Where is the cry to get out of Iraq?

Originally posted by whodey
As horrible as war is, have you ever considered a worse outcome where nations were unable to overthrow a strong man/government? As horrible as war is, once it is at a conclusion it often has a rather cathartic outcome in which the evils which started it are often purged. But once you remove this possibility, how then are we to purge the evils within a gover ...[text shortened]... orse outcomes. War is by far not the worse case scenerio. It is a form of checks and balances.

Do you think that wars have been started with one of the goals being to get popular support for the UN.? For example, it could be argued that ww2 was to give an incremental increase in power to the league of nations. ww1 was to get the league of nations started. If that is true, why would we trust in the UN. for peace after they take total control?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Do you think that wars have been started with one of the goals being to get popular support for the UN.? For example, it could be argued that ww2 was to give an incremental increase in power to the league of nations. ww1 was to get the league of nations started. If that is true, why would we trust in the UN. for peace after they take total control?

===Do you think that wars have been started with one of the goals being to get popular support for the UN.? ===

No. Wars are started to protect or further national interests.

===For example, it could be argued that ww2 was to give an incremental increase in power to the league of nations===

I don't see how you could make that argument, but if you're willing to try, I'll listen.

===ww1 was to get the league of nations started.====

Sorry; I don't see how one would make that argument either.

===If that is true, why would we trust in the UN. for peace after they take total control?===

I agree with that I wouldn't trust the UN to preserve peace; although I don't see the premise of your argument working too well.

Originally posted by sh76
===Do you think that wars have been started with one of the goals being to get popular support for the UN.? ===

No. Wars are started to protect or further national interests.

===For example, it could be argued that ww2 was to give an incremental increase in power to the league of nations===

I don't see how you could make that argument, but if you're wi ...[text shortened]... UN to preserve peace; although I don't see the premise of your argument working too well.

Well now I am going to have to go look stuff up. Thanks alot teach.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Do you think that wars have been started with one of the goals being to get popular support for the UN.? For example, it could be argued that ww2 was to give an incremental increase in power to the league of nations. ww1 was to get the league of nations started. If that is true, why would we trust in the UN. for peace after they take total control?

The Second World War was won by the United Nations. Letting the Japanese in in 1956 and the two Germanies in in 1973 was something to be celebrated. The E.U. has also contributed to making a general European war basically impossible. And U.S. perverting the course of democracy in Japan as well as foisting a 'peace' constitution on it put paid to any possibility of the Japanese resorting military aggression again. It's a bit rude to the U.N. to compare it to the League Of Nations, don't you think?

Originally posted by FMF
The Second World War was won by the United Nations. Letting the Japanese in in 1956 and the two Germanies in in 1973 was something to be celebrated. The E.U. has also contributed to making a general European war basically impossible. And U.S. perverting the course of democracy in Japan as well as foisting a 'peace' constitution on it put paid to any possibility ...[text shortened]... again. It's a bit rude to the U.N. to compare it to the League Of Nations, don't you think?

Japan is free to abandon their "peace" clause any time they like. They choose not to do it.

I also don't that the EU makes future general wars in Europe basically impossible. If countries can have civil wars, France and Germany can have a falling out and finally have that rubber match we're all waiting for.

(They're tied 2-2 since 1800 with Napoleon and Foch/Petain scoring victories over Germany and Bismark and Hitler having returned the favor. And, no, I'm not giving Blucher credit for winning Waterloo because that was mainly Wellington and it was really the Russians that defeated Napoleon anyway. Likewise, WWII is a German win over France even if a few Free French divisions ended up in Italy and washing up on the shores of Normandy.)

Originally posted by FMF
The Second World War was won by the United Nations. Letting the Japanese in in 1956 and the two Germanies in in 1973 was something to be celebrated. The E.U. has also contributed to making a general European war basically impossible. And U.S. perverting the course of democracy in Japan as well as foisting a 'peace' constitution on it put paid to any possibility ...[text shortened]... again. It's a bit rude to the U.N. to compare it to the League Of Nations, don't you think?

