This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
True Conservatives are ANTI-War
A myth has arisen that true conservatives are pro-war, and only "weak-kneed liberals" are anti-war.
The truth is very different, however.
For example, Ron Paul has very strong conservative credentials. Paul won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year. And yet Paul has repeatedly spoken out against the war in Iraq and all other unnecessary wars. See this and this.
Paul points out that the Founding Fathers disliked foreign intervention, and those who advocate military adventurism are imperialists ... not conservative Americans.
As Wikipedia notes:
Thomas
Paine is generally credited with instilling the first
non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work
Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances.
These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the
Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with
France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American
Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The
great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests,
which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be
engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially
foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to
implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities.John Adams followed George
Washington's ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very
realistic possibility of war with France.***
President
Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801
inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none." ...In 1823, President
James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe
Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent:
"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves,
we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.
It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we
resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
Another reason that Paul opposes unnecessary wars is that - as I have repeatedly demonstrated - they are bad for the economy.
For example, Paul said in a 2008 speech on the House floor:
In
the last several weeks, if not for months we have heard a lot of talk
about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran.
Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been
predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices
double or triple.
Indeed, the fact that war is bad for the economy is a very strong rationale for conservatives to oppose unnecessary wars.
As
noted conservative Thomas E. Woods Jr. - a senior fellow at the Ludwig
von Mises Institute and New York Times bestselling author - writes in the March 2011 issue of the American Conservative:
To
get a sense of the impact the U.S. military has on the American
economy, we must remember the most important lesson in all of economics:
to consider not merely the immediate effects of a proposed government
intervention on certain groups, but also its long-term effects on
society as a whole. That’s what economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801–50)
insisted on in his famous essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.”
It’s not enough to point to a farm program and say that it grants
short-run assistance to the farmers. We can see its effects on farmers.
But what does it do to everyone else in the long run?
Seymour
Melman (1917–2004), a professor of industrial engineering and
operations research at Columbia University, focused much of his energy
on the economics of the military-oriented state. Melman’s work amounted
to an extended analysis of the true costs not only of war but also of
the military establishment itself. As he observed,Industrial
productivity, the foundation of every nation’s economic growth, is
eroded by the relentlessly predatory effects of the military economy.
…Traditional economic competence of every sort is being eroded by the
state capitalist directorate that elevates inefficiency into a national
purpose, that disables the market system, that destroys the value of
the currency, and that diminishes the decision power of all
institutions other than its own.***
Yet
these politicians and intellectuals [who warned against a cut in
military spending as being bad for the economy] were focusing on the
direct effects of discontinuing a particular spending stream without
considering the indirect effects—all the business ventures,
jobs, and wealth that those funds would create when steered away from
military use and toward the service of the public as expressed in their
voluntary spending patterns. The full
cost of the military establishment, as with all other forms of
government spending, includes all the consumer goods, services, and
technological discoveries that never came into existence because the
resources to provide them had been diverted by government.
***
Measurements
of “economic growth” can be misleading if they do not differentiate
between productive growth and parasitic growth. Productive growth
improves people’s standard of living and/or contributes to future
production. Parasitic growth merely depletes manpower and existing
stocks of goods without accomplishing either of these ends.
Military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth.
Melman believed that military spending, up to a point, could be not
only legitimate but also economically valuable. But astronomical
military budgets, surpassing the combined military spending of the rest
of the world, and exceeding many times over the amount of destructive
power needed to annihilate every enemy city, were clearly parasitic.
Melman used the term “overkill” to describe that portion of the military
budget that constituted this kind of excess.
***
The
scale of the resources siphoned off from the civilian sector becomes
more vivid in light of specific examples of military programs,
equipment, and personnel. To train a single combat pilot, for instance,
costs between $5 million and $7 million. Over a period of two years,
the average U.S. motorist uses about as much fuel as does a single F-16
training jet in less than an hour. The Abrams tank uses up 3.8 gallons
of fuel in traveling one mile. Between 2 and 11 percent of the world’s
use of 14 important minerals, from copper to aluminum to zinc, is
consumed by the military, as is about 6 percent of the world’s
consumption of petroleum. The Pentagon’s energy use in a single year could power all U.S. mass transit systems for nearly 14 years.
