What does "War Never Changes" mean to you?

[Taskeen]

It means to me that war is, basically, one of the primary urges in human nature. Be it a simple fight or a grand scale war, humans have the necessity for conflict (and subsequent) triumph deep inside them.
It's in all of nature, basically. It's almost an instinct.

To want power or war is not a human born concept - it is not an "urge." We are born with survival instincts on a purely mammalian comparison, but we also have free will. That's what separates a Sentient life form from another life form that does not have free will.

You aren't born with an inherent DNA trait where you must seek money or be granted power to kill other people. It is a learned concept from the status quo of 'power constructs' that still are running in today's world, which are CREATED by man and thus can be dismantled.

That's why Narcissism leads to exactly that, a learned concept, leading to corruption of power. You can look at multiple people in history, from the past and present, from Emperor Augustus, to Modern leaders in the failed constructs of 'democratic' governments or institutions like Organized Private Bank crime (the people at the top lusting for money like a drug, for example), that often fall into Imperialism, Serfdom, or Corptocracy or countless other definitions.

If some corrupt leader that wants war were raised to believe in good and peace, and to see the error of corruption instead, and religious constructs that are purely the invention of man, rather than believing that the "status quo" is the only way for 'power' to exist then you would see a change on a massive scale.

Using an American example, since that's where I am from, imagine for a moment if a person who believes in peace, non-violence, and anti-corruption were leading like Martin Luther King Jr. or countless other men and women like him. He challenged the status quo and was killed by those power constructs because that is the only way they 'know' and were raised to be (and no he was not killed by a lone nut, which power constructs like to setup). Instead the U.S. as George Carlin put it, "You have to be asleep to believe in the American dream" with crony politicians and liars that LEARNED how to be corrupt, just as you can learn NOT to be corrupt.

"It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence." - Martin Luther King

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality." - Martin Luther King

I for one follow that line of thinking - I refuse to believe all Humanity has to offer is racism, sexism, endless war, endless lies by politicians and military that abuse their powers. Good people have died in history to corruption, conspiracy, and tyrants, but their ideas will always live on for those in human society that see common sense and reason. People like me can not challenge the status quo, so I live by my virtues, which are my choice - to be non-violent and to not lie.

 

[BonusWaffle]

Actually if that leader was raised with "love and peace" his country would either grow too big to sustain itself and die or be killed by the realistic people next door.

hate and war is not all humanity has to offer, but even the "evil" facets of our nature serve a purpose

 

[Taskeen]

Actually if that leader was raised with "love and peace" his country would either grow too big to sustain itself and die or be killed by the realistic people next door.

hate and war is not all humanity has to offer, but even the "evil" facets of our nature serve a purpose

Then you are a slave to a mode of thinking. And thus that will never change unless you have an epiphany. You are stating opinions with no basis in reality, other than the learned, purely Human created constructs which you have learned to believe in as the 'only way.' By your mode of thinking neutral countries, in this Modern Age, that haven't been at war for decades, should not even exist by the "warmakers" next door.

Our 'evil' facets serve no purpose, but to perpetuate ignorance. Ignorance leads to suffering. Suffering leads to Hate.

Where has the Roman American Empire gone in the last 200 years? Downhill, because Debt by War is Unsustainable. Historical Fact.

 

[Atomkilla]

but we also have free will.

That's debatable.

You aren't born with an inherent DNA trait where you must seek money or be granted power to kill other people. It is a learned concept from the status quo of 'power constructs' that still are running in today's world, which are CREATED by man and thus can be dismantled.

I don't have an inherent DNA trait to seek money, that's true, but I do have an inherent trait to be "the best". That's the animalistic part of us. Becoming an alpha male. Succeeding in life. Reproducing. And so on...I've made several examples in my previous posts.
Human concepts such as having more money and power are derived from that instinct. You're right, they're created by man, but the core concept is as primitive as it gets.

That's why Narcissism leads to exactly that, a learned concept, leading to corruption of power. You can look at multiple people in history, from the past and present, from Emperor Augustus, to Modern leaders in the failed constructs of 'democratic' governments or institutions like Organized Private Bank crime (the people at the top lusting for money like a drug, for example), that often fall into Imperialism, Serfdom, or Corptocracy or countless other definitions.

I'm not sure where you're getting with this, and I'm afraid of responding to a single part of this section as it might seem like a straw man.

If some corrupt leader that wants war were raised to believe in good and peace, and to see the error of corruption instead, and religious constructs that are purely the invention of man, rather than believing that the "status quo" is the only way for 'power' to exist then you would see a change on a massive scale.

