Artful Dodger:

> Capitalism doesn't cause wars. People do.

First, what causes capitalism? People do. Wars are fought due to the greed for wealth and power. Everything else is just an excuse. You can quote ideology, but once you see who is making money, the causes of war are obvious. There isn't a single war that was not fought to acquire territory, or natural resources, or subjugate a people. Ideology (or religion) were always just excuses.

Greed and selfishness are the cause of war. Capitalism is a system that glorifies greed and selfishness as "free enterprise" and Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Then capitlism perpetuates war, and the capitalists of the world have little interesting in ending the arms trade and the wars that make them rich.

It is true, war has existed since cavemen could pick up sticks and whack each other on the head. Capitalism has caused many wars too, like all systems preceding it. Contemporary capitalism is guilty not just of creating wars and profitting from them, but also of failing to make any progress to end war. There is a reason why the countries with the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world have refused to sign and ratify treaties to end the small arms trade, the manufacture of land mines, the use of cluster bombs, etc. Those are all "best sellers"!

gogul:

> So what?

The point I was trying to make is that the world financiers are making huge fortunes by promoting war, then war will not end under capitalism. As long as war is business and profit, then we will have it and millions will go on dying. Industrialized nations would never accept a change in the economical system. Capitalism is here to stay, and by extension, war is here to stay too. Without war there would be massive unemployment and an economic contraction that would leave capitalism bankrupt.

(V): Yes. Our days in Europe war is at most riot like in Iran. It's not social jumpiness that made the Islamic Iran and it's revolution fall. It's the repression of the regime. So, I don't see black for the future. It's even funny to scare statesman and -woman. Radioaktivity or fundraising at Dagobert Ducks door is their problem.

gogul: Look at why WWI started. Over an Arch Duke!! Oh they were just waiting for a reason.. bottled up anger and the like. And suppose some one is having a bad day and then goes to a meeting over foreign policy.. are our leaders void of emotions?

Para'd ..... Hey guys. Arch Duke Fernie has been killed.. he was my brother!!
Why did America join WWI.. a ship.
Why did Stalin kill so many people.. he was insecure.
McCarthy'ism?
The Witch Hunts?
.... Do you get my drift now?

(V): yawn. Point one and two. How? Point three. Why? The geezer well leting it be good.

Second paragraph. Perception. Whose? ...how good a day someone is having. What?

Artful Dodger: The fear of not having enough, or what you have being taken away causes many wars. The fear of being wrong can cause wars. As one old gezzer said, not often we fight for the right reasons. Religion, ethics, morality, creed, land, resources, life, freedom, fear, love, greed, etc, etc....

Within them all lurks the ability to become a war. It's all a matter of perception and as often the case.. how good a day someone is having.

The biggest and most powerful corporation in the world would go bankrupt. Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, Ford, GM, Daimler, Microsoft, General Dynamics, General Electric, Siemens, Basf, Dow, and many others. All the big names in capitalism would be hit hard because everyone is got its fingers stuck in the war pie.

Übergeek 바둑이: So what?

The investment volume of the OECD-industrial countries in ratio of armament to own agriculture is 3:1 according the Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO. If food had the infrastructure of weapons there wouldn't be famine. In the industrial countries 4 of 100 persons produce enough corn for the respective populations. In the developing countries it's 80 of 100. In vue of this disproportion arises the question. Why not catapult these 80 persons though agriculture aids to the production level of OECD-states?

The at the beginning mentioned balance of power of 3:1 impedes this development and reflects political realities. From the industrial nations point of vue, independent developing countries with working agriculture jeopardize not only own agriculture exports, they don't need interest bearing standby credits and don't offer plattform for our helping industry. Further more, hungry persons are easier to manipulate, ensure cheap costs of globalisation, hence cheap imports, what again keeps domestic production costs low. 

The consequence of these economical think cramps are long since established and make the number of poor-working grow. This trend leads forseeable to social tensions with historical best known passing, the bullet producers again profitate.

