PDA

View Full Version : Do we need WW III?



edao
11-10-11, 21:54
"...starting with the fall in stock prices...it quickly spread to almost every country in the world. ...devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most....primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply."


Sound familiar, its not about the current economic crisis but a wiki page describing the Depression of the 1930s. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)

So how did the the West escape from a decade of Depression?

"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

How about we incease government spending? Scare people so much about the threat of the boogie man they will want us to spend their tax money bombing some Arab country to pieces.

Looks like the plan is already in motion....


Iran agents 'planned US terror attacks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15266992) :thinking:

Elias2
12-10-11, 00:17
I don't know about ww3, or a war to that scale, but America and NATO is not going to let Iran get nuclear weapons. They made that mistake with pakistan, they will not do it for Iran, especially because Iran can sneak it to Hezbolla.

LeBrok
12-10-11, 08:29
Oh come on edao, give me a good news, at least once. You are starting to sound like an echo of most TV stations.
By 40s economies in Europe were doing much better than in 30s, so the recession had not much to do with WWII. Even Soviets were doing way better than in 30s. WWII was started by nothing more than megalomaniac ambitions of two dictators, Hitler and Stalin.



"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

Are you sure you meant Europe? Just compare GDP of European countries before the war and after. You'll see how economies "improved". Yes, the period of great depression ended with advent of WWII, because another historic period started, but unfortunately it was even worse than depression.
Even US, though grew economically and unemployment shrunk, wasn't immune entirely from the destruction. Half of it's GDP was spent on war effort like producing tanks and bombs. Tell me how this growth enriched ordinary lives of Americans? There were no new cars produced in US from 1942 to 1946. Oh, the good times after the depression. ;) Every heard of rationed food?
Economic boom in Europe and US started after the war, in time of peace.

edao
12-10-11, 09:45
@Lebrok

I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others. What's the point of getting into power if it's not making you some cash, to make the world a better place :rolleyes2:.

Apart from the inevitable apocalypse, here is your good news:

Woman gives birth after marathon. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15251624)

Shame that once old enough he'll be sent off to fight the robots in the waste lands :grin:.

Cimmerianbloke
14-10-11, 20:37
Just read several articles about Iran today. I just don't understand how the US bothered with Saddam and Afghanistan, and let Aman....ab (can't spell it right...) rant about the end of Israel for so long. If Mamoud gets his nuke, we're in the sh!t, time to let him know he has to respect his neighbours too... WWIII? Not very likely, look around you, if the youngsters I see on the street must go to war, we lose it for sure...

Elias2
15-10-11, 01:15
America recently gave Greece 400 free refurbished Abram M1A1 tanks, Greece only needs to cover the cost of transport and reburbished parts which is around 8-10 Million dollars. These will be deployed in Thrace and older tanks will be sent to Greek islands in specific places.

I think America is trying to give Turkey a clear sign that it won't tolerate turkish aggression in the eastern med or towards its ally Israel, using Greece as a method.

In case anyone hasn't been keeping up with news, a large deposite of Hydrocarbons reserves have been found in the eastern medeterranean. Turkey who doesn't recognise the sovereignty of Cyprus or of Greek islands claims alot of eastern Med waters.

http://www.zougla.gr/Image.ashx?fid=276712&w=400&h=300&q=80

Above: international EEZ boundaries

http://www.onalert.gr/files/Image/NewOnAlert/EGGRAFA-SIMAIES-MAPS/mapaozkaruwths1.jpg
Above: Turkish perspective on the EEZ

Turkey claims there shouldn't been drilling untill unification of Cyprus. Cyrpus says that they are not connected and it has its rights to drill in its own EEZ.

LeBrok
15-10-11, 07:03
@Lebrok

I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others. What's the point of getting into power if it's not making you some cash, to make the world a better place :rolleyes2:.
QUOTE]
Are you implying that only poor people can have morals?
How do you explain that in history of USA not even one president proclaimed himself a dictator, just to take it all? How do you explain the rich leading the independence war from GB, and upon winning they gave the power to the people. They've easily could have kept it all.