That's pure idealism.
Not that you're wrong, per se, but you're not realistic.
A corrupt leader is an already corrupt leader (though I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I'm guessing), he's already been raised like that, so rasing him some more to believe in good and peace is non-sensical. Besides, why should he?
If the situation pleases him and it's already proving to work out nicely, why would he go from making war to making love?
Religion? Putting the actual religious beliefs aside, religion itself has always been used as an excuse to get more power, money, domination etc. Many leaders knew it, and many used it. It is really just a tool for achieving one's ends.

Using an American example, since that's where I am from, imagine for a moment if a person who believes in peace, non-violence, and anti-corruption were leading like Martin Luther King Jr. or countless other men and women like him. He challenged the status quo and was killed by those power constructs because that is the only way they 'know' and were raised to be (and no he was not killed by a lone nut, which power constructs like to setup). Instead the U.S. as George Carlin put it, "You have to be asleep to believe in the American dream" with crony politicians and liars that LEARNED how to be corrupt, just as you can learn NOT to be corrupt.

Again, idealism.
Martin Luther King fought for something he believed in, but it costed him dearly. He partially achieved what he was looking for, but never did he, nor anyone after him, change the "corruption" you keep on mentioning, not in a profound way, since the same crony politicians keep on ruling.
That may be a problem, yes, but it's all tied together, and you cannot solve a particular problem without bringing a cascade of problems upon you.

Those people don't need to learn to be "uncorrupt", nor can they. They like it that way. Besides, I don't really see the way of achieving something like that.
Sure, we may like to change it, but it won't work like that. So why bother?


The series of quotes you put prove my point.
Everything Luther fought for, still exists. Some little changes in shape, but inherently, it's still pretty much the same.
As painful and as ugly as it is, spiraling down a militaristic stairway has always been one of the main methods of shaping this world.
Unarmed truth and unconditional love have not.
Call it cynical, call it horrible, call it whatever you won't - you and me don't like it, but it's the truth.

Our 'evil' facets serve no purpose, but to perpetuate ignorance. Ignorance leads to suffering. Suffering leads to Hate.

Our "evil" facets have partially created the world you know today.
You don't like it?
Sad story. But true.

Where has the Roman American Empire gone in the last 200 years? Downhill, because Debt by War is Unsustainable. Historical Fact.

And you would change that how exactly?

 

[valcik]

You aren't born with an inherent DNA trait where you must seek money or be granted power to kill other people.

Well, what about anabolic steroids? We're born with pre-determined production of those wonderful aggression switches. When you're looking at top-management, there's a lot of A-type males driven by aggressivity based on high testosterone levels:

A 2009 study of 25 male subjects found that men with artificially raised testosterone were 27% less generous while playing a test game than they were at their normal testosterone level. The authors concluded that "What we have found is that T[estosterone] appears to play a role inducing men to change from being selfless to being selfish."

 

[BonusWaffle]

Then you are a slave to a mode of thinking. And thus that will never change unless you have an epiphany. You are stating opinions with no basis in reality, other than the learned, purely Human created constructs which you have learned to believe in as the 'only way.' By your mode of thinking neutral countries, in this Modern Age, that haven't been at war for decades, should not even exist by the "warmakers" next door.

Our 'evil' facets serve no purpose, but to perpetuate ignorance. Ignorance leads to suffering. Suffering leads to Hate.

Where has the Roman American Empire gone in the last 200 years? Downhill, because Debt by War is Unsustainable. Historical Fact.

That is incredibly facile. These countries that you say have never been at war (something i find incredibly hard to believe, so ill assume you are referring to their modern incarnations) are operating in much more complicated situations where they can essentially pass off the burden of war to other countries in exchange for goods and services. Its a system that cant work for everyone.

I find your use of the "roman american empire" hilarious and unfortunate because in the last 200 years its become arguably the most powerful entity in the world because of war. If 200 years of prosperity is your idea of a bad thing i dont really know what to say to you.

 

[DarkCorp]

Throughout history, the world has had one hegemon or another, that won't change anytime soon.

There will always be corruption since power itself corrupts. In order to obtain power, one must have the desire to obtain it and doing that isn't necessarily easy. Hence we have leaders and we have followers.

Keep in mind that, although its deserved, the shit we give corporations and our leaders needs to be tempered. Its easy to talk shit about those who wield the power when the average joe schmoe doesn't have to decide who lives and who dies. Or who gets to keep their job and who has to get fired.

