The End of War

[Heyo]

Why are these politicians trying to enrich a handful of other people who they are not related to?

Not related to?
Bush Family War Profiteering
Bush and Cheney had worked for, held stock in and were supported by all sorts of military contractors.

 

[rational experiences]

Humanity likes to be considered special. Consciousness says we own dominion over all things.

If you broadcasted one advice in one moment to the world community in that moment everyone is United.

Considered.

Stated to be entitled to hear a world group leadership communal agreed proposal for the sake of life continuance.

American movies depicted the advice itself.

Reasoned....the mini world humanity emigrated to America...most countries are in presence by migrants.

Yet DNA national their nation needs to hear then fix and heal your own country. Why many left.

To make a national country great being DNA family great ....re unite yourself back into equality as holy two humans.

Which some nationalities no longer even abide as nations self holy communion.

Guidance was known. How it was interpreted fake.

 

[Augustus]

Not related to?
Bush Family War Profiteering
Bush and Cheney had worked for, held stock in and were supported by all sorts of military contractors.

Nepotism, lobbying, etc. are common in politics.

Showing that nepotism enabled people to profit form political decisions is very different from saying there was a massive global conspiracy to start a war purely to enrich private corporations all some minor Bushes could make a few million dollars. A massive global conspiracy featuring dozens of countries that thousands of people went along with and maintained perfect secrecy over for 20 years. All so 99.99% percent of the money involved goes to other people and the people involved in the conspiracy make no more money than they could have made with other political decisions

They can sign billions $ arms deals without wars and get rich off these. They can get $500,000 weekly "speaking fees" on Wall Street or make millions after retiring by relaxing regulations and doing corporations favours. They can do favours for corrupt regimes and get kickbacks or lucrative business opportunities.

All of these could be done without the need for a monumentally evil global conspiracy involving dozens of countries and thousands of people.

Why stop there? Maybe they planned 9/11 too. I'm sure we can find politically connected people who profited off that. The first Gulf War too. Literally any war or major event really.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think it's naive to reflect on readily available historical facts.

You mean the historical fact that NATO was militarily powerful enough to act as a credible deterrent?

So if there was no NATO or credible military deterrence in Europe, you seriously think that the Soviet Union would have been content with what it had and would have respected the sovereignty of all as long as they didn't side with the Americans?

Tell that to the Eastern Europeans.

 

[Heyo]

Nepotism, lobbying, etc. are common in politics.

I'm glad we found this common ground.

So we can agree that Bush/Cheney did profit from the war and that was expected to happen.

What else could they reasonably have expected? What "higher goal" would justify to go down in history as bold liars, traitors and war criminals?

 

[Augustus]

I'm glad we found this common ground.

So we can agree that Bush/Cheney did profit from the war and that was expected to happen.

What else could they reasonably have expected? What "higher goal" would justify to go down in history as bold liars, traitors and war criminals?

It tends to be their cronies that profit. Where is the evidence they profited any more than they could have done with perfectly "normal" self enrichment a la Clinton, Obama, Blair, etc. who became massively richer after leaving office.

It reminds me of Austin Powers where Dr Evil ransoms the world for "1 miiiillion dollars"

Also they thought they would go down as heroes and saviours. If things had gone as they expected then this would have been the case.

You are really asking what else could have motivated America post-9/11 other than making money for the Bushes though? National security combined with hubris and American exceptionalism.

"Making money for Blackwater" makes even less sense that the "oil pipeline" trope that was repeated about every single recent US war from Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria.

What failed to materialise after all of these? The mystical pipeline.

It's just a plot device. A MacGuffin. People start with the solution "because evil rich people make money", and assume no one else ever has any other motivations so they just create whatever MacGuffin comes to mind and, hey presto, you have a "theory".

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself.[1][2][3][4][5] The term was originated by Angus MacPhail for film,[2] adopted by Alfred Hitchcock,[1][2][3][4][5] and later extended to a similar device in other fiction.[4]

The MacGuffin technique is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually, the MacGuffin is revealed in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance. It can reappear at the climax of the story but may actually be forgotten by the end of the story. Multiple MacGuffins are sometimes derisively identified as plot coupons.