[QUOTE]
I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others.

Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

Cimmerianbloke
16-10-11, 00:07
Greece reeks of civil war, Turkey is bound to become a local superpower when the "Arab Spring" (please allow me to chuckle at the expression...) will be over, and might take advantage of the Greek government weakness to put pressure on Cyprus. If they start colonizing their share of the island, who could blame them, as they are only doing as the Israeli do? Thank God Greece is a NATO member, cause some serious trouble might rise from the chaos in the coming weeks.

edao
16-10-11, 12:12
[QUOTE=edao;384002]
Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

Mr Dick Cheney:

"Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush (senior), holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions."
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)

For Dick Cheney and G Bush senior the Gulf War was a humiliation for the United States, Saddam had taken on the mightiest military in human history and he was still standing.
After 911 they dropped bomb in Afghanistan going after goat farmers. Then Daddy bush, Bush Junior and good old Cheney though this gives us an opportunity to create a culture of fear and use it to settle scores with Saddam while making our selves an awful lot of money. No convinced....

Halliburton:

"Halliburton is the world's second largest oilfield services corporation with operations in more than 70 countries.

Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000."

So prior to Bush Junior running for president daddies old mate is the head of one of the world largest oil services corporation?!?

I wonder what else Halliburton do.....?

"Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989.

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya.

In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR).

In April 2002, KBR was awarded a $7 million contract to construct steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray.

From 1995 to 2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but has spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In November 2002, KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney's position as vice president.

On January 24, 2006, Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build "temporary detention and processing facilities" or internment camps.

It was anticipated that Halliburton’s $2.5 billion "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#cite_note-waxman-36)would pay for itself as well as for reconstruction of the entire country.

[/URL] In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid"


[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton"]source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#cite_note-40)

No, but your right I'm just paranoid :wary2:

Yetos
16-10-11, 13:40
Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

By what I know Bush family are Texans,

Father was more consious and did enter that scale,

but what then,

the Iraq case cost a lot of money,
I do not know if it is worthy or not, I don't care,

But I do care that people pay taxes to send army to iraq,
people lost lives in order of fight against terror,

but some Gulf and Texan corporations earn Huge quantities,
why don't they pay the cost of oil price?
so a citizen pay taxes, a corporation earns Huge amounts, and some Banks become stronger,
so fun party was a fiesta were they eat and drunk the poor man's lamp, and the pure farmer's wine,
yet I wonder how much some corporation earn about that war? and how much was given back to the people, to relieve them?

Indignados do not want to Bring communism,

personally I do not want to be a sultan in the place of sultan,
i do not want peter in the shoes of Peter,

But I also do not want to be the jackass

when Liehman Bank boom,
US pay the salaries of all chief manager and advisors, but do not pay the salaries of simple workers,
I believe every body is as smart to realize the unfair of that situation,
why was done that way? to keep some mouths closed firm?

modern world is not Free anymore,
this is not Capitalism, or Free will and private moves,
this is corruption and anarcho-capitalism,
this is jungle were the Lion and Hyenas make an unholly alliance-trust,

and to speak in the language of some,
if the time of carrot passed, lets see who whipes who?
the donkey the rider? or the rider the donkey? :thinking:

ACourvoisier
01-11-11, 02:01
"...starting with the fall in stock prices...it quickly spread to almost every country in the world. ...devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most....primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply."


Sound familiar, its not about the current economic crisis but a wiki page describing the Depression of the 1930s.

(...) (end of the first part, here this is me, ACourvoisier: I cannot quote links)
(second part:)

So how did the the West escape from a decade of Depression?

"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

How about we incease government spending? Scare people so much about the threat of the boogie man they will want us to spend their tax money bombing some Arab country to pieces.

