Madness

[Scholarcs]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually divorce is pretty bad. It is civil war within a family context.

I apologise if this is the case. However I have not had personal expericnce of this, and my reasoning is death of a loved one is worse than simply seeing one move away.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Scholarcs: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Actually divorce is pretty bad. It is civil war within a family context.

I apologise if this is the case. However I have not had personal expericnce of this, and my reasoning is death of a loved one is worse than simply seeing one move away.[/QUOTE]In a way, death would be easier as you can move on. With divorce, the person you loved is dead, but they remain in body, making closure very difficult.

In some ways they may as well be dead if no contact is there. In other ways it's like total conflict. It depends on the couple. And if there are children.

It involves the death of hope, the death of a vision of the future. It has been said it is one of the most stressful things a human can endure. A place of love and support become a place of hate and destruction.

War and divorce are both cancers of societies.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Yorick: War and divorce are both cancers of societies.

Unhappy marriage is pretty cancerous too. Sometimes divorce offers a chance for a fresh start. But I see what you're saying. You've been through rough times Hugh, but I know you're strong enough to hang in there [img]smile.gif[/img]

But in relation to the topic, well, I've been doing alot of thinking lately as to just why people choose to fight so often throughout our human history. People just seem to want security, they want a sense that they can hold onto the things that they believe they have. Oftimes the only way you can be secure in your sense of possession (possession of land, people, objects, 'freedom', whatever) is to be confident in your own ability to hold onto it by force. To be able to defeat through violence anyone whom you percieve might take what you hold dear away from you. In this, the problem seems to be a mental condition of material ownership. A territorial notion that any human being can truly hold real ownership over anything. That's why people fight, to defend their 'rights' of ownership. Organize enough people together and give them a communal sense of possession, and you can get them to wage war on whomsoever is unfortunate enough to apparently threaten their built-up worlds. It's a human intellectual projection of primal territoriality. Most animals don't fight each other to the death over territory or hunting rights, but humans tend to let themselves get carried away. Such strange little critters...

An well, it doesn't look like there's any solution to this problem barring the total renouncement of possession, both material and abstract. The real question is, do you have the strength of will to go against the very foundations of 'civilized' society? It's a tough call.

Originally posted by Yorick: Points taken, but the realities are 1.Without WWI there would have been no Hitler. I agree here, the horrible Treaty of Verssaile was disasterous and inhumane. 2.Without Western intervention in the Russian civil war there would have been no cold war. Where did you get the idea that a pre-WWII event caused the cold war? From what I have read, the main emphasis for the cold war was Russia's (understandable) fear of invasion by outside forces, and their paranoid need to form a HUGE buffer between them and everyone else and their subsequent land grab that alarmed the west. (oh and the incompatibility of communism and the free western nations) 3.Without Nagasaki and Hiroshima there arguably would have been no nuclear arms race. Wrong again, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not the start of the Nuclear Arms race. Stalin had plans for the Bomb before the first test was ever conducted, he already knew about the potential of the bombs at the Potsdam meetings. The Nuclear Arms race was born the day that scinetists realized that the BOMB could be built. If you want to blame anyone for that race, you have to blame to instigators of the second world war, but even lacking the second world war, it was only a matter of time before some one somewhere developed the BOMB. Im just grateful that it was My nation and not some other nation. I've never accepted the line that to defeat a monster one must become a monster. Fighting evil and waging war does not make you a monster. The Atomic Bombs were not even the worst weapons used in World War II, the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo killed more and caused more suffering, both immediate and long term. The Christians when persecuted, imprisoned and executed in Rome, did not rise up and defend themselves. They had an inner peace that was unbroken by a lion tearing them apart, or undimmed by Nero lighting them up as human torches. Yet Christianity replaced Emperor worship as the Roman religion. Christianity "won" without a war. In actual fact, the persecution and executions were the greatest testimonies possible. Witnesses watching said "I want that" when viewing the inner peace. Actually, Christianity did not do the Romans in, lead poisoning did. I see no great glory in allowing others to abuse you, torture you and kill you. Im sure God will reward you, but I do not belive for a second his intent was for us to be sheep....despite all the talk of sheepheards and sheep in the new testement. If he wanted sheep he didn't need to give us an intellect. Ghandi too, totally rejected violence and won. Achieving India's independence through nonviolent resistence. Again a partial truth, Ghandi alone was not the sole reason for the collapse of the British Empire. He was instrumental no doubt but not the lone reason. Look, I argued for the Afgahni war. But I have problems with this one because of the premeditative nature of it. Premeditative invasions lead to Empires. or prevent massive loss of life because some one actually used their brain to think ahead, instead of waiting for ever greater attrocities to occur We can look at Rome and say, had the Gauls not sacked Rome (like Bin Laden "sacked" New York) the Roman Empire would not have arisen. Rome realised she was vulnerable, and changed policy. Invasion became commonplace. Bin Laden sacked New York? I think not. He lobbed a grenade into a crowd but in no way even came close to sakking a city. The whole reason he is a terrorist and not a General is because his cause cannot rally the forces needed to wage a true war, so he must strike from the shadows and at the innocent rather than at an army. What will America become? I am leaning towards total pacifism, but struggle with it. I realise there are cases where it may prove an impossible benchmark for a flawed human to adhere to. If you actually ever do become a "total" pacifist, please never marry or have children. If you are not willing to defend and protect the people who you are responsible for...do not take the responsibility....I ask this as a serious request. Children need a parent who will defend and protect them, not go on a hunger strike if the child is abducted. But surely we can all weep at the prospect of more human lives being needlessly destroyed, no matter who is to blame. Amen! War is madness. Amen again!

