Has war become irrelevant? And will representative democracy soon follow?

[walker 0]

Hello all

With the boundaries of war being increasingly blurred; what is a civilian government policing operation or a corporate marketing campaign or a private individual or corporate protection and what is a black op or a legal national protection or war is becoming amorphous.

To the extent that what is a war and what winning a war means in the modern era has become questionable, did America win the war in Iraq? Did Israel realy loose the assasination war?

As Clauswitz says in On War "War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means" also traslated as "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

The question then becomes the one posed today by on the BBC:

6 March 2013 Last updated at 00:20

Spent force: Are wars still winnable?

By Jonathan Marcus

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

America is starting to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and the implications of more than 10 years of fighting is far from clear. Is it possible to win a war any more or have wars always been unpredictable in their outcomes? ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21633960

As always follow the link to the original article in full

In an age of the Internet where revolutions can be won far more effectively by the simple expedient of publishing that which was once secret and spreading the success of a meme.

Are wars increasingly becoming irrelevant and will representative democracy soon follow?

Do we still need representative democracy other than for a few ceremonial duties? Could we not just replace parliament and congress and the Dumas with a discussion forum? One has only to consider how effective this was in Iceland recently.

And then we can save our selves some tax money and then why not just rent those big public buildings out as high class hotels?

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 6, 2013 by walker
clarity formatting

[ProfTournesol 956]

A couple of typos in the topic title.

[walker 0]

Hi ProfTournesol

I will ask a Moddie to fix if possible.

Fixed thanks to W0lle. :)

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 6, 2013 by walker

[mrcash2009 0]

The lull before the storm, if you ever see world leaders talking about "peace time" ... you need to read up on things all about what peace time really & truly is. If you ever get a chance its always worth watching and reading up on the "Iron Mountain Report" regarding this very subject, with projecting peace time and external threats and so on, this included global warming and, well ... its worth googling and giving it a look up. Telling signs are most sources refer to the book about the report than the report and link it to works of fiction, which is what always comes about.

Although if you get the details of the report its very interesting to see the real world comparisons and also peace time based scenarios.

With everything, take it as you find it (that includes most of the people that throw the lazy comment of tin foil into every thread that contains all round views), but I wouldn't for one second when officials and think tanks push this into the mainstream media run with it completely, box within a box and so on. War is a lucrative machine no matter what way you look at it so putting that in the mix I dont think we will have a world that has no war.

But, its very interesting to see this & ask, what truly is "peace time" in this world? No physical wars is peace for everyone? Truly? for me personally its simply a diversion of resources and focus, but underneath it the same thread keeps running.

Edited March 7, 2013 by mrcash2009

[krzychuzokecia 700]

In an age of the Internet where revolutions can be won far more effectively by the simple expedient of publishing that which was once secret and spreading the success of a meme.

Very romantic view on the latest accidents in Middle East/North Africa, but is it real or only myth? See, "revolution" in Egypt started thanks to activism of Internet-users, but look who have power there now: the military, the same one who was put in action to stop the revolution! Looks like generals took their chance and joined protestants, only to set their own government soon. I bet that if they'd act aggressive towards civilians, Hosni Mubarak would be still president of Egypt...

Do we still need representative democracy other than for a few ceremonial duties? Could we not just replace parliament and congress and the Dumas with a discussion forum? One has only to consider how effective this was in Iceland recently.

And then we can save our selves some tax money and then why not just rent those big public buildings out as high class hotels?

Well, representative democracy is in the state of flux, regarding to social acceptance of it - people feel that "this won't work", and they're right! But would some more direct form of governing be better?

See, every country needs government if it's not anarchy (in fact anarchy is opposite of country I'd say), with it's fiscal system (and taxes), departments residing in "big public buildings", and... forces of "legal use of violence" (as Max Weber said). So, even with direct democracy (or at least ballot democracy), it might be still a problem, and (in the worst case) we could end with far more complicated system of governing!

Not that I'm against changes, I'm all for them but in what direction?

[ColdSnap 1]

While what we define war as may change, I do believe there will still be war for centuries to come. The idea that war is a mere extension of politics is correct. I think what we may see more of in the near future is cyber espionage and covert operations. The global economy makes everyone so interdependent that the majority of large nations will avoid large scale armed conflict with each other and stick to the shadow games.

Edited March 9, 2013 by ColdSnap
Derp typo

[WarriorSA 1]

I agree +1

[Lauxman 10]

eh

I'm pretty sure we still haven't concluded a major armed conflict, the longest in United States history yet.

(cue for a bunch of people who have never been to Afghanistan/Iraq "It's not a really war, congress said so!")

War isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[wipman 1]

Hi, the war is always an option, when you've said all what you could and there's nothing more to say... all what you've left is to fight; this means war if we're talking about countrys. But there many kinds of wars... the economic war is another version/concept of war and can be as destructive as an open war, with firearms, tanks and planes, corpses on the streets and everything; the so called "repressentative democrazy" is about to fall?, i think that's close... why?, because those people don't repressent us... how someone that trips into official car would repressent me, my interests and circumstances? when i earn 800€ x month and the flat's rent are 560€ (light, gas & water apart). They earn stratospheric ammounts in relation to us (the lower class, "previously known as..." working class!!) they don't even talk to people like us, they live in their world and we live in our world... with cops, fights, gangs, drugs, mini-jobs, low wages, broken cars and surrounded by pharisees, on the streets, on the TV, on the pubs, on internet, on the congress and political partys... even on our own familys. How will one of this thiefs repressent us...!?, they don't have to fight for live... they just pay and go on, because they've last name and all what comes with it; we just have our hands and our empty pockets... .