Looks like the plan is already in motion....

(Here this is me, ACourvoisier: second link wich I couldn't quote)
:thinking:

Hi Edao,
Indeed, I thought already a few years ago, that we needed a third world war.
But I wasn't really thinking at economics.*
See around our society; how so many behaviors of people of our society are decadents... no regards, the people live for themselves, they will soon love no one, and in particular, they are often desperate for being in front of a computer and sometimes post on a forum instead to speak with their promise - and in this last case, I am not doing better. Generally, their are happy when they have the last mobile phone of the moment...

*Or at the politics: States will soon don't dare anymore to defend their interests. This is particularly the case of the States of a centralized Europe, and in particular, this is the case of Switzerland, with the bilateral conventions (with Europe), which throw in our land flows of immigrants. Immigrants are needed, simply for doing some works for which we can't find enough swiss people to do this. But there is a limit for all, and when I am walking in the center of Lausanne, I don't recognize a swiss person anymore, and this make me sometime a lot of worry for the future of my land, as for my own future.

So, for all these reasons, yes, sometimes I think we would need a third world war, after which, people would get back some values for themselves as for the other ones.

Antigone
01-11-11, 08:06
The estimates on WWII deaths -civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_casualties_of_World_War_II): from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. In other words 2.5% of the world's population died and that does not mention the untold destruction, suffering, poverty, disease and famine for those who actually survived.

The effect of which is still felt to this day and you are suggesting another world war, which would be far worse than the last, simply because people are not living the way you would like them to? But, of course, Switzerland was a haven of peace and it's banks raked in millions while the world destroyed itself last time, it might not be so lucky if there is another.

ACourvoisier
01-11-11, 09:26
(...)

The effect of which is still felt to this day and you are suggesting another world war, which would be far worse than the last, simply because people are not living the way you would like them to? But, of course, Switzerland was a haven of peace and it's banks raked in millions while the world destroyed itself last time, it might not be so lucky if there is another.

Ok, I know that all forms of violence are bad, and this is even more the case of the war, this is evident.
I remember at the passage that it is not me who "suggest" a world war, but Edao who "posed the question", occasion of which I was just making "a thought".
Particularly, I have two bad reasons to "suggest" a world war: I live in a neutral Land; and if I made almost all my army day, I have not finished this military service for some reasons, so in fact am I not in the Army anymore, and by consequence: I could not "suggest" a world war (what is even not the case of our Army, as you know).
About "our banks who raked millions" in the last war: this is probably true: you forget, than protect the gold of belligerents, was a practical reason, for not being attacked by the "enemy". And you omit, that this Haven of Peace - which risked the war however - was simply, by this way, a place to welcome people who were really suffering a war in their Land.
But I do not want to make a polemic, I told enough about my own Land.

For conclusion:
This was not a question of "liking" the way lot of people live (however, I often don't like it), but more precisely, the problem is that there is a general way of living - you know: things like the divorces, and among the young people: seeing ones own little interest;
all that make something that can simply not continue very long, for the simple reason that it is not "living" healthly, and by this way, that will be blown away by a manner or another, but I don't know the time do the people need to realise. And so, if the people don't understand this in twenty years, or worse: are getting worse, I had not other idea than a war - I think sociology is too complicated for me - or have you a better solution to make people live healthy, loving their Land and the other people ?

LeBrok
01-11-11, 17:07
ACourvoisier, at what age, when exactly, in Europe do you think people had the best morals, conducts, traditions: middle ages, Renascence, 19th century, etc?
Do you think that last two world wars were the result, consequences of rotten way of live in Europe?

ACourvoisier
01-11-11, 17:42
Well, you pose very good questions, and for this, I'd like to answer precisely, if my historical culture let me so.
First, for the end of your previous message above, I want signal to you that - maybe - the wars effectively were no a result of way of living in Europe (or maybe yes ?), or if no: a result of what ?
But even if no, this doesn't signify that this way of "living" won't do so in a future.