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: Where did you get the idea that a pre-WWII event caused the cold war? From what I have read, the main emphasis for the cold war was Russia's (understandable) fear of invasion by outside forces, and their paranoid need to form a HUGE buffer between them and everyone else and their subsequent land grab that alarmed the west. (oh and the incompatibility of communism and the free western nations)

I think the Cold War had it's roots long before WW2 started. During the Russian civil war American, British and French troops all made their way onto Russian soil to fight the Red Army. It was this clear message that the West wanted the communists dead (along with the failure of communist revolutions throughout the rest of Europe and the Americas) that gave the credence for 'communism in one country' and kept the cold war chugging along. The Second World War helped solidify this position by drawing the lines between capitalist and communist 'states' in the sand after the fall of Germany.
But this is neither here nor there, war sucks.

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Where did you get the idea that a pre-WWII event caused the cold war? From what I have read, the main emphasis for the cold war was Russia's (understandable) fear of invasion by outside forces, and their paranoid need to form a HUGE buffer between them and everyone else and their subsequent land grab that alarmed the west. (oh and the incompatibility of communism and the free western nations)

I think the Cold War had it's roots long before WW2 started. During the Russian civil war American, British and French troops all made their way onto Russian soil to fight the Red Army. It was this clear message that the West wanted the communists dead (along with the failure of communist revolutions throughout the rest of Europe and the Americas) that gave the credence for 'communism in one country' and kept the cold war chugging along. The Second World War helped solidify this position by drawing the lines between capitalist and communist 'states' in the sand after the fall of Germany.
But this is neither here nor there, war sucks.[/QUOTE]Hmm I was never aware that America took part in any military conflicts other than World War I and II between 1900 and 1945. Do you have any info on which divisions and what equipment the US used in that the Russian Revolution? Dang, I am gonna have to look this up now. I had no idea we were sending troops to war for that.

[Iron_Ranger]

Hmm, isnt it kind of hypocritical too say you hate war and human disasters and be agaisnt the war in Iraq. I dont believe we are waging war just for the hell of it, or for oil, or because Bush wants payback. I believe we are attacking Saddam Hussien because he is an evil man who has killed alot of innocent people, and might kill more at will anyday, anytime.

Its like having a stormy day and watching the weather and they say there is a tornado warning and not taking heed.

But then its also hypocritical to to attack Iraq because you want to prevent innocent civlians dieing, becaue as horrible as it is, we all now there is going to be some screw ups and non-militants are going to die.

But I believe it will be better for long term. Just my two cents.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: Hmm I was never aware that America took part in any military conflicts other than World War I and II between 1900 and 1945. Do you have any info on which divisions and what equipment the US used in that the Russian Revolution? Dang, I am gonna have to look this up now. I had no idea we were sending troops to war for that.

It was mainly infantry if I recall correctly, and a bit of logistical equipment. The western troops were 'donated' to aid the Russian White Army in the war against what was considered by most European sovereign nations at the time as an upstart rebellion. The Russian communist government was not legitimately accepted by the 'west' until well after the civil war was over, when it became clear that they were there to stay. So basically the British, French and Americans were 'helping out' their old wartime ally, imperialist Russia, in winning back the territory that was siezed by the Bolsheviks in November 1917. Whether a good or bad thing, they ultimately failed in taking back the Russian land, but succeeded admirably in tainting any lasting, friendly relationship with the new Bolshevik government (who had no love for those capitalist dogs anyway [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

Originally posted by The Hierophant: It was mainly infantry if I recall correctly, and a bit of logistical equipment. The western troops were 'donated' to aid the Russian White Army in the war against what was considered by most European sovereign nations at the time as an upstart rebellion. The Russian communist government was not legitimately accepted by the 'west' until well after the civil war was over, when it became clear that they were there to stay. So basically the British, French and Americans were 'helping out' their old wartime ally, imperialist Russia, in winning back the territory that was siezed by the Bolsheviks in November 1917. Whether a good or bad thing, they ultimately failed in taking back the Russian land, but succeeded admirably in tainting any lasting, friendly relationship with the new Bolshevik government (who had no love for those capitalist dogs anyway [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

Hmm I do seem to remember some thing about a few american volunteers, but not official support, I still have not had time to research this, but I am remembering some of it now.....boy it sucks to be old

[Yorick]

Thanks Heirophant.