The political redesign of this deconstruction vehicle to a constructive is asking for a change o circumstances. Our politelite is probably not able and willing to move to a concern building trigonal splits in between bulletproducers, industrial fodder producers and the third world farmers. The consument can make or brake it though. Return to regionality, seasonality and a little of sacrifice. Not only this minimizes the worldwide transport slapstick comedy, but reduces also global over-exploitation at human, animal and environment with involved wars.

Economists will call this consume sacrifice a century recession. But please: What do we have today? Only a consume change changes the circumstances in favor of all, because our over weight stresses the global balance, finds cynic manifestations in neocolonial doctrines of globaly acting profiteer, who in vue of permanently growing numbers of hungry people gets confirmed in their enemy stereotype pleas to grow the numbers of bullets to continue to eat corn in quiet and as long polit sponsored Wall Street gladiators continue to fund potential of destruction, nothing will change.

Our potential of aggression (ratio of 3:1) needs blood since ever. So it's questionable if it's a opulence of corn that makes the change. But at least you could strike yourself dead with bread.

Artful Dodger: The setting of direction does. I post a text originally german, by an autor who publishes only with his forename. I hope the translation is worth the reading.

Capitalism doesnt cause wars. People do. And the factors are many and cannot be reduced to a single factor. As long as there are people there would be war. If capitalism didnt exist, we'd still have wars.

gogul: Gone off that one.. Command & Conquer now Fun seeing the likes of Tim Curry and the others narrating the action.

As to nonsense? What part of my posts don't you agree with? It'd be easier if you said then a generalised personification of your disagreement.

(V): You should elaborate the difference between 'chimps' and Chimps or what is useless and what nonsense in your posts.

(V): Territory. Like in your video game civilisation

right lmao

gogul: There is always protest as such... Gandhi style. A stand has more power than a war!!

Übergeek 바둑이: You forget that we in Europe can distinguish between being a German, being a 'nazi', and being a Nazi.

We had our war trials, Israel has helped hunt down the remainder. We know why Germany became as it was under the Nazi's. We know the causes and as such we cannot blame Germany becoming as it did, or the German people.

It was those who sought the repayment of war damages from WWI that had more to do with the rise of the Nazi party. Especially after the fact that the decision to make Germany repay was questioned.

Why do you think the allies helped in the rebuilding of the former axis powers... to stop the breeding ground.

GTCharlie: Chimps behave like they do as they as being animals they have no choice in the wild. The ol' fight or flee rules them. But we branched down a different evolutionary ladder. There is nothing wrong with being competitive, but we can choose how if we use the ol' grey matter... even though we live (to use a phrase) in the concrete jungle.

We've let the 'kings' in the past tell us who we should fight, by whatever name they choose to crown themselves by. But the old definition of Lord still is remembered, and when that rules... they do not.

Übergeek 바둑이: Capitalism ... I feel that is a myth of sorts. Instead of Kings, Lords and dukes, we have CEO's, chairmans and partners. The names have changed. But have we dropped the kingdom, etc.

As back then before business became the new realm, power and money are still the coin that many base their success by.

Territory!!

If you say that such prejudice is slowly dying in Europe, I'm telling you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Übergeek 바둑이: Even with the best formation, soon as the economy toddles you get a 'kanada' if you tried something elsewhere, even if it means that it leaves a desert behind

The development of the European idea, you can start it with the repatriation under Charlemagne, 1200 years back from here. The problem of the past 50 years is the philosophical back up, not the philosophical back up by itself, but because the complicated structures of the European institution as a whole reflects the struggle of a permanent search of a (maybe) future unification of a European spirit, in its daily practice. The given structure and struggle make it to a moloch without chance to pay attention on the richness of mentalities allready in friendship since the tiredness of the wars, in which the history of the former Yugoslavia falls appart. What does it say? If I talk about the mentalities in friendship, I'm not talking about national identities. We might as well face wars again over Europe, which is wars against our so called nations. Philosophy our days, it's like the problem in between the chair and the computer. It has lost its nimbus on we look up to, same as we lost the the respect toward our nations, because we are sick of the machines the nations represent, because we don't believe anymore in people with cravats financed by the states who spend their lifes in libraries to back up their paycheck. Authority today are the regions who know how to handle them self, because we see today, in contrary to 10, 20 years back, the cheat nations represent. We see the theft of the strange high society, coupled with the obligation to ridiculously enough compensate the theft out of our own pockets. The richness of Europe is overwhelming. Give it back down, or the people will stand up against you soon enough. Be it by renouncing in your participation, or by fighting you.