For the interesting questions of the past, effectively, they become frequently of actuality, so I'd like to respond (I must remember History which I have not necessarily lived):
Middle-Age: surely no, because of the scientific regression (however I admire the case of Alchem(istr)y);
Renaissance: much more, for the same reason, but in the opposite sense (scientific and human progression),
about the 19th century, this is the period which I prefer with the coming of quantic physics and all these wonderful theoreticians of the physics ; but one more time, the ancient Germany was already preparing war in these times,
so this re-lead us to - among some of your propositions (I don't remember every of all the periods) - at the Renaissance,
when there was an "incredible" coming of hope, not only for science, but for the Humanity, and when people were generally cultivating the earth (however: even more harder on these times than now), but:

when same person of which, had solid principles.

Antigone
01-11-11, 18:26
ACourvoisier, at what age, when exactly, in Europe do you think people had the best morals, conducts, traditions: middle ages, Renascence, 19th century, etc?

"Times are bad, children no longer obey their parents and everyone is writing a book".
Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC

In answer to your question Lebrok, I'd say never!

ACourvoisier
01-11-11, 18:40
"Times are bad, children no longer obey their parents and everyone is writing a book".
Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC

In answer to your question Lebrok, I'd say never!
-Oh, there is no relation with this message, but - from Europe-Economy - to where is redirected this topic ?

-Without willing be so formalist, it would be fine - you are already two to answering to me - if, for such a conditional and uncertain answer (<<I would say never>>), if you let LeBrok answer; or answer with a beginning of proposition for the problems of society which I asked to you 2 messages above.

Or if the discussion doesn't passion anymore, it would be more "serious" (sic forum) to stop here.

Antigone
01-11-11, 21:16
All you've said in three posts ACourvoisier is that you don't like the way society is headed and that you'd prefer everyone lived to your idea of moral standards. In other words, you don't like change and your solution is to have a world war and kill off a lot of people so we all can go back to some medieval utopia where everyone supposedly lived to your ideal.

My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

ACourvoisier
01-11-11, 21:35
All you've said in three posts ACourvoisier is that you don't like the way society is headed and that you'd prefer everyone lived to your idea of moral standards. In other words, you don't like change and your solution is to have a world war and kill off a lot of people so we all can go back to some medieval utopia where everyone supposedly lived to your ideal.

This is not because I asked you "a better solution", that I thought that war was a solution, in the idealistic sense of the term.
I just prevent, that - for a known question of history and synchronic cycles to the modes of living, it could arrive.



My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

So with a pseudonym as "Antigone", you should know philosophy; but this one doesn't consist in quote philosophers; you must know the question of the dialectic, you know: Thesis - anti-thesis - Synthesis.
In other words: was Cicero writing this:
1)honestly (in the moral sense of the term), to let us directly read it;
2)ironicaly, to make us take it in the opposite sense;
3)as a posed problem/"question", to let the descendants think and conclude?

You have not done this work, of putting your quotation with "your" explanation.



If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

This third part is.. ..interesting. I will note it.

LeBrok
02-11-11, 08:02
My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

This above, plus the fact that Europe is without major war for long 66 years, and considering highest economic standard of living ever, I would conclude that today we might have the best morals and ethics of all the ages. Even if some will argue that they don't like these current morals, or that today's morals are not perfect, I would counterargument that these morals must be the best we had, because of the mentioned splendid results of peace and prosperity.
The point is that peaceful and plentiful times, of last half century, can’t be the product of worsened morals and ethics.

ACourvoisier
02-11-11, 09:13
Thank you for your thought.

This above, plus the fact that Europe is without major war for long 66 years, .
Under statistical considerations, this is not an argument.



and considering highest economic standard of living ever, I would conclude that today we might have the best morals and ethics of all the ages. Even if some will argue that they don't like these current morals, or that today's morals are not perfect, I would counterargument that these morals must be the best we had, because of the mentioned splendid results of peace and prosperity.
The point is that peaceful and plentiful times, of last half century, can’t be the product of worsened morals and ethics.
This is possible; but you are ideed omitting the cold war, that low the "paceful times" to twenty years.