Still
other statistics illuminate the scope of the resources consumed by the
military. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the
period from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion
in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the
value of the nation’s plants, equipment, and infrastructure (capital
stock) at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent
over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock.
Then
there are the damaging effects on the private sector. Since World War
II, between one-third and two-thirds of all technical researchers in
the United States have been working for the military at any given time.
The result, Melman points out, has been “a short supply of comparable
talent to serve civilian industry and civilian activities of every
sort.”
***
Meanwhile, firms servicing Pentagon needs have grown almost indifferent to cost. They operate outside the market framework and the price system:
the prices of the goods they produce are not determined by the
voluntary buying and selling by property owners that comprise the
market, but through a negotiation process with the Pentagon in isolation
from market exchange.
Beginning in the 1960s, the Department of
Defense required the military-oriented firms with which it did
business to engage in “historical costing,” a method by which past
prices are employed in order to estimate future costs. Superficially
plausible, this approach builds into the procurement process a bias in favor of ever-higher prices since
it does not scrutinize these past prices or the firm’s previously
incurred costs, or make provision for the possibility that work done in
the future might be carried out at a lower cost than related work done
in the past.
This is not nit-picking: advancing technology has
often made it possible to carry out important tasks at ever-lower
costs, yet rising costs are a built-in assumption of the
historical-cost method. Moreover, if some piece of military equipment—a
helicopter, plane, or tank, for example—winds up costing much more
than initial estimates indicated, that inflated price then becomes the
baseline for the cost estimates for new projects belonging to the same
genus. The Pentagon, in turn, uses the resulting cost hikes to justify
higher budget proposals submitted to Congress.
***
Melman also
found administrative overhead ratios in the defense industry to be
double those for civilian firms, where such a crushing burden simply
could not be absorbed. He concluded:From the personal
accounts of ‘refugees’ from military-industry firms, from former
Pentagon staffers, from informants still engaged in military-industrial
work, from the Pentagon’s publications, and from data disclosed in
Congressional hearings, I have found consistent evidence pointing to
the inference that the primary, internal, economic dynamics of military
industry are cost- and subsidy-maximization.***
“In
one major enterprise,” Melman reported, “the product-development
staffs engaged in contests for designing the most complex, Rube
Goldberg-types of devices. Why bother putting brakes on such
professional games as long as they can be labeled ‘research,’ charged
to ‘cost growth’ and billed to the Pentagon?”
***
The
American machine-tool industry can tell a sorry tale of its own. Once
highly competitive and committed to cost-containment and innovation,
the machine-tool industry suffered a sustained decline in the decades
following World War II. During the wartime period, from 1939 to 1947,
machine-tool prices increased by only 39 percent at a time when the
average hourly earnings of American industrial workers rose by 95
percent. Since machine tools increase an economy’s productivity, making
it possible to produce a greater quantity of output with a smaller
input, the industry’s conscientious cost-cutting had a
disproportionately positive effect on the American industrial system as a
whole.
But between 1971 and 1978, machine-tool prices rose 85
percent while U.S. industrial workers’ average hourly earnings
increased only 72 percent. The corresponding figures in Japan were 51
percent and 177 percent, respectively.These problems can be accounted for in part by the American machine-tool industry’s relationship with the Defense Department. Once
the Pentagon became the American machine-tool industry’s largest
customer, the industry felt far less pressure to hold prices down than
it had in the past.
***
In the short run, the
American machine-tool industry’s woes affected U.S. productivity at
large. Firms were now much more likely to maintain their existing stock
of machines rather than to purchase additional equipment or upgrade
what they already possessed. By 1968, nearly two-thirds of all
metalworking machinery in American factories was at least ten years
old. The aging stock of production equipment contributed to a decline
in manufacturing productivity growth after 1965.
