Why do I think we will all die in a coming war?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Yazverg, Jun 17, 2014.

  1. Yazverg

    Yazverg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The global change of public opinion in western capitalist society is never driven from the inside. People are mainly conservative. They stick to brands, to their places of living, their occupation and favourite political party. If it was fifty years ago I would have added religion, but as long as there was a successful atttack on religion that lasted for about hundred years it is no longer worthy of mentioning. To help people to change there became a mechanism of media and art.
    A group of people start an idea by carefully prompting it to the public. It can be a well-known politician (not necessarily a first class, the one who is in the second or third ten also suits. If the change is too contradictive it can even start as a joke. Noone would ever start arguing with jokes and anecdotes, but they can get popular. Once an idea is in the society it is time to make up an attitude to it. The attitude is received through art and propaganda. It can be a bold attempt which leads to death of an artist or propagandist. But once the crime of murder is commited the sin of murder is transfered from actual people to the idea that they were protecting. To perform anything with a society a person should possess a lot of money and no oppression from the side of those who are as rich. The others - don't have a chance. However strong should be the idea if it faces a media mogul - it is doomed. It can be the idea of monarchy, the idea of family, the idea of nationhood, idea of Christ. Anything that stays in the way of media owners will be crushed and changed into a different belief, which is subsequently:
    - a family of kings is the worst enemy of its people
    - a family is a number of rights which belong to everyone who lives together
    - a feeling of nation is bad, because it is hostile to every other nation
    - Clergy and christians are the worst christians, only atheists are the best christians of all.

    These ideas are much likely to be senseless and dangerous. They can be evidently disastrous to everyone or at least 99.9% of population except for the media mogul and his friends. But no society has made a decent tool to protect itself from enslavery of any idea that comes to us.

    If you think that it is wrong - it your right. I just wanted to explain why the reading of the following article was too shocking for me not to react. My opinion expressed above is the only logical explanation of why the ideas which used to hold society together changed recently and dramatically quick. Being an educated linguist and attentive reader I can tell a text that was carefully written with good selection of words of a text which was written really quick and inaccurate.

    Read this article and try to believe your own eyes.

    First the choice of the headline. Of course the article "Inside the Frog, a Prince Awaits" can be dedicated to not that popular vehicles and not the truly popular fairy tales that seems to be the subject at a glance. I understand that the primary aim of a headline is to catch an eye, to make person read or better to make it buy the paper and discover the actual eye-catcher article deep inside. But still this task could have been achieved differently. But the headline brings in an idea which stucks in the memory but is never proved in the text... Which is the 'lack of war' and 'hurting the economical growth'. The 'may be' attitude should not be concentrated on. Human perception is caught only on sharp issues - danger, profit, sex. The 'may be' doesn't stuck and is actually a flush on the face of a girl who is proposed sex for the first time but has already decided to go in for it and even discussed it with her friends to make ready. Yes it looks decent and natural. No it is not. The headline is the core of a next imminent change of public opinion.

    Let's go next.
    "An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace."
    Have you noticed any attention that is being received by such an explanation of slow economic growth? Maybe you heard of the mistakes that were done by banks and financial criminals who are making money out of air making bubbles of the industries that have no chance to repay all the money wasted there? Well we did. Maybe we heard of corruption that prevents the world growth? We did. The unhealthy spread of industries which are willing to make more profit at exploitation of those workers who don't have that high standards of social security? We did. Have we really paid any attention as the author says? No... But I bet we will.

    "This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy."

