When you hear US troops are killed in Afghanistan

[20000miles]

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.

The war problem for me lies with the state, or more precisely the government. The Government doesn't play within the rules of the capitalist system. It constantly subverts it. Capitalism defined as a system based on capital, property rights and voluntary action. Government can tax (ie legally steal) and it can legally send men to their deaths.

The huge moral hazard occures when industry exploits the government's special position in the world. Halliburton can't start any wars. It can't violate any property rights. But the government can. Make the government play by the same rules as everyone else and only just wars will be fought.

As a sidenote, corporations don't benefit nearly as much as governments do from war. Corporations can't take up 50% of GDP, debase the currency or remove our civil rights.

[Van Damme]

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.

The war problem for me lies with the state, or more precisely the government. The Government doesn't play within the rules of the capitalist system. It constantly subverts it. Capitalism defined as a system based on capital, property rights and voluntary action. Government can tax (ie legally steal) and it can legally send men to their deaths.

The huge moral hazard occures when industry exploits the government's special position in the world. Halliburton can't start any wars. It can't violate any property rights. But the government can. Make the government play by the same rules as everyone else and only just wars will be fought.

As a sidenote, corporations don't benefit nearly as much as governments do from war. Corporations can't take up 50% of GDP, debase the currency or remove our civil rights.

The US military has been privatised to such a degree it barely represnts any government any more.

[myksav]

What is your reaction?

I usually am indifferent but also hope in some way it will begin to turn people against the US occupation

My reaction is generally, "Feck that clown Bush. If he had stuck with the job of wiping out the Taliban and Al Qaeda and not lose interest in the job and decide to start another war, Afghanistan would be in a better situation now."

When Bush announced the Afghanistan campaign, I applauded. And it started off fairly well, the Afghani people were not against the idea. Then Bush jumped horse in mid race and decided that attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein was 'sexier' on foot of the Twin Towers attack on September 11th. Though Iraq had nothing to do with that, Iraq used to kill any Al Qaeda that entered Iraq, Hussien saw them as a serious threat to his rule. That's when I decided Bush was a muppet. The US military in recent years is much smaller than it was during the Cold War and back and invading Iraq when there was an existing war on meant 'penny-packeting' combat forces.

The increase in 'mistakes' by US and allied forces in Afghanistan is significantly down to combat fatigue and stress, as well as poor HumInt. A result of 'penny-packeting'.

[myksav]

[quote=Van Damme][quote=fionnmccool]

When I hear about it happening I'm not surprised. I also wonder when the killing everywhere of everyone is going to stop.

You can't have capitalism without war

Maybe instead you cant' have human nature without war. Why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? I dont' think you can impose communism without war either (e.g The Prague Spring 1968)

To respond to your edit you must realise that Vietnam wanted to be under the rule of Ho Chi Ming and his party. The US even prevented elections in the south because they knew the people would vote in favour of unity under Ho Chi Ming. I personnally would be critical of Ho Chi Ming but would have seen him as being an advancement on french and US imperialism.

The Korean situation is more complex. Korea was a Japanese colony before the war and then carved up amongst the allies. When the Maoists tried to unite the country (which had the support of most koreans and would have succeeded without US interference) the capitalists fought back resulting in a bloody international war. If you look at the facts you will see North Korea was actually far more prosperous than the south right up until 1970 or so. Of course North korea is a brutal deformed state and always was but don't think for a second the US puppets down south were any better in the time of the war.

Thats very interesting but I still am curious as to why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? As I said, I dont' see Ireland as a capitalist country going to war with anyone.
As you said earlier: 'War is not naturally a part of human nature but rather the opposite. The greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places does not represent human nature.' Could this idea not equally be applied to the greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places within capitalism as it can be applied for communism ? Is the problem not human nature across all ideologys ?[/quote:ywfkbsih]

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.[/quote:ywfkbsih]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.

[Van Damme]

[quote=myksav][quote=Van Damme]

When I hear about it happening I'm not surprised. I also wonder when the killing everywhere of everyone is going to stop.

You can't have capitalism without war

Maybe instead you cant' have human nature without war. Why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? I dont' think you can impose communism without war either (e.g The Prague Spring 1968)

To respond to your edit you must realise that Vietnam wanted to be under the rule of Ho Chi Ming and his party. The US even prevented elections in the south because they knew the people would vote in favour of unity under Ho Chi Ming. I personnally would be critical of Ho Chi Ming but would have seen him as being an advancement on french and US imperialism.

