DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22628--------------------------------------------------
Κάτω ο
Πόλεμος!
DIR By: Pinochet88
Date: May 13, 2016, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο λόγος που
τα
αντιπολεμικά
κινήματα
αποτυγχάνουν
είναι ότι
βρίσκουν
απέναντί
τους
(υπ)ανθρώπους
οι οποίοι
στηρίζουν
ολόκληρη
την ύπαρξη
και το
εισόδημά
τους από την
πολεμοχαρή
φύση του
Κράτους, ενώ
οι
φορολογούμενοι
στερούνται
μόνο ένα
μέρος του
εισοδήματός
τους από τη
φορολογία
και έτσι
έχουν
λιγόερους
λόγους για
να
αντιστρατευτούν
τον
εμπαιγμό
και την
εκμετάλλευση.
Και αυτό δεν
περιορίζεται
μόνο στο
ζήτημα του
πολέμου. Όλη
η κοινωνία
ξέρει π.χ. ότι
ο ΕΝΦΙΑ
είναι
απαράδεκτος
και πρέπει
να
καταργηθεί.
Αλλά οι
Έλληνες
πληρώνουν
το μισό (50%)
τους
εισόδημα σε
φόρους και
έτσι
μπορούν να
ζήσουν και
πληρώνοντας
ΕΝΦΙΑ. Ο
δημόσιος
υπάνθρωπος
όμως
λαμβάνει το
100% του
εισοδήματός
του από τη
φορολογία
και έτσι
έχει 2 φορές
περισσότερους
λόγους να
είναι
διαπρύσιος
κήρυκας της
φορολαγνείας.
Έτσι και με
τον πόλεμο.
Γνωρίζει ο
κόσμος ότι
σπαταλάμε
δισεκατομμύρια
για να
εγκληματούμε
κατά της
ανθρωπότητας
και του
πολιτισμού,
αλλά μπορεί
να ζήσει και
με πόλεμο,
ιδίως όταν
αυτός
γίνεται σε
απομακρυσμένες
περιοχές. Ο
δημόσιος
υπάνθρωπος
όμως
στηρίζει
όλο του το
είναι στον
πόλεμο,
γιατί χωρίς
αυτόν είναι
ένα τίποτα.
Όμως η φύση
του Κράτους
είναι
επεκτατική.
Μόλις
νομιμοποιηθεί
η ιδέα του
παρασιτισμού
δημιουργείται
μέσα στην
κοινωνία
μια τάση να
θέλουν όλο
και
περισσότεροι
να
παρασιτούν
όλο και
περισσότερο.
Αυτή η
παρασιτική
τάση ήταν
που επέβαλε
τη
δημοκρατία
και
κατάργησε
πρότερες
μορφές
κρατικών
πολιτευμάτων.
Επομένως
όσο
αυξάνεται η
τάση για
παρασιτισμό
και κατά
προέκταση ο
πλούτος που
αρπάζουν τα
παράσιτα
από τους
παραγωγούς,
τόσο
αυξάνεται
το κίνητρο
του
παραγωγού
να
υποστηρίξει
το
οικονομικό
του δίκαιο
και να
ταχθεί
εναντίον
του πολέμου.
Η
απονομιμοποίηση
του
παρασιτισμού
τότε, ως η
απόλυτη
συνειδητοποίηση
του
οικονομικού
δίκαιου του
παραγωγού
θα επιφέρει
την
κατάργηση
του Κράτους
και κατά
προέκταση
το τέλος του
πολέμου, θα
φέρει τον
Καπιταλισμό
και την
Ειρήνη, μια
για πάντα.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why Do Anti-War Movements Fail?
antiwar
26 Comments
Tags U.S. HistoryWar and Foreign PolicyPhilosophy and
Methodology
05/10/2016David Gordon
[Debating War: Why Arguments Opposing American Wars and
Interventions Fail. By David J. Lorenzo. Routledge, 2016. viii +
233 pages.]