Americans love having a higher standard of living than some other nations out there but they do not realise the costs to obtain that standard of living.

That is why shit like communism never works. You have a society of people who are simply content on everyone getting the same. Well wheres the fucking incentive to do more? Whats the point of having power when one doesn't enjoy it fully, for the good and the bad.

There are nations out there that do not have the responsibility of being part of the power apparatus. Many of these nations rely on stronger countries to provide their defense budgets and so can focus the excess on social projects.

IMO: There is more than one way to payoff debt. Taking a blind eye when the PRC has to crackdown on Tibet. I always wondered how the PRC managed to wrangle away Taiwans position in the security council. I have always thought that the chinese trade money to the U.S. in return for political sway, face" (something asians are really big about), economic incentives, etc.

 

[Wumbology]

That is why shit like communism never works.

Untrue. Observe Vietnam or Laos.

 

[fred2]

I don't know about Laos, but I think Vietnam is a communist state in the same sense that Chaina was couple of years back i.e. mostly in name. Before that it was just like in Soviet Russia a cesspit of corruption.

 

[DarkCorp]

Any current succesful "communist' regime has either already or started to adopt massive reform.

So yea, communism without changes is destined to failure. People simply cannot be all equal, atleast in the way communism believes.

Just for example, should a person that is 6'1, 250LBs who works 40 hours a week be given the same ration as someone who might be 5'4 and 135LBs and works 30 hours a week?

As Animal Farm so loves to tell us, some folks will always be more equal than others.

 

[zegh8578]

I love how market liberalism works much, much better than communism could even dream of. Look, economic collapse, rise of neo fascism, lots of gypsies being hounded from country to country, more beggars than ever, unlawful invasions, and a tremendous internatonal focus on funny entertainment, such as comedy series. Market Liberalism! The best thing since baked bread!

 

[mobucks]

 

[Oppen]

Well, maybe the fact some other countries will never let a given country be communist (how was that about free determination of nations? I thought that's why Folkland aren't Argentinian...) might have some effect into how communism works or stops to work. I mean, put the same commercial embargo Cuba has since they became a communist nation in a capitalist country, and you'll have the same poverty they have. Yet, Cuba is still civilized, and kids usually have a plate of food, something that doesn't happen in most poor countries. I don't say it is the panacea for everything, but comparing a system that always existed only in a state of war to a system that has seen already wide adoption and times of peace is pretty much unfair and unscientific.

 

[DarkCorp]

I love how market liberalism works much, much better than communism could even dream of. Look, economic collapse, rise of neo fascism, lots of gypsies being hounded from country to country, more beggars than ever, unlawful invasions, and a tremendous internatonal focus on funny entertainment, such as comedy series. Market Liberalism! The best thing since baked bread!

Well, maybe the fact some other countries will never let a given country be communist (how was that about free determination of nations? I thought that's why Folkland aren't Argentinian...) might have some effect into how communism works or stops to work. I mean, put the same commercial embargo Cuba has since they became a communist nation in a capitalist country, and you'll have the same poverty they have. Yet, Cuba is still civilized, and kids usually have a plate of food, something that doesn't happen in most poor countries. I don't say it is the panacea for everything, but comparing a system that always existed only in a state of war to a system that has seen already wide adoption and times of peace is pretty much unfair and unscientific.

Maybe this is a tit for tat response to my post above which could sound like 'Team America Fuck Yeah' but it wasn't meant that way.


Are you saying the soviets introduced communism purely through peace and understanding? A lot of eastern european nations would beg to differ. Wide adoption was more forced due to a hegemon than choice. If anything, socialism has been a much better alternative than communism.

The soviets maintained political power through force and intimidation while the US did the same with bread and circuses. If I had to pick one, the choice is obvious.

The soviets and the americans both paved the way to hegemon status through a combination of diplomacy and force. Both nations are known hypocrits in regards to their stated beliefs compared to their actions.

Even without US influence, communism just won't work in any large society. People inherently want more. Its amazing how some folks blame the west for poisoning their traditions when its their own people who choose to adopt a western lifestyle.

 

[Oppen]

Are you saying the soviets introduced communism purely through peace and understanding? A lot of eastern european nations would beg to differ.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily has anything to do with communism as a system. Every change of system involves wars. Democracy came through bloody revolutions, too. My point is, times of war are always or almost always times of poverty, too. Communism never saw the peaceful phase of any given system, so you really lack information to judge. We all lack the information. It might be the same shit, it might be worse, it might be better. We don't know for sure.

