• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Is It Finally Time to Defund War?"

A militarist is a person in favor of militarism, and one definition of militarism is:

Quote: the opinions or actions of people who believe that a country should use military methods, forces, etc., to gain power and to achieve its goals.
Well, one goal might be to repel Russian invaders on our beaches. I'd definitely be a militarist in that scenario.

Another goal might be to assassinate a Latin American leader, incite a rebellion, and replace him with a more amenable character, in which case I'd not be a militarist.

Everything in between is gray.

So what good does it do to call someone a militarist? I assume you yourself are a militarist in my first scenario, yes?
 
Any reasonable person does know, even if they don't acknowledge, what I said.
Does know what? That all Americans are evil and want to nuke the world into submission?

Really, I don't understand what you're saying. Reasonable people know what?
 
? Attack who? Earth? I thought we had a binding treaty with Mars.
Are you kidding? You're gonna trust those guys, with that green-haired, pink-tanned clown who runs that place?
 
Let our germs kill them.
That guy was smart. Did you know that he predicted our space center would be on the coast of Florida, about mid-way up?
 
A militarist is a person in favor of militarism, and one definition of militarism is:

Quote: the opinions or actions of people who believe that a country should use military methods, forces, etc., to gain power and to achieve its goals.

And if the goal is to protect other nations?
 
"Months before Russia invaded Ukraine, ensuring that yet more greenhouse gases would be pumped into our atmosphere, a group of British scholars lamented the Biden administration’s enthusiasm for military funding."

:unsure:

Exactly. Biden increased militarism spending prior to Russia attacking Ukraine. Both actions increased emissions.
 
You should already know that it's a waste of time trying to put words in my mouth, and even sillier to assume you know my sentiments on this, or any other subject. Why do you bother?

If you have a point you wish to defend, then explain what you really think is faulty in my comment, or propose something else.

So you're pretending I put words in your mouth. I made my point. Have you gone further conservative in the past couple of weeks?
 
Exactly. Biden increased militarism spending prior to Russia attacking Ukraine. Both actions increased emissions.
It's not a great example to go with though. Putin's invasion is a really poor backdrop to support scaling back military spending.

And just for the record, I support a Manhattan Project of moving away from fossil fuels.
 
F Putin.. He's done everything he can to destabilize western countries.. Including ours..

Now that he is in trouble? F'em.. Hold his feet to the fire.. He can burn in hell with the rest of the communists dictators he worships and wants to be like..
 
Are you kidding? You're gonna trust those guys, with that green-haired, pink-tanned clown who runs that place?
To my knowledge, Mars has never broken a treaty. If you have proof otherwise, feel free to post a link.
 
Putin invades a sovereign nation, and the bad guys are...the American military industrial complex? :unsure:
Yeah, he's been on that hobby horse for a while...
 
Its a giant catch-22. Of course the OP is right, that warfare is a total waste of whatever possible flexibility we have for a gradual painless switch to a green economy. War has always been a an outragious waste of lives, and resources. Nobody is going to care how the bomber jets are fueled or whether the troops are being green savvy as they try to kill each other.

Its also true that national security needs will increase as nations compete for precious water, precious land etc. Populations will be displaced as islands disappear, and weather events including droughts, forest fires, and flooding become more extreme. Good farmland is going to be ever more scarce as well and armies will be needed to protect borders from incursions.
 
So you're pretending I put words in your mouth.
Tried - and no pretense.
I made my point.
None whatsoever. The point I made is that what you seek isn't something that will ever be done unilaterally, for obvious reasons. If you had a counterpoint to that argument, I've yet to see it. What makes you think that, just for example, Arabs and Persians will disarm their borders after hundreds of years of recurring conflict? Or even Pakistan and India, a conflict that has only existed for a few generations? Do you see them buying what you're selling in your OP anytime soon? Hmm? Try making that point.
Have you gone further conservative in the past couple of weeks?
Not even a little. Have you gone farther into the realm of the unrealistic in the past few weeks?
 
Its a giant catch-22. Of course the OP is right, that warfare is a total waste of whatever possible flexibility we have for a gradual painless switch to a green economy. War has always been a an outragious waste of lives, and resources. Nobody is going to care how the bomber jets are fueled or whether the troops are being green savvy as they try to kill each other.

Its also true that national security needs will increase as nations compete for precious water, precious land etc. Populations will be displaced as islands disappear, and weather events including droughts, forest fires, and flooding become more extreme. Good farmland is going to be ever more scarce as well and armies will be needed to protect borders from incursions.

So now, finally, would be a great time to drop the competition and domination paradigms.
 
Quoting:

Is It Finally Time to Defund War?

Along with the harm caused by its outsized greenhouse gas emissions and its exploitation of climate chaos as an excuse for imperialism, the Pentagon wreaks terrible damage by soaking up trillions of dollars in government funds that should have gone to meet all-too-human needs, mitigate climate change, and repair the ecological damage the Pentagon itself has caused in its wars in this century.

Months before Russia invaded Ukraine, ensuring that yet more greenhouse gases would be pumped into our atmosphere, a group of British scholars lamented the Biden administration’s enthusiasm for military funding. They wrote that, “rather than scaling back military spending to pay for urgent climate-related spending, initial budget requests for military appropriations are actually increasing even as some U.S. foreign adventures are supposedly coming to a close.” It’s pointless, they suggested, “to tinker around the edges of the U.S. war machine’s environmental impact.” The funds spent “procuring and distributing fuel across the U.S. empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend [that] includes significant technology transfer and no-strings-attached funding for adaptation and clean energy to those countries most vulnerable to climate change.”


"Is It Finally Time to Defund War?"

No.

That would be really dumb.
 
Yes. Long past time.
Humans are still very primitive.

And still after all this time.....dont worry we havent learned a thing! Not really.
 
Back
Top Bottom