Games For Gaza raises over $200K for Medical Aid For Palestinians

Please, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Perkeleen_VittupääPlease, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Expect more wars in the coming decade. It will get worse

There's never been a decade without wars. We humans are a miserably warlike bunch. But I guess "worse" is when it affects us personally.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Perkeleen_VittupääPlease, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Expect more wars in the coming decade. It will get worse

There's never been a decade without wars. We humans are a miserably warlike bunch. But I guess "worse" is when it affects us personally.

I've always hated the cynical "we as humans are really bad" rhetoric with a passion, it implies there's collective blame to be had for all of humanity, that we never learn anything when clearly if you have people saying "hey can we stop this war shit" that's not the case, as someone is recognizing an issue that has plagued us and wants to put an end to it, thus making it not the fault of "humans" but individuals.

Where we should really be putting blame is on just a few individuals within humanity in upper echelons inside a military industrial complex who gain capital whenever there's a war thus are financially incentivized to continually send us into them, additionally, in regards to environmentally related things people would all switch to eco friendly options for things like transportation tomorrow if it was genuinely more affordable. You'd have some holdouts who held onto gas guzzlers out of stubborn tradition, but frankly if people are able to live more affordably with an eco friendly option they wouldn't hesitate to do it in a second.

It's like blaming the pawn for a king and queen's poor decisions. It's not really the pawn's fault that they're limited to moving and defeating other chess pieces in the most inefficient ways possible, and the game doesn't end out of empathy and respect for the loss of a pawn, only when the king is gone. That's just the way the game is designed by forces above the pawn's control.

...So how about that Linux gaming, huh? Pretty neat how much progress is being made right?

Quoting: WMan22I've always hated the cynical "we as humans are really bad" rhetoric with a passion, it implies there's collective blame to be had for all of humanity, that we never learn anything when clearly if you have people saying "hey can we stop this war shit" that's not the case, as someone is recognizing an issue that has plagued us and wants to put an end to it, thus making it not the fault of "humans" but individuals.

That's not at all what I'm saying though. I can see how it can be read that way and I guess brevity didn't really help my message here.

I'm not blaming human nature for these wars, just opining that the current situation isn't somehow new and unprecedented. Old wars end and new wars start, and innocents die. Usually for the most banal of reasons, just like you said. Someone rich gets richer.

Quoting: GuestIndeed. The difference is that the world is being drawn into it, unlike last decade. There is far more concerning rhetoric and polarization than ever before. The situation is quite unstable, like a powder keg.

I think about 90% of that is just commercial media and a certain class of politicians milking our fears. I disagree with "ever before". Maybe you've just not been around for the previous "powder kegs", or haven't paid attention if you were.

We heard similarly dire predictions when Russia started their invasion of Ukraine recently, and when they annexed Crimea a few years earlier, and so on. Same with various conflicts in the middle east. Every couple of years there's a crisis that's definitely going to start the next world war. I suppose it might happen some day. I'm just not sure we're actually any closer now than we were 20 years ago, or 40 years ago, or 60 years ago. Granted, we're no closer to world peace either.


As a counter to the both of you, I'd say that these days far more powerful people (and multinational corporations) would suffer from a worldwide conflict than would stand to profit from it.

Quoting: Guestcloser than ever to world war

No, I still disagree. I don't believe we're closer to a world war now than we were at several points in modern history. But I'm not going to get into a pointless argument about this as there's no way for us to objectively measure and compare.

Quoting: GuestThe Ukraine/Russia - Israel/HAMAS conflicts are the most severe conflicts since WW2

To the nations involved, certainly. I'm not sure if everyone else would agree. Some very bloody wars and other atrocities happened in the last ~80 years, and there must be at least a dozen active war zones even now around the world. (I'd find a list but I really need to get to bed. Shouldn't be hard to locate one though.)

Of course, I'm not trying to downplay any of this. Every conflict is important and every single victim is one too many. We should definitely do all we can to help, even if it's small stuff like voting for sane leaders and donating to helpful causes if possible. However, buying into the sensationalist rhetoric isn't very useful, in my opinion.

Quoting: Perkeleen_VittupääPlease, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Why they do that? these wars are making a certain group of people/businesses serious coin!

Money before lives, that is the world we live in. The reality nobody wants to talk about.

Quoting: Perkeleen_VittupääPlease, stop these wars everywhere.. Just put down your weapons. Please.

Let's play a little "what if" game:

If HAMAS laid down thier weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would the likely outcome be?

If Israel laid down THIER weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would THAT likely outcome be?

Quoting: TheRiddickMoney before lives, that is the world we live in. The reality nobody wants to talk about.

Indeed

QuoteI spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket

Quoting: WMan22Where we should really be putting blame is on just a few individuals within humanity in upper echelons inside a military industrial complex who gain capital whenever there's a war thus are financially incentivized to continually send us into them

This is true to some extent, but people usually forget those in the army could still refuse to go to wars... or even better, decide to not join the army at all.

Of course, we could talk that the state artificially makes the army appealing (cheap education, patriotism bullshit, media scaremongering, etc) but that's a different topic.

Quoting: tuubiI'm just not sure we're actually any closer now than we were 20 years ago, or 40 years ago, or 60 years ago.

I wish you're right, but that's not what most international geopolitical experts think, though. The current state of populist politics, the rise of religious extremism and right wing support, both in the north and the global south, people's polarization, the global economical turmoil, scarcity of resources, climate change, and the possibility of the US to lose their hegemony as the strongest country/economy after a couple of hundreds of years at the top, put us in a situation that we've not seen since World War II.

