PDA

View Full Version : World at War



kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 07:21 AM
Caught this on the BBC last night, dunno if anyone else saw it but it was a real shock (to me anyway).

"Every minute, two people are killed in conflicts around the world. Often we know very little about the people who are fighting and dying. One Day of War follows individual fighters in 16 of these wars, over the same 24-hour period."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/this_world/one_day_of_war/html/introduction.stm

Basically, I had NO idea how much of this planet was at war, the program showed a very different planet that we in the west normally get pumped to us via the media - I saw a world full of huge tracts of land, forgotten by shifting global interests leaving power vacuums which have been filled with warlords, terror groups and other crappy little tinpot regimes.

Children with machine guns fighting for no reason, whole races being hunted into extinction and having to survive by eating whatever they can scavenge from their habitat (weeping on arrival of the camera crews because they thought the 'world' had come back to save them - right).

<rant> These wars all seem to have one thing in common, destabilisation of the region because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Britain deciding that the Empire game wasn't quite it's cup of tea or the US deciding one group should be in power over another... in other words - us!

This is the only international soap box I know of (or have any confidence in the mental capacity of its readers), and I know that there are people here who have seen 'this' world first hand. What can be done about this?

I say the primary govts *glaring directly at the UK and US* stopping their media masturbation and start attacking some of the key issues that are facing this planet, or this global conflict will keep spilling over onto our streets (ala 911, Madrid etc) or before we know it we are going to glow in the dark. So what can we do?</rant>

Ronin
28th May 04, 07:57 AM
Welcome to the real world, and its been this way since the beginning.
Never mistake the excuses for wars with the REASONS for wars.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 08:10 AM
ronin - I have read a lot of your posts (I believe you have seen active service?) and you seem to be knowledgable, is this really the world?

I found this documentary very disturbing. There were kids (girls and boys of school age) with fookin M16s and AKs shrugging their shoulders about getting shot, and shooting people.

I feel very angry that our govts are allowing this sort of thing to go on while *we* live in paradise, what really gets me though is the way that the western world caused most of this suffering and the turned our backs, piped some happy happy good luck stories through the various media outlets and we all go back to eating McDonalds and worrying about bogeymen.

I mean there was a trench war that has been going on for longer than WW1!!!!!

punchingdummy
28th May 04, 08:29 AM
This is the world. There are always at least a half dozen wars going on at any given time, and it is not uncommon to see KIDS fighting them.

Two things to recognize:

(1) While it is easy to point to the wrongs in the world, it is much more difficult to fix them. They are often complex, wicked problems with no simple solutions.

(2) Recognize and appreciate how good your life is. Not everyone in this world lives the same way.

stoogejitsu
28th May 04, 08:32 AM
The world can be a very horrible place, I wish I could have seen this documentary but I don't get the BBC, so I guess I will have to settle for reading the descriptions on the site you posted. There is much more crap going on out there than most of us "westerners" realize, but there seems to be no end in site, the world sadly has always been, and most likely will always be a violent place, It seems almost impossible that things will change, at least in our lifetimes.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 08:33 AM
PD - I swear this coffee tastes better (I will never call it freeze dried shit again)!

Seriously though, you are right - these people have NOTHING, except a rifle and a short life certain to end in pain.

Ronin
28th May 04, 08:43 AM
Unfortunatley, yes, this is the world that WE have made.
By our greed, our indefference, our hatred and our stupidity.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 08:57 AM
"Unfortunatley, yes, this is the world that WE have made.
By our greed, our indefference, our hatred and our stupidity."

The greed I can understand, even to an extent the hatred and stupidity (we are only human after all), what I cannot abide is the indifference!! I mean, I consider myself a reasonably well educated person, I have travelled and yet I had NO appreciation of the depth of shit most of the world is drowning in. Why isnt this on the front cover of all the newspapers 'world flushing itself down toilet'? why dont we care?

stoogejitsu
28th May 04, 09:10 AM
Just watch some of the crappy reality tv shows on mtv (or most other networks) , and you'll see what a very large proportion of are fellow westerners are actually like, their idiocy and shallowness are sickening, or just watch the news on any given day, more people care about what kobe bryant or Micheal Jackson are doing than how many soldiers have died in Iraq, or how intense the fighting is between Israel and Palestine, it seems alot of people don't know, or simply don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world, but nothing can really be done about this.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 09:15 AM
Agreed SJ - the difference between the west and 'the rest' (if you will pardon the generalisation) was even apparent in the documentary, the 'troops' for some of these 'armies' were fighting each other for scraps of food. Whereas the US troops were talking about college, and complaining about lack of cheese on their burgers! Thats not some slight on the US Armed forces btw, just an obs.

I seriously recommend trying to get as much info as you can from the website, who knows one day it may air in the US. Sounds cheesy, but I feel different after watching this.

patfromlogan
28th May 04, 09:35 AM
There are some small steps that we can take. I get my coffee from a local shop (Straw Ibis Cafe) that features organic shade grown (rather than sun monoculture) fair traded (so the farmers get the $ rather than Folgers ripping off the locals in Central America). You could call around to see if there are any shops carrying fair traded coffee in your area. Online sources include:

http://store.yahoo.com/eeretail/index.html
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/

I have not dealt with these companies, myself, but I do get coffee with the fair traded logo and it has spoiled me.

