Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It helps to maintain the capitalist system by:
a) Providing a method for taking money from people via taxation and givng to armaments manufacturers to fund miltary projects. War is big profits.
b) Expansion into new territories to get access to a new workforce who can be paid considerably less than the current workforce
is a universal Human thing.
It doesn't depend upon Political systems
War has existed between Humans for Millenia.
How am I an enemy of Intellect?
however certain agents of change get an improved lot from war. One side benefit for many companies and individuals is the spending of peoples money on materials that will cause harm in the long run, money materials and items that they would not normally need if there was not a war, money that otherwise they might spend on health and food and housing.......which they will need to spend a lot on after the housing has been damaged/destroyed.........JDT is right.....although I think fullerov is interpreting that jdt thinks that capitalists start conflict......I am saying that it may more be, that they dont hinder it very much.
Why wouldn't a capitalist hinder war? Population displacement, extended seiges, famine and the collapse of industry and commerce in the local area are all results of war that harm the pocket.
Capitalists SOMETIMES gain from war, but equally sometimes war is the last thing someone looking to make money wants.
to the outsider capitalist......yes settled calm places enable wealth to be increased and crops to be grown, but these are for the benefit and shared more amongst the local populace, when the upheaval of war occurs then outside interests are able to benefit more, the countries involved are obliged to spend with entities that they dont normally, after many wars it is the local populace that pick up the poverty of the overall decrease in an areas productivity.......many many wars are accompanied by or followed by severe famine for example.....
capitalists and stock brokers might not want wars to occur in themselves....I am not suggesting they are all like that, but the system that they are cogs in does not always recognise war as a disaster as humans do.........unless it is in an oil rich state.....then the stock market might be affected.
i am sure many of them regret war.......but the unless the system they are players in recognises war as a bad thing (like oil prices) then the successful capitalist will go along with things.....they wont buck the system.....that is why they are successful in capitalism....they are good true cogs to it.......as humans outside the stock market system, they may try to give to charity from their bonus's to alieve some of wars traumas, but they would not try to steer the free market, they purposely dont like people like me who suggest that it is steered and reigned.
this is surely obvious
that makes arms is shown to make a huge amount of money (either in profits, large bonuses or salaries) then does it get an extra tax that then goes to support people in the countries that have been having the war?.....No
Do you think that all the landmines in cambodia or africa were all donated at cost price?....no they were sold for profit.
That's an arms company. How much do you think a company who had plans to develop the medical/educational infrastructure in a given country would gain if a war suddenly turns the place apart.
How would you say Coca Cola, for example, would gain from Iraq at war, or Iraq at peace?
For another example, many people were against the Iraq war because they said companies like Halliburton were just going to move in after it was all over and take advantage of their new playing area to harvest oil.
Halliburton as a company are about more than just oil though. How well do you think Halliburton have done in the new Iraq, versus how well they might have done if Iraq was at peace right now?
Sun Tsu said it best when he explained how every man engaged in a lengthy seige costs hundreds more in food, payment and other supplies.
For governments and corporations, it makes sense to have less war, not more.
and in the long run that is true, however governments and investment dont seem too anxious to avoid war now do they? You have to admit there was little compelling reason to invade iraq the second time......so you have to ask what the real reason was.....I genuinely dont know what the reasons for it were, what swayed Tony's mind.....we will never know, its not for defence or security resons, so one must ask what it was for.
One might ask also what on earth were the US doing fighting in Vietnam, what on earth was the rationelle there? There is no logical explanation for that on the surface.
he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he ......surely it was against a countries increasing nationalism (with non expansive ambitions)
They were anti chinese expansionism in south east asia (surely that would have seemed like the greatest threat to any sane stratician)
If you contend that the US forces were fighting in vietnam to stop the spread of communism, then that would be damning its spirit there as against international law? (actually although its great for the purposes of dissing the US, I do not believe that that is the reason they were fighting there)
but more due to cloudy minds and misconceptions and the fact that at some point it seems easier to agree to war than not. That somehow it is in peoples best interest....Capitalism relies on competitiveness to be encouraged, to create need even if there isnt one. Some uneccesary strife is caused by unecessary competativene.
I have still yet to hear any capitalistic centric argument that persuades me that a 2% growth in economy every year is necessary. Why is zero net growth not acceptable?...
(please do me the favour of acknowledging that I am looking at the whole world, and long term, when I say this)
I've heard a variety of compelling reasons for both incursions into Vietnam and Iraq.
You should get ahold of Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger for the real dirt on his nefarious dealings concerning Vietnam.
for these incursions, I am not ignorant of them, however I am unconvinced by any of them being compelling.
Yes Kissinger was a mean and nasty mutha, im surprised he is treated so cudly wudly by people, he seems to be welcome at many an occassion and feted as a kind of celeb, not treated as the sort of person he really is/was
BUT....this is a big but.....the free market is very very short sighted in many respects........a company has to generate better returns on investment ANNUALLY.
Short termism is the stock markets watchword (imo) to look at the long term would let its human agents/cogs realise in actual fact how culpable they are for many problems, how inequitable it all is. but as i said investors (or the fund managers who do the investing for you) care about return, not the long term future, the assumption of the market is that any problems caused can be solved by the market, so activities that might cause problems to humans are not avoided......the assumption is that there will be a market to fix these problems
you have not responded.
You aren't an especially good debater. You fire off accusations and refuse to back them up.
It can be extremely frustrating.
Please cite recent examples.
It's possible that the Iranian military have made an error; it is also possible that the merchant ship was in Iranian waters.
make 'em walk the plank
navy claims Iraqi....
The U.S. is declaring nuclear war on a country, but never names which one it is. Quite amusing. "Right, at twelve hundred hours prepare the submarines to launch missiles at that country!"
they were in Iranian waters and were caught. Probably some kind of ruse to kick off Operation Tehran
The Iranian boats were fast.
It really isn't that hard to be surrounded in a small boat...
...that sounds like the begining of a James Bond film. That or war. Which would YOU prefer?
which Bond film.
Tomorrow Never Dies.
If it was Moonraker though I'd be petitioning the government to press the button right now.
i think we all know that.
it is possible that either side might right about the dividing line, also it may either have been a mistake or more sinister....the thing is even if it wasnt a mistake, this is how countries sometimes measure themselves and their relations and the others intent........really no one should make a big thing out of it, everyone should just be diplomatic and courteous, since britain originally drew the maps for that area (to iraqs detriment.....mostly in kuwaits favour) then there is obviously a lot more history and previous about this that you this whole site or the bbc news knows about, so its a bit naive to speculate too much over what is an enormously diplomatically significant stretch of water.
You don't get us kidnapping soldiers and holding them at gunpoint. Dirty tactics.
if they were raiding ships within out territorial waters.