Quoting: GuestThe Ukraine/Russia - Israel/HAMAS conflicts are the most severe conflicts since WW2

This is a very white euro-centric idea. Only in Europe, I think the Balkan war after Tito's death in Yugoslavia was bigger than current Ukraine-Russia conflict. In the Middle East, what the Bush/Blair/Aznar governments did in Iraq are currently bigger than the current Israeli invasion. Emphasis in current, the Israeli colonization is actually 75 years old (/s Thanks, UK)

But let's not be euro-centric and remember other VERY important conflicts in the last 100 years, whether internal or international; Pinochet in Chile, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the US in Vietnam, Indo-Pakistani War in the late 40s, The Congo/Sudan/African Republic conflict in the 80s...

We could argue that conflicts started in the 40s, with some still ongoing like Israel were still probably effects from the World War II, but if we do that, perhaps rather than talking of WWII we should just talk of "World War" much like some historians think WWI and WWII are actually the same conflict.

Quoting: tuubiTo the nations involved, certainly. I'm not sure if everyone else would agree. Some very bloody wars and other atrocities happened in the last ~80 years, and there must be at least a dozen active war zones even now around the world. (I'd find a list but I really need to get to bed. Shouldn't be hard to locate one though.)

Correct. I read the other day that there are, currently, 33 active war zones around the globe, but I can't find that source now. However, the Global Conflict Tracker reports 28.

Quoting: tuubiEvery conflict is important and every single victim is one too many.

I couldn't agree more :)

Quoting: TherinSLet's play a little "what if" game:

If HAMAS laid down thier weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would the likely outcome be?

If Israel laid down THIER weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would THAT likely outcome be?

One cannot just solve a complex conflict with a simple "What if" game, but if we could, why making the premise wrong? Let me fix it :P

If HAMAS AND Israel laid down their weapons and said "we will fight no more", what would THAT likely outcome be?

Sorry for breaking my own rule of not getting politically involved on the site, I'll try to not get into pointless arguments.

EDIT: Formatting.


Last edited by Arehandoro on 1 November 2023 at 10:43 am UTC

Quoting: Arehandoro

Quoting: WMan22Where we should really be putting blame is on just a few individuals within humanity in upper echelons inside a military industrial complex who gain capital whenever there's a war thus are financially incentivized to continually send us into them

This is true to some extent, but people usually forget those in the army could still refuse to go to wars... or even better, decide to not join the army at all.

Well, Israel has universal conscription--everyone serves (well, except the ultra-orthodox). The United States, on the other hand, gave up on conscription after the prospective conscriptees got really upset and caused political problems back in the Vietnam era, and are now finding they don't have enough volunteers to really fill the numbers they want. So it seems most there are, indeed, deciding not to join the army at all.

Quoting: Arehandoro[...], put us in a situation that we've not seen since World War II.

Well, we've not seen this exact situation before WWII either. And none of this equals "closer than ever to world war", no matter how dire it all seems.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWell, Israel has universal conscription--everyone serves (well, except the ultra-orthodox).

Universal conscription is another of the reasons in which the state uses its brainwashing and propaganda. In any case, universal conscription could also be circumvented by being a conscientious objector (not sure if this is the actual term in English). There are ways to avoid serving.

Actually, I would even argue countries that still have it, that are many, should not be considered democracies.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe United States, on the other hand, gave up on conscription after the prospective conscriptees got really upset and caused political problems back in the Vietnam era, and are now finding they don't have enough volunteers to really fill the numbers they want. So it seems most there are, indeed, deciding not to join the army at all.

Which is something the US is already trying to "fix"

Quoting: tuubiWell, we've not seen this exact situation before WWII either. And none of this equals "closer than ever to world war", no matter how dire it all seems.

That's a fair point.

EDIT: Formatting


Last edited by Arehandoro on 1 November 2023 at 4:44 pm UTC

Quoting: ArehandoroActually, I would even argue countries that still have it, that are many, should not be considered democracies.

Well that's a take I guess. I'm pretty sure I live in a democracy, even if it isn't perfect.

Quoting: ArehandoroIn any case, universal conscription could also be circumvented by being a conscientious objector (not sure if this is the actual term in English).

Yes, "conscientious objector" is correct English terminology in the united states.

--

Other relevant terms are "indentured servitude" and "induction".


Indentured servitude in many constitutions is illegal, AFAIK the state can not legally compel you to do labor, especially in which case you might loose your life.

Indentured servitude TL;DR; is slavery to the state.

"Induction" is when a person is drafted, or inducted in the military, typically unwillingly to be a active participant. English usage would look like "I was inducted into the military when I was 17"

The only reason I bring any of this up, is because it will help the new generation navigate these issues a little better having this info ahead of time.

Quoting: WMan22It's like blaming the pawn for a king and queen's poor decisions. It's not really the pawn's fault that they're limited to moving and defeating other chess pieces in the most inefficient ways possible, and the game doesn't end out of empathy and respect for the loss of a pawn, only when the king is gone. That's just the way the game is designed by forces above the pawn's control.

As a chess player, I'd like to point out a few things about this... The pawns can actually be fairly powerful when banded together in a pawn chain. This can ultimately lead to a promotion of a pawn to royalty (many times leading to the downfall of the existing royalty). They can even occasionally take down a piece on their own with some minor support (i.e. during a pawn fork of a piece). The position of the pawns on the playing field also normally determines the entire shape of the conflict - and those best positioned will frequently lead to victory for their side (especially in higher levels of competition).
(also, the game is over when the king is trapped, not gone... Maybe this is a metaphor for not needing bloodshed during societal upheaval?)