The soviets and the americans both paved the way to hegemon status through a combination of diplomacy and force. Both nations are known hypocrits in regards to their stated beliefs compared to their actions.

True.

I agree with you that the embargo is unfair but that has more to do with bad blood and things like human rights and freedom of speech among other things. Mostly, bad history, hence the unfairness.

Seriously? Condemning a whole nation to poverty really helps protect human rights. Also, by the same time they started such embargo, they condoned other dictatorships, namely one in my country which ended with ~400 babies being stolen and ~30000 people dead, without even telling of their fate to their families. So, no, I won't accept the "human rights" card, because at the same time they "defended" those on Cuba they kindly ignored them in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and some other countries around. It is all about money. My country was kind of friendly with their policies, so freedom of speech or human rights weren't that important.

The idea that the U.S. is somehow forcing other nations to adopt their modes of thinking is a bit biased. We have many relationships with other countries that do not have the same degree of human rights or political freedom as that of the U.S.

Is it? Didn't they go to several wars in middle east to impose their model of democracy? Also, comes to my point. The only model they want to impose is the international labor division, because that's what benefits them. Democracy, freedom, human rights? That's how they make it sound good.

 

[DarkCorp]

I had realised you were correct in some aspects and had edited my responses.

In regards to the ME, we have had a long standing ties to many nations that do not necessarily have the same type of government as we have.

I agree that the situation in Iraq is about money, but not specifically about a system of government.

The basics of communism, as most layman understand it, is that it doesn't work. The idea that we would all be equal eliminates any incentive to rise above the rest of the masses. There would be no leaders as they would have no incentive to take on heavier burdens like choosing who lives and who dies in a variety of scenarios including war and economic situations. Would be engineers, doctors, and physicists will be lured to a different system that would reward them for their ability rather than demanding their services for the public good.

Now I have conceded this might work if the whole of the world operated the same way, but the world and human nature doesn't work this way.

 

[fred2]

If anything, socialism has been a much better alternative than communism.

My two cents:

Some people claim that communism can work, and some preache against temptations, then go home and watch kidy porn.. or something like that :/

Both socialism and capitalism are failed concepts, there are no economic system which are completely socialist or capitalist. They are mostly used as annoying political slogan, by politicians trying to sway the mind of people about policies on the micro/macro economical map.

 

[Oppen]

OK, here we go again, but more personal, because some seems to think I am actually communist.

I am not saying "it will work, Marx save Lenin!", all I'm saying is that there is no scientific proof of the opposite, in all context; and it is clearly dependent on the context, otherwise, one could point out any given crisis and say "ohhh, capitalism doesn't work, look at this crisis", which would be equally dishonest. Basing in human nature is kind of weird, considering how much influence culture has on what we perceive as human nature. Back in the day, women wouldn't work or vote because that was human nature...

Personally, I do prefer a welfare state capitalism, similar to keynesianism, but not necessarily equal to the letter, mostly because I don't see human being becoming any better than that; as an impossible ideal, I'd like to believe we'll someday be ready to avoid the need of governments, that somehow we'd be able to live in anarchy without constantly trying to oppress and abuse each other, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen anytime soon, and most probably never. However, I see how most assumptions about most economic and political systems are biased.

 

[Oppen]

In regards to the ME, we have had a long standing ties to many nations that do not necessarily have the same type of government as we have.

I agree that the situation in Iraq is about money, but not specifically about a system of government.

I agree. What I meant by their model of democracy was mostly about liberal markets. As long as they get the "insert scarce resource" they won't mess with politics. If they haven't, they either go the embargo way, or the war way, and if they can they will take the human rights card, or the democracy card, or the liberal market card. Forcing them to give their resources is actually pretty much the same as messing with internal affairs, anyway.

 

[Enclave Sigma Soldier]

It may sound like a really idiotic question, but when you think about it there's actually a lot of ways to interpret it. I'm curious to see what most people here think about this, so go ahead and state your mind.

For me its that the human race has the capacity to inflict immeasurable suffering on one another for very human(and admittedly stupid and pointless) reasons. And that after the world was destroyed, after the earth was permanently scarred by mans arrogance, even after the greatest and most terrible war. Man has every reason to band together and rebuilt to prevent his extinction. And yet we don't. After the horror that the great war wrought, you'd think we would have learned from our mistakes but no we do what we always do; wage war and cause suffering.

Our reasons for war may change but our lust for it will never change even after it consumed our world and drove us to the brink of extinction.