Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are we fighting for? Life. But our own bodies will take our lives in the natural course of things, is life itself, that is inseparable from death, therefore to be considered an enemy?
We all must die. While we live, there are some things we must not do.
Tosh, you said
The cheek gets turned all the time when there's no oil involved; places like Darfur, where troops could be sent in to force a peace.
The choice is not between fighting and doing nothing. That's the easy, lazy choice.
Also, I don't focus on large scale arguments like whether x nation should intervene in y conflict, because those are temporal questions. I think it is better to choose for myself as an individual, and to advise others as individuals to choose non-violence. Because this is focussing on the eternal.
And non-violence is not passive, it is not an absence of violence, it is lighting candles, not cursing the darkness. I only have one set of hands, they can be throttling strangers in foreign lands, or they can be digging wells, binding wounds.
I am only going to address this part of your quote so I took out the rest.
As to the Middle East, what economic benefit has the US achieved? There has been no tribute exacted from Iraq (a country enjoying a large oil surplus now), and China has bought up much of the oil contracts. Sorry, but Marx wasn't right that all wars are fought for economic reasons.
I think Marx was very right about this. You ask what tribute the U.S. has extracted? If we are discussing Marx then you have to remember that Marx viewed the State as an instrument to carry out the will of the ruling capitalist class. Looking at Iraq, the capitalist class made a lot of money on that war Just to give two examples. Blackwater made a lot of money. Halliburton made an outstanding amount of money off the Iraq War. Based on the Marxist view of the State, that it exists to serve the interests of the ruling class, well the State did its work well in Iraq.
[Post 'tidied up' by Moderator]
I would agree with you to an extent. All wars are not fought for economic reasons...at least that is not always the primary or only factor.
Some people point to the American Civil War, but you have to remember that the average man who served during the Civil War -- whether Union or Confederate -- didn't give a fig about the economic issues of the era.
There are those who say we are in the Middle East due to oil. Mostly true. But to say that is the reason is a gross oversimplification.
I am only going to address this part of your quote so I took out the rest.
As to the Middle East, what economic benefit has the US achieved? There has been no tribute exacted from Iraq (a country enjoying a large oil surplus now), and China has bought up much of the oil contracts. Sorry, but Marx wasn't right that all wars are fought for economic reasons.
I think Marx was very right about this. You ask what tribute the U.S. has extracted? If we are discussing Marx then you have to remember that Marx viewed the State as an instrument to carry out the will of the ruling capitalist class. Looking at Iraq, the capitalist class made a lot of money on that war Just to give two examples. Blackwater made a lot of money. Halliburton made an outstanding amount of money off the Iraq War. Based on the Marxist view of the State, that it exists to serve the interests of the ruling class, well the State did its work well in Iraq.
[Post 'tidied up' by Moderator]
I would agree with you to an extent. All wars are not fought for economic reasons...at least that is not always the primary or only factor.
Some people point to the American Civil War, but you have to remember that the average man who served during the Civil War -- whether Union or Confederate -- didn't give a fig about the economic issues of the era.
There are those who say we are in the Middle East due to oil. Mostly true. But to say that is the reason is a gross oversimplification.
The average person who fights wars usually doesn't care about the economic factors, but I think the reason the wars are fought in the first place are often economics. The average Union or Confederate solider likely didn't care one bit about economics, but the people pushing for and backing the war on both sides did. The Northern industrialists did have an economic interest in getting rid of slavery and of course the Southern planters had a major interest in keeping it.
As for the Middle East, it is far too complex to say it's simply over oil. The whole situation in the Middle East is a lot more complex than bot the left and right make it to be. It isn't simply over oil and it terrorism isn't simply the result of Islam vs the western way of life. The root of the anti-western views of Islamic people goes back decades and has a lot to do with Cold War politics. The U.S. has a bad history when it comes to supporting dictators in the Middle East.
Comments
I also like this idea too (or at least elements of it):
It's a very 'Buddhist' type of military idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion
We all must die. While we live, there are some things we must not do.
Tosh, you said The choice is not between fighting and doing nothing. That's the easy, lazy choice.
Also, I don't focus on large scale arguments like whether x nation should intervene in y conflict, because those are temporal questions. I think it is better to choose for myself as an individual, and to advise others as individuals to choose non-violence. Because this is focussing on the eternal.
And non-violence is not passive, it is not an absence of violence, it is lighting candles, not cursing the darkness. I only have one set of hands, they can be throttling strangers in foreign lands, or they can be digging wells, binding wounds.
Some people point to the American Civil War, but you have to remember that the average man who served during the Civil War -- whether Union or Confederate -- didn't give a fig about the economic issues of the era.
There are those who say we are in the Middle East due to oil. Mostly true. But to say that is the reason is a gross oversimplification.
As for the Middle East, it is far too complex to say it's simply over oil. The whole situation in the Middle East is a lot more complex than bot the left and right make it to be. It isn't simply over oil and it terrorism isn't simply the result of Islam vs the western way of life. The root of the anti-western views of Islamic people goes back decades and has a lot to do with Cold War politics. The U.S. has a bad history when it comes to supporting dictators in the Middle East.