Why are militarism and war good?

[Evilroddy]

I don't think they'll let me in the Pentagon.

Antiwar:

Then run for state legislature or Federal Congress and slowly grind the militaristic bastards down. It may take you and others a lifetime but what a splendid way to spend a life of service and what a legacy you could leave behind you, if you do it right.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[anatta]

The bigger war the US government is fomenting is the war with China. Have you seen the video "The Coming War on China"?

No. I dont think the USA is going to war with China -maybe over Taiwan-but I doubt even that when it's crunch time
1. we could very well lose based on recent wargames
2. China is an expert with "soft power " (like the One Belt One Road initiative)and doesnt need a war to dominate the globe

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm sorry, but I prefer to use a different definition.

Quote: militarism- the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

And I really dislike that vague term "national interests" because the US government has used and abused that term so much that it's rendered it meaningless.


Let's break 'militarism' down:

Quote: –ism is a suffix added to the end of a word to indicate that the word represents a specific practice, system, or philosophy.

So, militarism is the practice, system, or philosophy of using military force. I say that all three (practice, system, and philosophy) apply. Do you agree with this definition?

Antiwar:

In a free society you cannot stop people from thinking what they will or prevent them from publicly voicing their positions. For that reason I reject the notion that militarism can be defined as a philiospophy and instead argue that militarism is much better described as an action, a practice or a system which leads states and blocs to the initiating of wars of choice.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

The run for state legislature or Federal Congress and slowly grind the militaristic bastards down. It may take you and others a lifetime but what a splendid way to spend a life of service and what a legacy you could leave behind you, if you do it right.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

Sorry, but that's a horrible plan. There are approximately 535 Americans that presumably control US militarism. There are 325.9 million people living in the US. According to my calculations, that's 0.0162% of the population that might have an actual say about US militarism.

I prefer that humanity pull its head out of its backside and the good people on Earth demand that the militaristic people on Earth stop ruining it for every being on Earth.

 

[Antiwar]

No. I dont think the USA is going to war with China -maybe over Taiwan-but I doubt even that when it's crunch time
1. we could very well lose based on recent wargames
2. China is an expert with "soft power " (like the One Belt One Road initiative)and doesnt need a war to dominate the globe

China is much smarter than the US. They don't think in bogus binary logic. They don't think that because the US is actively threatening them near their coast that they are forced to engage in war. That's the American way of thinking: P**** is forcing the US into war. It's absurd.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Neither war nor miltarism are good. Unfortunately, they are often better than any viable alternative.

Exactly. Necessary and good are not synonymous.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Sorry, but that's a horrible plan. There are approximately 535 Americans that presumably control US militarism. There are 325.9 million people living in the US. According to my calculations, that's 0.0162% of the population that might have an actual say about US militarism.

I prefer that humanity pull its head out of its backside and the good people on Earth demand that the militaristic people on Earth stop ruining it for every being on Earth.

Don’t hold your breath, waiting for the vast majority of the world’s population to come around to your way of thinking.

 

[anatta]

China is much smarter than the US. They don't think in bogus binary logic. They don't think that because the US is actively threatening them near their coast that they are forced to engage in war. That's the American way of thinking: P**** is forcing the US into war. It's absurd.

China extended their "9 dash line" into the South China Sea to deprive the littoral states of marine resources

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

In a free society you cannot stop people from thinking what they will or prevent them from publicly voicing their positions. For that reason I reject the notion that militarism can be defined as a philiospophy and instead argue that militarism is much better described as an action, a practice or a system which leads states and blocs to the initiating of wars of choice.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

You have the right to be wrong.

Here's a good definition for environmentalism. Compare and contrast it to your definition of militarism:

Environmentalism
Political ideology

Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment ...
----


For the sake of discussion, I'll use your definition for the Russo-Ukraine war:

Ukraine is said to have been attacked by Russia without provocation. Therefore, according to your definition, the only choice that Ukraine has is to engage in war. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept both of those statements as being true and complete.

So, we'll go with "Ukraine must war with Russia."

Now, does everyone else that is participating in the Ukraine defense effort have no other choice? Does the US have no choice but to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, and threaten Russia with its nuclear arsenal (which is also what backs up NATO)?

 

[Evilroddy]

Sorry, but that's a horrible plan. There are approximately 535 Americans that presumably control US militarism. There are 325.9 million people living in the US. According to my calculations, that's 0.0162% of the population that might have an actual say about US militarism.