The nowadays people are not ready for an open war... imagine one of those lady gaga's worshippers with a rifle on the hands... ppff.. for God's shake... i would shot him myself, even if he wears my same uniform; overall if he wears the same uniform than me...!!, the braindeads that our western nowadays society create are not ready for this. Neither for make a better political system, were friends and enemys can live and work together for the common wealth on a peaceful and and fair society; part of this... is an antropolgic thing and we can solve it, but you can't neither count on the nowadays people to fix/improve what's fixable or to go to an open war with the expectancy of win. In conclussion... we're doomed. Let's C ya

[nettrucker 142]

IMHO no . . . it has not.

War is a racket . . .

We never had a real democracy we were made believe we had.

[scrim 1]

I recall similar nonsense about no more wars after WW1. It was stupid back then because wars were going on at the time, and it was even worse in hindsight due to obvious reasons.

If you can't see the folly in actually putting any degree of belief into wars not mattering any longer simply because the US has had a 50% success ratio in their two latest counterinsurgency wars, allow me to be amused.

[vilas 473]

after WW2 when war was first made by Adolf Hitler who invaded other states and later war carried to stop Hitler , wars changed,

wars are mostly for me "rich greed fu***rs cheat and lie voters and send troops to take resources of other country to make themselves more rich"

all this propaganda about human rights, democracy is bullshit, one country wants to steal other country to have better economy, thats all,

when in history "west" robbed "east" in XIX or XVIII centuries, now "east" take revenge and it is called "terrorism" and "west" tries to strike back,

war for me is something bad, i do not like wars, i believed in reasons that my grandfathers fought, because there was Hitler, i do not believe reasons that now people fight, it is mostly economical greed of some guys from "financial elites"

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

after WW2 when war was first made by Adolf Hitler who invaded other states and later war carried to stop Hitler , wars changed,

wars are mostly for me "rich greed fu***rs cheat and lie voters and send troops to take resources of other country to make themselves more rich"

all this propaganda about human rights, democracy is bullshit, one country wants to steal other country to have better economy, thats all,

when in history "west" robbed "east" in XIX or XVIII centuries, now "east" take revenge and it is called "terrorism" and "west" tries to strike back,

war for me is something bad, i do not like wars, i believed in reasons that my grandfathers fought, because there was Hitler, i do not believe reasons that now people fight, it is mostly economical greed of some guys from "financial elites"

If you're talking oil, that was conclusively debunked by me. Look at the statistics, the USA imports roughly 40% less oil from the middle east than it did before the start of the 2003 war. That figure is rising, it's long been official policy to reduce the dependency of the USA on oil from the middle east. My question in the link below was

If the US invaded Iraq to steal it's oil why isn't it stealing any?

I didn't get an answer?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151119-Intervention-in-Iraq-10th-Anniversary&p=2352306&viewfull=1#post2352306

Can you expand on the "west robbed east" thing - I would love to read it. As far as anyone is aware the 3 stated motives by Al-Qaeda were UN Sanctions on Iraq, US troops in Saudi Arabia for UN SC Resolution 688, US support for Israel. That is why they chose New York as a target, it was the displeasure with the US and the UN, specifically the occupation of the holy places. In OBL's 1998 fatwa I can't find any mention of theft?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Tonci87 163]

Forget the oil, look at how much money Bush´s advisors made during that war. Look at his vice president. A few guys who were at the top of the state made some serious cash with the Afghan and Iraq wars

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Can you expand on the "west robbed east" thing - I would love to read it. As far as anyone is aware the 3 stated motives by Al-Qaeda were UN Sanctions on Iraq, US troops in Saudi Arabia for UN SC Resolution 688, US support for Israel. That is why they chose New York as a target, it was the displeasure with the US and the UN, specifically the occupation of the holy places. In OBL's 1998 fatwa I can't find any mention of theft?

My cat thinks that it's too simplistic !

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

My cat thinks that it's too simplistic !

Your cat should read Osama BL's fatwas which are very revealing. Those....are.....the.....reasons......OBL & al-Zawahiri....stated....in.....1996 & 1998. Are you suggesting the great prophet warrior was telling fibs?! It's a shame no one got a chance to do a Q&A with him and work out just what cognitive logic problem he had. I can't fathom much of his reasoning and can't tell if it was psychological or purposely not accessing the relevant information. Maybe a bit of both.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I respect the fact that you defend offcial reports,because evidences and proofs are everywhere on the internet , very accessible and put in some logic to the audience beside the fact that they're promoted (so there is that "massive effect",that kills reasoning and free space for propaganda and communitarism),but it doesn't necessarely mean that it's always true !

All what's related to 9/11 is subject to many questions and controversies,whether you like it or not ...and i am talking about the pre and post events ! and please don't reply to this :D !

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Yeah I am aware there are some conspiritards that think it was an inside job.