Coldfinger Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I think you can at least say the nation v nation paradigm has dominated since as long as the U.S. has been a nation, if not since the dawn of nation-states. Uh, hello? Civil War? And what about the wars within and between city states within a single nation? Edited March 16, 2012 by Coldfinger Quote
selkirk Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Even Vietnam, Korea, the previous version of Afghanistan, all dealt pretty heavily with quasi-nation states or proxies for other nations. Not quite non-governmental actors, but not exactly direct nation vs nation warfare either (ala WWI / WWII) Quote
Pete_H Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Vietnam: U.S. / South Vietnam v North Vietnam Korea: South Korea / U.S. v North Korea China got pretty heavily involved in both conflicts supplied a lot of arms to N Vietnam and had quite a few combatants in Korea. Sure, from our perspective these were cold war / proxy wars which adds another layer but still nation state v nation state. I'm not trying to argue that every conflict ever fought until Afghanistan was between nations, I'm just saying that in the last few decades non-state actors have become more prominent in international politics. I'm not smart enough to make this shit up, PHD's who teach college and shit did. So maybe I'm just trying to justify all the student loans from a 12-year-old poly sci degree. Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Sure from the Western perspective (with exceptions like our civil war), but many wars are more drawn along ethnic, tribal or religious lines. Yugoslavia's disintegration shows that premise well, as do events in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Well, there was the war against the Barbary Pirates but that was probably a one-off. the barbary pirates were in a state-ish type thing - the various pashas of n africa, though in all practical senses separate from the ottoman empire, still swore allegiance to it, claimed political authority through it, and acted as state operators w/ envoys, demands for tribute, a veneer of responsibility for enforcing islamic law, etc. nation states developed about 200 years ago - it's all a red herring though - humans fight w/ other humans relentlessly - that's the reality - all the politics, ideologies, excuses, yadda fucking yadda are just lubricants to let it happen - call them wars, conflicts, rows, ruckuses, police actions, fucking whatever, it's all war. joe's rule for regulating them in a republic is a sensible one, but that's of course the problem - war is nature, war is gravity, war is not sensible, war is water running downhill - it will happen, and all we can do as people in a republic, at best, is try to force it into harmless gulches n' gullies and grand geo-politically engineered landscapes. some asshole wrote it in a poem once: "and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" Quote
Pete_H Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 True dat. The study of war is indeed the study of the history of humankind. Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 the various wars of the 70s of communist on communist (russia on china, china on vietnam, vietnam on cambodia, china on india) show the silliness of trying to boil everything down to mere ideology - so too the 30 years war of 17th century europe when catholic france combined w/ protestant states to war against their hapsburg enemies and nominal heads of the holy roman empire - pimps look for excuses to knock a bitch down, see? Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 True dat. The study of war is indeed the study of the history of humankind. that's my joke w/ the kids who take my elective class - you just choose to take another version of the exact same goddamn class you're already being required to take - 'cept in this one we get to watch rated-r movies n' cut out the bits w/ naked roman statues n' shit Quote
Pete_H Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 the various wars of the 70s of communist on communist (russia on china, china on vietnam, vietnam on cambodia, china on india) show the silliness of trying to boil everything down to mere ideology - so too the 30 years war of 17th century europe when catholic france combined w/ protestant states to war against their hapsburg enemies and nominal heads of the holy roman empire - pimps look for excuses to knock a bitch down, see? How would you read the Cold War then? - as the two big bullies on the block destined to butt heads? I suppose the Soviets could have been into Buddhism and we would have demonized it. Though clearly at least Stalin and Kruschev were actively trying to affect the downfall of the western govt's. Quote
G-spotter Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men; some slaves and some free. Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 How would you read the Cold War then? - as the two big bullies on the block destined to butt heads? i believe those were the exact words of "red dawn" but yeah, just that - that was all fair game of course - the us military occupied russia in the early 1920s and fought many vicious (and gladly, from my perspective, unsuccessful) actions in the war of reds on whites - we, hypocritical asshole-bastards as we are wont to be after a good old power-bender, tried to overthrow them, so why shouldn't they return the favor? i'm glad we both failed, and i hope the lesson is for any dipshit who pays attention that the moral is, we really need not to pick favorites and/or act in their favor, unless it's clearly a case of right/wrong (in the recent libyan and syrian situations, for example, i think it's easier to see our actions as more selflessly based, and not about exacting a major economic/geopolitical benefit as a result. Quote