The Korean situation is more complex. Korea was a Japanese colony before the war and then carved up amongst the allies. When the Maoists tried to unite the country (which had the support of most koreans and would have succeeded without US interference) the capitalists fought back resulting in a bloody international war. If you look at the facts you will see North Korea was actually far more prosperous than the south right up until 1970 or so. Of course North korea is a brutal deformed state and always was but don't think for a second the US puppets down south were any better in the time of the war.

Thats very interesting but I still am curious as to why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? As I said, I dont' see Ireland as a capitalist country going to war with anyone.
As you said earlier: 'War is not naturally a part of human nature but rather the opposite. The greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places does not represent human nature.' Could this idea not equally be applied to the greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places within capitalism as it can be applied for communism ? Is the problem not human nature across all ideologys ?

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.[/quote:191n95x7]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.[/quote:191n95x7]

I said you can't have capitalism without war, not you can't have war without capitalism.

[myksav]

[quote=Van Damme][quote=myksav][quote="Van Damme":1q3flh6d]

When I hear about it happening I'm not surprised. I also wonder when the killing everywhere of everyone is going to stop.

You can't have capitalism without war

Maybe instead you cant' have human nature without war. Why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? I dont' think you can impose communism without war either (e.g The Prague Spring 1968)

To respond to your edit you must realise that Vietnam wanted to be under the rule of Ho Chi Ming and his party. The US even prevented elections in the south because they knew the people would vote in favour of unity under Ho Chi Ming. I personnally would be critical of Ho Chi Ming but would have seen him as being an advancement on french and US imperialism.

The Korean situation is more complex. Korea was a Japanese colony before the war and then carved up amongst the allies. When the Maoists tried to unite the country (which had the support of most koreans and would have succeeded without US interference) the capitalists fought back resulting in a bloody international war. If you look at the facts you will see North Korea was actually far more prosperous than the south right up until 1970 or so. Of course North korea is a brutal deformed state and always was but don't think for a second the US puppets down south were any better in the time of the war.

Thats very interesting but I still am curious as to why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? As I said, I dont' see Ireland as a capitalist country going to war with anyone.
As you said earlier: 'War is not naturally a part of human nature but rather the opposite. The greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places does not represent human nature.' Could this idea not equally be applied to the greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places within capitalism as it can be applied for communism ? Is the problem not human nature across all ideologys ?

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.[/quote:1q3flh6d]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.[/quote:1q3flh6d]

I said you can't have capitalism without war, not you can't have war without capitalism.[/quote:1q3flh6d]

Because war or conflict is an intrinsic human trait, you cannot have any form of governance/social system/economic system without war. Targeting one specific ignores that.

[Van Damme]

[quote=myksav][quote=Van Damme][quote=myksav][quote="Van Damme":36e6p9d5]

When I hear about it happening I'm not surprised. I also wonder when the killing everywhere of everyone is going to stop.

You can't have capitalism without war

Maybe instead you cant' have human nature without war. Why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? I dont' think you can impose communism without war either (e.g The Prague Spring 1968)

To respond to your edit you must realise that Vietnam wanted to be under the rule of Ho Chi Ming and his party. The US even prevented elections in the south because they knew the people would vote in favour of unity under Ho Chi Ming. I personnally would be critical of Ho Chi Ming but would have seen him as being an advancement on french and US imperialism.

The Korean situation is more complex. Korea was a Japanese colony before the war and then carved up amongst the allies. When the Maoists tried to unite the country (which had the support of most koreans and would have succeeded without US interference) the capitalists fought back resulting in a bloody international war. If you look at the facts you will see North Korea was actually far more prosperous than the south right up until 1970 or so. Of course North korea is a brutal deformed state and always was but don't think for a second the US puppets down south were any better in the time of the war.

Thats very interesting but I still am curious as to why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? As I said, I dont' see Ireland as a capitalist country going to war with anyone.
As you said earlier: 'War is not naturally a part of human nature but rather the opposite. The greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places does not represent human nature.' Could this idea not equally be applied to the greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places within capitalism as it can be applied for communism ? Is the problem not human nature across all ideologys ?