 

[Stevicus]

You mean the historical fact that NATO was militarily powerful enough to act as a credible deterrent?

So if there was no NATO or credible military deterrence in Europe, you seriously think that the Soviet Union would have been content with what it had and would have respected the sovereignty of all as long as they didn't side with the Americans?

Tell that to the Eastern Europeans.

It may have been a case of them being more afraid of us than we were of them. I think the major sticky point between the USSR and the Western Powers was in regards to what would be done with Germany. The USSR's biggest fear was that Germany could rebuild and grow into another dangerous threat. There were even those in the West who wanted to totally dismantle German industry and turn it into a giant goat pasture.

When it was clear that the US and Britain were planning to rebuild Western Germany as a bulwark against communism, the Soviets apparently felt they needed a buffer between their own territory and the Western Allies, which were being more contentious and hostile.

While it was certainly bad for the Eastern European states which fell under Soviet control, in a larger geopolitical perspective, the Soviet actions could just as easily be interpreted as defensive in nature. I would not consider that to be evidence of any kind of secret plan or conspiracy to invade the rest of Europe or the world as a whole.

That said, under the circumstances, it was probably necessary for NATO to form and the US to maintain a certain military posture. There are those who believe that "Patton was right" and that the US should have immediately attacked the Soviet Union right after the Axis capitulation. With the US being in sole possession of atomic weapons at the time, we could have won - and the Soviet Union would have ceased to exist. Then we wouldn't have had to worry about decades of Cold War.

Fortunately, US leadership didn't go to that extreme (and ultimately canned Patton and MacArthur who seemed a bit too trigger happy and warmongering for even the US military). However, it was a goal to maintain/restore the world system which was already in place, but the Soviet Union and the potential for communist insurgencies throughout the world threatened that world system.

I don't think the US leadership ever seriously believed the Soviets were planning on world conquest - otherwise they would have sent in guys like Patton and MacArthur to go in and "do their worst," as it were. But they did know that the British, French, and other colonial powers were severely weakened, and their colonies were full of angry, resentful populations ready to shake off the yoke of colonialism, and communism became attractive to many.

After that point, it became mostly an ideological war, which was virulently waged within America as much as anywhere else. Neither side appeared willing to risk a direct confrontation, but a great many proxy governments and insurgency groups were used as pawns.

Also, after WW2, the Soviet Union was pretty well spent. They were facing severe manpower shortages. It's unlikely they would have had the wherewithal or the will to suddenly launch an unprovoked attack against the West, at least not in Europe.

Since we had the atomic bomb, that would have been a strong enough deterrent, even if there had been no NATO or any large conventional force in Western Europe. As it was, the conventional forces we had would not have been sufficient to withstand an all-out Soviet offensive, which is why we pledged to use nuclear weapons against advancing Soviet forces in the event of such an attack. Strictly speaking, we didn't actually need NATO to build nukes, but they did provide nice countries to station our troops.

As for the Soviets, they didn't know what we were planning or what our government was up to. What if someone like Joe McCarthy became president? They had to think about possibilities like that, including the possibility of America's leadership going stark raving mad. That was also a very strong deterrent, but it also made the Russians quite wary of us and our intentions. Americans can sometimes be changeable, and what we say today may not be what we do tomorrow.

 

[Heyo]

You are really asking what else could have motivated America post-9/11 other than making money for the Bushes though? National security combined with hubris and American exceptionalism.

You could be right, but we won't know without a test.
I propose to change all weapons manufacturers and mercenary companies into non-profit organizations. Nobody should profit from war. Then we'd see if there would be as many wars, just from hubris and exceptionalism.

 

[Augustus]

You could be right, but we won't know without a test.
I propose to change all weapons manufacturers and mercenary companies into non-profit organizations. Nobody should profit from war. Then we'd see if there would be as many wars, just from hubris and exceptionalism.