David Lorenzo, a professor of international affairs at the
National Chengchi University in Taiwan, has undertaken an
ambitious task. America has engaged in many wars throughout its
history, and all of them have encountered opposition. Lorenzo in
this excellent book endeavors to classify the principal types of
argument that have been raised by those who challenged the path
of war.
Readers will come away from Lorenzo’s extensive survey with an
indelible impression. The same debates recur again and again.
If, for example, we look at the debate over the War of 1812, it
might be Ron Paul speaking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003:
Responding to Madison’s war message, [Representative Samuel]
Teggart also argued that the war was illegitimate because it had
been avoidable. Despite its assertions to the contrary, the
administration and its backers were predisposed to engage in
hostilities, themselves being caught up in war fever. ... This
fever created a psychological atmosphere which not only
contaminated internal processes; it also affected external
relations. ... Key decision-makers and those in Congress who
backed them, Teggart implied, were not in their right minds.
Another familiar theme emerges in the debate over the Mexican
War:
The Whigs first attacked the decision to go to war by
deploying a deligitimating Constitutional argument. The actions
leading up to the war added up to an unconstitutional
presidential grab for power, they held. By positioning the
military in what was at best disputed territory along the Rio
Grande, the president precipitated a war without Congressional
approval. To allow presidents to place the military in harm’s
way … is to allow executives to politically manipulate Congress
with impunity.
The Anti-War Case Is Often About Prudence, Not Pacifism
Opponents of war must confront an objection. Granted that war
fever and presidential usurpation of power may sometimes result
in unnecessary wars, does this totally invalidate the case for
war? Is not America sometimes really in danger? In the case most
often cited by those who criticize noninterventionists, were not
the pre-World War II “isolationists” willfully blind to the
danger that Hitler posed to America?
It is a great strength of Lorenzo’s book that, having seriously
studied the opponents of Franklin Roosevelt’s belligerent
policies, he realizes that the answer to our question is ”no.”
To the contrary, “isolationists” like William Borah, Herbert
Hoover, and Charles Lindbergh feared that commitments to foreign
powers would weaken America. Only the direct prospect of an
invasion of the homeland would justify war.
The practical problem with actions that he [Lindbergh]
thought would lead to US involvement in the war was not that
they were too militaristic … but that they would provoke an
unnecessary war and in so doing divert attention and resources
from national security needs. … The US should stay out of the
affairs of other countries because such activism constitutes an
unnecessary distraction from tending to its own security needs.
War Undermines Domestic Opposition to State Power
Another argument constantly recurs in the arguments of war’s
opponents. Wars will result in an American empire, destroying
our republican institutions.
John C. Calhoun used exactly this argument in challenging the
Mexican War.
Calhoun held that aggressive foreign policies [toward
Mexico] are not worth it from a purely material and utilitarian
viewpoint. Calhoun then embarked on a different, delegitimizing
discussion when considering what could be done with any
territory taken from Mexico. … The bounty of Mexico would prove
to be a poisonous fruit, ironically destroying the form of
government and civilization that some were attempting to extend
by means of war.
Garet Garett, one of the foremost twentieth-century figures of
the Old Right, used a similar strategy one hundred years later
to oppose the Korean War.
Garrett held that presidents can now routinely engage in
hostilities and commit troops overseas without Congressional
approval and dare Congress to protest. … [T]he state and its
minions have succeeded in subordinating domestic policy to
foreign policy. … Far-flung commitments also trap the US into a
perpetually activist policy. To control and defend its empire,
it must act as the world’s policeman and the keeper of world
order against what it takes to be evil forces and those who
would threaten civilization.
Incidentally, Lorenzo rightly notes that Lewis Mumford
criticized the Cold War along the same lines as Garrett, but he
fails to mention that Mumford sharply attacked Charles Beard for
his opposition to Roosevelt’s bellicose policies. So strong was
Mumford’s hostility to Beard’s isolationism that he resigned
from the National Institute of Arts and Letters in 1948 in
protest of its award of a gold medal to Beard.
Ron Paul’s Anti-War Libertarianism
Carrying his survey into present times, Lorenzo devotes an
illuminating chapter to Ron Paul. He rightly discerns that the
fundamental basis for Paul’s anti-war convictions is not the
belief that America is “special,” as opposed to other nations.