***
Another
factor is at work as well: the more an industry caters to the
Pentagon, the less it makes production decisions with the civilian
economy in mind. Thus in the late 1950s the Air Force teamed up with
the machine-tool industry to produce numerical-control machine-tool
technology, a technique for the programmable automation of machine
tools that yields fast, efficient, and accurate results. The resulting
technology was so costly that private metalworking firms could not even
consider using it. The machine-tool firms involved in this research
thereby placed themselves in a situation in which their only real
customer was the aerospace industry.
Some 20 years later, only 2
percent of all American machine tools belonged to the
numerical-control line. It was Western European and Japanese firms,
which operated without these incentives, that finally managed to
produce numerical-control machine tools at affordable prices for
smaller businesses.
***
Economist Robert Higgs wonders:
“Why can’t the Department of Defense today defend the country for a
smaller annual amount than it needed to defend the country during the
Cold War, when we faced an enemy with large, modern armed forces and
thousands of accurate, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic
missiles?”
In fact, a great many military experts have begun to
conclude that the enormously expensive and complicated equipment and
programs that the Pentagon has been calling for would be of limited
help even in fighting the Second Generation Warfare with which the
American military seems most comfortable, and a positive detriment to
waging the kind of Fourth Generation Warfare of which the war on terror
consists. William Lind, a key theorist of Fourth Generation Warfare,
says the U.S. Navy in the 21st century is “still structured to fight
the Imperial Japanese Navy.”
***
The Department of Defense is the only federal agency not subject to audit.
***
It
is not uncommon for the Pentagon not to know whether contractors have
been paid twice, or not at all. It does not even know how many
contractors it has. Meanwhile, so-called fiscal conservatives, who know
nothing of this, continue to think the problem is excessively low
military budgets. This, no doubt, is
just the way the establishment likes it: exploit the people’s
patriotism in order to keep the gravy train rolling.
***
Higgs suggests that the real defense budget is closer to $1 trillion.
Winslow
Wheeler reaches a comparable figure. To the $518.3 billion, he adds
the military-related activities assigned to the Department of Energy
($17.1 billion), the security component of the State Department budget
($38.4 billion), the Department of Veterans Affairs ($91.3 billion),
non-Department of Defense military retirement ($28.3 billion),
miscellaneous defense activities spread around various agencies ($5.7
billion), and the share of the interest payments on the national debt
attributable to military expenditure ($54.5 billion). When we add the
roughly $155 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Wheeler’s
tabulation, we arrive at a grand total of $948.7 billion for 2009.
And
we’re worried about trivialities like “earmarks,” which comprise such a
small portion of spending that they barely amount to a rounding error
in the federal budget?
Meanwhile, $250 billion is spent every
year maintaining a global military presence that includes 865
facilities in more than 40 countries, and 190,000 troops stationed in
46 countries and territories. It is not “liberal” to find something wrong with this.
***
Out with the phony conservatives, the Tea Party movement says. We want the real thing. But the real thing, far from endorsing global military intervention, recoils from it.
The conservative cannot endorse a policy that is at once utopian,
destructive, impoverishing, counterproductive, propaganda-driven,
contrary to republican values, and sure to increase the power of
government, especially the executive branch.
***
As
Patrick Henry said, “Those nations who have gone in search of grandeur,
power and splendor, have always fallen a sacrifice and been the
victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary
blessings, they lost their freedom.”
Note: While many civilians believe the myth that conservatives are pro-war, the truth is that many of the most highly-decorated military men in history - including conservatives - became opposed to war after seeing what really goes on. See this, this and this.
Indeed,
I have spoken with some very high-level former military and
intelligence officers. They are true patriots, who dedicated their life
to protecting our country. They are also very passionate about not
starting unnecessary wars, because they reduce America's national security and cause many more problems than they could possibly solve.
Those who call themselves "conservative" but advocate military adventurism are really "neoliberals" ... and they are not really conservatives at all.
Obviously, I am not advocating complete disarmament. We should be ready to defend ourselves
if we are attacked. But I am opposed to attacking other nations unless
it is urgently and absolutely needed or engaging in endless war. See this, this and this.
