtn]

Choose your choice of words more carefully, including Social Democrats in that list is pretty ill informed. I can think of a whole host of ways which the Liberal Democrat party, which included the old Social Democrat party and thus many Social democrats, want to 'change' things.

Well, you don't live in a country that's been ruled by them almost continously for the last hundred years.
The Swedish Social Democrats are a bunch of reactionaries.

@punkbass: Nice army base you've got here cournal (sp?), we wouldn't want anything to happen to it, now would we?

 

[Taliesin]

Luiz: my point is that elevation of the free market as a god supreme over all other considerations is a profoundly anti-conservative way to run the world. The ideology treats people as economic assets and has no consideration for the value of rootedness, or organic human structures, or local history, or family continuity. It forcibly reorganises society in a way which more or less compels many to trade geographic and communal position for economic position. And when I say it is anti-conservative, I do not mean it destroys established social welfare policies; I mean that it systematically destroys basic human communities, something that has never been done before. I'm not contrasting the free-marketeer with a social democrat and finding him lacking (although I think the social democrat at least does much more to help people live as they will), I'm contrasting him with the average person. The average person is conservative and organic in a basic sense: his alliance to his community and desire to preserve it; the New Right's plan for society fails completely to take account of this or recognise it. And calling it "progress" as a compliment is, frankly, stupid. "Progress" is only a good thing if it improves people's lives. Here it just means "change", and destructive change at that.

EDIT: Come to think of it, it's pretty strange (and frightening) that the hated ideology we vanquished in the Second World War-- the glorification of machines and industry before people-- turns out to be the right way to organise society after all. (According to the New Right and its army of pundits and yesmen.)

 

[Leonel]

As my history professor once said; "When it comes down to keeping peace in the world, there's ALWAYS going to be one cheater." Which means no matter how much you want peace and try to work with everyone in the world to get peace, there will always be one leader of a nation that will take advantage of the situation and try to invade his or her neighbors.

 

[punkbass2000]

@punkbass: Nice army base you've got here cournal (sp?), we wouldn't want anything to happen to it, now would we?

This conversation has shown a distinct tendency to become silly!

 

[Abaddon]

When should it be waged?

Whenever you want!

How should it be waged?

Get your army sorted, roll up to the border. attack!

What should be done afterwards.

If you win, take land as expansion for your nation, if loss, try and claim back what you lost

I dont like how modern war is faught... how can war ever be legal? tho we try now.. if you want war, and your people do.. go fiigh!

warning- im slightly drunk after pool night...

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Well, I suppose my view on war would be that it is something to be avoided, unless you have a REALLY good reason to start a war eg evil aliens invade with the intent of wiping every human...war should be a last option at all times.

One issue that I can never make up my mind on is weather we should impose rules on warfare...on the one hand it waters down the violence of war...makes it a less serious undertaking, and makes it more like a game...and thats a bad thing, becuase I often find myself thinking that we cannot afford to sanitize war like that...but on the other hand by putting rules on war, eg prisoners are to be well treated etc...well its civilized and noble isn't it? Becuase by doing this you reduce the brutal cost of war (which also makes for a better peace), and you get the job done while causing as little death and suffering as possible, which is a noble thing to do.*

I think that we should put rules on warfare but still, I tend to sway a bit on this topic.

Finally, I definatley think that we need to mantain a highly advanced and capable military, becuase as much as we would all like to lay down all our guns and just be friends... we just cannot trust that raving looney who promises to put his gun if you put down yours can we? Its simply not realistic, and thats a shame.

*EDIT: of course you can also say that putting rules on war does not nessesarily mean that we do not recognise its seriousness...hmm actually this is a really good point! But still...

 

[Ayatollah So]

The only thing worse than two armies fighting a war, is one army fighting a war.

If another country's army shows up uninvited on your territory, it's pretty clear what to do. Collective self-defense. Intervention to defend another group is another matter; that's where democracy comes in handy. The U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. I don't think they meant, "but it's OK for the Executive Branch to start one, as long as they don't declare it" - but somehow that's where we seem to have wound up.

Interestingly, Costa Rica abolished its military many decades ago. How well is that working out?

 

[Perfection]

I support war only when it supports my interest

 

[Narz]

All costs? I can't imagine that you would accept all of the consequenses of that statement. But if so, get me your location so I can send someone to round you up to come work in my fields.

Civil disobience is not war.

Nor is violent opposition.

War is going off to kill someone you don't know. Kind of like being an unpaid hitman. Being a solidier is being a pawn, a man who's mission and purpose is no longer under your own authority and who's mission and purpose can be changed at any moment by the whim of those who command you.

Not my cup of tea.

I support war only when it supports my interest

How compassionate of you.