War: C or D?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not the LA funk ensemble who ripped off "Shock the Monkey" to make "Cisco Kid" - I mean the human activity, where you get to yell "Fire in the hole!", go on "R & R", frag people, get post-traumatic stress disorder etc.

― tarden, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

useless and a major dud...but important in reducing world population.

― kevin enas, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Great for stupid fantasies. Dud for everything else.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Only classic if you get to be the general, and ride about on a horse shouting about "The Hun." Otherwise, bothersome.

― JM, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

What will Tarden's next question be? My money's on "Taking sides: cigarette burns to the forehead vs. being fitted for concrete shoes."

― AP, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Being fitted, of course. Because that's not painful, just sticky. It's when they actually put you in the harbor which should be avoided.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

War is only just when defending a nation ro etrhnic group from anailathation. ( ie WWII)

― anthony, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

classic music, dud the rest...and cigarette burns to the forehead are way cooler than concrete shoes, cos like burns form a pattern once the blisters stop, so burns are like the new belly button piercing, but you can't even get converse in concrete shoes.

― Geoff, Sunday, 8 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Yeah but Anthony, that wasn't what WWII was about - lets be honest.

― Pete, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Star Wars was pretty good, as I remember. Guess it depends what you're fighting for. WWII was a horrible loss of life but it was worth it to stop the advance of the Nazis. Vietnam and The Falklands were both pretty pointless, really.

― Paul Strange, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

As I understand it saving the jews only came as an afterthough, a by product of the conflict. it only got going when the balence of power in europe shifted anough to muck up the delicate post WW1 equilibrium. If the allies had wanted to stop fascism, lines could have been drawn in the sand with ethiopia or Spain. The full extent of nazi genocide was not known until near the end of the war. My understanding of WW2 is not great but I am lead to belive that the rize of nazism in germany was due to the crippling peace imposed on germany after WW1whcih lead to a very unstable republic ......

― Ed, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

agreed on both points, ed.

― gareth, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

And the rise of facism often only came about as a response to the rise of communism within said countries (look at the Spanish Revolution / Civil War). The holocaust has been used afterwards as a nice justification for rampant power-mongering in Europe, WWII was never about the Jews. To be fair with the rampant anti-semitism which bounced around much of the western world back then it would have been a terribly unpopular position to go to war on behalf of the Jews.

War is an ultimatum these days, and unfortunately the problem with ultimatums is that occasionally governments not on the front line in very safe positions feel that they can realise said ultimatums. Either that or it is the powerful sybjugating the weak (look at the Middle East). Dud - and always has been.

― Pete, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I always thought WWII was about stopping one nation from suddenly deciding to invade far too many countries. Hitler's ideology wasn't so apparent at the start of the war. And I daresay economic and political reasons dictated it. Much like the Gulf war, in fact. It's also true that very little was actually known about the Holocaust until after the war; it makes me wonder whether the US would have got involved sooner if they'd known what was going on. Although at that time the US was still favouring a fairly isolationist foreign policy, if I remember correctly.

― Paul Strange, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

War in theory = classic. A perfect way to keep the pugnatious, belligerent segment of the population occupied beating the crap out of each other, and leaving the rest of society alone.

However, in practise, over the past few hundred years, as technology becomes more and more advanced, it hasn't worked, as it's just given the beligerant ones bigger weapons with which to beat the crap out of more and more of the rest of society.

― masonic boom, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

The spanish civil war prooves the point excellently. No help was given to the republic to 'protect democracy' or to combat fascist militarism, reason often cited as reasons for going to war due to the leftist nature of the government. This of course drove The republic into the hands of Stalin which made help even more untennable even after attrocities such as Guernika became widely known. Wars are fought exclusively for the convenience of governents.

'Half a milllion dead iraquis to save a nickle on a gallon of gas' glib quote from I don't know where but it illustrates the point

huh, what is it good for?

― Ed, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I can't read the phrase "The Spanish Civil War" after that ridiculous Manics song. Sorry.

Listen, war is great for study and theorizing and discussion and all that but I wouldn't want to take part in a war. Unless I was the vicious dictator and didn't actually have to fight, and just told people what to do. That'd be pretty good. Wearing a really fancy uniform and all that, that's totally where it's at. I think war is just an excuse for dictators to wear fancy outfits, now that I think about it.

― Ally, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Mail readers saying "Blair in power: Hitler has finally won": dud.

― Greg, Monday, 9 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Guardian readers about 15 years ago saying "Thatcher in power: liberalism has tragically been crushed": classic (and prophetic, I fear).

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 12 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Why do you fear it was prophetic? It goes in cycles, the balance of popular political theory.

― Ally, Thursday, 12 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Yes, but the cycle seems to be travelling towards the right (dual meaning of word cycle to suggest both the cyclical nature of a wheel, and the movement of said wheel in a direction : cheers).

― Pete, Thursday, 12 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Yes, but as we travel towards the right, the right travels towards the centre. Circles, circles, all are circles... Though the resurgance of the whole Star Wars idea bothers me... come on, this was silly in the 80s. Why bring it back now when we've got no "Evil Empire" that we're supposed to be protecting ourselves against? It's only a matter of time before Babybush declares war on Europe, I suppose.

― masonic boom, Friday, 13 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

the irony of bushjr's america's starwars etc worldview, potential enemies everywhere is the fact that it is surely becoming more and more likely that america will be attacked from within. after oklahoma bomb thought this lesson had been learnt. obviously not

― gareth, Friday, 13 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Big hints about Star Wars: payoff to the Bush Mob's defense contractor friends. Pork to various GOP Congresscritters. And a convenient way to bleed the public fisc, running up huge deficits coupled with huge tax cuts (again, payoff to Bush Mob family friends) and then poor-mouth when there's no money to pay for social programs.

Which leads me to state -- if war is as good as certain of our prominent Republicans say it is (including the Texas Chimp Boy and Dick "Heart Attack" Cheney), then why did so many of them duck out when it was their time to serve? I guess war's fine for us peons, the Better People (like the Bushes) have other things to do (snert).

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Monday, 16 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

two years pass...

interesting wrongness from gareth here.

― m. (mitchlnw), Saturday, 15 May 2004 12:02 (twenty years ago) link

not necessarily - could've just meant attacks within own country, irrespective of who the perps are, and uh what's the latest on that anthrax thing by the by?

― stevem (blueski), Saturday, 15 May 2004 12:23 (twenty years ago) link

Oh come on. Without warfare none of us would even be here. It's what we're best at. It's also the main cause for all of our greatest achievements (whether they were accomplished in the interests of preparing for war (moon landing) or accomplished because war resulted in the freedom to pursue them (democracy)) War is ultimately classic, unless you view the human race as dud too.

― TOMBOT, Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:05 (twenty years ago) link

TOMBOT, that depends on whether you are speaking from a contingent or a remote POV. War is always more classic from a safe distance or a position of sufficient authority, for example, General Patton.

Up close war is, and ever shall, be dud. It is not merely that people die in war, but that the hideous violence and destruction of war are so often random and pointless, utterly divorced from direction or purpose.

― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:19 (twenty years ago) link

The 'but it led to good things too!' argument is a real stretch, and certainly dangerous. By that logic, the Holocaust/WWII was ultimately classic because it led to the establishment of Israel (depending on your viewpoint there), the American space program, etc. or Vietnam was classic because it got us Apocalypse Now!, etc.

Why couldn't the moon landing have been accomplished sans Cold War conflict? Why couldn't democracy be established without 'war'? War isn't a prerequisite.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 15 May 2004 18:28 (twenty years ago) link

war/military drains a shitload of resources---human and others---for destructive purposes that could've been used to create.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 15 May 2004 19:21 (twenty years ago) link

Dunno what you lot think of him (and I only have a very simplified understanding of him, plus am starting to get drunkish), but I quite like Clausewitz's definition, going something like "war is the same as politics, but continued with different means" (when limits of "normal" politics have been insufficient). Most of what is said upthread abt war is otm also when replaced by politics in general (cool if in charge, dud if receiving worst consequences, much good stuff resulted from it, humans good at it).

No, I don't have a point. Just rambling.

― OleM (OleM), Saturday, 15 May 2004 19:22 (twenty years ago) link

'My understanding of WW2 is not great but I am lead to belive that the rize of nazism in germany was due to the crippling peace imposed on germany after WW1 whcih lead to a very unstable republic ......'

I'm no expert either but this is nonesense isn't it?

― de, Saturday, 15 May 2004 19:51 (twenty years ago) link

I mean to say it has been somewhat discredited as an explanation for the rise of Nazism, rather than, like jewry, an issue exploited by Hitler and the Nazis to encourage nationalistic feeling.

― de, Saturday, 15 May 2004 19:58 (twenty years ago) link

it's hardly nonsense. the jews were the scapegoats the nazi's used, not only for the loss of ww1 but also for the awful economic hardship that germany endured in the years following the great war. without the "crippling peace", the nazi's would never have been able to rally the kind of support they eventually did.

― dyson (dyson), Saturday, 15 May 2004 22:55 (twenty years ago) link

Ok, nonesense is certainly the wrong word. I was taught at school that the Versailles Treaty created the conditions for ww2 and to be fair most historians prob. still hold that view. I've just found my mind a little persuaded by a few things I've read in the last few years by historians questioning this old chestnut. It's an on-going debate.
For myself I'm not entirely convinced Versailles was entirely unjust or crippling, if only because I'm loathe to share A. Hitler's viewpoint (but then I also like Wagner and R. Strauss so that's out the window). You also have to take the "stab in the back" theory into account (Germans being more pissed at their leaders than the Allies) and the fact that concievably without the Wall Street Crash Versailles and its conditions would not have become a problem for the German economy. As I say I continue to ponder the whole issue but I certainly think that the old argument that ww2 was set in motion the day Versailles was signed carries no substance anymore.
Not that I'm saying anyone here is saying that :-)

― de, Saturday, 15 May 2004 23:29 (twenty years ago) link

War is the reason why people have the stuff they have, and why other people don't have stuff. Almost anywhere on earth if you trace back property ownership far enough, it comes down to pointy sticks and surrender.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 15 May 2004 23:36 (twenty years ago) link

Interesting debate on Versailles here:

http://politics.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=military&num=1039455291&action=display&start=

― de, Saturday, 15 May 2004 23:56 (twenty years ago) link

eight years pass...

Morrissey weighs in

ie, war is hetero!

― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 February 2013 21:37 (eleven years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.