Pedro Martínez:
> The EU was established in 1993.

I recommend that you look at the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union

The EU was offically established in 1993, but the impetus to form it goes back to the end of WW II and the Paris Treaty of 1951. The legal framework on which the EU was formed took decades of negotiation.

> Are you saying that the Nazi view of the world has an impact on what the
> European Union officials consider in deciding what countries should be admitted
> to the EU?

No, I said that Europeans put aside some of the old prejudices that were emobdied in the Nazi racist view of the world. I never said that Nazi views influenced the decision of which countries should join, but rather that countries like Germany moved forward and put aside their old prejudices.

As a Czech, you must know very well the views of Nazis with respect to Slavs. I recommend that you look at this Holocaust entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Slavs

Please read carefully what was posted. I am not reflecting prejudice against Slavs, but rather pointing to the fact that during the war Nazis were putting Slavs in concentration camps.

I was also pointing to the fact that the word "bohemian" was used as a derogatory term against poor people, and it reflected prejudice against Gypsies coming from Bohemia.

Übergeek 바둑이: Just to clarify, you keep comparing the EU to the US, viewing the EU system with the same "eyes" that got accustomed to the American type of union. The EU is perfect as it is - having the same currency or same political system within the whole EU has never been the primary (or even secondary) goal of the makers of the EU. The essence of the EU rests in uniform market and the Four Freedoms. For military affairs, there is the NATO.

Europeans stopped fighting and formed the Union
The EU was established in 1993.

Are you saying that the Nazi view of the world has an impact on what the European Union officials consider in deciding what countries should be admitted to the EU?

The term "Bohemia" was derived from "Boiohaemum," i.e. the land of the Boii (a Celtic tribe), therefore whoever wants to base any prejudice on your interpretation of the word must be nuts. If you say that such prejudice is slowly dying in Europe, I'm telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. It's the same as if I wanted to claim that there is a prejudice against the Canadians in the Czech Republic, because "kanada" means a heavy boot in Czech.

Pedro Martínez:
Just to clarify, I never compared the EU to the US. By perfect I mean that people do not necessarily want the same currency or political system, and for that reason some aspect of the EU are still being worked on.

I didn't say that Europeans formed the Union to stop war, but rather that Europeans stopped fighting and formed the Union. The EU has its origins in political, economic and idelogical principles that go back to the 19th century. It took two world wars to show European people that working together was better than fighting, and the motivation for the formation of the EU was there even before those wars.

> What old prejudices? And what has the admission of the Slavic countries to the
> EU to do with the holocaust???

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis had a deep hatred of Slavic peoples. There was a time when it would have been impossible to suggest people in Germany that they would share the same currency and even some of the same laws with Czech or Polish people. We also have to remember that the Holocaust went beyond Jews. Gypsies, Slavs, Communists, and other peoples were targetted by the Nazis. Millions of Slavs died in and out of concentration camps.

Some of the prejudice is still remnant in terms like "Bohemian", a term used to describe "the untraditional lifestyles of marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors in major European cities". This was "a common term for the Romani people of France, who had reached Western Europe via Bohemia". Of course, the Kingdom of Bohemia was located in waht today is the Czech Republic. It was that kind of prejudice that the Nazis used against Gypsies and Slavs. The EU has made a lot of progress in moving against that prejudice and discrimination.

Übergeek 바둑이: At least some of the lesson was learned, and now we have the European Union. It is not a perfect union, but at least the superpowers are not at each other throats any more. The fact that they are willing to welcome Slavs into the Union means that some of the old prejudices are slowly dying, and people still feel shame in the killing of Jews and Gypsies.

The creation and existence of the European Union has never had anything to do with war endeavors and war lust of the superpowers. You are absolutely off-base there.

Plus, the EU was never meant to be a "perfect" union and nobody wants it to be. I would like people from the North America to stop comparing the US union and the EU. There is nothing they have in common. Nothing.