    Now the author plays dumb. He put a different idea into the headline but here he denies what he had just said. So war doesn't improve economies, but... it let's economies to grow. Have you understood the sense? The sense is to make you think that the author is well-educated and he understands that war is bad, that the author is against death and destruction, so the argument cannot be used against him. He just says that war is pushing the economy to grow.
    And he undestands about old good Keynsean argument that expecting a war makes stubborn and willing to fight for their workers to shut up and do what they should for their country at risks for their health at a small pay. That argument is not what he means. This argument actually shows whose pockets are actually growing and which side is getting destruction and deaths... But if you want your economy to grow - you should remember about the headline
    And the last passage. Have you ever heard of liberalizing the economy during the war? No really would you question a President if he takes the shipbuilding company from private owner to a state owned enterprise and uses his machinery and people with the technologies with a joint stock company of his good friend who owes three the size of the company of that? In a pezceful time - yes. But during the war there is no time for such questions! Is this liberal? No! But who cares. War is not only pushing the economy to grow. It also makes the life full of more other liberties.

    "The number of people who have died in wars has declined sharply since the 20th century."
    Can you explain after reading the article what the hell this picture is doing here? No really. Do you know that once people don't have wars less people get killed? Are you aware that there were no major wars lately? I bet you do. Everyone does. Is there a link in the article between the number of kills and growth of economy? No. It is a visible illustration that people get killed in a war. That's it. This is the only truth that had a serious investigation. There is only one way why this stupid graph is there. It shows graphically the non-existent correlation of vitims and economy. When there is a war there are victims and the economy grows. This is the idea which is illustrated here. Does it make sense? No. But to make a public opinion you shouldn't make sense. The guys who make it rarely do.

    "Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War."
    Sounds convincing. Is it true? Nuclear power was a task that was given by soviet leader to scientists. Soviet leader needed to prove enormous expenses that a state that hasn' fully recovered from the war had to undertake in order to survive. The engineers and scientists first thought of a reactor that uses the energy of nuclear blow. Then they decided to make a laboratory on a huge scale of nuclear reactor. Every NPP in the world was primarily used to enrich th radiactive materials to the level of city-killers' bombs. That's why such an approach led to an absolutely insane tragedy in Chernobyl btw. A scientist was running a test on a civil object. A scientist was plugging off the automatic protection systems to make experiments... Would nuclear energy be discovered if not the war? Yes. It would. There could have been a demand for energy in a free market economy or a direct order in a planned one. Nuclear power is good even without a bomb. It is safer and cleaner if you do the energy not as a bypass product but if you aim to it.
    Computer? It was developed as an army machine and stayed so for years. Boys in their kids' workshop did for entire computer industry more than all the armies of the world. We now know these boys by name. And none of them served in the army. Do we mean a desktop computer, a laptop or smartphone? It is them then. Army computer is a clumsy but reliable machine that is able to count the task for aiming, running etc. Do we really know computer as army device?
    Modern aircraft is also a bypass product. All the civil factories during the war time would start to make war goods. And in order to continue to build war goods they should be available. Naturally war planes were best to be used as civil plane industry. That is how the development started. Did they really thought of making the world more accessible for the people? No.
    One more example. Russian engineer Sergey Korolev was dreaming about space exploration. How did he achieved his dream? He used a space exploration as a bypass product of... a rocket that can deliver nuclear bomb from USSR to USA. If a rocket could push a weight to the orbit of the Earth - then it was clear for the US leaders that they are no longer safe. Was it a lucky chance? Yes it was. US reply for soviet sputnik was vertical flight not an orbital, which didn't look as cool but meant absolutely the same - US has rockets which are able to deliver nuclear bombs to USSR. If not the dreamers and lucky chances we would have remained on earth without sattelites.
    My God! When I think WHAT we could live if the governments were not setting military tasks to the best scientists and engineers I can't help crying... All the products of war that were lucky to have their second life in civil life were just lucky chances. None of these inventions was done due, but it was rather done against the war. If there was a nuclear war between USSR and USA the world wouldn't have any NPP's or modern Boeing planes. We would have discovered ways how to clean radiation or to live with it. By this time we would have known how to protect yourself from a nuclear rocket. We could have mastered martial arts and body improvements with a huge difference in health care that would make the difference between the possible and existing in the West the same as it is between the modern western and modern african. But would people be ready to use it? No. Because there would be virtually no people in the west... left.