We have centuries of history that shows people quite happily fight wars for reasons other than making money for private corporations.

But even if what you suggested actually happened it would make no difference whatsoever. The point of a MacGuffin is that it doesn't really matter what it is, it's a plot device to serve a pre-decided purpose.

Hence the magical, invisible "pipeline" that has been behind every US intervention since the end of the Cold War. Or The Jews, Freemason, or Illuminati. etc.

 

[Heyo]

We have centuries of history that shows people quite happily fight wars for reasons other than making money for private corporations.

But even if what you suggested actually happened it would make no difference whatsoever. The point of a MacGuffin is that it doesn't really matter what it is, it's a plot device to serve a pre-decided purpose.

Hence the magical, invisible "pipeline" that has been behind every US intervention since the end of the Cold War. Or The Jews, Freemason, or Illuminati. etc.

Hmm, I should have put that into a question.
Do we agree that it would be a good thing if nobody profited from war?
Would you sign a petition to ban war profiteering?

 

[Augustus]

Hmm, I should have put that into a question.
Do we agree that it would be a good thing if nobody profited from war?
Would you sign a petition to ban war profiteering?

I'd say that's impossible.

I would like to see, in general, senior politicians being prevented from profiting from their time in office by much stronger regulation with severe repercussions for breaking it. The ease of moving between government and businesses that benefit from government decisions means corruption is rife. The fact that ex-politicians make millions for minimal work is certainly not due to their amazing business insights...

I'd also like to see very serious criminal penalties for political corruption and nepotism so anyone found guilty would spend many years in jail and be bankrupted.

This would cover military, but also finance, public projects etc

 

[Heyo]

I'd say that's impossible.

I would like to see, in general, senior politicians being prevented from profiting from their time in office by much stronger regulation with severe repercussions for breaking it. The ease of moving between government and businesses that benefit from government decisions means corruption is rife. The fact that ex-politicians make millions for minimal work is certainly not due to their amazing business insights...

I'd also like to see very serious criminal penalties for political corruption and nepotism so anyone found guilty would spend many years in jail and be bankrupted.

This would cover military, but also finance, public projects etc

I have a feeling you are evading the central question (on which answer I decide if I'd call you a psychopath).
War causes a tremendous amount of death and suffering. Starting a war with that knowledge shows signs of psychopathy (disregard of life and well being of others), especially if done for benign reasons like monetary gain or status.
Should we therefore do what we can to avoid war?

 

[Augustus]

I have a feeling you are evading the central question (on which answer I decide if I'd call you a psychopath).
War causes a tremendous amount of death and suffering. Starting a war with that knowledge shows signs of psychopathy (disregard of life and well being of others), especially if done for benign reasons like monetary gain or status.
Should we therefore do what we can to avoid war?

Of course we should do what we can to avoid war, but we live in a world where some people will use violence to advance their interests and we lack complete information as to when and where that will happen. Some people are only deterred by strength, no amount of good intentions and kind diplomacy will change that.

So it goes back to the old adage: "if you want peace, prepare for war".

 

[Kooky]

You mean the historical fact that NATO was militarily powerful enough to act as a credible deterrent?

I mean the fact that neutral and non-aligned states existed, and continue to exist, in spite of your insistence that such a stance would be naive and nonsensical.

 

[Kooky]

Some people are only deterred by strength, no amount of good intentions and kind diplomacy will change that.

For example, the government of the United States of America.

Iraq War - Wikipedia

 

[Kooky]

We have centuries of history that shows people quite happily fight wars for reasons other than making money for private corporations.

Correct, many fought wars for promises of loot from seized cities, ransom or slaves from captured prisoners, land from conquered areas or an elevated status in conquered territories. i.e. people fought wars because they directly benefitted from doing so, or indirectly benefitted by being legally or socially bound to someone who did (e.g. the retainers or serfs of a conquering lord, or soldier-citizens of a city-state whose oligarchs were to gain from warfare).