I prefer that humanity pull its head out of its backside and the good people on Earth demand that the militaristic people on Earth stop ruining it for every being on Earth.

Antiwar:

The militarists won't listen to "humanity" because humanity has no legitimate authority to constrain them in their minds. They are top-down hierarchs, not bottom-up politicians. Thus they will ignore your popular movement and if you threaten them too much, then they will move against you. Think Ang Sung Su Chi or Jean Jaurès as examples. However if you have real government authority, then you have a much better chance of successfully changing things involving hierarchs.

But hey, it's your choice and it's your dream, so follow your own plan.

I wish you the best of luck.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

China is much smarter than the US. They don't think in bogus binary logic. They don't think that because the US is actively threatening them near their coast that they are forced to engage in war. That's the American way of thinking: P**** is forcing the US into war. It's absurd.

Truly stupid and ignorant assertion.

The United States is not threatening China. China is attempting to artificially, and illegally, expand their territorial claims.

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

The militarists won't listen to "humanity" because humanity has no legitimate authority to constrain them in their minds. They are top-down hierarchs, not bottom-up politicians. Thus they will ignore your popular movement and if you threaten them too much, then they will move against you. Think Ang Sung Su Chi or Jean Jaurès as examples. However if you have real government authority, then you have a much better chance of successfully changing things involving hierarchs.

But hey, it's your choice and it's your dream, so follow your own plan.

I wish you the best of luck.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

I completely disagree, but this is not the subject of this thread.

 

[KevinKohler]

Warfare and militarism are major drivers of innovation. Also helps control population.

Consider where we are today, with population, and all the issues that come with that. Now imagine an extra billion or so people on top of that. WW1, WW2, claimed a lot of lives...people that would have come home, got married, and had kids. And those kids would have mostly all had kids too.

 

[Evilroddy]

You have the right to be wrong.

Here's a good definition for environmentalism. Compare and contrast it to your definition of militarism:

Environmentalism
Political ideology

Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment ...
----


For the sake of discussion, I'll use your definition for the Russo-Ukraine war:

Ukraine is said to have been attacked by Russia without provocation. Therefore, according to your definition, the only choice that Ukraine has is to engage in war. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept both of those statements as being true and complete.

So, we'll go with "Ukraine must war with Russia."

Now, does everyone else that is participating in the Ukraine defense effort have no other choice? Does the US have no choice but to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, and threaten Russia with its nuclear arsenal (which is also what backs up NATO)?

Antiwar:

Yes, they all have choices but that does not alter the fact that the Russian Federation began this war more than eight years ago as a War of Choice. The Russian state made the choice to go to war. Ukraine has a choice to surrender and submit itself to Russian subjugation, but to date has rejected that choice for very good reasons. The West has a choice to reduce or stop military aid to Ukraine but given that the West generally views this war as a War of Necessity it has chosen not to. Instead it has chosen to help Ukraine fight the invaders as part of a larger scheme to cripple the Russian Federation and its military capacity to wage offensive war. Since the USA is a big part of the West it has led the way in making and executing the choice to help Ukraine defend itself, to repel the Russian Federation from its War of Choice and to hamstring Russia's imperialist aggression regarding its smaller neighbour.

Making choices after a war of necessity has started does not morph the war into a war of choice.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

Yes, they all have choices but that does not alter the fact that the Russian Federation began this war more than eight years ago as a War of Choice. The Russian state made the choice to go to war. Ukraine has a choice to surrender and submit itself to Russian subjugation, but to date has rejected that choice for very good reasons. The West has a choice to reduce or stop military aid to Ukraine but given that the West generally views this war as a War of Necessity it has chosen not to. Instead it has chosen to help Ukraine fight the invaders as part of a larger scheme to cripple the Russian Federation and its military capacity to wage offensive war. Since the USA is a big part of the West it has led the way in making and executing the choice to help Ukraine defend itself, to repel the Russian Federation from its War of Choice and to hamstring Russia's imperialist aggression regarding its smaller neighbour.

Making choices after a war of necessity has started does not morph the war into a war of choice.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

You claim that humanity has no choice but to use a lot of militarism and war because some 'bad actors' use militarism and war. Is that a fair statement?

So, P**** already controls the world; P**** has dictated that the US engage in militarism and war. The US is a choice-less victim. Are these fair statements?

 

[Ambig]

Please post the good things about militarism and war.

It preserved the Union and freed the slaves.

