Endless War

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Michael, Oct 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Key Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, leave no doubt that Endless War is official U.S. Doctrine

    - Glenn Greenwald (2014)

    Never ending war is really perfect if you think about it from a Statist's POV. An endless War. Near limitless political power. An ocean of functionally illiterate cannon-fodder to play with. Plus, once the entire economy is on a War footing - everyone gets to live poorer except those Crony-Capitalists in key industries that make the State's murder devices.

    Not to mention, ask any Keynesian (like Paul Krugman - who dreams of using War to 'turn the economy around' (see: Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump (VIDEO]) and they'll all back up the need of the State and war and you. Yes, even heaping glory and praise on our idiotic CONgressmen and women (See: Nobel Peace Prize).

    Yes, of course, our Political "Servants" are total sociopaths. But, meh. Welcome to rule by the Chattel Class. Listen to one of our psychopaths-in-chief: Former CIA director Leon Panetta (30-year war). Reminds me of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the dream of all Statists: A never ending War.

    - Leon Panetta (2014)


    The underbelly of the Progressive Socialism, is the Police State needed to enforce it. A Police State requires a never ending War. It's that simple. Keep the Chattel Class slightly afraid, tax them to death, rinse, repeat.

    Of course, in a free society, free people trade with one another using law (that protects your body as YOUR body and that upholds contract) in an agreed upon money. It's pretty simple. Laborers don't have to pay a labor-tax to the state in a free society. It's understood that free people are the ones who actually provide one another with the goods and services needed and that the use of force against innocent people is not needed nor desired. As a matter of fact, a social need (good or service) in a free society is an opportunity to trade. People spend most of their productive lives either preparing for, looking for or trying to meet these needs. Of course, you need a sort of type of person who wants to be free, wants to work, is mostly honest - everything America isn't. No, Americans like things for 'free'. And they like magic nice-sounding intentions expressed in simple catchy-phrases.

    Change We Can Believe In.
    I am not a Crook.
    Hope and Change.
    I'm really good at killing people.

    Progressive Socialism sounds like propaganda because it is. The State is, by it's very nature and at it's core - the use of force against innocent humans. That's how it delineates itself from the private sector - by it's inherent immorality. Well, 101 years of Progressive Socialism have robbed us of unimagined prosperity and given us never ending war needed to maintain the oxymoron that is Progressive Socialism.

    Enjoy the New Economy the Progressive Sociopaths have given us and the Endless War that's needed to prop it up.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    -- Glenn Greenwald (2014)
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'd agree that what Hillary said is true because WW1, WW2, Korea war, Vietnam war were all started by DEMOCRATS.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,361
    Why are you talking specifically about Democrats only, why are you attempting to connect Democrats with Socialism, and why are you once again confusing Socialism with Statism in general and a Police State in particular?

    Is the complete alignment of your language and obsessions with rightwing corporate propaganda, designed to abet a corporate capitalist takeover of political power and removal of governmental taxation and oversight, a coincidence?

    The notion that anyone in the US started WWI or WWII is bizarre.

    As far as the Korean and Vietnam wars: That was back when the Confederacy was still rejecting the Party of Lincoln. Since the Klan and its fellow travelers transferred their allegiance to the Republican Party, the warmongering has found its base there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    LOL that is so representative of right wing nutso revisionism, dishonesty and ignorance.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,361
    As long as we're reviewing history, we might notice that Panetta and Clinton (quoted in the OP) both started out as Republicans, and both switched Parties at about the time Nixon's racebaiting "Southern Strategy" was taking hold and bringing the Confederacy into the Republican camp. A fairly large number of American politicians switched Parties in those couple of decades culminating in Reagan's re-election as President, although Clinton may have had other motives than the standard ones.

    Also: observing that the anti-terrorist domestic and military involvements launched under Reagan, continuing through Bush and Clinton, and ballooning in W's apotheosis of the Reagan era, committed the US to endless war - perfectly timed to replace the unexpectedly finite Cold War and benefitting no one except the capitalist corporate powers - has been bumper sticker common and boilerplate analysis among lefties and progressives since the Star Wars days if not before.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2014
  10. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,420
    Peace can be brought through kindness reason and knowledge.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    OK then who was President when those wars were declared???
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Let me be clear: Both Republicans and Democrats are Statists. Both are Warmongers. Both support Spying on the State's Citizens/Property. Both emphatically support the Police State and would like nothing better than to use it more often against the Citizens they rule over.