ACourvoisier
02-11-11, 09:19
(...)
My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.
(...)
Oh, and one other thing; this time; to Antigone:
If I understand you;
when you wrote: <<I would say never>>, this was only about "the best morals"; but about "the bad times", for the same argument you are exposing above, this is exactly "ever".

So when I say that we are in bad times, you don't say the opposite.

ACourvoisier
02-11-11, 10:26
If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

Excuse me for this thirst post in a short moment, but Iwould at least answer Antigone about the third part of the quotation I made ofhim, above.

I respect your opinion, consisting to mean that times are not so bad in appearance.

Especially, I learn that to have strong values or principle is « a return in the past », which – obviously – can’t be done. Maybe.

Do you think, that the « accelerations of the changes » or « the changes » are necessarily an evolution (in its positive sense) ?

So, when a species disappear – as dinosaurs – what iscoming, next ?

I don’t think in such a case, that there is a coming back, nor « acceleration » - here by the dinosaurs – as they disappear. So what could be come from the Humanity, in next decades (opened question) ?

As she change so rapidly, what I approve, could she evolute undefinitively ?

ACourvoisier
02-11-11, 20:43
Antigone,
I beg your pardon for two reasons:
I wrote: "the third part of quotation I made of him", but while you was logged and I was seeing your profile, I just remembered that Antigone was a woman; so excuse me for this error.
The second reason, is that I made a "copy-paste" from a text editor for pc, and this made some concatenations of words, so there are some falses of orthograph; this is the second reason to demand you to excuse me.

Particularly, your argument telling that "there is no going back", made me just have a real and brief reflexion, really for the first time I am on this forum.
And I was so surprised to destroy so easily the arguments of a philopher (althought I have already done such a thing), but indeed mistaked myself by taking you for a professional philopher; I ought to see that Antigone was really a character of theater, but this doesn't matter I think.
If you have an answer to my questions when you will to post it, I would appreciate this.

Write you later.

ACourvoisier
03-11-11, 08:02
People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

Could you tell me, what is an "historical era" ?

Is this not something, which have precisely a begining and a end ?

So in such a end, are there not even undesired "going back". I think to know that there were some regression in a part of Middle-Age, after what there was a new re-begining ?

Couldn't this sort of thing come more times ?

Antigone
03-11-11, 08:18
I think you are reading far too much into my comments, and my chosen name here, ACourvoisier.

Firstly Antigone is ineed a female name. In Greek mythology Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jacosta and it is also the name of a play by Sophocles but it wasn't for these reasons that I chose the name. It was chosen (after many rejections) simply because it was the only name I could think of that hadn't already been taken when I joined this forum, for no other reason.

Secondly, sorry but I'm not an idealist and I don't like or do philosophy, what if's or speculations. I much prefer to talk about facts, historical or otherwise. It is fact that through all historical eras men have been complaining about society's morals, even through the times you have idealised as "better" than today. Death, disease, poverty, abuse, exploitation, slave labour, discrimination, hunger, and church dominance were all part of the daily existance in the times you would wish us to go back to. People didn't work fields because they had higher morals but simply because they had no other choice if they were to survive.

Much of what we use today was developed during and because of WWII. Computer technology, space programs, rockets and weaponry, plastics, communications and medical advancements, just to name a few. Becuase it was necessary it also became acceptable that women could work outside the home, because of shortages in the availability of fabric it also became acceptable for men and women to wear less clothing etc, the rigid class barriers that held the majority from achieving their true potential began to crumble as a result of WWI and were finally broken for good during WWII. The very fabric of society, including it's morals changed also, not back to some romantic ideal of past glories but forward and in accordance with the technological advances that developed because of war.