I've got a million of 'em.

 

[Evilroddy]

You claim that humanity has no choice but to use a lot of militarism and war because some 'bad actors' use militarism and war. Is that a fair statement?

So, P**** already controls the world; P**** has dictated that the US engage in militarism and war. The US is a choice-less victim.

Is that a fair statement?

Antiwar:

No it is not a fair statement. In my post I clearly stated that all parties have choices. Reread and revise please.

Mr. Putin is not a global puppet-master. He is a surfer afloat on waves of blood who has lost control of his razor-edged board and is flailing to stay atop it and alive. He is a tyrant who made one too many wagers on militarism and is now learning that sometimes you lose big when you bet. He is spending young Russian and others' lives like cheap coin in a ghastly poker game of slaughter because he cannot bring himself to admit that he is wrong and has lost his bet. He is killing Ukrainians too by his stupidity and his faith in militaristic might. The only question I have is how far is he willing to go in this persistent self-delusion?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jay59]

We have a lot of passive, active and a combination of the two supporters of militarism and war. Please post the good things about militarism and war. Thanks.

Militarism has two purposes--aggression and defense. For an example of the first, see China and of the second, see Israel.

The bigger war the US government is fomenting is the war with China. Have you seen the video "The Coming War on China"?

Wars are always started by the defender.

Aggression can continue indefinitely. It's the pushback that starts the conflict. China is the aggressor and has been so for decades.

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

No it is not a fair statement. In my post I clearly stated that all parties have choices. Reread and revise please.

Mr. Putin is not a global puppet-master. He is a surfer afloat on waves of blood who has lost control of his razor-edged board and is flailing to stay atop it and alive. He is a tyrant who made one too many wagers on militarism and is now learning that sometimes you lose big when you bet. He is spending young Russian and others' lives like cheap coin in a ghastly poker game of slaughter because he cannot bring himself to admit that he is wrong and has lost his bet. He is killing Ukrainians too by his stupidity and his faith in militaristic might. The only question I have is how far is he willing to go in this persistent self-delusion?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

Militarism, especially US militarism, is a huge threat to the environment, and a huge threat of nuclear war.

So, the world, especially the US, has a choice to make about militarism which greatly threatens Earth's ecosystems and nuclear war.

Agree or disagree?

 

[mrjurrs]

We have a lot of passive, active and a combination of the two supporters of militarism and war. Please post the good things about militarism and war. Thanks.

There is no good thing about war or militarism that cannot be recreated in other forms or fashions.

 

[ecofarm]

The best thing for the environment and ecology is a free people. Democracies care about their natural resources and consider their use long term. Regimes know they are not lasting forever and so they don't care if they burn it all today. Regimes don't care about the environment.

The best thing for global ecological health is global liberation.

See username, usertitle and signature.

 

[Evilroddy]

Militarism, especially US militarism, is a huge threat to the environment, and a huge threat of nuclear war.

So, the world, especially the US, has a choice to make about militarism which greatly threatens Earth's ecosystems and nuclear war.

Agree or disagree?

Antiwar:

As clearly stated before, militarists don't give much credence to populist demands for reform, especially when that reform will end them. So the right choice must be made as well as the right way of doing it or it will all backfire for the worse. How you reduce militarism is as important as making the decision to do so. I agree the world has a decision to be made about militarism but how that choice is acted upon will mean the difference between less militarism or less liberal democracy. Do it wrong and the militarists will turn on you; and they will win.

Right now Russian Federation's militarism seems like the greater and more immediate threat to ecosystems, the environment and the bringing about of Nuclear War in our world. US militarists have a lot to answer for, but they are not the only militarists who threaten the biosphere and continued human civilisation. There is more than enough guilt and blame to go around. Share he wealth. This must be a transnational reform movement.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Deuce]

Is what you described a good feature of militarism and war?

No, it’s not good when your country gets attacked by people trying to kill you. Why would you think that is good?

 

[Integrityrespec]

We have a lot of passive, active and a combination of the two supporters of militarism and war. Please post the good things about militarism and war. Thanks.

A strong military and the threat of military action is the only thing some bad actors respond too. If you want to keep the free world free, and democracy alive you have to be prepared to defend it with armed force.

 

[Ambig]

I prefer that humanity pull its head out of its backside and the good people on Earth demand that the militaristic people on Earth stop ruining it for every being on Earth.

Have you sent Putin an angry letter?

If not, what have you done?