A strange question about war

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hm, WWI was not mainly an ideological war, mainly for power, although it had without doubt ideological elements - nationalism for example - but I would not see it primarily as an ideological war, its cause was certainly deeper rooted in the conflicts between the Euro powers. Still it was the most "nasty" war of all so far, toppled only later by WWII.....I would agree with you if you speak about the pre-WWI world, but the big "industrialized" world wars changed pretty much everything.

Well, honestly, WW1 was "nasty" in terms of how the new weapons of war churned up the mobilized masses put on the field-but overall, the damage to civilians in most of Europe was not particulalrly huge. MOst civilian suffering came about from states straining to meet all their requirements under pressure and failing, such as ineffective food distribution in the Central Powers, and the collapse of government in Tsarist Russia.

of the approximatly 10 million who died in WW1 about 80% or more were soldiers. This was a war with relatively little "coolateral damage". In all honesty, that makes it a remarkably "clean" war (ie. its only soldiers doing the dying).

WW2 was FAR more brutal, which can be seen not only by the fact about 6 times as many people died than in the first, but that the vast majority of those were civlians. And much of WW2 was ideological in nature. If anything, by tearing down so much, WW1 brought into question the Westpahlia system, and allowed ideologies that sought to challange that into being. The wars those ideologies brought about (like the Russian Civil War) proved far worse than the old fashioned wars like WW1.

[Pax]

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/3021wphalia_doc.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3021westphalia.html

I think that we should be working toward a stronger U.N. One with teeth, a lower(tolerable) level of corruption and clearer guidelines that would promote peace, liberty and prosperity all over the world. The most powerful countries have to recognize that bringing the rest of the world into the 21st century in a organized fair manner would be beneficial to peace while not necessarily maintaining the status quo. The west, China, Japan, India, Russia and other well off countries have to decide that peace is better than being top dogs.

The onlyt situation that I would support a war on any grounds is a. self defense and b. sanctioned by the U.N. with security council and general assemble support.

[Pax]

Another interesting article

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2005/3204berlin_seminar.html

[DanS]

God, you're quoting Larouche?

[Pax]

I'm not qouting him. I just think it's interesting.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax
I'm not qouting him. I just think it's interesting.

It's not interesting, except to the author's psychiatrist. He's frigging psychotic. Versailles a plot to crack Europe? Britain putting Mussolini in power? This man has GOT to stop sniffing glue!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


It's not interesting, except to the author's psychiatrist. He's frigging psychotic. Versailles a plot to crack Europe? Britain putting Mussolini in power? This man has GOT to stop sniffing glue!

That guy isn't just on glue - put in some kilos of pcb, cocaine and lots of funny mushrooms. We have some people here that has some really strange views, but this guy really is far out.

What really makes me sad is that there seems to be people taking such crayziness seriously.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That guy isn't just on glue - put in some kilos of pcb, cocaine and lots of funny mushrooms. We have some people here that has some really strange views, but this guy really is far out.

What really makes me sad is that there seems to be people taking such crayziness seriously.

..................and he gets paid for it.

Gosh, we could do that.

Hey, how about we turn 'poly into a think tank - no particular ideological orientation, just scholarly looking white papers churned out on demand? We could change the name of the place......... something snazzy like "The Bordello Institute", or " The Hookers Foundation".

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


..................and he gets paid for it.

Gosh, we could do that.


Hey, how about we turn 'poly into a think tank - no particular ideological orientation, just scholarly looking white papers churned out on demand? We could change the name of the place......... something snazzy like "The Bordello Institute", or " The Hookers Foundation".

Nah - we would start start laughing short time after we tried to say such idiocy - probably even before.

Another thing is that it would demand that poly OT to agree on something and that I rarely has seen (there WAS an obscure thread some time ago where we were close but didn't manage it).

Wish I had paid more attention in my chemistry lessons