ACourvoisier
03-11-11, 09:06
I think you are reading far too much into my comments, and my chosen name here, ACourvoisier.

Firstly Antigone is ineed a female name. In Greek mythology Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jacosta and it is also the name of a play by Sophocles but it wasn't for these reasons that I chose the name. It was chosen (after many rejections) simply because it was the only name I could think of that hadn't already been taken when I joined this forum, for no other reason.

Secondly, sorry but I'm not an idealist and I don't like or do philosophy, what if's or speculations. I much prefer to talk about facts, historical or otherwise. It is fact that through all historical eras men have been complaining about society's morals, even through the times you have idealised as "better" than today. Death, disease, poverty, abuse, exploitation, slave labour, discrimination, hunger, and church dominance were all part of the daily existance in the times you would wish us to go back to. People didn't work fields because they had higher morals but simply because they had no other choice if they were to survive.

Much of what we use today was developed during and because of WWII. Computer technology, space programs, rockets and weaponry, plastics, communications and medical advancements, just to name a few. Becuase it was necessary it also became acceptable that women could work outside the home, because of shortages in the availability of fabric it also became acceptable for men and women to wear less clothing etc, the rigid class barriers that held the majority from achieving their true potential began to crumble as a result of WWI and were finally broken for good during WWII. The very fabric of society, including it's morals changed also, not back to some romantic ideal of past glories but forward and in accordance with the technological advances that developed because of war.

Thank you for the compliment that I am reading "too" far in your posts; but for a real discussion is it necessary.

Of course have you the right to chose your pseudonym; I was just meaning, that I didn't see sooner this part of your personality, of which I thank you to have instructed me a little.

Philosophy is only the base of a living reflexion, but this is a base:
what are the facts, without being well interpreted ?

Endly, all what you say about the past technological developments is very right, and I know this (I quote Robert J. Oppenheimer in my "signature", who was the leader of the Manathan Project.)

But you did not answer to my questions.

Cimmerianbloke
04-11-11, 01:50
Ethics, morals and respect are civilized terms to explain, or justify aggression or any kind of judgemental actions. A third WW is likely in the coming decade, but not for obvious reasons. IMO, the reason has been on this week's headlines but has not been interpreted the right way. The planet's population is reaching a critical point, it's becoming overcrowded and food distribution ( and above all water) will become a major geopolitical problem in the coming years. The danger is that since 1914, we have greatly improved the weaponry available, and its access to the poorest countries.
As for what period of European history is the most "moral", I think it's one yet to come...

ACourvoisier
04-11-11, 02:28
Ok, this time do I think to understand:
weapons avaiable,

and: "what period of European history is the most moral ? -One great morality should come if we don't want a war."



But (knowing this) what does it bring to the discussion ?

Cimmerianbloke
04-11-11, 15:41
Trying to gauge war through a morality prism is futile. Wars have their root in the deepest, most primitive part of human psyche, and are therefore on a completely different level of consciousness in our thinking process. Wars, conflicts and violence in general are triggered by our instinctive need to protect ourselves. Morality and ethics mean the thinker can afford time and has no exposure to retaliation to analyse the threat and rationalise it. The weapons evolution since 1918 have shifted the balance of power. Deterence is no longer a powerful suggestive threat capable of keeping an enemy under control. The biggest armies have been defeated by a small number of opponents using terrorist or guerilla techniques. The proliferation of non-conventional weapons have rendered the most ethic war technique (diplomacy) obsolete.

ACourvoisier
04-11-11, 22:13
So I would like to answer you about some precise points.


Trying to gauge war through a morality prism is futile.

I think we obviously cannot measure the interests in doing war with morality, as the war surely is not moral, in itself.
However, a war could arrive, without any morality considerations.



Wars have their root in the deepest, most primitive part of human psyche, and are therefore on a completely different level of consciousness in our thinking process.
(...)

Here, the war has certainly not its roots in primitive parts of human, and has even fewer its roots in the human psyche. We are not at the caverns era.
Were you thinking about such a thing, as the conditions (in its imperative sense) of economy ?

Cimmerianbloke
05-11-11, 04:04
So I would like to answer you about some precise points.



I think we obviously cannot measure the interests in doing war with morality, as the war surely is not moral, in itself.
However, a war could arrive, without any morality considerations.


Here, the war has certainly not its roots in primitive parts of human, and has even fewer its roots in the human psyche. We are not at the caverns era.
Were you thinking about such a thing, as the conditions (in its imperative sense) of economy ?

As for the first part of your post, where were you during the first Gulf War? I remember clearly the big western coalition kicking the shit of Saddam on moral grounds.
As for the second part, I'll cite W : "you are with us or against us". That is geopolitics reduced to its simplest expression and is a reflection of the primitive aspect of warfare: if you are not an ally, you are an enemy, and I therefore have to destroy you. Like it or not, when it comes to the gap between savagery and civilisation, war is the quickest bridge... When triggered by situations in which our survival is jeopardized, we are cavemen in suits and ties...

leemadison11
25-11-11, 14:26
I think times were much more desperate during the Great Depression (http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/); I read on Shmoop that the financial situation looked so bleak that in 1930, over a 100,000 American citizens attempted to migrate to the Soviet Union in search of a better life. At least we’re not trying to move to other nations.

LeBrok
25-11-11, 20:23
Thank you for your thought.

Under statistical considerations, this is not an argument.


This is possible; but you are ideed omitting the cold war, that low the "paceful times" to twenty years.

I guess you came up with your own war definition, that you forgot to share with us. Or maybe you take word to literally. Cold War wasn't a war by any standards. I don't remember shots being fired or people dying from bombs in Europe during Cold War, do you?
If anything this actually helps my case about long peace. Even though the situation was tense and there was lot of hate on both superpowers sides, all involved had enough smarts to calculate consequences, and stay at peace.

If today's peace is not about morality, it must be something else keeping it peaceful. Maybe it is about good life and ability to calculate consequences. Take ordinary citizen in Europe or N America. He/she has family, home, car, many possessions, long life, vacations, tasty food all you can eat and look to retirement. Ordinary citizen can see it and is smart enough to calculate odds how much is to lose in case of defeat in war, because gaining is unknown and uncertain. Plus through today's open borders, traveling and free mass-media one can see that in neighboring country people are normal and want exactly same as you: the home, car, family, vacation, fun. The last thing on their mind is to come to your country and kill you. So, considering all of this, why would you want to start war with you neighbour, and possibly die losing a lot that you already have? Under so strong and logical reasons male, hard wired, fighting instinct is overruled in favour of life pleasures. (These days fighting instinct can be safely satisfied by computer games or watching boxing and UFC.)
So peace be it. This is the consequence of good economic system, education, science, freedoms and democracy. Not sure how morality fits in it? Could have the catalytic and promoter effect making the mentioned systems work or work well.

Cimmerianbloke
26-11-11, 03:59
Waow LeBrok, I'd love to live in your world. What about massive overendebtment, scarcity of work, suicide and depression, high divorce rates, alcoolism, rempant violence, ghettoisation and insecurity that characterize all big European cities. Have you heard anything about London riots this year, France riots in 2005, people getting stabbed and killed over a MP3 player or a mobile phone? Fighting instinct? just going for a walk in the evening is enough to quench it.
As for the cold war, it was a real war, with troops stationed all over Europe (2 things called NATO and Warsaw Pact you should learn about). Historians have written an awful lot about proxy wars in Africa, South America and in Afghanistan, just to name a few. The cold war had ideological roots but made real victims, among whom more than a 100 people who tried to flee from the DDR through the Berlin Wall. Morality has been thrown away the day we embraced capitalism and liberalism. Economics, (lack of) education, freedom (?) and democracy (I still need to come around with a definition for that word) actually ****** up our society more than they cemented it. True, science is now the God we all kneel to.