- advertisements -
if you want peace prepare for war and aim at the trolls who don't know how to yoodle like a swiss doodle lost in poodle talk. Yikes I hate a dog that bites its master. Faithfulness is a dog's disease not transmissible to humans. That's why there'll always be wars. As peace lovers we are warned.
GW,
True conservatives are also anti Patriot Act. Please cover the co-opting of the Tea Party and their voting records from yesterday...
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/1/votes/26/
what specific provisions of the patriot act do you have problems with. Or do you not think we should have the power to track terrorists with the same tools we've tracked drug runners for decades??
How about warrant-less wiretapping for starters?
Or the Orwellian name?
I think the war on drugs has failed and was designed to be stalemated at best just like the war on terror. Just look at the southwest border, think thats a security concern? If the patriot act works so well why did the underwear bomber get though, or the kid in Arizona get stopped by a cop but not stopped from shooting?
Because its not meant to stop real acts of terrorism domestic or otherwise, its intended to curtail; free speech, free will, track trace and database your ass. As long as citizens are afraid of the next boogieman (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/09/feds-times-square-mastermind-bigg...) they will gladly exchange their rights for "safety". I would agree with Ben Franklin when I say they are deserving of neither.
After reading your postings you have actually the opposite mind of what draws most to ZH. This site is open to differing opinions but I feel like your anti/pro _____ is wearing thin. Maybe more reading and less commenting would be good for a bit. I'm not trying to be rude, just honest.
This is so stupid it makes my head hurt. Ron Paul is an idiot and a moonbat, who's never seen a stupid idea/conspiracy theory he couldn't embrace. He votes generally like a conservative but he's still a kook.
War's aren't fought for good or bad economic reasons. They are about power, control an the right to decide. Wars are horrible and useless - obviously other than defeating Nazism, Fascism, Communism and Terrorism what good have they accomplished??
Surely this site deserves better rationale than this tripe propaganda and paulinistias PR...
dear judge,
war did not defeat fascism, communism, terrorism or nazism: all alive today,
as there is no defeating an ism. not even consumerism.
but yes, we still have war and war profits and losses.
and ron paul may be an idiot but then the entire human population would need be
relegated to the status of basket cases and .... my head hurts too.
Then you don't know the difference between defeat and eliminate... buy a dictionary. Oh, and a history book.
And we'll always have war - as long as evil men seek to rule others.
Thank you for your insightful observations, Judge.
I don't get it though. Just why is Ron Paul a 'moonbat'? I mean in your opinion. Could you say ... give an example? Any conspiracies theories you believe in Judge?
Thanks
It's probably easier to list the one's he's not 'embraced' at least for a time - the North American Union, Amero, 9/11, Trilateral Commission, the Fed's a cartel and so on.
And i don't believe in wild speculation or some 'master puppeter' controlling the country for economic/political purposes. That's simply ludicrous given the randomness of life/events and the millions of factors involved.
Heh, speaking of "....meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept"... that was the clumsiest attempt at mud slinging I have seen in awhile. You got most of it on your own face, IMHO.
Wow, while I certainly don't agree with all things Ron Paul he seems to be at least a 'trying man'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK03STRXWGo
flaky or not.
So honey, what do you do for money?
Get real. Americans love war, as long as somebody else's sons and daughters die for it. Right now, nobody cares about these two wars.
The "we support our military" bandwagon is totally meaningless. Because if people truly supported the troops, these wars would have already ended. Besides, it's been almost 70 years ago since the US won a war. We've been in wars for 10 years, and have nothing to show for it. Except, a lot of dead, maimed soldiers and civilians.
Shock and Awe. Mission Accomplished - Ha!!! What a fucking joke.
Bring back the draft.
Are you out of your fucking mind? Yeah, that's exactly what we need, even more kids forced to die for nothing in the bankers' insane wars. No, we'd be better off if our volunteer military went on strike and let the worthless tools in Washington and NYC try to do something about it.
Let's separate the banksters from free market conservatives -- what the banksters do is not capitalism, it's a rigged, crony, something-else.