Coldfinger Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Most of the time there was shooting the combatants only relied on us for arms and for ZERO motivation. They weren't fighting because they loved/hated the U.S., they hated each other's guts and THAT'S why they got after it so enthusiastically. As in during the "troubles" it wasn't as if the IRA were inclined to like communists (after all they were staunch Catholics) or Libyans for that matter, they just HATED the protestants and British in that order. Plus in the Cold War the big international players were definitely not playing peacemaker, more throwing gas on the fire than water. Post cold war the international community makes a much greater effort to stop fighting diplomatically or even intercede militarily (Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Ivory Coast, etc) as there is zero danger of touching off WWIII. So the only thing "cold" about that war was that any combat between NATO and Warsaw Pact was covert, while wars elsewhere were much more violent and widespread than they would have been w/o. Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 bottomline, nothing's changing - angry hairless monkies gathering poo at all hours to fling in all directions Quote
ivan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Kinda thinking this one might be executed. Lots of enlisted and NCO's did more time than Lt. Calley for far less than murdering somewhere between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians. Calley got off lightly in comparison to what may happen to Sergeant _______. somehow i doubt it - jesus, look already at the comparison between sgt bales and pvt manning - manning was stripped naked and kept in a barren cell for weeks on end (and still is, for all i know) on suicide watch, kept awake endlessly - this guy according to the army: "Bales will be in special housing in his own cell and not in a 4-person bay. He will be afforded time outside the cell for hygiene and recreational purposes ... He will be afforded religious support, if desired" but jesus, if there ever was a guy who might be thinking about killing himself? Quote
JosephH Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 You can bank money on the fact this poor guy is about to become the tea party's cause célèbre du jour. Quote
Pete_H Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 He was just pissed off because Obama's trying to raise his taxes! Quote
dougd Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Kinda thinking this one might be executed. Lots of enlisted and NCO's did more time than Lt. Calley for far less than murdering somewhere between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians. Calley got off lightly in comparison to what may happen to Sergeant _______. somehow i doubt it - jesus, look already at the comparison between sgt bales and pvt manning - manning was stripped naked and kept in a barren cell for weeks on end (and still is, for all i know) on suicide watch, kept awake endlessly - this guy according to the army: "Bales will be in special housing in his own cell and not in a 4-person bay. He will be afforded time outside the cell for hygiene and recreational purposes ... He will be afforded religious support, if desired" but jesus, if there ever was a guy who might be thinking about killing himself? What makes you think he's not on suicide watch? He was just pissed off because Obama's trying to raise his taxes! WTF makes you think this is something to make light of? d Quote
Pete_H Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 It was more of a joke about the Tea Party. Sorry if I offended, but consider the forum. Quote
minx Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) regardless of what the spray forum is or isn't... it may be fair game to take a cheap shot. its also fair game to call someone out on the cheap shot. = spray. people have been banned from spray for making personal attacks. spray is not without boundaries. they are far and wide but they are there. that comment wasn't personal but it was pretty tasteless. carry on Edited March 18, 2012 by minx Quote
akhalteke Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Kev I've got to agree with Ak on this. it doesn't matter if its a war, conflict, occupation. I hear you. I was only correcting another persons post to accurately reflect our current situation. To me that is a very important piece of the puzzle. To call it war is to continue the brainwashing. IMO. And to say that AK has more perspective is wrong. He has a different perspective. One that I respect but very different. Uhm Kev, I have been shot twice (different times) and I will just go out on a limb and assume that I have much more education than you (formal and otherwise) in matters pertaining to war. When two organized opponents are waging armed "conflict," with the destruction of the enemy the goal, you have a war. Now tell me shithead, without all your wacko political jibberish: What is war? war1 [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. 3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. Just because you say it isn't a war because of your inane ability to ignore definitions that have been around for hundreds of years, does not mean its not war. Or did Rumsfeld bribe/threaten the poor sheeple at Webster's? Quote
Pete_H Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I guess when someone's trying to shoot your nuts off it doesn't matter what you call the situation. At any rate, thank you for your service! Quote
olyclimber Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 ahahaha, reminds me of another Peter Jackson gem: i don't think I every cringed so much watching a movie. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.