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.[/quote:36e6p9d5]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.[/quote:36e6p9d5]

I said you can't have capitalism without war, not you can't have war without capitalism.[/quote:36e6p9d5]

Because war or conflict is an intrinsic human trait, you cannot have any form of governance/social system/economic system without war. Targeting one specific ignores that.[/quote:36e6p9d5]

War is never inevitable nor is it an "intrinsic human trait"

[Pax]

[quote=myksav][quote=Van Damme][quote=myksav][quote="Van Damme":2ggf4dv8]

When I hear about it happening I'm not surprised. I also wonder when the killing everywhere of everyone is going to stop.

You can't have capitalism without war

Maybe instead you cant' have human nature without war. Why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? I dont' think you can impose communism without war either (e.g The Prague Spring 1968)

To respond to your edit you must realise that Vietnam wanted to be under the rule of Ho Chi Ming and his party. The US even prevented elections in the south because they knew the people would vote in favour of unity under Ho Chi Ming. I personnally would be critical of Ho Chi Ming but would have seen him as being an advancement on french and US imperialism.

The Korean situation is more complex. Korea was a Japanese colony before the war and then carved up amongst the allies. When the Maoists tried to unite the country (which had the support of most koreans and would have succeeded without US interference) the capitalists fought back resulting in a bloody international war. If you look at the facts you will see North Korea was actually far more prosperous than the south right up until 1970 or so. Of course North korea is a brutal deformed state and always was but don't think for a second the US puppets down south were any better in the time of the war.

Thats very interesting but I still am curious as to why do you think capitalism and war are interlinked ? As I said, I dont' see Ireland as a capitalist country going to war with anyone.
As you said earlier: 'War is not naturally a part of human nature but rather the opposite. The greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places does not represent human nature.' Could this idea not equally be applied to the greed and ignorance of a few people in powerful places within capitalism as it can be applied for communism ? Is the problem not human nature across all ideologys ?

Capitalism is drive by corporations and industrialists desires to increase profit. Wars can be very profitable. Take the Iraq war. The US president and advisors are essentially just reps for the corporations. The war in Iraq has benifited no one except the huge US corporations like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc who co-incidently donate so generously to the capitalist parties. Cheney is the president of Haliburton FFS! Capitalists always need a military to back them up to protect and increase profits, the British empire had it and now the American empire has it. Seizing other countries resources always creates new profitable enterprises for the capitalists.[/quote:2ggf4dv8]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.[/quote:2ggf4dv8]

I said you can't have capitalism without war, not you can't have war without capitalism.[/quote:2ggf4dv8]

Because war or conflict is an intrinsic human trait, you cannot have any form of governance/social system/economic system without war. Targeting one specific ignores that.[/quote:2ggf4dv8]

Unequal power and wealth, a class-based system, economics based upon illogical 'infinite' growth, and hierarchical institutions can lead to war. There is nothing in the human pysche to suggest war is an intrinsic pre-requisite.

____________
[size=7]ParEcon Questions & Answers[/size]

[Podolski]

There is a major flaw in your thinking on war. Capitalism is a relatively new system, war is not. In history, there have been more wars under monarchism than any form of capitalism. Just look at European history. Would you call the Romans capitalists? What about the Carthiginians? And that's just European/Mediterranian history. Throw in African history, American history (pre-Colombus), Asian history. A lot of wars without any form of capitalism.
War, conflict or competition is a human trait, it's caused by environmental pressures, population pressures, resource pressures and good old greed. Or the need to distract the population from internal problems. Bug all to do with system of capitalism.

Capitalism, in the sense of the international banking system, is relatively modern, however it is only an advanced form of what was there before. Imperialism, like capitalism stems from greed.

As for the question of US troops killed in Afghanistan - the loss of any person's life, particularly a young person, is a tragedy and leaves behind grieving relations and friends. Most of the US troops are from working class backgrounds and have chosen the military more through economic necessity than design. In many ways they are victims too. However, unlike the native populations of Afghanistan, Iraq or any of the dozens of other countries where the US have been involved in recent conflict, these people have some choice over where they are.

[20000miles]

Capitalism, in the sense of the international banking system, is relatively modern, however it is only an advanced form of what was there before. Imperialism, like capitalism stems from greed.

Capitalism stems from self-interest rather than greed. The desire to substitute a lesser existence for a superior one.

As for war being 'intrinsic' in our nature that's baloney. Van Damme and I have no incentive to shoot each other to pieces, while Tesco and Dunnes Pty Ltd don't benefit from a violent war between one another. On the other hand, as governments don't own any houses or buildings they can easily start blowing apart other nations.

To restate: just because we have had a capitalist class system for centuries, and because we have had wars for centuries, it does not follow that capitalism cannot survive without a state of war.