Individual conservatives just want consistent fair rules to follow and be left alone. They're too busy trying to live their lives to be agitating for war or revolution.
WWI, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War were all democratic wars. The Civil War was a conservative war by the religious right against democrat slave owners over universal principles. It was the only time in the history of the world one race/class had ever fought itself for another race/class.
Enemies are happy to surrender to Americans because they know they won't get their heads cut off. The most telling thing about Gitmo is that we have a Gitmo. It's the other side that doesn't bother to take prisoners.
Islam has been at war with non-muslims since the 7th century. The Buddhists were slaughtered and ran out of Afghanistan into India where the muslims met the Sikhs who stopped them there.
Milton Friedman reminded an interviewer in the 1970's: "Totalitarianism has always been the general rule throughout history. We're living in one of only a few slivers of time in world history where humanity lives under general freedom and even self government. Normally, it just doesn't happen. But, the last 200 years have been different, and that's why it has been so enormously prosperous and why people want to copy it. But the window can close and, as government gets bigger, the risk becomes greater that we will slip back into darkness."
The Civil War was started by Lincoln to stop seccession - not slavery. For all practical purposes, nobody else wanted war - just Lincoln, and just to stop secession. Late in the war in an act of desperation, Lincoln declared that slaves in the foreign country of the Confederacy were free. He did not free the slaves in America.
Yes, Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but he repeatedly affirmed the Constitutional right to own slaves, and yes, that clause was obviously completely inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.
..and I'd add that, True MEN are Anti-War! They value dangerous liberty over diapered security. Keep on rockin' the free world, GW.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
The "fasces" is found on the mercury dimes. Also on many government agencies seals...in the Oval Office too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Good points, but Mussolini was a dictator and a politician, so he was not necessarily being a true fascist. Like any dictator or politician, he was primarily going to do whatever he wanted and then cite fascism or some other popular (at the time) philosophy as the reason.
Consider that the fascist philosopher Mario Paliermi wrote in The Philosophy of Fascism (1936):
This sounds awfully similar to just about every major political party in every country, and it sounds a lot more like the rhetoric of the Democratic Party than the rhetoric of the Republican Party. Of course, the actions of the Republican party are not very consistent with their rhetoric, and thus their actions are only slighty less fascist than Democrats' actions according to this quote from a fascist philosopher.
Yeah, I believe that true conservatives are anti war. True conservatives are also anti leftist fascism. I respect GW for what he does, I am skeptical though about G.W because I have yet to discover his excellent skills being employed in exposing the political left for the crimes against human dignity and freedom that they are so well guilty of.
The AGW fraud is a glaring example.
The syndicates on both sides are guilty and need to be exposed.
You people who say this stuff clearly have some kind of persecution complex. Of course GW is no fan of Obama. Do you read what he writes before you post?
A conservative is one who advocates conforming with tradition, whereas a liberal is one who advocates individual freedom, tolerance, and equality under the law. In America, the tradition since the American Revolution is liberalism. Therefore, in America, true conservative are liberals, and the libertarians are the true liberals by being not only more liberal than everyone else, but by being more liberal based on principle - not tradition.
By consistently applying the same liberal principles America was founded on, minorities and women now also enjoy the benefits of individual freedom, tolerance, and equality under the law.
Of course, conforming with anyting is fascism, and it is true that conservatives are a little bit fascist.
Then again, those who call themselves liberals in America today are not very liberal, and are actually more fascist than conservatives. In America, conservatives, and more so the Tea Parties, and especially the libertarians, are even more liberal than the liberals.
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2010/08/more-liberal-than-liberals.html
Good post, except for one thing: a missing definition of individual freedom (as in "advocates individual freedom"). Freedom from, or to, what? Libertarians, conservatives and the tea party crowd are generally focussed on very limited definitions in that sphere. Freedom from excessive government intervention/regulation is highly emphasized, whereas freedom from being fucked up the ass by corporations gets mentioned reluctantly, if at all. (Freedom of billions from the vast global depredations of capital, of course, never gets mentioned, or even noticed. "Freedom" is only for us Northerners.) Also, the conservatives have some massive blind spots in the "excessive government" department, e.g. the outrageous War on [some] Drugs, as well as what is easily the most excessive portion of government in the U.S.: the military/industrial behemoth. One can wave one's hands and try to define those problems away, by speaking of "TRUE" conservatives; I've tried that, and it sounds nice, but it really doesn't work. "Conservative" means what it actually means in common parlance -- as millions of people actually use the word, daily.
