WAR
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
I agree.
Human nature is simply that which humans are most likely to do most of the time.
So for those of you who do not believe war is part of human nature. Can you tell me why war has always been present in recorded history? I
That is true. War is in human nature. Give man a power and you will see his real nature.
America is definitely a war machine made to kill anyone who stands between them and money.
Before America, there was Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire, Turk empire, Roman empire..
I've seen priests blessing weapons in 20th century! ..then just imagine how was it like before.
Those who live in America are lucky for they lead their wars on another men's teritory.
Most of people who only saw the terror of war in films and video games don't actualy understand how wrong it is.
I saw a documentary about american army and bombing of Iraq.
They went with kindergarden kids to draw their messages of peace on bombs in military bases, those same bombs that are about to go on Iraq.
That is so wrong..
I was about 7y old when a saw for the first time how it looks when one man kills another and about 8y old when I saw for the first time what can rocket do to a hospital full of civilians.
It's now been almost 25years since Serbians attacked my country and I still don't get it how and why..
How can money be so important and how can something called human be such a monster to go from city to city and slaughter, kill and rape everything alive, regardles of gender and age.
War will never be a tool of peace..
America is definitely a war machine made to kill anyone who stands between them and money.
Before America, there was Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire, Turk empire, Roman empire..
I've seen priests blessing weapons in 20th century! ..then just imagine how was it like before.
Those who live in America are lucky for they lead their wars on another men's teritory.
Most of people who only saw the terror of war in films and video games don't actualy understand how wrong it is.
I saw a documentary about american army and bombing of Iraq.
They went with kindergarden kids to draw their messages of peace on bombs in military bases, those same bombs that are about to go on Iraq.
That is so wrong..
I was about 7y old when a saw for the first time how it looks when one man kills another and about 8y old when I saw for the first time what can rocket do to a hospital full of civilians.
It's now been almost 25years since Serbians attacked my country and I still don't get it how and why..
How can money be so important and how can something called human be such a monster to go from city to city and slaughter, kill and rape everything alive, regardles of gender and age.
War will never be a tool of peace..
Arguably, History is the record of extraordinary human affairs. Military History is a tiny fraction of human history but like capital punishment or torture it is intriguing to our more primal nature. However, History is full of people who showed a nature other than primality and were very human at the same time. We celebrate many of them collectively and even if it is lip-service, it shows there is something in us that acknowledges what they did.
I would argue that amnesia is a part of human nature and that war is a result of repressing the fear that comes from that. I feel that there is a difference in that we can choose to express the same feelings that underpin the war machine in a different way. Theoretically, at least.
Perhaps the real issue is power. War is just a tool to gain power and domination over another. War is about sacrifice. Sacrificing to gain an advantage in some form or another. It always seems to boil down to measuring dicks.
War is human nature because our reptilian brain will not let it go. But we are always given a choice to consciously NOT make war. The proper question is why are humans always choosing the path of war and not peace. Peace is also part of our human nature.
True that.
There's always the chance to do things the other way. Make sense with the history of humanity is stupid.
March 11, 2015
Dear senators:
Thank you for your letter of March 9 explaining your system of government. We were unfamiliar with the complexity of your laws. For three years we have been negotiating a nuclear energy agreement with your president. We now realize our mistake. As your letter makes clear, the authority to establish such agreements on behalf of your country rests with your Congress.
We are in your debt for this clarification. Moreover, your letter has prompted us to undertake a broader study of the American political system. What we have learned has opened our eyes. For 35 years, we have treated you as an adversary. Our intelligence agencies told us that your culture and your political system were radically different from ours. We now understand that we were misled. Your country is much like ours. Indeed, your Republican Congress is much like our revolutionary Islamic councils. We are brothers.
Your letter explains that our discussions with your president have been in vain because “anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” which can easily be cast aside by a future president or Congress. Under your Constitution, as you point out, “the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.” Therefore, the ultimate authority to make and interpret your country’s policies resides with you, not with your president. As you note, “President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then–perhaps decades.”
Your Republican Congress is much like our revolutionary Islamic councils.
We were delighted to read this sentence. What you have described–a circle of overseers who work in perpetuity to restrain the president–is very familiar to us. Our president, like yours, is limited to two consecutive four-year terms. His powers are also severely circumscribed. He has a national security council, but he and his council do not establish our nation’s policies.