mrikë
28-11-11, 22:09
Forgive me for skimming, I promise I will return to some other outstanding posts in this topic.
I must say this though, how come that WW2 ended the Great Depression? And wasn't the macabre 24th October of 1929 that actually pointed out that common people do not know where/how to invest their monetary values? If we read history through an analytical perspective, clearly the Great Depression led to WW2; If anything had impact on decreasing the effects of Depression those were Keynesian policies. A similar depression was incited in the '70's during the Israeli-Arab war and, once again we can notice the patterns of war and its effects. Therefore justifying war for any sort of boom, being it technological or economical, expresses a primordial texture of thinking.

LeBrok
28-11-11, 23:06
Waow LeBrok, I'd love to live in your world. What about massive overendebtment, scarcity of work, suicide and depression, high divorce rates, alcoolism, rempant violence, ghettoisation and insecurity that characterize all big European cities. Have you heard anything about London riots this year, France riots in 2005, people getting stabbed and killed over a MP3 player or a mobile phone? Fighting instinct? just going for a walk in the evening is enough to quench it.
Dude, I'm starting to worry about you. Surly my glass is half full, yours is almost empty and very small.
I'm sure it is just your "sight" impediment. Well, I have full realisation that the Europe is not perfect, and I don't have any illusions that never will be. It doesn't blind me to the fact that when we start compering epochs of different times in human history, our times come on the top by far. This was the bottom line of my posts, maybe stressed to much, but I felt need doing this in face of strong human nature of romanticizing old times or things they never seen and experienced, like morality of medieval christian knights, or purity of Victorian England.



As for the cold war, it was a real war, with troops stationed all over Europe (2 things called NATO and Warsaw Pact you should learn about).
By your definition there is still war in Europe, because as you put it "troops stationed all over Europe".


Historians have written an awful lot about proxy wars in Africa, South America and in Afghanistan, just to name a few.
I was talking about Europe


The cold war had ideological roots but made real victims, among whom more than a 100 people who tried to flee from the DDR through the Berlin Wall.

These were attack on own citizens and don't constitute war aggression. In this regard DDR did great compared with Soviets treating their own citizens.


Morality has been thrown away the day we embraced capitalism and liberalism. Economics, (lack of) education, freedom (?) and democracy (I still need to come around with a definition for that word) actually ****** up our society more than they cemented it. True, science is now the God we all kneel to.
No, morality always exist. It might change but never vanishes, as it only describes values of social interaction, is it right or wrong. If anything you can say that you don't like today's morality, but can't say that it doesn't exist.
Actually I don't care what ethics teach people, I just want good results for the people. So far I like today's Europe much more than in any time in history, though it's imperfect and sucks in many departments.

edao
05-12-11, 23:34
George Osbourne the British Chancellor is talking about offering state loans to businesses to help stimulate economic growth.
Again similarities can be draw back to the Great Depression in the States with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation RFC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation)/New Deal:

"The New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the USA, its more lasting changes being increased federal government regulation of the economy. It also marked the beginning of complex social programs and growing power of labor unions." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg/350px-US_GDP_10-60.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

Antigone
06-12-11, 07:10
So Cameron has finally realised that cut-backs alone will not work, that there has also to be some sort of incentive to produce growth if an economy is to recover.

I wish our idiots in the government would realise it also. All they are doing right now is slash and burn, therebye strangling the very people needed to produce to get the country back on track.

LeBrok
06-12-11, 21:20
There were probably few choices how to fix economies and in much better timing. The decision making, in this regard, was so prolonged till now that damage to economies, of many countries and europe in general, might be irreversible, well in short time frame of 5 years at least. If it collapses even farther then we are talking about a decade or two.

Politicians are still behaving like they still have a luxury of time. Domani, piano, piano...