    "As a teenager in the 1970s, I heard talk about the desirability of rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge. Now, a replacement is scheduled to open no earlier than 2017, at least — provided that concerns about an endangered sturgeon can be addressed."
    Ha-ha-ha. What a stupid peace. If not peace the bridge would be ready? Not really. The necessity to build the military roads and civil roads are different. What is good for civilians is not welcome by military roads and vice versa. For instance russian Tsars intentionally made the width of the road broader. It was done to prevent the usage of russian roads by western invaders. But is it good for civil travellers? Of course it is bad. Stalin decided to build a road northwards for military reasons. So it was destroyed being not needed by civilian needs, but Russia still lacks resources for decent means of transportaion... Still. Since 19th century. Linking the country 3 times bigger than US with less people and less advanced technologies on the tough relief under tough conditions is still a problem in 21st century. Would it be better if not the wars? Of course it would!

    "Ian Morris, a professor of classics and history at Stanford, has revived the hypothesis that war is a significant factor behind economic growth"
    How decent it is to give a brief thesis of what the book of Stanford professor is about, right? Let's see at the conclusions:

    "there is good evidence that the desire to prepare for war spurred technological invention and also brought a higher degree of internal social order."
    Pardon? So it is not a "war" but the "desire to prepare for war". There is a sgnificant difference. The desire to prepare for an exam enriches a student with a lot of different knowledge. But the exam itself is not giving him any knowledge except for exam passing skills.
    Technological inventions are not debatable, but economic growth and technological inventions do not mean each other although they often go together. War is an exact rule when all the technological advances are not to help the life of people but are to kill them more effectively. A growing economy's sense is completely different.
    As for intenal social order, well, yes. Police state is much easier to rule then a democracy. But what about liberlization then? What about economic growth?
    So that is a lie? firstly the author said that he is going to prove that A=C, but the conclusion tells that B=C. It sounds convincing though.

    But we proceed to the next 'proof':
    "Mr. Kwarteng, a Conservative member of British Parliament, argues that the need to finance wars led governments to help develop monetary and financial institutions, enabling the rise of the West."
    Good. This means that countries needed war and they needed a lot of money for the war so the other countries would lend money to those who were going to war and received great profits while their competitors were killing each other at the battlefield. This is exactly the difference between losers who make war and winners who remain in peace. The next passage also presumes that there might be some other problems which affect modern crisis more than 'lack of war'

    "He does worry, however, that today many governments are abusing these institutions and using them to take on too much debt"
    Amazing! Even this sentence in the text looks to 'prove' an absolutely insane idea. But taken separately it is evident that it is about a different thing.

    "The paper argues that Europe evolved as more politically fragmented than China because China's risk of conquest from its western flank led it toward political centralization for purposes of defense. This centralization was useful at first but eventually held China back."
    Let's see. China is not a solid state which existed as it is from the very beginning. The history of China is full of wars and suffers. Different states were united for some time under lucky conquerors and then it fell apart once the king was no as apt as predecessor and surrounding vassals. Then China had a reform of centralized power exacly as it happened in Europe.. ages after. And? And China had a spell of wonderful economic growth. The production of China and its technical progress was outstanding. The masters of China started with all the fireworks, their material was the best. They started international trade at a modern level centuries before european learnt how to get washed... Then an empire had a classical barbarian invasion from the side of europeans (including Russia) and wonderful civilization was destroyed giving the way to a new civilization which is getting more and more power year after year making peace seeking an aim of its policy. Why was China destroyed? Because of the overwhelming arms and treacheries. Civilization rarely is able to with stand the blow of barbarians who got ready for war. Not Roman empire to German tribes, not Byzantium to turks, not China to Mongols. The belief that advanced civilized people are able to defeat flocks of barbarians are based on stupid colonial mythology. Japanese soldiers possessing so little resources against English and Americans in the Pacific showed it once again. In case of China of 19th century Europeans were ready and they stroke first. Does it say anything about the development and economic growth? Well Europe obtained a large heritage. like it received after crusades and Byzantium robbery, Africa robbery, world colonies and robery of itself. Europe only lived a few decades without a major war and now it already felt that there is a lack of it... How long will it take from media to make europeans believe that war is better than peace? A year or two?
     
