War Is The Moral Technology That Ensures Peace

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bitterlyclingin, Nov 22, 2012.

  1. bitterlyclingin
    Offline

    bitterlyclingin Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,076
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +449
    [As always, Liberty's enemies descend into the use of tactics so base, so brutal, so inhumane, so immoral, and so cruel in the hope that Liberty can not and will not follow them there, thereby granting them victory by default.]

    "For the last hundred years the best and brightest of the civilized world have been engaged in the business of peace. In the days before the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke, it was expected that scientific progress would lead to moral progress. Nations would accept international laws and everyone would get together to replace wars with international conferences.

    Instead technological progress just gave us better ways to kill each other. There have been few innovations in the moral technology of global harmony since Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace" laid out a plan to grant world citizenship to all refugees and outlaw all armies, invasions and atrocities with the whole shebang (...........) overseen by a League of Nations

    That was in 1795 and Kant's plan was at least more reasonable than anything we have two-hundred years later today because it at least set out to limit membership in this body to free republics. If we had done that with the United Nations, it could conceivably have become something resembling a humane organization. Instead it's a place where the dictators of the world stop by to give speeches about human rights for a show that's funnier than anything you could find eight blocks away at the Broadway Comedy Club.

    Since the League of Nations folded, the warring peoples of the world have added the atom bomb, the suicide bomber, the jet plane, the remotely guided missile, the rape squad, the IED, the child soldier and the stealth fighter to their arsenals. And the humanitarians have murdered a few billion trees printing out more useless treaties, conventions and condemnations; more dead trees than accounted for by every piece of human literature written until the 19th Century.

    There is no moral technology to prevent war. Or rather war is the moral technology, that when properly applied, ensures peace.

    The humanitarians had gone down a dead end by trying to create perpetual peace by outlawing war, but the peace-shouters who wear their inverted Mercedes Logo don't really want peace, some of them reflexively hate war for sentimental reasons, but their leaders and most committed activists don't hate war, they hate the people who win the wars.

    The plan for perpetual peace is really a plan for perpetual war. It necessitates that the civilized nations who heed its call amass overwhelming quantities of firepower as deterrents against war, which they will pledge to never use because if the threat of destroying the world isn't enough, their bluff will be called and they will fold. And if they don't fold, then the world will be destroyed because the humanitarians said that peace was better than war.

    It also necessitates that the actual wars that they fight be as limited as possible by applying precision technology to kill only actual armed enemy combatants while minimizing collateral damage. And that humanitarian objective also necessitates that the other side reply with a counter-objective of making it as hard as possible to kill them without also killing civilians.

    The humanitarian impulse makes the anti-humanitarian impulse inevitable. The more precisely we try to kill terrorists, the more ingeniously the terrorists blend into the civilian population and employ human shields. The more we try not to kill civilians, the more civilians we are forced to kill. That is the equal and opposite reaction of the humanitarian formula......"

    Sultan Knish: War is the Answer
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    So just let Hamas and Israel slug it out until they draw in the other Arab states and us? I'll pass. The author works for a right wing Israeli paper, hardly what I'd call an unbiased source. :cuckoo:
     
  3. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,579
    Thanks Received:
    6,873
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,082
    Stupid.

    Most wars are not fought for good reasons.

    The few that are usually happen because of failure of people to appreciate threats or mistakes in handling countries.

    Let's look at our wars-

    Revolutionary War - A bunch of rich guys didn't want to pay taxes for a war that they started and benefited them.

    War of 1812- America decided to try to steal Canada when the British Empire wasn't looking. We got our asses kicked!!!

    Mexican-War- We broke our agreement not to annex Texas, and stole a bunch of other land. Now we are whining the Mexicans are taking it back by demagraphics.

    Civil War- went to war because a bunch of rich douchebags wanted to keep owning other human beings.

    Spanish American war - Went to war because we wanted to show the world how tough we were.

    Philippine War- We had to have an Empire, and who were the Filipinos to say we couldn't?

    WWI- Went to war because the banks loaned a shitload of money to the Allies to buy weapons, and wouldn't get their money back if Germany won. So we sent a quarter million Americans to die to protect their investment.

    WWII- probably the only real worthy war on the list, because the Axis powers were evil. And until the war broke out, Corporations loved the shit out of them.

    Korea- Meeeehhhh. Probably justifiable, because the NOrth was an aggressor.

    Vietnam- The Vietnamese really wanted Communism. Who were we to tell them "no"?

    Gulf war= A fight between two thugs (Saddam and the Emir) over who got to sell the oil. The Zionists decided they were more afraid of Saddam, so "Onward Christian Soldiers!"

    Afghanistan- Justified in getting Al Qaeda, but gettin in the middle of their civil war was stupid.

    Iraq- Saddam tried to kill my pappy! Let's have a war.

    So on that list, you only have a couple that were justifiable. I didn't even include things like the Indian Wars because that wasn't war, it was genocide.

    More to the point, most of our enemies were at some point, someone we our leaders thought were good guys. We put Santa Ana back into power in 1846 in Mexico, and he turned on us. The CIA thought that Saddam and Bin Laden were great guys at one point.

    We Enabled Fascism to defeat Autocracy.
    We enabled communism to defeat Fascism.
    We enabled Jihadism to defeat Communism.

    And who knows what we are going to enable next.
     
  4. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47,613
    Thanks Received:
    7,583
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +27,569
    No. That would be THE EDUCATION OF THE WORTH OF HUMAN LIFE.....not war.
     

Share This Page