One fiction book that is a good read and makes the relationships of economics, power, war, religion, family and globalization pretty clear is

The Poisonwood Bible
Barbara Kingsolver. Harperperennial Library: 1999 (paperback). ISBN: 0060930535. 556 pages

Africa was mostly absent in my thinking or understanding until I read this book. It was an Oprah selection and a selection of our local church's book group. (I would bet my life that GWB hasn't read it.)


from reviews:

This novel tells the engrossing story of quirky, feverish Baptist preacher Nathan Price who hauls his family off on a mission to the Belgian Congo in 1959. The story's narration is shared by his wife Orleanna and their four daughters, ages 5 - 15, who seem much too tender and naive to survive the trials of harsh conditions, poor housing, language barriers, cultural clashes, and natural antagonists. What results is an absorbing story set against the backdrop of political and religious upheaval.

This feisty opus from her is set against one of the most dramatic political chronicles of recent times: Congo's fight for freedom from Belgium, the gruesome murder of its first prime minister, the CIA coup to install his replacement, and the sordid progress of a world economic order that robs the fledgling African nation of its autonomy.

That engaging backdrop alone is reason enough for me to recommend this treat of a read. The narrator's first person voice is fascinating and indelibly colored by her own losses and unanswerable questions. Also narrating the story, by turns, are her four sharply observant daughters, each of whom must strike her own separate path to salvation, a path paved with moral risk and personal responsibility.

For its audacity in setting up a fascinating literary scaffolding (with the intertwined narratives) or for its politically charged backdrop, or for the sheer worldly wisdom packed within its many pages, The Poisonwood Bible offers twin pleasures of being a dark comedy of human failings as well as the breathtaking possibilities of human hope.

I couldn't recommend this book highly enough.



ditto on this recommendation, I know it will change the way you look at the world, it changed me.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 09:43 AM
fair point pat - I will look into that (previously assumed that this was just an excuse to charge more).

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 09:44 AM
One more thing - whats a "Folger"

patfromlogan
28th May 04, 09:53 AM
I edited and added more (I hope) to my post.

http://www.folgers.com/images/subpages/ground_menu.gif

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 10:27 AM
Thanks Pat - I will take a look.

The Congo is another example! I was reading online that more people have now died in that conflict than in WWII!! As an experiment - you go and tell someone that. Watch the reaction, betcha it's something like "Shit! Really? Have you seen the new epsode of blah blah blah"

Ronin
28th May 04, 10:32 AM
Africa has become the SHITHOLE of th world, in more ways than I care to think about.

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 10:50 AM
Man - that was the most heart breaking part, children being forced into service "because they will do things that adults wont" *shudder*.

those poor little fukers were adicted to some crazy stimulant and sleeping with their rifles, at like 9 and 10 years old. The kid (14) who was being filmed got killed a coupla days after filming by one of his own officers!!

kaliblokeuk
28th May 04, 10:55 AM
"Three days later Muktar was dead. At first I was told it was a gun accident, but then it transpired that he had woken one of his fellow militiamen too early.

Angry, the man grabbed his gun and shot Muktar in the head."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/this_world/one_day_of_war/html/16.stm

My bad - it wasnt an officer!

Deluxe247
28th May 04, 02:54 PM
I think of these things every time I hear country music.

Freddy
30th May 04, 02:32 PM
The real world sucks dude. People are dieing and suffering every day. The Congo has been at war for a very long time. Theres civil wars in many parts of Africa and Asia etc. It seems not many of it gets in the news.

The best one can do is to keep trying and woth some hoping to make a better world.

Freddy
30th May 04, 02:35 PM
I had a friend who was a child soldeir in South East Asia. In his case with the Khymer Rouge. You either joined them or they will kill you. Child soldiers are still very common (besides Africa) in Asian countries like Burma, Thailand etc.

sin_dios
1st June 04, 01:24 AM
kalibloke

sin_dios
1st June 04, 01:37 AM
i dont want to drop too much on ya, but here are some ideas.

1. the world has not always been like this. battles, sure, harsh stuff yeah. but india africa and latin america were once pretty well off places generally speaking and are now shitholes. that started with colonization-1492 etc and went till whats called decolonization(european powers pulled out of africa asia after ww2 etc.) since then things are in some ways even worse.

2. switching cofee brands is not an effective tactic, but it is funny taht someone suggested that.

3.there are also war zones and poverty in the "1st world" . for instance canada is one of the most well off countries in the world, often considered one o f the best to live in in the world(by the un and others). but its natives(aboriginal/indians) have a standard of living rated just after thailand.

4. the less people know about world history , the more they will tell you the world is fucked, count yer lucky stars, its always been this way, oh what a mess "out there" etc.
everything very undifferntiated. no analyses.

5.actually the more you learn the more you see patterns and clear dynamics. things are actually relatively straightforward. unfortunately most of the indirect effect of school, tv, magazines, etc is to hide the basic facts so that instead of acting, people can opt out, throw up their arms and say"people are messed up" or "its a mess, there is no solution"

DJeter1234
1st June 04, 01:43 AM
just don't try to buy African's out of slavery. I remember reading abut one charitable institutions that bought so many slave's their freedome the greatly increased the slave trade.

This is the problem. I have little doubt that some money/management of the situation could greatly facilitate some of these things getting better. But I honestly think that these changes have to come from within if they are to have any permenant sucess. The US couldn't just go in there and set up a democracy and start paying health care benefirst, even if it could afford it.