First off, to speak of "anti-war" and "pro-war" is to immediately confuse the issue. Only an insane person can be "pro-war" and only a fool could be "anti-war". Anyone here in favor of war on Bangladesh? Ok, good - we're all "anti-war" then, right? But what if we're all transported back in time to 1941 - anyone want to oppose war with Hitler's Germany? No...but, darn, that means we're all pro-war, right?
Anyone who thinks about government knows that the military - as part of government - must be shot through with fraud, waste and inefficiency. There is simply no way to avoid it. As long as government spends money, it will spend it badly. This doesn't mean we do away with all government (sorry, anarchists), but it does mean that we have to be realistic. Use oversight. Investigate matters. Weed out fraud as much as possible. But don't expect a perfect government...but, meanwhile, as we know its there, we know we can cut defense and still leave ourselves a powerful military force. I always like, in this part of such debates, to direct everyone's attention to "Jacky" Fisher, First Lord of the Admiralty in the early 20th century...he managed to cut naval spending while providing Britain with a vastly more powerful naval force. The trick can be done - and big bucks doesn't necessarily mean a first class military.
As for the wars, themselves, they are a matter for the prudential judgement of the relevant leaders. We voters elect them, and we hope they exercise the wisdom, mercy and patience in such matters - but the choice to go to war will always be out of the hands of the people and in the hands of their delegated leaders (I suppose a really massive public effort against war before it starts might work, but you'd have to think of getting literal tens of millions in to the streets in opposition before the war starts...possible, but highly unlikely). Once war is declared - by whatever means - then it becomes a matter for the people to decide how long they'll wage it. Ultimately, the people can with hold men and money and a war effort will fizzle. This nearly happened in the US Civil War and once again nearly happened in Vietnam (the American people never quite got to the point of pulling the plug...but the politicians, seeing the way the wind was blowing, pulled it anyway; having got us in to disaster, they decided to give us the most disastrous ending possible...one can never tell if the leadership of a nation in war time will be worthwhile or worthless...in Vietnam, we went entirely to "worthless"; so did the Brits in the First World War). As people view a war, they should always keep before them the knowledge that losing a war will always be more costly for the losers than winning will be for the winners...maybe it will still commend itself to the people to pull out, but they shouldn't have any illusions that the victors will be generous to the defeated (unless you've just been defeated by the United States - but we're a special case).
My view is that the United States cannot afford to withdraw from the world - there are wicked men out there bent on evil, and the longer we allow such to fester, the worse it will get for the world, and thus for us. Better, when we can, to strike early so we don't have to strike as hard, later. Of course, some major re-adjustments should happen in US policy - no more basing our troops in foreign nations; no more alliances or deals with tyrannical regimes, that sort of thing. But to withdraw and say we'll just wall ourselves in militarily and let the world go on as it pleases just ensures there will be another World War at some point.
please stop, you are injecting mature judgement towards the discussion. Oh the horrors! ;-)
good comments, thx
- Ned
America simply became what they had originally fought to free themselves from. Jefferson knew in his day that this new freedom would be under constant attack. The tree of liberty needing constant fertilization with the blood of tyrants and such.
of course all war is bad and unnecessary, if you please.
and you could argue that some war is not bad and then
justify any and all war as necessary to someone or for someone.
war being the collective rejection of sanity, freedom and liberty of
the individual. the rejection of the individual, sacrifice of all individuals
for the collective commitment to murder and terrorism as the primary
weapon wielded against humanity in service of "power", ignorance and greed.
generally considered "bad" and certainly not the epitome of man's
potential, speaking of the term "war" in its commonly understood sense.
war represents the worst in us being held in highest esteem. imo that
is always bad. but perhaps not the absolute worst state of man?
or maybe man is nothing more that a delusional set of fangs, claws and
horns, like bears and bulls, and can be nothing more than a collection of hierarchically
founded thieves, drones and hit men hiding behind masks of honor and grandeur.