  2. RiseAgainst

    RiseAgainst Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    19,122
    Likes Received:
    3,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im more likely to die in an accident on an interstate highway due to reading about current wars and conflicts on my phone when my attention should have been on the road.
     
  3. John S

    John S New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One day WWIII will occur. When that happens, who knows.
     
  4. trucker

    trucker Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    23,945
    Likes Received:
    3,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm guessing the only way we could 'all die in a war' would be one which uses nuclear and/or chemical weapons and hundreds or more of the weapons are detonated in several areas of the world?

    Nuclear proliferation is an issue which will plague us as long as there are thousands of nuclear warheads located in many areas of the world.

    And this is a tad bit exacerbated by the actions of the US attacking everyone and creating such hatred towards the USA.

    Wasn't it Carl Sagan who spoke about the potential of a nuclear winter?

    BUT, I doubt this can ever happen. In the US someone will eventually detonate a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, and depending how it is done, might be many times worse than 9/11. If 9/11 brought the nation to it's knees, and set in action trillion$ in expenditures to fight so-called terrorism, just imagine an event which is 10 or 20 times worse?

    It's amazing we teeter between relative peace and this type of destruction...
     
  6. Tram Law

    Tram Law Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    9,582
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is coming, sooner than people think.

    Obama has plans to disarm America and he wants to send troop elsewhere after he takes them out of Iraq.

    All the other rioting that's going on in the world.

    Military actions such as Russia in the Ukraine are happening all over the place.

    There is a lot of unrest in the world right now, and it just may be possible that there's something behind the scenes stirring it up.

    But that's just a hunch. I have no way to back that up.
     
  7. X-ray Spex

    X-ray Spex Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,014
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    On another thread today, hilariously, a poster blamed global warming on the 7 billion people currently infesting the planet. So apparently according to liberals then, the more people we can kill off the faster, the better.

    We'd agree, with the caveat, that all the liberals go first, so the rest of us could enjoy some peace and quiet for a change.
     
  8. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the author of that article points out, although somewhat vaguely, that the real crisis may actually exist in our dependence of interconnected globalized financial systems. In essence, the sort of economic model that is employed by the world banks is nothing short of a Ponzi Scheme, or Pyramid Scheme. Sooner or later such systems collapse. In order to keep the Ponzi Scheme running, it needs an influx of new money, and wars and arms trading are by far the world's most lucrative way of greasing those wheels. Either way, we are headed towards a major collapse. The question to ask, will it be by design, or by accident?

    The entire Iraqi War was a measured attempt at just that, but did it work? I think not.

    However, is the world really prepared for something much larger and unpredictable? One earthquake in the Indian Ocean in 2004 wiped out over 230,000 people. There appears to be a global trend of increasing seismic activity for earthquakes greater than a magnitude 7.9. Over the past 100 years, populations along coastal and seismic areas has exploded. Then, to add to the mix, is the Global Climate Change Crisis and rising sea levels.

    Simply put, whether by hook or by crook, civilization is perilously close to the edge.
     
  9. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think there are a good amount of progressives who would gladly see billions of people die in order to reduce carbon footprints and protect the animals. It's like the villain in 12 Monkeys

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah yes, the deniers...

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Ignoring the profit motive behind the left's AGW hysteria, even if you were right about, there's not much that can be done. Drive around in your Prius, but it won't save the world. Not when there are plenty of countries willing to pick up our slack as we slice our own throats for cleaner air.
     
  12. RiseAgainst

    RiseAgainst Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    19,122
    Likes Received:
    3,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Progressive Left = 21st century nazis
     
  13. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :roflol:
    Right! And the Right has no profit motive to keep the status quo?
     

Share This Page