Btw, I'd be carefull attributing all of the world's problems to capitalism and especially to the US. War has always been rampant, but now we have better weapons and it is more apparent. At least a society like ours has found a way to support itself and live in reletive peace.

sin_dios
1st June 04, 02:19 AM
the worlds problems do not all come from the us, though no one can deny the us has defintely killed more people in war the 20th century and dropped more bombs than any other country. howeverto talk about countries is relatively abstract, its hard to be clear starting from such a wide topic. obviously groups and systems and trends are the actors on the world stage much more so than countries.
i think capitalism has been the major horror of the modern age, if we can understand so called communist regimes, fascism, and western market influenced capitalism as different forms of state capitalism.

i have to agree that some of the world was unfree and brutal before this, but not everywhere. and now its everywhere.
certainly in europe before capitalism there was serfdom which was no fun.
and before that in the west there were ancient slave based societies(romans,egyptians) and china in the east and so on. but any real examination shows a qualitative change in the rules of warfare, and of course huge amounts of free peoples and others were brutally subjagated in the americas and elsewhere. nothing really compares to the last 500 years though, especially the last 300.

the worlds problems also come from patriarchy,gerentocracy,white supremacy(tied up with capitalism), and sexual repression to name a few and so on. trhats not to reduce them to only these things, but to say if these things were dealt with that most of these kind of horrors would be really reduced, and so would the offshoots like the ecologigical crisis etc.

also DJeter1234, i wonder what way we have to live that puts us in relative peace? what do we live off of, how are we doing and are things changing?

i think the ride is only gonna get bumpier for the usa.

kaliblokeuk
1st June 04, 06:31 AM
sin_dios - thanks for the thoughts. It was the amount of the world that is in conflict that blew me away. It really IS everywhere and yet the majority of the western world carries on in blissful ignorance. You are correct in that there are definite patterns to this madness, the most apparent being some global power either withdrawing from or tampering with the region in question. I.e. the fall of the Soviet Union, Belgium withdrawing from the Congo (I believe it was Belgium, please correct me if I wrong), the UK withdrawing from various places etc etc.. See DJeter, I dont just blame the US ;-) I blame everyone.

However given the machine like way in which western societies feed on the raw materials of the third world it is simply not in "our" interests to help out. We would be instantly poorer, which is not a tag line likely to get anyone elected.

Which is sad, as this global war is only going to get worse and as it does the victims of this war will inevitably blame the UK, US etc for causing this damage to their society and this will lead to the war spilling over into our lives in what we describe as terrorism.

DJeter1234
1st June 04, 08:15 AM
That I can agree with

"i think capitalism has been the major horror of the modern age, if we can understand so called communist regimes, fascism, and western market influenced capitalism as different forms of state capitalism. "

hmm, yeah, if you redefine capitalism the economic system as anytime someone makes an action in his/her/it's own interest then you can attribute quite a lot to it.

Anyway, I agree that things are bad, and that certain things the US does feeds off this inequality, but I don't beleive the US cuased it or is morally REQUIRED to fix it. I do, however, believe that it is in the US's best long-term interest to help our where it can. However, this difference of mindset requires countries to step up and lead their metamorphesis.

Ignorant
1st June 04, 08:19 AM
people live and people die. dont cling to things while your here.

DJeter1234
1st June 04, 08:41 AM
a budhist pacifist? Btw, ur sig is flawed. Orderly patterns emerge in chaos, even if all scientists accpeted that everything was on some level entirely based on probability functions. But that's not for this thread.

btw, not an athiest

Ignorant
1st June 04, 08:44 AM
semantics semantics semantics :) that is a large part of the sig.

DJeter1234
1st June 04, 09:02 AM
there is semantics and there is definition of terms.

punchingdummy
1st June 04, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by sin_dios

4. the less people know about world history , the more they will tell you the world is fucked, count yer lucky stars, its always been this way, oh what a mess "out there" etc.
everything very undifferntiated. no analyses.



The only thing worse is people who know a little about history and try to apply data points from that limited knowledge to situations well beyond their original scope.

kp59583
1st June 04, 12:02 PM
The problem with africa started with the colonation of them by europeans not the us. The african countrys were not formed around a one tribes area of control but was haphazard and included various tribes. That is why you have constant warfare in africa. One tribe in majority tries to run ruff shod over the minority.

Freddy
1st June 04, 03:31 PM
Theres wars in Africa for numerous reasons. Alot of it has to do with gruoups with certain interests or agendas. Corruption is rampant. Its unfortunate to say the least that many of these wars are constantly being fuelled by outside influences. The money from Blood Diamonds are one of them. Many end up out of Africa to Europe or some other advance industralize nation(s). another problem is the unwillingness of the world communty to help. Its also unfortunate or unfortunate (depending how one looks at it) that guns from Western countries adn the former Eastern block countries are continously being fed to these fighting factions.
It seems the more wealthy a nation's economy is the less civil strife it has. The more industralize and improve social conditions also tend to help this stabilization.

sin_dios
1st June 04, 08:27 PM
The only thing worse is people who know a little about history and try to apply data points from that limited knowledge to situations well beyond their original scope.

no data points. very basic material origins.

origins of power systems, not rocket science here, colonization, fordism, taylorism, market economies, imperialism everyone honest agrees about their existence and importance.

and djeter,
youre wrong about my definition of capitalism.
have a much narrower definition than you suggest.

i just wanted to get straight right away that the former ussr the fascists of world war 2, and many modern nonaligned and existing socialist states are/were state capitalism. so is the "west".

different kinds:
beuracratic command state capitalism for the commies, corporatism-fascism-for the nazis and limited market state capitalism for the west.
there are and were many non capitalist economies.

they are all not grassroots or democratic. they all create irrational greeds and violence, exploitation. also ecocide and war. and racism.

did these things exist before capitalism but are now just worse becuase there are more people and bigger guns?

nope. thats the lazy answer. things are actually different.