 

[Sand Dancer]

That is the discussion.

How can we end war?

It seems easy, let's try peace for a while and if peace does not work we could aways go back to war.

I see it will need to be initiated by a world wide effort, that will set specific goals to prevent war.

What about the Goals, what would they need to be?

Here are some thoughts.

1. A world elected body that has power to legislate and power to enforce what has been agreed to.
2. Boundaries of all Nations agreed to and set, the voice of the people heard in this process.
3. Elimination of extreme wealth and poverty, this may be need guiding legislation.
4. Education for every child guaranteed.
5. Equality of women with men guaranteed.

So let's discuss, what would you add to the list that will need a global effort to implement?

View attachment 59639

Regards Tony

Stop letting ego control us.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do we agree that it would be a good thing if nobody profited from war?

I'd say that's impossible.

The Inventor of the Maxim Gun and Smokeless Gunpowder was Hiram Maxim which completely changed the technique of modern warfare.

The Maxim automatic gun was the first efficient weapon of its class. Maxim's gun fired eleven shots per second and used the recoil energy of the shot to extract the old cartridge, load a new one, and fire automatically.

Before the first world war, Abdul'baha travelled America to warn on the impending war and spoke to the brother of Hiram on April 15, 1912.

"Hudson Maxim—an arms dealer who had lost a hand while developing explosives—stood in the reception room of the Hotel Ansonia, awaiting a word with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. He had a bone to pick with the “prophet of peace.”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá greeted him in English: “Welcome! Welcome! Very welcome!” They exchanged pleasantries, then Maxim got down to business.

“I understand you are a messenger of peace to this country,” he began. “What is your opinion of modern war?”

“Everything that prevents war is good,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá replied.

“Do you consider the next great national war necessary?” Maxim asked.

“Why not try peace for awhile?” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá answered. “If we find war is better, it will not be difficult to fight again; but if we find that peace is the glorification of humanity, the impulse of true civilization, the stimulus to inventive genius and the means of attainment to the good-pleasure of God, we must agree to adhere to it and establish it permanently.”

Maxim tried a different tack: “Fewer are killed in modern engagements than in the battles of ancient times; the range is longer and the action less deadly.”

This was two years prior to the onset of World War I.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá invited Maxim to consider the world beyond the narrow confines of the battlefield, pointing out that “the after-effects [of war] are even more dreadful than the initial shock… The country suffers beyond all power of estimation; agriculture is crippled, abandoned; sustenance fails, poverty and suffering continue long afterward.”

Maxim’s arguments about war that morning ran the gamut of nineteenth-century myth. For example, he claimed that war is human nature; that conflict is an ingredient of healthy social evolution; that economic interests will trump national hostility; that the deadlier the weapon the less likely it will be used—that deterrence equals peace. “War is no more dangerous now than automobiling,” he claimed.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá could present a compelling argument, but He never pressed a point. Instead, He turned the conversation toward the subject of Maxim himself.

“You are a celebrated inventor and scientific expert whose energies and faculties are employed in the production of means for human destruction… Now you have the opportunity of becoming doubly famous. You must practice the science of peace… You must discover the means of peace; invent guns of love which will shake the foundations of humanity.”

“Then,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá added, “it will be said by the people of the world, this is Mr. Maxim, inventor of the guns of war, discoverer of high explosives, military scientist, who has also discovered and invented means for increasing the life and love of man, who has put an end to the strife of nations and uprooted the tree of war… Then will your life become productive with really great results… God will be pleased with you and from every standpoint of estimation you will be a perfect man.”

“An Arms Dealer Tries to Sell War to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,” by Jonathan Menon

I wonder how many can stop selling war?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Stop letting ego control us.

So maybe education of children in their spiritual capacity?

Regards Tony

 

[Sand Dancer]

So maybe education of children in their spiritual capacity?

Regards Tony

The ego issue is talked about in eastern religions, so I am not sure that would take hold in the US. Teaching this in the home would be beneficial.