Posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 2:19:17
In reply to Re: Sorry. » teejay, posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 0:02:40
Pity the blocks here carry across to alter!
I'm just slow at typing. I actually posted..or started to before your block was posted!! so didn't see it until after I hit "submit your post".
Also I don't think I expressed myself clearly, so I tried to add to my post.
One point I was trying to make is that what is now not called a war as such but fighting terrorism, was, in the past, as far as I can make out, was called a war...only this way its convenient as you don't have to follow the Geneva conventions re war prisoners.
Then again, they didn't have the Geneva convention in the past either. Seems a bit of a sad slip back in time maybe?
Countrieds used to invade only parts of other countries..the ones they wanted for payback or becasue they're was something they wanted or someone they wanted to get etc... its HISTORY :-))Also was trying to make a point..badly I think.. that if you have the strong joint motive of payback
or "getting one's nose put out of joint"
together with it's "profitable"AND the strength to carry it off seemingly very easily
most will manage to make a war seem "just" to their people ..and I believe even convince themselves of the "justness".
Should I put forward this new psychological theory on war?
"Payback" alone can convince one of "justness for war"..add "gain" .. together they make a "just" war?
(in the past you can think of "gain" as being things like the rape and plunder of the Vikings, the Roman expansions etc) add payback to gain with strength to carry it off..The extent they actually manage to believe it is "just" is perhaps questionable, but I think they actually do believe in the "justness" .
Take Hitler, Bush, Blair, William the Conqueror, Eden,
.. I'm sure you all could add to the listThat double motive is a very powerful combo..and one I was wary of when Bush was on the election platform..and went into the background as to who was supporting him as well..and what his "training" background had been.
You could see the future unfolding, or I could unfortunately.. not the details.. but the vague outlines. Even the acts of terrorism against the US and supporting countries by those who don't have the strength to fight back adequately.
I spent a long time then trying to make the point..then gave up.> > > I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
> > >
> > > Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> > >
> > > God Bless America!
> >
>
>
> Nah, Iraq had to be freed from the Uraq'ies;-) kiddin
> May I suggest ya ask anyone citizen of Iraq.
>
> Do ya reckon they begged the US to invade Iraq, blow up their buildings, kill a heap of em, imprison some more, maybe scare a few kids a little, and
>
> 1. grab most of the oil income (main reason for most wars is economic .. the profit to be made )
>
> 2. payback Saddam (remember the old e Bush) .. have to "get" Saddam back. This goes back to before the current Bush was first elected IMO.(and why I was so upset with his election)
> back to payback for Saddam..
> I thought I heard Bush mutter something along these lines on a late night radio show over here long time ago., but it was late at night and I was in bed half asleep.. (before the war began I think, which made me certain we'd have the war no matter what). It's on the net somewhere still probably, wish I had a tape of it..
> 3. payback for maybe making US govt. looking a bit like fools re Sept11th etc.. hence a huge show of strength and talk of terrorists
> 4. redefine what is and is not a war, so you can make your own rules as suits regarding treatment of prisoners, define what is and is not an invasion, define what is reconstruction and what is ripping a country of its income
>
> "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq."
>
> Yeah, did ya see some of the footage of the US liberation of some towns (shot by Hollywood and considered OK for the US censors(most footage was destroyed I think by censors).
>
> Great pictures of before and after liberation of a town in Italy. Looked to me to be completely flattened after liberation. The Italians in that town .. funny I didn't see them jumping up and down and rejoicing, didn't see many wandering about at the end.
>
> Teejay I watched a show in the past week on Egypt and the British PM in the 50's and 60's.. re Suez crisis. Documents been released now officially seem to "prove" it re Eden.
> "AS IT HAPPENED - THE OTHER SIDE OF SUEZ
> On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt made a strategic move that caught the Western world by surprise. He nationalised the Suez Canal Company, precipitating what became known as the Suez Crisis - one of the biggest political stalemates of the century. The Other Side Of The Suez Crisis reveals, for the first time, the complexity of this historic story from the Egyptian and Russian perspective. Many critics believe that Anthony Eden, the British prime minister from 1955 to 1957, deeply resented President Nasser's championing of Egyptian independence. It is believed by some that Eden actively encouraged plots to fabricate dissent, turned a blind eye to several assassination attempts and eventually connived with the French and the Israelis to manufacture a 'war' as an excuse for sending in British troops to 'act as a buffer' between the Egyptians and the Israelis and protect Western interests as represented by the Suez Canal. The film looks at how Eden's actions were received by other countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union. What resulted from the Suez Crisis was a shift in US policy which saw them becoming actively involved in Middle East affairs for the first time"
>
> There ya go, appears to some folk maybe that a PM ,Eden,(Britain) managed to fabricate reasons to invade Egypt (seems like another politicians nose was out of joint and wanted to have this show of strength thingy).
>
> But back then re Eden and Suez Crisis it didn't get far, as Russia(Kruschev) threatened a couple of atomic bombs or missiles or something on I think it was London and Paris?
>
> If you want a war badly enough(for gain, payback etc).. its a common thing throughout history (and in prehistoric times too I guess:) You just have to convince your people its the "just" thing to do.
>
> take the invasion of Britain by William the Conqueror (that was profitable and a payback for this nose out of joint phenomena;-)
>
>
> Question for everyone:
> What is your definition of a "just" war. (taking out self defense or defense of own country or defense of freindly country)..ie only the invading side.
> Please define a "just" war, in terms of when it's just to invade another country.
>
> 2nd part of question.. Say you can win a war as you have more power, money , weapons, people than the country you are attacking. If the war is able to defined as "just", how much "strength" is "justified".
> eg. is it just to totally blast everyone building , kill every person, destroy the habitat theu chemical or atomic fallout
> If not, what level of attack is "just" ?
> Just enough to obtain control and still leaving something to plunder?.. or do you need to have this "show of strength" thingy ..
> Is a show of strength a feel-good thing for the invaders?
> Or does it hasten the end of the war? Did it?
>
>
> to repeat "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> > >
> > > God Bless America!"
>
> Much more pleasant things to think about. Cya everyone.
>
Forgot to add.. well the US does have mnost of the WMD and financial and miliary might, so its not good to be offside ecomonically..and hey that's everything as far as being voted back into power as long as the war isnt in our backyard. Besides the srength of the Us is a good backing to have when you are a small population sitting int the middle of large populated countries.
The fact that there is not enough water, and a lot of arable land there is, is turning into saltpans., so ist reducing.
We cant support a vast population even if they want to swarm in . , and with peak oil past we wont be able to transport the food anyway without an alternative transport method hasnt been considered . A lot of the arable land near the big cities has been built on, unlike in UK and Europe, Asia including Japan, which were all smart enough to keep arable land near towns zoned for food production.
I guess we could knock down the suburban sprawl to start feeding a greater population. Importing will not be feasible without a cheap fuel source either, and planes have no viable alternative at present anyway.Really going now. would not have posted again except for teejay's block which appeared like I posted after without seeing it..when really started posting b4 :-)
poster:tealady
thread:624297
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/625923.html