also realize that that question leaves out whay there are now more people and bigger guns, that didnt happen on its own.

but anyway these things have become dominant features of life in a qualitively different way and have hunted to extinction social traditions like kinship,the extended family, irreduceable minimums, public space, limits on growth, rules of warfare.etc.

sin_dios
1st June 04, 08:29 PM
and freddy, i'd like to say that the more international rich power elites choose a country as their base, the more the will make sure that they are in control, things are stable, and this requires a certain amount of benefits to be given to civil society in that place,, enough to keep things cool. there are still pockets of 3rd world there(as in usa), like the appalachians, indian reservations, ghettos, prisons in the states etc.

the reason i say that is that it has nothing to do with how hard the people work or the natural resources in their land. or else siberia , vietnam and latin america would be rolling in $$$$.

so what you say is true, but the rich economy we are refering to just means exploitation of other places at this point.

if any weak or or poor country tries to help their own and develop things they are gonna be toast very soon, as the world powers bomb them to hell. the post ww2 period attests to that.

that is why the world is fucked, it must serve as the source of the 1st worlds cash. that can only happen if warlords, dictators and poverty crush the people there. thats why so many psychos are in control out there, they have always had domestic democratic oppostions that you will never hear about in the 1st world press.
ever heard that there was a large movemnt for democracy in iraq or afghanistan?
did the west ever support those movements?
no they supported the dictators.

colombia and turkey are some of the leading centers of atrocities in the world. both are us allies and get tons of weapons & $$ from them. the latter is europe's little friend.

thats cause people in control of their own country will never agree to sell off their resources for peanuts. they wont grow coffee for export, they'll grow food to eat.

so people with big money inject weapons and bucks into warring factions to keep those countries unstable and vulnerable.

DJeter1234
2nd June 04, 12:05 AM
I'm confused. Will you please tell your definition of capitalism so I can have some idea of what your actually saying? Is it based on the existance of money/ Foreign Trade? And more importantly, what better system to do you propose?

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 03:03 AM
no one compltely agrees on any 1 definition, but staying real basic capitalism was the economic system that was born in england in between the 1500's and 1800's with the enclosing of the commoms and the destruction of the yeomanry. i have to say that just to be historical but lets
get down to it:

an economic system based on the permanent division of labor, where the worker does not manages the fruits of his labor. the system needs to grow and expand to survive and requires surplus value, and industry. an owning class control the means of production. the people must sell or give their labor to the owning class. the economy must use exchange value, usually money. expansion involves some kind of investment, either taken from the renumeration of the workers or gained through brute force, called primitive acumulation. it also involves the town subjugating the country.

i can go on but is it clearer? let me know.and so called socialist countries had all of the above.
lenin called socialism,"state capitalism made to benifit the whole of the people".

so yes it is based on money, exchange value and these things are central, not like in a slave society where sure there is money but its not central to expansion, they are still based on use value and military might, not to mention kinship etc.
and yes international trade, but in the sense of markets, not based on use value and need like indian tribes.
remember that free market capitalism has never existed there have been states with capitalism all along.

what better system do i propose? well im not a political. dont intend to take over the world and imposing my ideas, but i'll give you an answer.

most people never wanted capitalism. what they want varies. and i think that diversity, letting people decide for themselves is where its at.

any way of life that is based on rewarding needs and mutual aid and cooperation rather than profit and batlle qualifies. has to be directly democratic, whatever that means to the culture, region in question, so locally self managed basd on voluntarism. has to include cultural values where things have both intrinsic value and use value. obviusly internationalism of some kind, federations networks give people more choices and help solve problems that effect outsiders as well.

some people call this anti-state communism, some call it democracy, or autonomy. globalization from below, grass roots socialism, tribalism,indigenism, anarchism, collectivism,communalism, syndicalism, sustainable economics, bioregionalism,particapatory economics etc etc.

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 03:08 AM
the people of the world should have a direct say in life.
currently the world is owned and ruled by the few.

DJeter1234
2nd June 04, 03:23 AM
so your objection to capitalism is mainly to huge corperations and not free enterprise? Do you beleive in an asbolute right to self-determination or would this be limited by certain "inailible" rights?

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 03:57 AM
i object to both.
the latter is less of an issue, since it has never fully existed.
i object to private property and state owned property. i have no problems(obviuosly) with property held in common, or with personal property.
self determination for all groups and individuals. thats autonomy.
but the structures of dealing with each other -interaction,negotiated space-thats social freedom, and equality.
those vary and im glad to talk about em if you ask.

DJeter1234
2nd June 04, 10:52 AM
in your opinion, what is the difference between state owned property and common property? Is common property completely unregulated?

the same with private property and personal property.

Jenfucius
2nd June 04, 12:01 PM
i object to this thread.

DJeter1234
2nd June 04, 12:05 PM
I object to Long Island.

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 05:18 PM
djeter,

there is no exact line between any kind of property, since the earth belongs to no one and peoples actions affect others, and cases of need sometimes overcome basic customs.

but basically:
personal property = what i can persoanlly use, what i can reasonably need for my own life+ what i can make myself or recieve as a gift. generally its about use value. my bed, my bike ,my jewlelry etc.

private property= anything i can own by buying it. without having to need to use it, without having worked to make it, without it being given as a gift. like when 1 person owns 30 cars. or when 1 person owns a stadium.

state owned is the same as private except there is a managerial body managing it in the name of the public at large. thats why people call it public property. but the public, the people here, are an
abstraction, in the end the control is with the manager who "represents" the people.

common property = public property without the state. it is regulated by direct demoratic desicion making of the group, wether that means 40 people or 4 million. and also somewhat by custom.

i have to admit im not sure what you mean by completely unregulated.

there are many groups an lands and individuals on the planet, so in the end space is negotiated.

but with irreducible minimums and cultures based on themselves rather than spreading empires over others, basic values preside. like if i've lived in a house for several years, thats my house. or if i build a particle acclerator it's hard for me to make a case that its only useful to me and doesnt in any way effect anyone else.