.
ron paul is an honest man, imo. i would not insult him with the bipolar jargon
of today..conservative or liberal or any other such politically obfuscating and
conveniently confusing and misleading doublespeak. our fatally conditioned
minds reject the simple description.. an honest man. it is not enough ! ? why.
let me ask a question or two.
when is it ok to do life threatening or life ending experiments on
human beings? when is it ok for the military to kill its own for the
IDEA of advantage or advancement of a cause?
when is it ok for pharmaceutical companies to kill its customers, or
soldiers, for profit? when is war ok? or not "bad"?
.
i suggest one has been had when they conclude that "war" is
not "bad" or is necessary. had by the moneyed class who have run
into a string or patch of bad speculation and would like to transfer
their losses and future risks to fucking dupes, never in a short supply.
imo as long as it lasts.
for some war is potentially materially profitable, some believe, and therefore
not bad for all .... who will listen to them,
your greatest proponents of war aka your greatest war profiteers. hmm.
but now we have sex jelly commercials on t.v. at prime time and no
news concerning the real world, real fundamental solutions to real
fundamental problems , so what would i know? maybe we all just need
more sex jelly? as the t.v. suggests.
ps . it is good to know that someone somewhere believes in the potential
of man to be a being capable of , what is the word, ?. ?
concordance
love
peace
non violence
brotherhood
humanity
liberty
selflessness
godliness
happiness
joy
spirituality
enlightenment
simplicity
death
life
humility
treasure
intellect. an intellect that can discuss and disagree
for the purpose of finding that underlying phase of agreement.
and dream. make dreams, not war ! or make any of the above, not war !
the first victim of war. and then the second and on.....
blindman: (and yes, you are blind);
I'll start with this:
Try your theory vs. a knife against your throat. That might focus you a akosh.
- Ned
[ed. somehow the fricken formatting did the bold thing and I wasn't yelling. All y'all will know when I'm yelling.}
Ned - who's holding the knife at your throat?
consider "war" as the collective organized response of a
group of people to kill and destroy another group of people.
each person fulfilling their role in the act of war . this is not
at all like a response one might have in a knife fight, which
is not at all relevant, scalable or justly analogous with regards the
statement "war is bad and unnecessary", but i can see that war
may be inevitable taking into account the mentality of men. focus yourself
and war may become unnecessary.
as for having things to fight for, eternally true, but not through acts of
war as it is commonly understood. i maintain war represents and is the
admission and manifestation of utter failure of humanity with lipstick as
in it is so obvious that the inverse image must be displayed for psychological
survival.
dude:
but a) yourself implies an individual thing, and b) 'may become'?
I'm of the point of view where nation states do most of the work: 'War is the continuation of policy by other means', viz. e.g.:
http://www.answers.com/topic/karl-von-clausewitz
But if you wish to continue on your butterfly nation path, then, well, have another toke on me and have a wonderful day.
Non-state actors? we can't figure that out yet, and it hurts my brothers and sisters.
Please describe the vision of where you'd like all of us to end up. I've heard about nirvana, never heard how it would all work out.
Seriously, I'm open to your views.
- Ned
@"...Please describe the vision of where you'd like all of us to end up." ..
where we are and motivated to pursue our better natures. not directed
by fools who have been self appointed masters of the lives of sheep to
be sent to slaughter. it is not nirvana, yet, but it would allow for and
encourage people to be self reliant, intelligent and perhaps just. independent
thinkers with a measure of empathy for other life forms with respect for life and
its many forms. enough with this scorched earth mentality and lust for
destruction and dominance. nature abhors a vacuum. war fills the vacuum
of human nature brought on by cultural differences and directed and orchestrated
by elite financial failures. or it is politics, money woes, by other means. of course
the soldier has nothing, knows nothing and cares nothing for those upper level
"money" ( greed and theft ) issues. he is drugged and directed. ordered.
.
Please describe the vision of where you'd like all of us to end up.
fiercely independent in our thinking yet capable of constructive cooperation.
"may become" ? ..... unnecessary being not necessary, optional yes, likely
perhaps, but un necessary. as i said the minds of men may make war
inevitable but it is only so because that is the thing that fills the void in
the minds of men. it is a CHOICE> not the only choice. brothers and sisters
do choose it so it becomes inevitable. nirvana would be an open and long
discussion and dissection of the manifestation of war. an explanation of
it. and it has been taking place, ongoing.
i think if you read my comments here and put away the butterfly , toke and
nirvana notions you might understand my views some.
if you live by the gun your ultimate solution to all your problems is a hole
created by the ammunition from that gun, metaphorically and literally.
just like if you live by the printing press the same goes for printing.
and comedians think the world's problems are solved with jokes. and musicians
with music. etc.
and speech writers solve it with the written word.
butterflies indeed.
and IF is the biggest word.
.
IF - Rudyard Kipling (musical version by Joni Mitchel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRWTesW97xQ
GW - great post - thanks for taking the time to write this one.
Anyone interested in a book written by one of the United States' most highly decorated and patriotic military men is, "War Is A Racket", by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler.
This book is as relevant today as the day it was written in the mid-1930's.
Smedley D. Butler == 2 x MOH for all of the right reasons. S/F - Ned
My take is that true conservatives are for a strong defense, stressing the defense part of that sentence. Reason being that it would prevent wars from actually occurring, at least ones involving us. And, true conservatives would not be for interventionist nation building wars. Kind of a libertarian point of view - trade with foreign nations but don't become politically involved in as much as that is possible. Let them 'do their own thing' so to speak until it truly involves our national security.
War might be a money loser for the government, but it's a windfall to the blood-money merchants, crooks, and profiteers.
Capitalism lives thanks to the blood of the flesh. Always has, always will.
Ron Paul doesn't have a clue.
Wars enrich people like George Soros, hardly a conservative. Capitalist - in many ways yes.
thank you for telling some truth
Gresham's law as permanent policy is the impression that strikes me in this article. That and the diminishing marginal returns we're seeing on the expenditures.
Good use of primary documents. The American heroes' own statements, documents and arguments are incontrovertible, and can not be ignored lest one risk displaying a trait of treachery in argumentation.
Nigel Farage trying to explain democracy to a couple of retards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrPNuHjYTdY
The end of the day. GW quoting Mises and agreeing!!!
Enjoyed the read GW, thanks.
GW
You seem to be the best troll bait money isn't buying. I've learned to post my articles after you so the trolls stay busy over here. :>)
Once again people are trying to turn your gray argument into black and white. You are discussing wars that harm this country and it's economic well being. Lately that appears to be nearly all. But not all wars are "bad" and you clearly state so.
BTW GW, next time set out a bite sized troll treat instead of your written word. Saves wear and tear on your keyboard. :>)
CD: excellent observations! "As the Trolls Turn"
CD, I just got a belly full of the crap you post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I would be interested in learning why you believe he should be. Care to enlighten me as to the elements of your position?
Whining about ZH commenters from a year ago trashing PIIGS protesters, juxtaposed with recent supporters of the Egyptians is just stupid, given the decades of U.S. sanctioned torture endured by the latter. I understand CD is a vaunted commenter and poster around here, but this one was way off the mark and indicative of the ill-considered posts that have proliferated here of late.
Egyptian army torturing protesters right now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/09/egypt-torture-machine-mubara...
Don't tell CD or he'll bore us to death with another nonsensical post about how we hate ourselves for jeering the PIIGS and cheering the Egyptians. Putz.
That's another thread.
Ceux qui font les révolutions à moitié ne font que se creuser un tombeau
#Mai68 #Jan25
CD, yes of course I am only criticizing UNNECESSARY wars.
Thanks for the support, insight and humor.