    And they will.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2014
  13. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,420
    War is not endless. Time given, someone one is gonna be wiped out.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Seriously? That doesn't mean they were responsible for or caused those wars. It wasn't Democrats who declared war on the US. Democrats didn't create the Nazis.
     
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911

    I disagree pretty vehemently with that.

    It looks to me like like an extreme-libertarian adaptation of traditional Marxist rhetoric. Marxists have long insisted that pretty much every idea and everything that happens, certainly everything that they don't like, is part of the so-called 'ideological superstructure', intended to both justify and obscure existing class-relationships. In other words, no matter what people are ostensibly talking about, the supposedly real underlying subject is whatever the Marxists want to talk about. Everything revolves around them and their interests.

    This 'Endless War as ideological superstructure to justify and obscure Statism' idea looks like pretty much the same thing. Once again, everything revolves around ourselves and our own agendas. The ostensible overseas objects of our discussion, in this case the Islamists and their own radically different views, actions and agendas, drop out of the discussion entirely. The implication is that somehow we invented them, for our own nefarious domestic purposes.

    I think that style of thinking is typically foolish, self-absorbed and unrealistic, whether it's coming from the Marxist-inspired left (who pioneered it) or (in this instance) the libertarian right.
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    I asked you to tell us who were the Presidents when war was declared and nothing more. If you will address that you will find that every war I stated were started by a Democrat even if another country started the wars the President had to declare war in order to fight in it.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    LOL, yeah you want to cherry pick your way through history. Sorry, that isn't my style.
     
  18. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    No I'm not I've posted 4 MAJOR wars that were declared by Democratic Presidents and that's not "cherry picking" that's letting people know the truth which I guess you can't understand. Millions of Americans were killed during these wars and if you think that is frivolous then you'd better take another look at yourself and your views.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Oh yes you are.

    You don't want to acknowledge the circumstances, the fact that those Democratic presidents were responding to acts and declarations of war by other countries. And it was Congress which declared war in response to war declarations issued by those countries. You think it wrong for Democratic presidents to respond to war declarations and attacks from foreign countries? In the case of WWII only one congressman voted against the war.

    FDR wasn't responsible for Nazi Germany or the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor and the war declarations from those countries.

    Gee, I wonder why your list excluded Republican presidents like George Bush I & II or Reagan, et al.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2014
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    Declared by whom? In the case of World War I, there was the 1914 assassination of the Austrian nobleman by a Serb in Bosnia, Russia telling Austria to lay off the Serbs, Germany telling Russia not to mess with the Austrians, and both Britain and France declaring war when shooting involving their ally Russia started. The US didn't enter the war until its final months, in 1918.

    In the case of World War II, I seem to recall it starting in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland. The US didn't enter the war until the end of 1941, after Japan had attacked us and Germany declared war on us in support of their Axis ally.

    An argument might be made that the US should have maintained an isolationist policy and remained aloof from World War I. Given Pearl Harbor and the Axis declarations of war against us, it's hard to see how isolationism would have been viable in 1941.

    But the point I want to make is that any suggestion that it was the United States that created these wars in order to further some hidden domestic agenda is just historically ridiculous. That's true whether we imagine that the agenda was the furtherance of capitalism (as the Marxists would have it) or the furtherance of statism.

    In other words, the universe doesn't revolve around our own domestic obsessions. There are lots of other people out there with obsessions of their own. Sometimes their actions impact us, whether we welcome it or not.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,593
    Mod Hat — On misrepresenting sources

    From the topic post:

    Not to mention, ask any Keynesian (like Paul Krugman - who dreams of using War to 'turn the economy around' (see: Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump (VIDEO]) and they'll all back up the need of the State and war and you.

    (Boldface accent added)

    From the cited Huffington Post article:

    Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day. Krugman noted that the effort of World War II helped end the Great Depression, and joked that something similar was needed today.

    • • •​

    Of course, Krugman is just using a space invasion as an example. But that hasn't stopped some people from framing his comments as part of a giant conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites to enslave the world through a fake alien attack.


    (Boldface accent added)

    Members are reminded: It is absolutely inappropriate to deliberately misrepresent sources.

    If you cannot make an argument honestly, the best advice is to just skip it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page