Jenfucius
2nd June 04, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by DJeter1234
I object to Long Island.

obviously you have no appreciation for mediocre beaches and 24 hour diners.

Dochter
2nd June 04, 06:00 PM
I think it is very important that everyone out there realizes one thing:

DO NOT LISTEN TO sin_dios!

This is very important, you'll become far stupider if you accept what he/she is saying. Eden never existed.

Dochter
2nd June 04, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by sin_dios
i dont want to drop too much on ya, but here are some ideas.

1. the world has not always been like this. battles, sure, harsh stuff yeah. but india (1)africa and (2)latin america were once pretty well off places generally speaking and are now shitholes. that started with colonization-1492 etc and went till whats called decolonization(european powers pulled out of africa asia after ww2 etc.) since then things are in some ways even worse.



BULLSHIT!

1) Brutal, genocidal battles well predate any European influence. And there is that issue with goats and possibly a resulting increase in the saharan.

2) So, ahh, let me get this straight, the incans mayans and aztecs were all peaceful cultures that promoted the well being of their inhabitants and neighbors?

You are way over simplifying things and way over romantacizing things.

DJeter1234
2nd June 04, 06:11 PM
So your pretty much a anarchist pacifist who can't even clearly define his Utopia. I guess a working example of these principles would be out of the question? Meh, I argued enough with Colman McCarthy about this sort of thing.

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 11:23 PM
dochter

sin_dios
2nd June 04, 11:28 PM
you are talking to yourself, i aserted or denied none of what you mentioned.
dont build strawmen. and yes india and latin america were despoiled and subjugated at hithero unknown levels that helped to change history, by european colonization, and later with latin america, under the monroe doctrine.
i m sorry i dint mention every empire or civilisation that ever existed.
i never mentioned eden.
goats ?
are you high?

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 10:41 AM
edan as in ideal past which we fell from, not literally edan. Somehow I think this arguement will be fruitless. As long as you are actively working to make the world a better place (and are thereby not a hypocrit) and you don't start sabataging out military-industrail complex, my hat goes off to you.

LOVED2BLOVED
3rd June 04, 10:59 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/this_world/one_day_of_war/html/13.stm

i know we joke about ninjas and shit , but seroisuly , shes having to kill people for real. this shits fucked up.

also, after visting thenausea.com, i realised that some people in this world are mother fuckers.

it would be great to just gather all the muderers/patriots/dictators up in one box and bullldoze them off the face of the earth.(if the earth was flat)

kaliblokeuk
3rd June 04, 11:11 AM
"it would be great to just gather all the muderers/patriots/dictators up in one box and bullldoze them off the face of the earth.(if the earth was flat)" A-muthafukin-men

kaliblokeuk
3rd June 04, 11:30 AM
Its interesting that there tends to be three main perspectives on this topic (both here and in the real world):
1) who gives a fuck about [insert war torn country] anyway?
2) the world is bad and always has been, nothing you / me anyone else can do about it.
3) the world is bad BECAUSE the western world (I am NOT just referring to uncle sam here so quit yer bitching) introduced capitalism etc...

I recon the truth lies somewhere between 2 + 3, i.e. yes - the world has always had its problems and will always have its problems, but the western world has repeatedly fucked over so much of the rest of the world that they are reduced to slaughtering each other over the scraps that are left. The way I see it there is a moral obligation (if not legal) to help out these poor bastards.

And as for all those of you who take option 1, you WILL give a shit when they are blowing themselves up in London / NYC because there entire family was killed by some tosspot warlord who is only has a scrap of power because he bought a load of tanks and guns from the west (or some other fucked up idea of aid).

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 02:37 PM
" the world is bad and always has been, nothing you / me anyone else can do about it."

don't remember anyone saying there is nothing you can do about it. It is vary unlikely that it will go away, but it can be alleviated. It just won't be alleviated by the immediate disassociation of all capitalists states, even if the impossible happened and somehow all capitalist states dissolved.

Btw, can you provide one example where a country imposed a positve change on another country? I'm not saying that it has never happened, but except for arguably japan (i think not) I cannot think of a single one.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 02:42 PM
sin_dios,
The point I was making was that your whole premise is inherently flawed at its roots. I wasn't responding to a strawman, your premise was that western impacts created situations that were differentially worse than those resulting from indigenous forces, this is false. People have as frequently subjigated themselves and neighbors and as severly as anything done in more modern times. The khans exterminated whole civilizations and whole populations for crying out loud.

You put in a tiny caveat which you then completely overran with how all these regions were fucked post ww2 or post colonization. A caveat that you yourself ignore doesn't mean I'm arguing against a strawman if I ignore it as well.

The fact of the matter is that these things happen repeatedly because people are all fundamentally the same, the difference between historical and more contemporary examples is merely the result of timing and the emergence of technology.

Let me guess though, you think primitive hunter gatherers were in "harmony with nature" too, don't you? As I said you are way over-romantiziing things.




Originally posted by kaliblokeuk
Its interesting that there tends to be three main perspectives on this topic (both here and in the real world):
1) who gives a fuck about [insert war torn country] anyway?
2) the world is bad and always has been, nothing you / me anyone else can do about it.
3) the world is bad BECAUSE the western world (I am NOT just referring to uncle sam here so quit yer bitching) introduced capitalism etc...

I recon the truth lies somewhere between 2 + 3, i.e. yes - the world has always had its problems and will always have its problems, but the western world has repeatedly fucked over so much of the rest of the world that they are reduced to slaughtering each other over the scraps that are left. The way I see it there is a moral obligation (if not legal) to help out these poor bastards.

And as for all those of you who take option 1, you WILL give a shit when they are blowing themselves up in London / NYC because there entire family was killed by some tosspot warlord who is only has a scrap of power because he bought a load of tanks and guns from the west (or some other fucked up idea of aid).

I actually agree about where the reality lies. We all have a moral responsibility to understand and where needed remedy the effects of our actions. As a result of speeding progression "we've" had the ability to more expansively impact the world.

kaliblokeuk
3rd June 04, 03:15 PM
DJeter - you know, right now I cannot think of a single instance of one country helping out another when there wasnt a self interest involved. I mean, we (UK) were only mad keen on freeing France (WWII) because it provided such a nice launch pad into our green and plesant land. I dont for one second think that if the UK were floating somewhere around the pacific we would have been half as interested in a ruck with Germany.

I suppose if any of the worlds govts REALLY gave a crap then Africa wouldnt be tearing itself a new asshole right about now.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 03:17 PM
US ---> Germany post ww2.

kaliblokeuk
3rd June 04, 03:22 PM
Do reperations count as help? You dont think that the prospect of one of the largest nations in Europe suddenly becoming third world would have had a negative impact on the rest of world?

Dochter
3rd June 04, 03:32 PM
No where did I see the comment that the action had to be wholly altruistic. If that is the case find an example of someone doing something at any point in history that is wholly altruistic. Good luck, grab some coffee you're going to be at it awhile.

Here is another oversimplified example: the US's intervention into europe against germany in either world war. In both instances trade could have been continued, regardless of the victor. In neither case was there a realistic concern for germany to then turn its sites on the US.

kaliblokeuk
3rd June 04, 04:05 PM
Except for the extreme aggression of the regime in question. It would only have been a matter of time.

Jenfucius
3rd June 04, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by kaliblokeuk
Do reperations count as help? You dont think that the prospect of one of the largest nations in Europe suddenly becoming third world would have had a negative impact on the rest of world?

yeah, it would have about as much impact on america as the collapse of the soviet union, i.e. there would be a ton of fine-ass german bitches in the strip clubs hanging out with their russian comrades-in-g-strings.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by kaliblokeuk
Except for the extreme aggression of the regime in question. It would only have been a matter of time.

Within what timeframe? I think its a problem we would only be dealing with now.

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 04:55 PM
"US ---> Germany post ww2."

I would argue that the basis for a sucessfull industrail nation was alreayd there and just had to be rebuilt, like in Japan/the rest of Europe.

Sin, notice I'm not talking abtou altruistic action. I'm saying where did a country (presumably first world) ever head an action that raised a poorer country to a higher quality of life. My point would be that the change has to be spearheaded from the inside and at most supported by the US, and as such the US should focus on supporting these groups when they arise instead of trying to make something from nothing.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 05:11 PM
Actually what you said was:
Btw, can you provide one example where a country imposed a positve change on another country?

This certainly has happened:D

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 05:32 PM
Yeah, I didnt' qualify my statement enough, but I assumed it would be interpretted as relating to the subject of arguement (responsibility of richer countries to help the poorer ones). My bad

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 06:07 PM
djeter and dochter,
i mentioned a strawman. thats because i never said the world lacked aggression or suffering before the empires of the west.

it was also bullshit to call me a pacifist. and then to asume i was saying there was something inherent about non amerindians peoples that make them evil, while indians are playing in eden.

the biggest bullshit was to then act like its my job to blueprint a society for the whole world to live in, to bulid an EDEN FOR YOU (im talking to djeter here) and then blame me for failing to produce this working utopia option for you.

but i explained why i would not do so, and even if i did it would be irrelevent because history does not procced form one persons imposed pre-manufactured vision.

all i was talking about was broad trends in history which go an incredibly long way toward explaining why the people who won, the world powers and priveleged, require the world stays poor and wartorn. i was purposefully avoiding trying to get too specific in circumscribed times and places so as to stay broadly relevent, but am then chastised for not providing working examples of ....what?

the vaugeness and assumptions are out of hand. there are many institutons in every society that dont produce nuclear weapons, war, waged slavery or suburban sprawl, they are too many to be listed , CAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. is that what you meant?
we can talk about them if anyone wants to focus on a specific context.

or did you mean whole societies that didnt have a state or capital? well most societies didnt have capitalism its only 500 years old, and has only been totally global for 100 years, so that cant be what youre talking about.

a huge amount of human history didnt have the state, and much more importantly thare has been a huge tension between peoples asserting themselves based on democracy or kinship (read noncapitalist relations) against states. from the medieval town fighting against lords and kings, to (yes) the indegenous people' s of the world(not all, but most of whom had - among their members- internally democratic and egalitarian societies)...

...to most of the world's revolutions that had a grassroots ground swell(not the coups or simple power changes which are called revolutions), to whole areas of the world during these periods(the ukraine and its millions of inhabitants lived in a stateless collectivist society for a couple years while simealtnously fighting the blosheviks the white armies and the austrohungarian empire, and were finally crushed by force-as just 1 example) that lived differently. the examples are too numerous to mention, we can go over them one by one if you want, but i can't say them all together-nor should i need to.

.

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 06:09 PM
my point is not that the further you go further back in history everything is swell. i am aware not only of the kahns but in preancient times the invasion of pre-europe by warlike societies of the steppe, who may have been petty patriarchal internally. the original inhabitants of north america wether they got here form a land bridge or in some other fashion may have wiped out almost all the large game and drove many species to extinction.

the points i'm trying to make are the trends based on empires, lifeways and systems that did win.
and continue to win in the current world wide social war between people fighting against empires from without and domination form within.

but why didnt india invade europe? why didnt amerindians wipe out the invaders form europe. and africa? why did it happen the other way around. even into the mid 1800's the plains indians could've militarily taken the americans. the invaders had superior technology, but they were in each case so totally outnumbered, not to mention on unfamilar terrain.(and what sytem drove the development of greater weapons technology, or did it just appear out of thin air?)

different things drive different empires, i think its solidly established capitlism must grow or die, find new markets or perish, and it needs primitive acumlation.
the engine of capitalim needs no specific players and doesnt only bow to the personal desires of one tyrant like in ancient empires. it runs on its own,on an abstraction,
making those it conquers dependent. moreover, former empires did not all destroy the societies they captured, in fact the largest and most succesful gave them relative autonomy as long as they paid their dues.

i d also like to point out that war is not WAR.
which is to say for mot of the worlds history war mostly the restablishing of boundaries between peoples, featuring skirmishes where relatively few peope died. the rest(minority) were imperial campaigns where other peoples were conquered, but their societies and lifeways not totally crushed or subjugated,and given a measure of autonomy, if for no other reason as it would be impossible for the rulers to manage a total project at that time.

but now WAR IS WAR. the post colombian era changed things qualitively and the settling of the americas killed around 100-250 million people, depending on whose numbers you use. (im talking about african slave trade, amerindian genocide ).

the 20th century opened with a brutal imperilist war where in an attempt to dump their problems of overproduction on a new market, the us elite killed 4 million philpinos in their power grab form the dwindling spanish elite (spanish american war).

world wars in the 20th century set a new standard for bombing civilain populations and noncombatants. the postwar period i harp about because it featured the most brutal attack on anyone who wanted to establish themselves independently of the west(and to a lesser extent the soviets). the us dropped more bombs on indochina than all of the bombs dropped during world war 2.
the post war period is significant because ww2 never really ended. low intensity warfare and the cold war were a pretext just like the war on drugs and the war on teror, for expansion and domination and for the crushing of 1)nations who want independence or 2) people who dont want to be dominated within their own countries.
now capitalism has changed agian since the 70's and we are in the neoliberal period, also called globalization.
that changes the game for the worse. but everything i wrote in this thread would be reasobale if the year was still 1970, so i wont get into these important chages now, ive gone on long enough.

the point is you guys can argue about scarcity and hardships in the past, but today scacrcity must be enforced. there is far too much food produced on the earth for people to eat, yet most are undernourished. the same goes across the board.
today scarcity is enforced, the world must remain wartorn to prevent any kind of rational discourse form taking shape. because emost people won't choose ecocide, poverty and suffering for themselves, it must be chosen for them

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 06:09 PM
sorry for the length everyone.
longwinded i know.

Dochter
3rd June 04, 06:13 PM
You are asserting that there is a fundamental difference in how groups of people interact as a result of what are commonly but erroneously considered western ideas or philosophy. That is false.

While I didn't read your definition of capitalism, it also is false to say that people didn't interact in a capitalistic manner prior to 500 years ago.

Like I said, inserting the caveat that "of course things were rough back then to" does not mean that your point isn't still now is worse than them. Therefore it wasn't a strawman but your underlying premise that I was arguing against.

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 06:38 PM
you need to

1) read my defintion of capitalism in the thread.

2) find out about the origins of crafts and the european market place, the transition from feudalism to capitlism in europe. you are out on a limb with your assertion that capitalist relations were common befor 500 years ago, unless you mean only in small part, even in europe it was the guild system,dude. go look in the encylopedia under capitlism. if the word has meaning, it couldnt havd existed on large scale in PRE-CAPITALIST times.

3) i m not asserting western philosophy is behind this, even if it affects it, just that the new imperilaism was born in europe. that doesnt mean its not drawn on international sources, or that its less harsh in than say the ancient chinese empire, only that its more out of control and harder to defeat, much less limited in its means and need for horror, and far more penetrating into cultures and sociteis.
.
but murder and exploitaion are NOT invented in europe.

4) im not saying "of coure things were rough then too".thats the flip side of your thinking, using your logic.
i am saying things were different everywhere then, differentiated .
and social institutions had some sway in many places.

i AM saying now things are not differentiated, that they are more homogenous and predictable, functioning under the overwhelming logic of a system that covers vast distances and renders them more meaningless. i am saying when certain quantitive limits are reached, a QUALiTATIVE change happens.

everyone agress that humane, social,rational, spiritual potentialties exist alongside dark, expolitative,murderous, dominating anti-social potentialties inside all people.
but i have an explanation as to why 1 of these modes has come to more universally dominate the other, and you do not.

and this last thing is my own personal belief,no one has to share it,
but i think the record shows people are just a bit more of the former than the latter, or else rulers wouldnt have to constantly lie to the people, or hide the facts. they could just tell the truth .

it seems that after all thats happened far more effort has to put into stunting peoples capacities than in allowing them to flower.

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 06:58 PM
kalibloke,
again i want to offer my views as just 1 of many ways to get to some broad grip on why things are this way. things cannot be reduced to what i present here.
its meant to be practical.

for example, the vast majority of enviromental degradation is cause by a couple hundred multinational corporations. not individuals bad habits.

there fore the enviorenmental crisis is not so complicated, but simple.

so why is it so hard to deliver a couple hundred letters to these adresses saying youre shut down until you can be envirnmentally friendly, and you also must fix what youve done?
because of a profit driven system who's elites are untouchable, and on who's activities much of our daily industrial life depends.it has a logic to it.

so that goes for the repatriation you mentioned, it will never happen. i agree with you that it should.
normally though the idea is to brutally level the struggling people and then extend a donut which in that context will seem like immense humantarian aid, and then rebuild the place on the dominter's terms. you'll never see that kind of analyses much in the media or school in our countries because these institutions are for profit and owned by large companies.

for instance in the usa in the 20's theere were hundereds of large independent daily newspapers. there was also a huge labor,women's and revolutionary movement, populist movemnts, farmers movements etc.
now there are only a handful of giant corporations that own most of the media in the industrialized west. this stuff has to be dug up in countries like ours(unles youre poor or black-youre more likely know the score) but for most of the world, people know the world order is enforced by the world powers, that they dont have a problem with it being this way.

Freddy
3rd June 04, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by sin_dios
.
...but murder and exploitaion are NOT invented in europe.


I dont know how you can say that. Murder and exploitation existed practically all over the world. I do not beleive there is one singular origin of it.

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 07:21 PM
?????????????????
read the quote.
who are you arguing with man?

sin_dios
3rd June 04, 07:22 PM
the word ...NOT...

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 07:54 PM
sigh, one more time into the breech...

"the biggest bullshit was to then act like its my job to blueprint a society for the whole world to live in, to bulid an EDEN FOR YOU (im talking to djeter here) and then blame me for failing to produce this working utopia option for you."

no, i just want an idea of how you plan to take back the world from capitalism, seeing that is a very effective system. Without a way to get there, then any ideal (and seeing as it has not yet been realized, it is an ideal) is useless.

"all i was talking about was broad trends in history which go an incredibly long way toward explaining why the people who won, the world powers and priveleged, require the world stays poor and wartorn. i was purposefully avoiding trying to get too specific in circumscribed times and places so as to stay broadly relevent, but am then chastised for not providing working examples of ....what? "

it requires that the world stays poor reletive to the rich, but it is not a zero sum game.

"the vaugeness and assumptions are out of hand. there are many institutons in every society that dont produce nuclear weapons, war, waged slavery or suburban sprawl, they are too many to be listed , CAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. is that what you meant?
we can talk about them if anyone wants to focus on a specific context."

Nuclear weapons aren't inherently bad (and even if they were, now that we have them they will never go away), the US no longer has waged slavery, and suburban sprawl is not necesarily bad, at least to an extent. War is bad, but capitalism /= war

"different things drive different empires, i think its solidly established capitlism must grow or die, find new markets or perish, and it needs primitive acumlation.
the engine of capitalim needs no specific players and doesnt only bow to the personal desires of one tyrant like in ancient empires. it runs on its own,on an abstraction,
making those it conquers dependent. moreover, former empires did not all destroy the societies they captured, in fact the largest and most succesful gave them relative autonomy as long as they paid their dues."

i would mantain that the countries supposably under the US's emprie today are given MUCH more autonomy than almost in any other "empire" i can think of. Which ones are you referring to?

"a huge amount of human history didnt have the state, and much more importantly thare has been a huge tension between peoples asserting themselves based on democracy or kinship (read noncapitalist relations) against states. from the medieval town fighting against lords and kings, to (yes) the indegenous people' s of the world(not all, but most of whom had - among their members- internally democratic and egalitarian societies)..."

I would say this is the check to capitalism running our of controll. But I fail to see how it condemns capitalism

"the 20th century opened with a brutal imperilist war where in an attempt to dump their problems of overproduction on a new market, the us elite killed 4 million philpinos in their power grab form the dwindling spanish elite (spanish american war)."

no one is defending this sort of overt imperialism. But that doesn't mean that capitalist societies are bad. It is a fact that capitalist societies are sucesfull and flourish, which is why the West has so much power. I do not beleive that the predominant sucesses of capitalism require exploitation. This might be the basis for our disagreement.

"the world must remain wartorn to prevent any kind of rational discourse form taking shape. because emost people won't choose ecocide, poverty and suffering for themselves, it must be chosen for them"

Again, I beleive that jsut because teh world is wartorn and capitalism is working does nto mean that capitalism si working because the world is war-torn. Moreover, I don't see how you plan to dissolve captialism and how dissolving capitalism will somehow fix this problem. I firmly believe that our policies should be towards giving people/countries the ability to improve themselves

"for example, the vast majority of enviromental degradation is cause by a couple hundred multinational corporations. not individuals bad habits."

and the habits of the companies are caused by the individual bad habits of buying cheap and ignoring the consequence.

DJeter1234
3rd June 04, 08:08 PM
ok, screw point by point. Here's my issues:

1. How does rejection ro at least regulation of large corporations necesarily require the abolition of what you term public and private property, which have existed long before even your definition of captialism

2. How do you deal with all the people who want to live in the US and have our quality of life and ability for self-beterment? I would contend that this attempt at emulation and participation causes more of the changes you have mentioned than military coersion

3. Most importantly, how can this world view realistically accomplish it's goals? Again, capitlaism has been proven to work and to work well. How can a nation just throw off captialist endevours and return to some sort of quasi-communal society where groups and people do not disagree on what is whose property? What will be the nature of this government that prohibits larger corperations and how will it compete with countries that do not?