In our system, true power lies with the chamber that oversees the president. For you, this chamber is the Senate, controlled by your Republican caucus. For us, it is the Council of Guardians. Members of our council, like members of your Senate, serve six-year terms. The council may veto any legislation, which, in its judgment, violates our republic’s guiding body of law. For us, that body of law is Sharia.
Our intelligence agencies told us that in your country, the guiding document is your Constitution. Recently, however, we watched videos from your “Conservative Political Action Conference.” Several of your senators spoke there about the abomination of homosexual marriage and the importance of protecting religion. Our assessment is that your senators interpret your Constitution in accordance with the Christian Bible, just as our council applies our Constitution in the light of the Holy Quran. We particularly enjoyed the speech of your senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, who called on your government to fight for Christians abroad. This is in agreement with our own policy of coming to the aid of faithful Muslims everywhere.
We are in great admiration of Sen. Cruz. In our republic, he would be an Ayatollah Uzma. We appreciate his signature on your letter and his steadfastness in correcting your president. Many of us were dismayed to learn that Sen. Cruz was criticized in your country for withholding the government’s operating funds in order to block the implementation of a health care law. Some Americans even called the senator a hostage taker.
We also very much admire the principal author of your letter, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Sen. Cotton, like many of our young militiamen, served in combat in Iraq and believes that he is an instrument of God. Some may consider him too young to assert dominion over your country’s foreign policy, at 37 years of age and with only two years of political experience. But we in Iran appreciate his vigor. He reminds us of the young men who seized your embassy here in 1979, two years after he was born. Those brave young revolutionaries did not wait for guidance from their elders.
In Iran, all educational institutions are governed by our Cultural Revolution Council, which safeguards the faith of the people. We have been unable to locate such a council in your federal government. However, we recently learned that the state board of education in Sen. Cruz’s state, Texas, controls through its purchasing power the content of textbooks throughout your country. The board has used this power to limit the teaching of evolution and promote the celebration of your country as a Christian nation. Our cultural council protects Islam in the same way.
Our system, like yours, has its critics. Some portray our Council of Guardians as unelected ideologues who override the will of the people. The charge is absurd, as your own experience demonstrates. In your country’s three most recent elections, which together produced your Senate’s entire current membership, the other party’s nominees won 5 million more votes than yours did. Nevertheless, you control the chamber. The true will of the people, as you know, is to follow those of us who understand what is best.
Thank you once again for this enlightening exchange. Prompted by your letter, our council has decided to end the talks with your secretary of state and dismiss nuclear inspectors from our country. We look forward to working with you in the future on other matters of common interest, such as prayer, capital punishment, and troops in Iraq.
Sincerely,
Council of Guardians
The Islamic Republic of Iran
Dear senators:
Thank you for your letter of March 9 explaining your system of government. We were unfamiliar with the complexity of your laws. For three years we have been negotiating a nuclear energy agreement with your president. We now realize our mistake. As your letter makes clear, the authority to establish such agreements on behalf of your country rests with your Congress.
We are in your debt for this clarification. Moreover, your letter has prompted us to undertake a broader study of the American political system. What we have learned has opened our eyes. For 35 years, we have treated you as an adversary. Our intelligence agencies told us that your culture and your political system were radically different from ours. We now understand that we were misled. Your country is much like ours. Indeed, your Republican Congress is much like our revolutionary Islamic councils. We are brothers.
Your letter explains that our discussions with your president have been in vain because “anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” which can easily be cast aside by a future president or Congress. Under your Constitution, as you point out, “the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.” Therefore, the ultimate authority to make and interpret your country’s policies resides with you, not with your president. As you note, “President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then–perhaps decades.”
Your Republican Congress is much like our revolutionary Islamic councils.
We were delighted to read this sentence. What you have described–a circle of overseers who work in perpetuity to restrain the president–is very familiar to us. Our president, like yours, is limited to two consecutive four-year terms. His powers are also severely circumscribed. He has a national security council, but he and his council do not establish our nation’s policies.
In our system, true power lies with the chamber that oversees the president. For you, this chamber is the Senate, controlled by your Republican caucus. For us, it is the Council of Guardians. Members of our council, like members of your Senate, serve six-year terms. The council may veto any legislation, which, in its judgment, violates our republic’s guiding body of law. For us, that body of law is Sharia.