The fact that they are willing to welcome Slavs into the Union means that some of the old prejudices are slowly dying, and people still feel shame in the killing of Jews and Gypsies.

What old prejudices? And what has the admission of the Slavic countries to the EU to do with the holocaust???

GTCharlie:
Yes, human history is a history of war, and all along somebody always became wealth producing weapons. Our capitalist system has perpetuated war and solidified it as one of the main driving forces of the world economy. We still manage to convince ourselves that we fight wars in the name of higher principles (like freedom, democracy, peace, etc.); however, the true driving force behind war has always been and will always the acquisiton of wealth and power. Higher principles and ideology are in the end just excuses.

Übergeek 바둑이: You have good points, but war was here thousands of years before capitalism. Humans will always compete against each other in some form, just like tribes of chimpanzees

(V):

The "war to end all wars" was fought twice. WW I was not enough to make Europeans hate war long enough to stop hating each other. So they fought WW II and when they saw the destruction they brought on themselves they became sick enough of war to at least stop fighting for 64 years.

At least some of the lesson was learned, and now we have the European Union. It is not a perfect union, but at least the superpowers are not at each other throats any more. The fact that they are willing to welcome Slavs into the Union means that some of the old prejudices are slowly dying, and people still feel shame in the killing of Jews and Gypsies.

Still, we as human beings are slow to learn our lessons. Unfortunately, we have lost some perspective on what war does to countries and people. We saw this in Iraq. More fire power was rained down on Iraq in the first 80 hours of the war than all the combined firepower used by all participants in WW II. It seems unreal, and yet it is true.

I think that war will be there for as long as there is capitalism , because war is business. I don't see how the big superpowers can survive economically without war. Can you imagine the massive unemployment and profit losses if suddenly everyone stopped buying weapons? Entire cities in industrialized countries would end up unemployed. The biggest and most powerful corporation in the world would go bankrupt. Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, Ford, GM, Daimler, Microsoft, General Dynamics, General Electric, Siemens, Basf, Dow, and many others. All the big names in capitalism would be hit hard because everyone is got its fingers stuck in the war pie.

I've just been listening to an interview with the few left alive who fought in WWI.

As one said, to him the war was for nothing, the lessons had not been learnt (re WWII, etc) and why should it be the young that die. Why not if the leaders of our countries want a war, let them pick up a rifle and fight it out.

How many wars do you think there would be if that was the case. Long gone are the days when the 'King' fought in a war.

I find it especially pertinent when the UK government is um'ing over needed resources for our brave soldiers who fight at their request.

(V): No. Seemed like a formality. Plus the lady with the broom was frightening. The party was overwhelming, the smugglers funny and the bubbles many. The whole thing ended at a beach somewhere in the fresh of the day, lady's broom was dangerous. I never found out why she hadn't fun that night.

gogul: Good lock in?

(V): Well I could celebrate a political victory in NI. I got in a backroom after 11 pm. Or 10.30 I don't remember that.

gogul: Quite often that was all from visits by my parents, just bubbles in the beer. As one instance where they couldn't drink in a pub due to a meeting, but the Landlord just said for them to go to the pub across the road, tell the landlord there he'd sent them... and they'd get a nice drink for their trouble.

... Why??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Does he hang with his beak on the aviary?

(V): Why? (parrot)

(V): I was only once in NI, and quite often on that island. Friends used to think about politics there, I left it to the bubbles of the beer.

gogul: I think they influenced the British royals to invade.

Interesting though.. if the NI troubles were a civil war and that it's normal for foreign influence to be beholded in such wars and those who bombed the UK mainland were not terrorists.

.... what is the definition of a terrorist and as such the whole idea of 'enemy combatants' and holding them in G' Bay is rather moot.

Any way.. I gotta confront a pet shop owner about my Norwegian Blue parrot tomorrow

That's interesting. I haven't noticed that Northern Ireland belongs to the knights who say NI.

Übergeek 바둑이: Officially... the UK army was neutral in NI, but certain people sided with the Loyalists. We were supposed to be in NI keeping the peace, stopping Catholics from killing Protestants. Religion was used as a dividing line. The main deaths were civilian and the peace keepers. Not the IRA or Loyalist militia.

