6 ms·

Neither of those stereotypes are truly responsible for the atrocities for which they are capable. Wars only happen because peaceful citizens do not take respon

by mmjaa 9y ago

Neither of those stereotypes are truly responsible for the atrocities for which they are capable. Wars only happen because peaceful citizens do not take responsibility for the war-mongers in their societies. We wouldn't have the wars we have, if we didn't elevate the war-making classes above the folds. We need to always be diligent and vigilant about keeping the war-machine in check - alas, none of us in the West really has a clean slate on this issue. Citizens are responsible for the actions of their governments; this means our militaries, too. The fact that we fail to take that responsibility, means atrocities continue to happen.

forinti 9y ago
Every time war heroes get applauded, I think we should really applaud those who refused to fight (and maybe died for it).
- mmjaa 9y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. It is my personal belief that anyone who dedicates their lives to war-making is separated from the criminal classes only by a very, very thin line: the piece of paper authorising their use of deadly force against other humans, granted them by their government, and ultimately by us, the citizens. The most honourable roles our societies have to offer are sadly under-acknowledged: teachers, nurses, doctors, builder of roads, takers of trash. All of these are an echelon above the warrior, in my opinion.
  - mattrices 9y ago
    I doubt that doctors and nurses and teachers are under acknowledged. They deserve a place above a brute warrior for sure, but the education and medical bureaucries are only moderately more humane than our military.
buttcoinslol 9y ago
This is idealistic and completely incorrect. You should read a history book. Wars will end when we have limitless energy or evolve beyond greed and the lust for power. Here's a situation I'd like you to analyse briefly: The US pulls out of every military installation they have outside of US territory. What happens in global geopolitics over the next year? Hint: the answer is 5 letters long with one space.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 9y ago
  This is a complete red herring. You should read the OP. The poster said nothing about 'ending' war or a superpower instantly disrupting the balance of power. The OP posited that wars can be prevented via internal power struggles between war-mongers and the rest. That is a notion one can certainly argue with, but saying "war is about limited resources", while true in an abstract sense, is not engaging with it in any meaningful way - it is simply non-responsive.
- gambiting 9y ago
  I don't actually know the answer to this riddle is. And US is present abroad because it wants to be and because it furthers their own interests, in a lot of places their presence is not actually welcome.
  - Buttes 9y ago
    A war.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  What happens: whatever the people, who are now in control of 'whatever superpowers the US left behind', decide. Look, I know its hard for you to not feel right without insulting anyone, but I've actually read a metric fuck-ton of history, know a few words in a few languages, and am generally not an ignorant 'incorrect-oid'. There is no truly correct/incorrect point of view, when it comes to killing humans. Fact: we don't need to do it. We do it because we want to. Here's a thought experiment for you, American. What would happen if, instead of putting your citizens in debt to the tune of $TRILLIONS of dollars, every year, while funding active warfare on multiple fronts around the globe, for the last 80 years, the good ol' folks of the USA had instead built massive super-weaponry that delivered schools, water-filtration, and medical facilities, with awesome overwhelming power, to the people who needed it. Instead of, you know, dropping one bomb every twenty minutes for the last .. umm, lets just say, at least .. decade? Hmm? You think its so easy? Lets see that B1 bomber re-purposed to drop the write kind of supplies that makes war unnecessary, not "invetible", as your formidable culture seems to want the rest of us to think it is ..
joshmarlow 9y ago
I read Cthulu_'s comment as stating that the emotion in the parent comment was one of the reasons we can go to war. > It is just terrible to know that people like this exist. Whether you're a communist, a capitalist or some other divisive label, you have to feel that way about some other group of people before you can go to war with them. Not saying I totally agree with this stance, just offering my interpretation of his comment - hopefully Cthulu_ will tell me if I'm putting words in their mouth :)

by mmjaa 9y ago

forinti 9y ago

Every time war heroes get applauded, I think we should really applaud those who refused to fight (and maybe died for it).

mmjaa 9y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. It is my personal belief that anyone who dedicates their lives to war-making is separated from the criminal classes only by a very, very thin line: the piece of paper authorising their use of deadly force against other humans, granted them by their government, and ultimately by us, the citizens. The most honourable roles our societies have to offer are sadly under-acknowledged: teachers, nurses, doctors, builder of roads, takers of trash. All of these are an echelon above the warrior, in my opinion.
- mattrices 9y ago
  I doubt that doctors and nurses and teachers are under acknowledged. They deserve a place above a brute warrior for sure, but the education and medical bureaucries are only moderately more humane than our military.

buttcoinslol 9y ago

This is idealistic and completely incorrect. You should read a history book. Wars will end when we have limitless energy or evolve beyond greed and the lust for power. Here's a situation I'd like you to analyse briefly: The US pulls out of every military installation they have outside of US territory. What happens in global geopolitics over the next year? Hint: the answer is 5 letters long with one space.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
_jal 9y ago
This is a complete red herring. You should read the OP. The poster said nothing about 'ending' war or a superpower instantly disrupting the balance of power. The OP posited that wars can be prevented via internal power struggles between war-mongers and the rest. That is a notion one can certainly argue with, but saying "war is about limited resources", while true in an abstract sense, is not engaging with it in any meaningful way - it is simply non-responsive.
gambiting 9y ago
I don't actually know the answer to this riddle is. And US is present abroad because it wants to be and because it furthers their own interests, in a lot of places their presence is not actually welcome.
- Buttes 9y ago
  A war.
mmjaa 9y ago
What happens: whatever the people, who are now in control of 'whatever superpowers the US left behind', decide. Look, I know its hard for you to not feel right without insulting anyone, but I've actually read a metric fuck-ton of history, know a few words in a few languages, and am generally not an ignorant 'incorrect-oid'. There is no truly correct/incorrect point of view, when it comes to killing humans. Fact: we don't need to do it. We do it because we want to. Here's a thought experiment for you, American. What would happen if, instead of putting your citizens in debt to the tune of $TRILLIONS of dollars, every year, while funding active warfare on multiple fronts around the globe, for the last 80 years, the good ol' folks of the USA had instead built massive super-weaponry that delivered schools, water-filtration, and medical facilities, with awesome overwhelming power, to the people who needed it. Instead of, you know, dropping one bomb every twenty minutes for the last .. umm, lets just say, at least .. decade? Hmm? You think its so easy? Lets see that B1 bomber re-purposed to drop the write kind of supplies that makes war unnecessary, not "invetible", as your formidable culture seems to want the rest of us to think it is ..

joshmarlow 9y ago

I read Cthulu_'s comment as stating that the emotion in the parent comment was one of the reasons we can go to war. > It is just terrible to know that people like this exist. Whether you're a communist, a capitalist or some other divisive label, you have to feel that way about some other group of people before you can go to war with them. Not saying I totally agree with this stance, just offering my interpretation of his comment - hopefully Cthulu_ will tell me if I'm putting words in their mouth :)