War. How much is enough?

because your thoughts underline the reasons for going to war.

I don’t know about the way we should perceive war though. That seems kinda relative.

Propaganda is deeply rooted in everything from war to breakfast cereal commercials.

But I don’t think your type of reasoning is beyond the “common” person (nice word “eloi” by the way). I think in one way or another, everyone is cynical about the reasons for war. Whether they be for or against.

Does war in itself require a sense of introspection? Sure.

Somebody had to start it.

But trying to put your last response in context, you would say that there is “never” any limits in war?

You were asking a question, so I guess I should have erased all not in your first line. So, Is there a just form of nation. Simply, it is those whe are related consanguineously, and who know each other, and their various personalities, and share their concerns, their courage, their determination; and even their cruelty if necessary in defense of friends and family. Are you sure you are not a dull afternoon? I know I dance around the fire a lot. I don't want to get burned saying what the truth is. But I guess I get close enough to smell like smoke and hot dogs. And I trust I am speaking English to the masses.

And btw. Bread and circus only works so long as there is bread enough to go around. Everyone I know is riding on empty. If people ever stop trying long enough to look around and see who has all their loot there won't be much to pick off their bones. Bankruptcy and failed expectations for a better life make revolutions. So how are you doing? It is nice in revolution to have a philosophy to guide it, perhaps a notion of the noble savage degraded from his state of nature to become your king or neighbor. Or an economic ideal. But these ideas are really counter revolutionary. And every revolutionist finds a point where he wants the revolution to end, and that is where many have died. But it is so much of nonsense. People do not have to revolt, they have to do something revolting, and that is to engage with their fellow humans, talk it out, cross the threashold with them as man and wife, so to speak, and this is a terror.

Our forms which should help us to engage very often serve to protect us from engagement, from too much of relationship, give and take, and so the form tells every man upon which square he should stand, and it takes great courage to throw away the board and the squares and have each make their own way. Yet, that is how forms should be built, from the relationship up, and if people have the relationship the form follows, at best, minimally.

BrightNoon wrote:

First, re that bold part, what the fu*k!? are you saying anything; sounds like newspeak to me or some woefully extended metaphor you'd find in the Tapaloochie Times in Kentucky.

My point is this; democracy does not ensure or even make more likely stability; often, quite the opposite; read The History of the Peloponesian War. Our country, 'beacon of the world' is something of an exception, because we are so incredibly rich and comfortable and have been, generally, for a rather long time. Of course, our nation (btw, I'm assuming your american...) is the perfect example of the fallacy of the myth that democracies tend not to make agressive war.

Really? What do you know about democracy. Majority rule? Republics? How much have you looked at real democriacies, like the Iroquois confederacy? The more you know the easier it will be for you to tell the truth. Pick up a book because I haven't got the time to educate you.

Quote:

People are more motivated by daily realities than by ideals, such as liberty. Hence, bread and circuses are still the way to playcate a people. If one considers the causes of the various revolutions in history, which have been labelled as idealistic projects, the only idealists were the elite, who already had there bread and who, in the case of the french revolution, were subsequently slaughtered by the mob, which had not been fed by civil liberties. Armed mobs have typically been quite practically minded...

P.S.

As far as I know, the most long lasting, most prosperous and most stable states in world history have been paternalistic autocracies, relying, quite literally, on bread and circuses to satisfy the mob. I'm thinking of Rome in particular. It is an idealist who finds idealism pragmatically necessary for peace, order, etc.

By the way, I am no fan of autocracy, though democracy is, in principle, just as oppressive.

So you would say that profiteering wouldn’t be a “cause” for war per se but rather as context of war???

That the way we should see war is relative, I also agree with. But the way your perceive a relative notion of war is problematic. War can be perceived cognitively by rational senses as well as empirical senses in the post modern sense of the terms.

As to your other comment. Unfortunately, I am not too acquainted with the laws of soul dynamics.

The evidential mentioning of…Amerikkkans…is an example of bias propaganda.

Your thoughts are buzzworthy to be sure, but I don’t know if they hold any ground beyond the axiomatic statements.

On war, I disagree with your assertion that “the only limits are those reached in attaining victory.” Though, I still have to say that your response is rather axiomatic and dogmatized.