NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

How will that help anybody? You must be realistic; you are part of the world community now!

because War is going to happen regardless of what you think hope or want to happen and its better to ban some things than let people do whatever they want. And i know your gonna say well they can anyway no they cant they might get away with it at first but once discovered the repercussions will be swift and deadly.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Are you suggesting that the Geneva Convention has encouraged warfare?

Civilizing it is better then letting it stay barbaric, which is what will happen because not everyone thinks like you and someone WILL start a war.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Are you suggesting that the Geneva Convention has encouraged warfare?

Yes. if the consequences of war were potentialy destructive to all parties involved, not just the agressor nation, then ( as proved by the "success" of MAD) then many wars would be averted. only total fanatics and lunatics would initiate agression under those conditions.

the geneva conventions favour large rich high tech mainly western nations. most so called 3rd world nations are not able to field high tech weapons of destruction and so must rely on low tech solutions, many of which are banned by the geneva conventions. further, many powerful nations simply ignore the convention and do as they will. these same nations then use the gc to brow beat and demonise those less able to defend themselves.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

This is true. However, in the face of evil, such as that of Hitler in WW2, going to war was necessary for the safety of all of non-Aryan mankind!

No no, a nation intending to make war doesn't think twice because some of its soldiers might get a rough time. Soldiers don't decide to go to war, greedy lunatics like Adolf Hitler and George W.Bush..wait, Adolf Hitler and [long list of names operating under the Bush banner] do.

If Britain could have known for sure that soldiers captured by Japan would be mistreated, would the have abandoned Asia in the 30s? Should they have? We'd all be subjects of either the empire or else the greater reich if they had.

ic:Walmington does not want to be at war with Nazi Germany, but being as thousands of British and French soldiers have already been captured by their forces, we are glad of any detterence to their mistreatment.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Why is this a capitalist justification? I'm a capitalist and I oppose just about every war that's ever fought (including Iraq)

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Why is this a capitalist justification? I'm a capitalist and I oppose just about every war that's ever fought (including Iraq)

Capitalism isn't very well understood by most of its advocates. Capitalism isn't owning a business: it is owning an empire. It is pursuing the economic clout to bully others and even whole societies. The best trick the corporate press has been able to pull off is convincing small shopkeepers that their interests were identical to predatory conglomerates.

In the old days, the corner grocer sided with his working class neighbors during a strike. They were part of his community and often his friends and family members. And from a more self-interested perspective, they were also his customers and he wanted them to have more money in their pockets so they could spend it in his store (and not buy so much on credit). The "petit bourgeoise" is actually part of the community of working people, and therefore part of the proletariat. Capitalism is not owning a hardware store: it is being a power-mad bastard like Sam Walton and destroying small hardware stores all over America.

That said, a lot of wars are fought for rich men's profit margins. Ever hear the phrase, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight"? How much stock do you hold in Halliburton? They are making out like bandits thanks to the war in Iraq. Hell, they won the government bid without even bidding! British business interests drove the British Empire and America is mimicking it today.

"In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between we must chose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all."

- Thomas Jefferson, Page 358, Vol. 11 Works of Thomas Jefferson and page 29 Vol. 15 Writings of

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

- Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, Nov 21st, 1864, Lincoln Encyclopedia under the heading "Civil War, Aftermath feared" page 40 single volume.

You're more of a subhuman than I thought...
Capitalism is about rational self-interest, non-coercion, and absence of violent force--in other words, freedom.

Jefferson also said "That government is best which governs least." Dueling quotes do not constitute a debate. Perhaps the consolidation of power is a consequence of capitalism, but it is not its definition. Capitalism means that people cannot use the coercive power of government to interfere with eachothers success or failure. FYI, this is not currently being practiced in the US, so Halliburton and other company's receipt of corporate welfare do not constitute counter examples to this claim. They do, however, constitute evidence supporting my claim that the US does not practice capitalism.

You're more of a subhuman than I thought...
Capitalism is about rational self-interest, non-coercion, and absence of violent force--in other words, freedom.

Maybe in its ideal and theory, but like communism, it has been twisted to suit the wants and needs of the rich and powerful.

You're more of a subhuman than I thought...
Capitalism is about rational self-interest, non-coercion, and absence of violent force--in other words, freedom.

Maybe in its ideal and theory, but like communism, it has been twisted to suit the wants and needs of the rich and powerful.

Don't the rich and power-crazy twist everything to their needs and wants? Whether it be religion, capitalism, communism etc...

Timbashi wrote: "Jefferson also said ‘That government is best which governs least.’"

Yes, that’s a real popular quote with conservatives. Unfortunately for conservatives, Jefferson said this when government was generally understood to mean police and the military – things conservatives traditionally wish to expand. (Context is everything in historical quoting.) Jefferson wanted *both* government and business to be small so neither could threaten the rights of ordinary people. Remember, we are talking about the guy who said, banks are “more dangerous than standing armies” (Like many of his contemporaries, Jefferson felt militias alone were adequate for defense.) Jefferson was not the advocate of turbo-capitalism that he is made out to be. Far from advocating economic Darwinism, he felt government must step in when the greedy endangered the welfare of their neighbors:

"Certainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of private individuals to regulate, according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation, to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property as is, in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been done, and will be done, unless stayed by the protecting hand of the legislature. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they (the government) should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoliation desolate the country. It is believed that harpies are already hording their money to commence these scenes on the separation of the legislature; and we know that lands have already been sold under the hammer for less than a year’s rent."

Timbashi wrote: "Dueling quotes do not constitute a debate."

They are as valid as any other form of evidence.

"Perhaps the consolidation of power is a consequence of capitalism, but it is not its definition."

If it is a consequence, we should be aware of it and act accordingly.

"Capitalism means that people cannot use the coercive power of government to interfere with each others success or failure. FYI, this is not currently being practiced in the US, so Halliburton and other company's receipt of corporate welfare do not constitute counter examples to this claim. They do, however, constitute evidence supporting my claim that the US does not practice capitalism."

Then capitalism has never been practiced in the U.S. or anywhere else at any time. How many times have U.S. troops or the National Guard been called out to bloodily suppress strikes? Ironically, it was not until after the New Deal that government left workers alone instead of forcing them back to work at bayonet point.

If you wish to follow another thread on this topic, I am participating in another debate under the "Free Trade" subject.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Why is this a capitalist justification? I'm a capitalist and I oppose just about every war that's ever fought (including Iraq)

Capitalism isn't very well understood by most of its advocates. Capitalism isn't owning a business: it is owning an empire. It is pursuing the economic clout to bully others and even whole societies. The best trick the corporate press has been able to pull off is convincing small shopkeepers that their interests were identical to predatory conglomerates.

In the old days, the corner grocer sided with his working class neighbors during a strike. They were part of his community and often his friends and family members. And from a more self-interested perspective, they were also his customers and he wanted them to have more money in their pockets so they could spend it in his store (and not buy so much on credit). The "petit bourgeoise" is actually part of the community of working people, and therefore part of the proletariat. Capitalism is not owning a hardware store: it is being a power-mad bastard like Sam Walton and destroying small hardware stores all over America.

That said, a lot of wars are fought for rich men's profit margins. Ever hear the phrase, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight"? How much stock do you hold in Halliburton? They are making out like bandits thanks to the war in Iraq. Hell, they won the government bid without even bidding! British business interests drove the British Empire and America is mimicking it today.

"In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between we must chose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all."

- Thomas Jefferson, Page 358, Vol. 11 Works of Thomas Jefferson and page 29 Vol. 15 Writings of

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

- Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, Nov 21st, 1864, Lincoln Encyclopedia under the heading "Civil War, Aftermath feared" page 40 single volume.

No no no, that is your definition of Capitalisim. An obvioulsy communist slanted view at that, all you need do is slip in burgoise a couple times and we publish it in The Worker.

No no no, that is your definition of Capitalisim. An obvioulsy communist slanted view at that, all you need do is slip in burgoise a couple times and we publish it in The Worker.

Apparently, it is Jefferson & Lincoln's as well. Not everyone who has a beef with capitalism is a communist. Also, bear in mind that you are playing a game with 27 recognized styles of government and such binary either/or thinking looks pretty foolish unless you are writing in character.

War is natural. It is peace that is unnatural.

Seriously guys, why legitimize warfare by applying rules to it? There is nothing civilized about destroying each other and then trying to civilize the barbaric act. Vote this down.

Why is this a capitalist justification? I'm a capitalist and I oppose just about every war that's ever fought (including Iraq)

So you opposed the Military intervening in the Baltics. Or how about WWII. Or How about Grenada, or Panama, or Lybia, or Afganistan. Those were all wars.

No no no, that is your definition of Capitalisim. An obvioulsy communist slanted view at that, all you need do is slip in burgoise a couple times and we publish it in The Worker.

Apparently, it is Jefferson & Lincoln's as well. Not everyone who has a beef with capitalism is a communist. Also, bear in mind that you are playing a game with 27 recognized styles of government and such binary either/or thinking looks pretty fooolish unless you are writing in character.

If you say so....comrade.