Our intelligence agencies told us that in your country, the guiding document is your Constitution. Recently, however, we watched videos from your “Conservative Political Action Conference.” Several of your senators spoke there about the abomination of homosexual marriage and the importance of protecting religion. Our assessment is that your senators interpret your Constitution in accordance with the Christian Bible, just as our council applies our Constitution in the light of the Holy Quran. We particularly enjoyed the speech of your senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, who called on your government to fight for Christians abroad. This is in agreement with our own policy of coming to the aid of faithful Muslims everywhere.
We are in great admiration of Sen. Cruz. In our republic, he would be an Ayatollah Uzma. We appreciate his signature on your letter and his steadfastness in correcting your president. Many of us were dismayed to learn that Sen. Cruz was criticized in your country for withholding the government’s operating funds in order to block the implementation of a health care law. Some Americans even called the senator a hostage taker.
We also very much admire the principal author of your letter, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Sen. Cotton, like many of our young militiamen, served in combat in Iraq and believes that he is an instrument of God. Some may consider him too young to assert dominion over your country’s foreign policy, at 37 years of age and with only two years of political experience. But we in Iran appreciate his vigor. He reminds us of the young men who seized your embassy here in 1979, two years after he was born. Those brave young revolutionaries did not wait for guidance from their elders.
In Iran, all educational institutions are governed by our Cultural Revolution Council, which safeguards the faith of the people. We have been unable to locate such a council in your federal government. However, we recently learned that the state board of education in Sen. Cruz’s state, Texas, controls through its purchasing power the content of textbooks throughout your country. The board has used this power to limit the teaching of evolution and promote the celebration of your country as a Christian nation. Our cultural council protects Islam in the same way.
Our system, like yours, has its critics. Some portray our Council of Guardians as unelected ideologues who override the will of the people. The charge is absurd, as your own experience demonstrates. In your country’s three most recent elections, which together produced your Senate’s entire current membership, the other party’s nominees won 5 million more votes than yours did. Nevertheless, you control the chamber. The true will of the people, as you know, is to follow those of us who understand what is best.
Thank you once again for this enlightening exchange. Prompted by your letter, our council has decided to end the talks with your secretary of state and dismiss nuclear inspectors from our country. We look forward to working with you in the future on other matters of common interest, such as prayer, capital punishment, and troops in Iraq.
Sincerely,
Council of Guardians
The Islamic Republic of Iran
History of humanity IS stupid because the whole point of studying history is so we don't repeat the same dumbass mistakes.
My words have been blocked by the author of this thread…so be it.
Our history books in our country are being re-written and I believe are dumbing down this country.
They only show the “good” that America has done and minimizes it’s folly, and outright hatred of certain people.
Why don’t we teach about something like “Manzanar” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar
We had our own interment camps…and although we didn’t push masses of people into ovens, it was in the middle of the fucking desert firstly…oh god, just read the link.
Or how, this Nation was built on the back of slaves? Of many nationalities I might add.
The actual, non-sarcastic response to the letters from Congress -
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif has issued a response on behalf of Iran regarding the open letter sent to the Islamic Republic of Iran and drafted by Republican Senator Tom Cotton and signed by 46 other Republican Senators. The response is nothing less than damnin,g and highlights the (new) international embarrassment the Republican Party has brought upon the United States. In the statement Dr. Zarif, stated:
“In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
He goes on to suggest that Netanyahu, along with the Republicans who signed the letter, view peace as an “existential threat.”
Oh, wait there’s more. Dr. Zarif goes even further. According to the statement, after reading the letter, Dr. Zarif expressed astonishment at the utter lack of understanding of not only international law, but even the United States Constitution. The statement reads:
“…it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.”
The letter made claims that if a peace agreement is made without ratification from Congress, they will consider it an “executive agreement” and it could be revoked by a future president. The letter reads:
“… we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
Dr. Zarif responds to this by saying:
“Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”
The statement then goes on to inform the Republicans that current negotiations will not result in a bilateral agreement between the United States and Iran. It will, in fact, have the full participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council and it will have to be endorsed by the Security Council resolution.
Now, not only are the Republican Senators facing serious allegations of committing treason, they are also now being schooled on international and United States constitutional law by Iran.
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif has issued a response on behalf of Iran regarding the open letter sent to the Islamic Republic of Iran and drafted by Republican Senator Tom Cotton and signed by 46 other Republican Senators. The response is nothing less than damnin,g and highlights the (new) international embarrassment the Republican Party has brought upon the United States. In the statement Dr. Zarif, stated:
“In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
Oh, wait there’s more. Dr. Zarif goes even further. According to the statement, after reading the letter, Dr. Zarif expressed astonishment at the utter lack of understanding of not only international law, but even the United States Constitution. The statement reads:
“…it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.”
“… we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
“Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”
Now, not only are the Republican Senators facing serious allegations of committing treason, they are also now being schooled on international and United States constitutional law by Iran.
Peace isn't very well defined either. Violence and conflicts still occur during peace time:
War typically has 4 defining characteristics as armed conflict between autonomous organizations: Weapons, Violence, Coordination, and Sovereignty. The last characteristic is usually the most difficult because wars oftentimes establish or reestablish the rights to sovereignty and hence may be part of the dispute itself such as during revolutionary or civil wars.
Max Weber defined the state (the sovereign entity) as the group that successfully monopolizes violence, but warfare is typically a challenge to this monopoly either directly or indirectly.
In this way, we could characterize a large scale bar fight, mob violence, or a riot as a war so long as it has a minimal amount of coordination, personal/property damage/destruction, and the usage of something other than fists that constitutes 'armed conflict'. Although we could make further arbitrary distinctions between battles and wars in which we'd have to consider space and time intervals.
Peacetime still features the monopolization of violence in how the state defines and legitimizes violence. Violence will either be unathorized and illegal and criminal (murder; assault) or be legitimized as a function of the state (capital punishment; state execution; policing).
To have peace you may have to violently oppose others from committing their acts of violence. There is a paradox of tolerance at play. We may have freedom of religion, but we will not tolerate the practice of human sacrifice or the refusal to pay taxes due to religious belief (it has been argued in court before).
It is a perpetual, systematic, coordinated, armed violence of a state actor against a non-state and uncoordinated actor (domestically speaking). Peace almost meets the definition of war as merely the time between open hostilities or until such time that the non-state actor coordinates its challenge to the monopolizing entity because of conflicting ideology over what should constitute 'peace' and the legitimate use of force.
Peace reigns only for as long as the legal usage of violence is considered just and legitimate.
War typically has 4 defining characteristics as armed conflict between autonomous organizations: Weapons, Violence, Coordination, and Sovereignty. The last characteristic is usually the most difficult because wars oftentimes establish or reestablish the rights to sovereignty and hence may be part of the dispute itself such as during revolutionary or civil wars.
Max Weber defined the state (the sovereign entity) as the group that successfully monopolizes violence, but warfare is typically a challenge to this monopoly either directly or indirectly.
In this way, we could characterize a large scale bar fight, mob violence, or a riot as a war so long as it has a minimal amount of coordination, personal/property damage/destruction, and the usage of something other than fists that constitutes 'armed conflict'. Although we could make further arbitrary distinctions between battles and wars in which we'd have to consider space and time intervals.
Peacetime still features the monopolization of violence in how the state defines and legitimizes violence. Violence will either be unathorized and illegal and criminal (murder; assault) or be legitimized as a function of the state (capital punishment; state execution; policing).
To have peace you may have to violently oppose others from committing their acts of violence. There is a paradox of tolerance at play. We may have freedom of religion, but we will not tolerate the practice of human sacrifice or the refusal to pay taxes due to religious belief (it has been argued in court before).
It is a perpetual, systematic, coordinated, armed violence of a state actor against a non-state and uncoordinated actor (domestically speaking). Peace almost meets the definition of war as merely the time between open hostilities or until such time that the non-state actor coordinates its challenge to the monopolizing entity because of conflicting ideology over what should constitute 'peace' and the legitimate use of force.
Peace reigns only for as long as the legal usage of violence is considered just and legitimate.
Last edited:
Im glad you recognize our history books have nit been history books for a long while. They are being rewritten to promote liberal socialist ideals and make competing ideals look like the enemy. Ill also go further and state that our school systems are being over run by those with this same ideals. Its why untold number of college kids come out believing that conservative ideals are the enemy of this country. It takes a while but generally those who think for themselves and begin to live in the real world see how wrong they were and how many lies they were fed. I know, I was one of those people.
Concerning your post about the Republican letter to Iran, I am glad that Iran finally is seeing America has an actual leadership that wont put up with their crap. The President dosnt speak for the American people any longer. Not that he ever did.
Good article to read.
patriotupdate.com/articles/beginnings-of-american-socialism-in-public-education/
Last edited: