Violence as a tool of national policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The poll is "ranked" from least violence to "most." Feel free to discuss the rankings as well as the topic to whatever extent you wish.

Poll will follow in 4 minutes.

[LordElrond]

Protecting "national interests" is a bit ambiguous, and could be exploited. :help:

[Reenk Roink]

Hehe, world domination is #1 so far :2thumbsup:.

[Lemur]

Mmmmm ... world domination ... :2thumbsup:

[Duke Malcolm]

While world domination isn't a good enough reason, acquiring territory to find resources to better ones nation is... If that leads to World Domination, then , well...

I'm all for colouring the map in red...

[BDC]

Sometimes I guess if it actually saves lives and makes things run smoother in the long run...

Not a lot of point being peaceful if 10 years down the line half a country is dead due to something not being stopped in time.

[master of the puppets]

all really great and lasting empires all took a similar policy to advancement, take land and all the reasorces it holds to sponsor further military advances, creeping across the world and growing always stronger as i assimilate more land and resources.

[Rodion Romanovich]

all really great and lasting empires all took a similar policy to advancement, take land and all the reasorces it holds to sponsor further military advances, creeping across the world and growing always stronger as i assimilate more land and resources.

Actually the most successful empires expanded in response to enemy attacks, as counter-attacks. The early roman empire for instance, although nothing is black and white and they did some unprovoked attacks also in the early period. Usually these large empires when getting too powerful start attacking opponents for less and less justified reasons and when their power is large enough they don't even bother to officially announce any justification to their wars. That's when they meet a turning point and are eliminated, unless they're ready to give up the territories they have no just claim to. The roman empire was extremely unsuccessful but today's European countries are extremely successful, having even survived waves of rebellions, while influential roman patricians have been mostly exterminated from earth. I'd say it's a very incorrect conclusion to say expansionism benefits your country in the long run unless your expansionism keeps the "patron-client relation" form and you only keep the land for as long as you have any reason at all why your rule in the area would be better for the people than the other existing alternatives. While rebels lose wars and often lose more men in each campaign, empires lose more men in total with all wars together and they often end up getting a horrible end. Especially if they try to hold on to their unjust claims for the sake of prestige and fear of a horrible revenge, something that makes the oppressed tremendously hateful and eventually change their policy from freedom fight to total extermination of their oppressors.

So I wouldn't say expansionism as a reason standing for itself would benefit a nation. Even if your power is undisputed you can never as a large empire prevent your coming generations from degrading into decadence and relax and the affairs of the state ending up in the hands of people with private interests who don't care if they kill the nation, and seldom are aware that they do so.

The most successful country in the history of mankind would be the "country" of Greenland, who have avoided casualties in war better than any others. The united rain forest federation of Amazonas is also one of the better. For a thoughtful and interesting dialogue on the subject, I refer to the discussion about whether Italy was losing or winning ww2 in the book Catch-22 by Joseph Heller :book:

[Viking]

I might have voted wrong, now I see; but I think that preventing genocide is defensive.

[Goofball]

The poll is "ranked" from least violence to "most." Feel free to discuss the rankings as well as the topic to whatever extent you wish.

Poll will follow in 4 minutes.

You should have allowed for multiple choices. There are several poll options that I would agree with.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

For the acquisition of territory that historically belongs to that nation. Although my beleif is more along the lines of:

To acheive the concept of self determination and protection of the various ethnic groups that reside within their respective nations. Also, in defense of National interests, et cetera.

[Tribesman]

Never under any circumstances .
But that does lead to the problem of getting everyone else to agree to the same , which ain't gonna happen .
Mr. Cornflake tried with his international legislation , but all the signatories were too busy using violence as a national policy to pay any heed to it .
Another problem that arises is what to do with extranational groups that use violence as a tool .

[Redleg]

Never under any circumstances .

Is appeasement the answer then?

[Papewaio]

Never under any circumstances .
But that does lead to the problem of getting everyone else to agree to the same , which ain't gonna happen .
Mr. Cornflake tried with his international legislation , but all the signatories were too busy using violence as a national policy to pay any heed to it .
Another problem that arises is what to do with extranational groups that use violence as a tool .

It essentially hands the keys of the city to those who are prepared to further their agenda using violence.

[Tribesman]

It essentially hands the keys of the city to those who are prepared to further their agenda using violence.

That is dealt with in the second line Pape , and again in the last line .

[Crazed Rabbit]

You're clearly not an idealist, Pape.

I voted for critical national interests.

Crazed Rabbit

[Viking]

Never under any circumstances.

So if your country is invaded, you are just going to surrender?

[Lazul]

For the acquisition of territory that historically belongs to that nation. Although my beleif is more along the lines of:

To acheive the concept of self determination and protection of the various ethnic groups that reside within their respective nations. Also, in defense of National interests, et cetera.

you must be a fan of large-scale conflicts and varius genocides then. ~:handball:

[Tribesman]

So if your country is invaded, you are just going to surrender?

Viking , if violence is never to be used as a tool of national policy then how the hell could anyone invade ?
Invasion is using violence as a tool of national policy isn't it .:idea2:

[Al Khalifah]

By the very concept of what a nation is, the objective is always to further the national interests and objectives of the nation. All nations were forged from violence and territorial expansion and redistribution.

There is no point in commiting to violent conflict unless it is in the interests of the nation itself - although interest can be coerced.

[Viking]

So if your country is invaded, you are just going to surrender?

Viking , if violence is never to be used as a tool of national policy then how the hell could anyone invade ?
Invasion is using violence as a tool of national policy isn't it .:idea2:


Yeah, but I thought that this poll was about todays political situation, in which no such agreement exist.



Otherwise this poll woud`ve been unnecessary, because we all agree about this, right? :help:

Never under any circumstances

[Kralizec]

I'd have wanted to select several of the choices, so I picked "To prevent genocide or efforts at genocide" because the others I'd have picked would be rather obvious. Direct defense of you and your allies of course...counterattacks? I don't like to make a broad statement here, it depends on the specifics of the case.
"To protect critical national interests" didn't make it, because protecting your interests isn't necessarily justified. After WW2 the Netherlands send armed forces to Indonesia (Dutch India at the time) to restore colonial authority. Not justified in my book, I'm sure King Malcolm will disagree ~;)

[Duke Malcolm]

Very much so... I would see restoring authority as a perfect reason to send forces... If the place had been taken over by partisans, then yes. There would no doubt be loyal citizens to defend...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Viking , if violence is never to be used as a tool of national policy then how the hell could anyone invade ?
Invasion is using violence as a tool of national policy isn't it .

Right. The UN stopped Saddam dead from even invading Kuwait...er...nevermind.

What needs to be understood is that rules are only as powerful as their enforcement. Having the UN say all war is bad doesn't mean crap if they can't do anything to stop the people who ignore them. And to have that capability, there has to be some capability for defense.

I think saying that its alright for countries to start wars to aquire resources and land would make Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan justified in starting their wars of agression.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

What needs to be understood is that rules are only as powerful as their enforcement. Having the UN say all war is bad doesn't mean crap if they can't do anything to stop the people who ignore them.
Thats really funny Rabbit , since one of the architects for for the banning of war as a tool for national policy was indeed your very own secratary of state , and it was passed with only one dissenting vote in the Senate .
If you go to your State Dept. you will find that it is still law in the US and is one of the many treaties that your government signed that is still valid under your laws .
Besides which it wasn't the UN , the League of Nations was around at that time , though that is irrelevant as the treaty was conducted outside of the League .
So it isn't the UN that is ignoring the crap treaty , and while still having it as a legal document on its books does bugger all about it . It is your own government , along with the 61 other governments that signed .

So.....
Never under any circumstances .
But that does lead to the problem of getting everyone else to agree to the same , which ain't gonna happen
Catch 22 :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Have any links or information? Nor do I see how this in any way disputes what I said about rules needing enforcement.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Have any links or information?
Try the US State Dept. web site treaties section , its on page 4 of the pdf. file .
Or you could just search for your Secratary of State called Kellog and the French bloke Briand .

Nor do I see how this in any way disputes what I said about rules needing enforcement.

Well if you just said that rules need enforcement that would have been fine , but you said...Having the UN say all war is bad doesn't mean crap if they can't do anything to stop the people who ignore them. ....which is a case of pot/kettle not white .
How can you criticise the UN when your own government still has a valid treaty saying all war is bad that it ignores .
Lobby your politicians to get the treaty revoked , there is no point having it clutter up your statutes if you are not going to enforce it is there .

Edit to add
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/38569.pdf
I don't normally do links , but I think you may be very very busy trying to find a site to back up your claims on poverty .

[Kaiser of Arabia]

you must be a fan of large-scale conflicts and varius genocides then. ~:handball:
Genocide can be a useful political tool.

THE ENEMY IS GENOCIDING HIS MINORITIES! GET HIM !!!shift1shift1shift1shiftoneshiftone

Large scale conflicts often result in economic strength and national unity.

[Sheep]

If I am the emperor, then clearly it is actually in the world's best interest that I conquer it in its entirety. I therefore chose "world domination." But that only applies to me.

[Strike For The South]

THE ENEMY IS GENOCIDING HIS MINORITIES! GET HIM !!!shift1shift1shift1shiftoneshiftone

Large scale conflicts often result in economic strength and national unity.

or it could backfire into death destrction and the loss of teh nation.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

or it could backfire into death destrction and the loss of teh nation.
Not for America. Maybe for Germany, but never for America. Except civil wars.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Lemur]

I've played my TW games, and I've played just about every iteration of Civ. I know what it's all about. Global domination. If that weren't true, it wouldn't be featured in video games.

Besides, I'm training my son to take over the world. We've watched Superman II several times, but I still can't coax a "Kneel before Zod!" (http://www.generalzod.net/) out of him.

[Reenk Roink]

Besides, I'm training my son to take over the world. We've watched Superman II several times, but I still can't coax a "Kneel before Zod!" (http://www.generalzod.net/) out of him.

Sorry, this issue has already been resolved about 2 weeks ago with the possesion of the globe being split between me and Just A Girl (ShambleS).
I get everything except for Canada, UK, France, and some minor Pacific Islands. America was left unclaimed by both of us. Still, if your son shows potential, perhaps he can duke it out with my future sons for the throne when I abdicate at age 35.

[Lemur]

Well Reenik, no matter whose spawn rises to grind the face of the huddled masses of humanity into the dust, at least we can agree on World Domination. And that's the part that matters, right?

[Reenk Roink]

Well Reenik, no matter whose spawn rises to grind the face of the huddled masses of humanity into the dust, at least we can agree on World Domination. And that's the part that matters, right?

Absolutely, we are true pragmatists :2thumbsup:.

*shakes Lemurmania's hand* :shakehands: