War

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Thirty Seven, Jun 21, 2002.

  1. Thirty Seven Baron von "Guns N' Roses" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    91
    This is one of the most misunderstood things in human history. No wars are waged for humanitaran reaons, but for gains and losses. War is created not on ideals but for power, greed, and money.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ZenithEra Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    I'm missing your point?

    Are you saying that we could start a war for humanitarian reasons? Eliminate threats before they can strike? That's an ass backwards way of going about things, something my president would do.

    War on drugs
    War on terrorism

    might as well have a war on the sun, they'll never end because they never really began.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thirty Seven Baron von "Guns N' Roses" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    91
    No, Im saying all the wars ever fought are all about power and money. All the 'humanitarian' and 'ethics' reasons are hidden behind civilization's overwhelming desire for wealth and power. WWI, WWII, American+Russia Revolutions, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Vietnam and Korean Wars just to name a few.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Wealth & Power?

    While we had the most economic expansion in peacetime until terrorists struck...exactly who is getting wealth from, how much & how:

    The crusades
    9/11
    WWI
    WWII
    American+Russia Revolutions
    War of 1812
    Mexican-American War
    Vietnam War
    Korean War
     
  8. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    I'm sorry, 37, but wars are not only fought for money- the crusades are an apt example. However, if they did, that would not justify them. Knowing you, that is probably the point you are indirectly trying to make.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    For me, personally, all war is abhorrent, whether it contributes to the capitalist system or not.
     
  9. Thirty Seven Baron von "Guns N' Roses" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    91
    Crusades? Thats an apt example that I overlooked. The Crusades were not about 'religion' they were just about a Civilizations wanting to control a certain piece of land and wipe out another civilization who threatens their commerce.
     
  10. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    In their time, the Huns did great things, things we could do. The Hun's time is over. Now we rule for a new world order - KMGuru

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    What revelution are you reffering to? The one in the 90's or the Bolshevik Revelution of 1905?
     
  12. Thirty Seven Baron von "Guns N' Roses" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    91
    The one in 1917.
     
  13. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    for info on Revolution in 1905 click here
    for info on the 1917 revolution click here

    i would like to point out that the russian revolutions were not 'wars' but a people liberating themselfs of the czar. revolutions. So, it does'nt fit under this category of 'war'.

    revolution

    n 1: a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving; "the industrial revolution was also a cultural revolution" 2: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed 3: a complete turn; "the plane made three rotations before it crashed"

    just thought i would point that out. you cannot put a revolution under the heading of war and then judge it as one.
    no one can justify war...not even amerika.

    peace.
     
  14. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    37, people do many things for money- trying to put together an argument for both anti-war people and their anti-capitalist counterparts is a bit silly. Throughout history, money has been man's greatest motive to kill- not just in war but in murder. To imply that war is right because it gets a certain group a tad richer is also saying murder is right if it gets the killer a diamond ring from the victim's jewlery chest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Beneifiting for the 'common good' by the death of another 'common good' is not doing anything for the real common good- humanity. Money cannot ever be weighed with life. That, is, to say money is actually worth less.
     
  15. thecurly1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,024
    Wars lose money not gain it. In wars that do not demand territorial prizes, and some that do, money is lost. Think of how much one person will contribute in taxes, and productivity to a nation in his/her lifetime. If you kill thousands, or even millions of these people you are destroying a lot of human potential for your nation. Plus how many Freuds, Einsteins, and Martin Luther Kings were kiilled during WWII? Imagine the great peoples that were slaughtered or never born out of the 50 million that were in the ground after 1945.

    Wars are destructive enterprises. The only way anything is gained is if you happen to lose less than the other guy.
     
  16. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Exactly. Some must feel they are justified in killing even if they are only doing it because they want money, and not because they actually feel war is a means of expanding the capitalist machine.

    Money is the great justifier of everything, right?
     
  17. Squid Vicious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    595
    Congratualtions...
    "To imply that war is right because it gets a certain group a tad richer is also saying murder is right if it gets the killer a diamond ring from the victim's jewlery chest."

    I didn't see Thirty-Seven implying that anywhere... he was stating a fact, not justifying it.

    The crusades were about the church wanting more influence and land, at the expense of the Muslims. Whatever the soldiers THOUGHT they were fighting for had nothing to do with it.
     
  18. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    484
    Wars provide a fantastic boost for innovation and technological gain. Radar, atomic power, jet flight and space travel (well, rockets) all came out of WWII direclty or indirectly.


    "In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switerzland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." Orson Welles in The Third Man


    just a thought.
     
  19. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    maybe thats why bush has started this 'war on terror'. now thats just a thought too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You have to weigh exactly what is lost with what is gained-

    Well, we might have gained that much, but lost that much more. War raises the stakes so we gain more than we would in peacetime, but lose more to fit.

    Personally, I wouuld be happy without radar, or atomic power- a cuckoo is all I'd need to be happy, or at least something of its ilk.

    I'm sure there are many people who can subsist on less that are obiterated in the quest for more. Surely, war was a catalyst for space travel, and now in peacetime, NASA's efforts have been considerably stalled, but all NASA did after WWII (Mercury, Geminin, Apollo) was work at the spacecrat themselves- how far, how high, how well-supported by the public, etc.

    Just a thought
    -Jono
     
  21. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    It was not the war per se but tension, competition, cold war that improved NASA performance. The same could happen once the chinese improve themselves. A friendly competition....

    In order to sustain population growth and prosperity, technological advancement is a prerequisite....I think old civilizations such as Incas and Mayan died off due to famine, pestulence or viruses more so than wars which really did not benefit them.

    In the last 5000 years most of the social and technological developments occured between India, China and southern Europe from spice trade. silk trade and industrial trade (British Trading) without any serious warfare.
     
  22. Squid Vicious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    595
    That's an awfully long time... are you SURE there werent any major engagements in that period?

    World wars are only a thing of modern history, not ancient... have another read. Hannibal? Alexander the Great? Charlemagne? Ghengis Khan? Rome, from start to finish? The christians?

    Maybe you meant 500 years... even so, Europe being almost constantly at war throughout the dark ages, in one form or another? China's history I'll have to read up on, but I'm fairly certain it wasnt stainless either. India even more obscure.

    In more modern times, The Brits themselves subjugated a nation pretty thoroughly before trading with them, in general. That's where the Commonwealth came from.
     
  23. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Silk Trade with the west

    Although no one knows for sure when silk first reached the west from China, there is some , literature from Aristotle from , 4th , century BC which describes a , fiber that may have been Chinese silk. Moreover, some believe that , silk was introduced , from China by a , Chinese princess who was , leaving to marry a Khotanese (in present day Xinjiang) king. Story has it that in order for her to be able to wear silk in her distant home, she , hid and took with her live , worms and cocoons to her , new homeland. silk road intro

    At around the end of 2nd century BC , the most edacious foreign consumer of Chinese silk was Parthia of Iran. In about 105 BC Parthia and China created a bilateral trade route between them which marks the birth of the silk road. The silk road was not one single road, but many caravan tracks that trailed through some of the toughest areas including the highest mountains and the harshest deserts on earth.

    Ch'ang-an (modern Xian) was the starting point of the rout. Westward, the main artery of this trade route divided at Dunhuang. One branch headed north just above the harsh Taklamakan desert ( a place where no one gets out alive) going through Turfan, kucha, and Aksu. At the same time the other branch headed south to Khotan and Yarkand. Finally, the two roads met in Kashgar where the caravaners readied themselves for the harsh and long treck through some of the highest mountains on earth. The trail headed west and attempted to cross a series of passes through the Pamiers and the Tian Shan mountain ranges. Once over the mountains, the road headed west through Ferghana Valley to Kokand, Samarkand, and Merv, and finally to Iran and Constantinople. When the caravans reached the Black and the Mediterranean seas and goods were exchanged and the long march back began over the same tracks. Many arteries forked off from the main route. Some major ones headed south to India over the Karakoram range. Still others, headed north through the Ili river and across the Saka steppes.

    Silk Road

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page