Archive for the ‘war’ Category
Found on the LRC blog
[…] war had made them gallant. They had been greedy men, now they were self-sacrificing. They had been selfish, now they were generous. War isn’t hell at all… man at his best… the highest morality he is capable of!”
That’s one to remember.
Another for the collection.
“If the Lord God Jehovah had not created Basil Zaharoff, some novelist sooner or later would certainly have got around to the job. Indeed, it is by no means certain that Zaharoff, as we have him, is not the joint product of God and the fiction writers.”
[…] Zaharoff was the master of what one biographer has called the “principle of incitement,”under which war scares were managed, enemies created for nations,airplanes sold to one nation and antiaircraft guns to her neighbors, submarines to one and destroyers to another. He did what the cigarette people did, what the liquor industry, the beauty industry did — created a demand for his merchandise. The armament industry became a game of international politics, the arms salesman a diplomatic provocateur, the munitions magnates of all nations partners in cartels, combines, consolidations; exchanging plans, secrets, patents. He was the greatest of all the salesmen of death, and, as one commentator has observed, if you would see his monument, look about you at the military graveyards of Europe.
There are no conspiracies (if this isn’t one)…
Adam Curtis created an interesting documentary back in 2004 looking into the new changes in political discourse. If in the past a politician would promise better lives and livelyhoods, today’s public, disillusionised by the ever-failing promises, need new motivations to support politicians. This motivation comes from fear, “a politician is there to protect us from nightmares, and those with the greatest nightmares seem to win.”
Curtis also traces the development of neoconservativism and its ideological “sister” — radical islam. While naturally antagonistic (each needs the other to justify itself), there are paralleles between the two, manifested in the a desire to preserve a modern standard of living, but under stricter social control. Both see violence as the means to achieve their goal, both opposes individualism, both value traditions and social custom.
In other words, The Power of Nightmares
Part 1: Baby it’s cold outside
Part 2: The Phantom Victory
Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave
A startling new development shows that, despite popular conceptions, the Iraquis may pose human-like and American-like emotion. More investigation is needed of this primitive tribe, so read it and make up your own mind:
It is often said that “all is fair in love and war.”
A first impression we might get would be that morality is an object of convenience, to be discarded whenever greater imperatives require it. These imperatives might include: state security, political, social or other particular interests. In other words, morality is seen as a rather flexible set of rules that are only as important as certain figures of authority deem them to be. Or alternatively, rules set aside by the rulers to be followed by the ruled.
Now we’re heading somewhare – morality can thus be condensed into one edict to be followed with necessity and sufficience: “Do as you’re told!”
That can’t sound right. Yet, it’s the logical consequence of the beginning statement. So if that is unacceptable, there must be some way to establish a general and universal set of moral principles. The avenue towards that is also called the moral razor .
In short, for a moral principle to be valid, it must be valid for all men, for all time, regardless of circumstance. If theft is wrong, it must be wrong for everyone, regardless of circumstance. Thus, murder is wrong, wether in peace time or during war, wether performed by the military, or by common criminals, be it for purpose of retaliation or “for the security of the nation.”
The real danger of treating morality like expendable baggage is to look at the consequences. If war excuses otherwise objectionable behaviour, then objectionable people will tend to join the military. And political leaders will see war as the perfect means to achieve objectives, as well as justifying themselves in the process.
Have a nice time.
P.S. By August 6 – tomorrow, there will have been 61 years since the Hiroshima bombings. LewRockwell also has a good piece on the story. “Teaching Stalin a lesson” for the small price of 200,000 lives. Indeed.
Is it British or French collonialism, American Imperialism, Israeli state terrorism, or maybe Arab terrorism? Who fired the first shot, who threw the first stone?
If we’re going to be ingaged in such conversation, we might as well surrender. The roots of these feuds are so old and so convoluted that surveying them would be entirely useless from the objective in hand. At best, a hystorical perspective can provide some raw information, but even if there is agreement on factual events, the interpretations will be inherently adversative.
The solution does not involve dismantling the state of Israel as an end objective. Neither does it imply concessions on the side of “the arabs.”
It’s not Israel, nor Palestine, Lebanon or Hezbollah. It’s old-fashioned Collectivism. Religion, Statism, Communism – and the unavoidable effect: war – all have one common root cause.
In recent comments made on CNN, Israeli military officials have found a new way of framing the latest attack. Get ready for this: It’s Hezbollah’s fault for hiding amongst civillian inhabited areas.
And indeed, it’s Hezbollah who fired the missile, that which killed, among others some 34 terrorists, cleverly disguised as innocent children.
It must be no doubt at this moment that the entire action is a large operation of revenge killing. 20 innocent Lebanese for the lives of one innocent Israeli. That’s the rate these days on the death markets.
So as we see, neither the islamo-fascists, nor the democratic fascists will go out of business any time soon.