But you are right, in the end the only people in such wars who profit are the weapons manufacturers.

rod03801: Agreed, civil wars can have alot of foreign intervention. But through us British eyes it was a war of terrorist activities. There as I said, was no set line of battle, most of the targets were civilian in nature (at least re the IRA). No uniform was used by the Loyalists or the IRA.

It does not fit a civil war model.

And yes, the British did invade Ireland a few hundred years back. The creation of Northern Ireland was to create a home place for the protestants who emigrated to Ireland during the time when us British ruled and used Ireland as a crop land, as most natural born Irish people were catholic. Early in this century, Ireland (as in the main part) was returned to the Irish. It is a separate country. We need a passport to go there.

It is best to study the whole history of British involvement, then perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.

Übergeek 바둑이: Per capita Switzerland is nr. 2 if it comes to weapon exports (big weapons that is, who can't be carry by a single man, air defense and such). The US (first in total numbers) 9th. We don't want our own soldiers for foreign missions, but are almost top in exporting weapons... We make politics with a peaceful image, but supply India and Pakistan again and again with new generations of weapons that mainly serve to entertain military in trainingcamps. I haven't heard of a airfight in between India and Pacistan. Tensions and mobilisations (weakening Pakistan in the west) yes. But airfights?

Civil wars always have foreigners involved for several reasons. Some will backup one side, such as the British backing up the loyalists, or the US backing up the Pakistani army against the Taliban. In those cases the reasons are political.

During the Cold War, the civil wars in Central America saw several countries involved. The US, the British, the Canadians, the French, the Germans, the Israelis, they all had interests there. The CIA provided training for the military and traded weapons and drugs, and for that reason the US had the finger pointed at it through the Cold War.

Today we have forgotten wars such as the civil war in the Soviet Union involving Adzerbaijanis and Armenians fighting over Nagorno-Karabak. In that war western powers and Iran backed and supplied the Adzerbaijanis, while the Russians backed the Armenians. Cold War politics and Islamic extremism fueled foreign involvement, and curiously, both the west and Iran backed the same side.

I find that in most civil wars, somebody is getting rich at the expense of the parties involved in that war. The IRA bought weapons, as did the Loyalists, and there were thirds parties that made money supplying them. It is not different in Afghanistan and Pakistann today. The Taliban, who fought against the Russians in the 1980s, are now buying Kalashnikov rifles Russian smugglers, while the Pakistani army is buying its weapons from the US. Then corrupt Pakistani army officers are selling American weapons to the Taliban. In the mean time who makes the money? Weapons manufacturers of course!

rod03801: Thanks Rod, for the back up!

(V): I think most civil wars have a lot of foreign involvement though. There are always going to be "outside forces" that have some interest in how a civil war turns out in the end. There was foreign involvement in the American Civil War, and it is still considered a civil war.

I suppose calling the British "foreign" in the Ireland issue is a bit of a stretch though.

Czuch: Yeah well.. too many sides involved for a civil war. And as the British were involved the civil war idea goes out the window. In the early days of splitting Ireland I could agree, but it had just transformed into an ugly business. The British helping the Loyalists and Americans helping the IRA.

Strange days!!

(V): and.... you asked where I got the idea it was a civil war, and I showed you where, thats all

Czuch: And? I see the notes are truncated and leave out alot of history. That UK civilians were targeted does speak of terrorism does it not? Sudden bombs going off killing loads of people who really had no fight and were just as sick of the war.

Btw.. Not all IRA or Loyalist groups stopped fighting. Some extreme elements as in any side just can't stop hating.

(V): http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/ireland1968.htm

gogul: The book "Job" by Robert Heinlein and "Good Omens" look much at things to do with heaven and hell. Especially the matter of an Angel and Demon saying... "Do we have to have this war?" Also noted that a certain horseman now runs the most succesful diet food business.. food that is totally void of nutrition.. it's to die for

To me it looks like the people's republic of china has a big problem. Their social harmony seems to be a farce. And they want to celebrate their 60 anniversary in about 8 week. At least there is some time left to solve their problems till then. Lets hope the Chinese are happy with this young country in 8 weeks