Rather, he accepts moral principles of universal scope:
Paul’s fundamental position [is] that governmental activity
equals the use of force. Force is necessary to keep order within
a community and to respond to an attack, but its use for any
other purpose (including paternalistic or otherwise benevolent
projects) violates the basic norms of individual dignity,
freedom and autonomy that are to be found in natural rights
doctrine.
Paul’s views diverge on many matters from those of Noam Chomsky,
but Lorenzo notes that both of them often pose the same
question: “On occasion he [Chomsky] puts this Moral analysis in
the language of reciprocity that Paul also uses: What would the
US do if another country invaded and occupied neighboring
countries, stationed military assets in the region and
threatened war if the US did not give up its nuclear arsenal?”
If the United States would resist such aggressive policies and
demands, how can Iran and North Korea be rightfully confronted
with them?
If Paul and Chomsky sometimes use the same pattern of argument,
on another matter they sharply diverge. Chomsky believes that
the free market is fatally flawed and ought to be replaced; but
for Paul the free market embodies the natural law principles he
wishes to promote. “Paul the anti-interventionist is not Paul
without his libertarianism any more that Chomsky the
anti-hegemon is not Chomsky minus his anarcho-syndicalism ...”
Why Do Anti-War Movements Fail?
Lorenzo has written an excellent survey, but the subtitle of his
book promises more than it delivers. Only in the last chapter
does the author attempt to determine “why arguments opposing
American wars and interventions fail,” and what he says there is
sometimes open to objection.
He maintains that
critics are at a disadvantage in terms of cooperative action
when compared with their interventionist and activist rivals. It
is easier for the latter to build coalitions and cooperate
because at bottom, despite their differences, most of those who
are in favor of particular interventions agree that such
interventions are ultimately good for American security and in
keeping with American values and therefore have little problem
cooperating to push for action.
The situation, Lorenzo thinks, is different for
anti-interventionists. Though the critics “are often more united
in terms of generally opposing all interventions and wars than
are interventionists, the reason for their objections provide
important problems for cooperation. Critics differ fundamentally
in the end goals they seek, and these differences spill out into
their ability to cooperate.” Lorenzo’s argument is open to an
objection. Is it not also the case that interventionists differ
in their reasons to support war? If these differences do not
prevent the interventionists from cooperating to advocate a
common policy, why do opponents of war face greater
difficulties? Despite their different goals, all
non-interventionists agree that avoiding war will help them gain
whatever their ultimate end may be. If the clashing
interventionists can cooperate, given that they share a
proximate goal, why not their opponents?
Despite this problem, I highly recommend Debating War. It is a
tribute to the author’s scholarly objectivity, a rare quality
these days, that readers will be unable to discern the author’s
own views about the historical issues of war and peace he so
ably discusses.
πηγή
HTML http://bc.vc/dwdDYP
#Post#: 22718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Κάτω ο
Πόλεμος!
DIR By: modern hippie
Date: May 14, 2016, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pinochet88 link ---
>
> Επομένως
όσο
αυξάνεται η
τάση για
παρασιτισμό
και κατά
προέκταση ο
πλούτος που
αρπάζουν τα
παράσιτα
από τους
παραγωγούς,
τόσο
αυξάνεται
το κίνητρο
του
παραγωγού
να
υποστηρίξει
το
οικονομικό
του δίκαιο
και να
ταχθεί
εναντίον
του πολέμου.
Η
απονομιμοποίηση
του
παρασιτισμού
τότε, ως η
απόλυτη
συνειδητοποίηση
του
οικονομικού
δίκαιου του
παραγωγού
θα επιφέρει
την
κατάργηση
του Κράτους
και κατά
προέκταση
το τέλος του
πολέμου, θα
φέρει τον
Καπιταλισμό
και την
Ειρήνη, μια
για πάντα.
>
--- End Quote ---
Τέλεια
θεωρία.
Ισχύει 100%.
Ειδικά σε
ότι αφορά
στους
ισλαμιστές.
::)
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_3IhZOH8NE
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1