The UN was started because of a failure of the league of nations in preventing wars, so it is said. It isn't rude, as the agencies and organizations founded by the league of nations was inherited by the UN. That is according to wiki. The wars since ww2 could be used to say, the UN is failing and that we need to finance and develop it further so war is no more. My question is, is war staged for the purpose of world domination of the UN? A better question would be, have wars been started for those behind the scenes of the UN to take total financial control of the world. I have some looking into the matter to do, but I think it is a valid question. No rudeness intended.

Originally posted by sh76
Japan is free to abandon their "peace" clause any time they like. They choose not to do it.

Well I was more thinking of the 20 or 30 years after WW2, when a poor resolution to that war might have resulted in whatever it might have resulted in. WW2 came only 20 years after WW1.

A lot of Japanese people are happy that expansionist and militaristic factions in their ruling elites simply have no hand to play as long as Clause 9 of the constitution stands. Other factions will point to an economic miracle achieved without a military dimension. Other factions do not want to be military proxy in U.S. conflicts with China somewhere down the road that leads away from the former's cherished 'unipolar' world.

Your comments poo pooing the influence of the EEC and then the EU in quelling general war - and making war between Germany and France well nigh impossible - in what is probably the world's most war torn continent and after 50 years which saw maybe 80-100,000,000 die there, seem a little ill considered and conjecturesque so I'll just leave that.

Originally posted by joe beyser
My question is, is war staged for the purpose of world domination of the UN? A better question would be, have wars been started for those behind the scenes of the UN to take total financial control of the world.

Your brand of geopolitical literacy and my brand geopolitical literacy do not overlap in any way.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I was more thinking of the 20 or 30 years after WW2, when a poor resolution to that war might have resulted in whatever it might have resulted in. WW2 came only 20 years after WW1.

A lot of Japanese people are happy that expansionist and militaristic factions in their ruling elites simply have no hand to play as long as Clause 9 of the constitution stand 000,000 die there, seem a little ill considered and conjecturesque so I'll just leave that.

Military conflicts between the US. and any nation is counter productive. So where does it come from, and what can be done about it from within the United States? There is so much propaganda here that I have a hard time believing anything on the news anymore. I don't know why we considered the Russians enemies. When I was younger I went along with the evil communists taking over the world theory, but in retrospect, I no longer do. What is the driving force or power behind modern war?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Military conflicts between the US. and any nation is counter productive. So where does it come from, and what can be done about it from within the United States? There is so much propaganda here that I have a hard time believing anything on the news anymore. I don't know why we considered the Russians enemies. When I was younger I went along with the evil ...[text shortened]... heory, but in retrospect, I no longer do. What is the driving force or power behind modern war?

What is the driving force or power behind modern war?

the same it always was, money.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]What is the driving force or power behind modern war?

the same it always was, money.[/b]

My point exactly. Is there a money connection with the UN and war? Are we being duped? Is the war on terror the same thing as we experienced with war on communism? If I had a majic wand, I would make the United States stay completely out of other nations busness. The US is big enough to do that. The world would be a better place for it.

Originally posted by FMF
Your brand of geopolitical literacy and my brand geopolitical literacy do not overlap in any way.

FMF, I want you to know that I am very, very, impressed by the calm, neutral, non-insulting tone of your posts today.

You didn't by any chance, take one too many Valiums, did you? We shouldn't call the local emergency medical services, should we? 😉

Originally posted by sh76
FMF, I want you to know that I am very, very, impressed by the calm, neutral, non-insulting tone of your posts today.

You didn't by any chance, take one too many Valiums, did you? We shouldn't call the local emergency medical services, should we? 😉

I noticed that too. I'm glad because I am still licking my wounds from the last time I tangled with FMF.

Originally posted by joe beyser
My point exactly. Is there a money connection with the UN and war? Are we being duped? Is the war on terror the same thing as we experienced with war on communism? If I had a majic wand, I would make the United States stay completely out of other nations busness. The US is big enough to do that. The world would be a better place for it.

If only the wtc hadn't been bombed. While the cold war didn't affect the US as directly, the war on terror was motivated by an actual attack from foreign enemies.

Originally posted by sh76
FMF, I want you to know that I am very, very, impressed by the calm, neutral, non-insulting tone of your posts today.

I am a consortium.