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.
Never, under any circumstances.
For the purpose of direct defense only, no counter-attacks.
For direct defense, with counter attacks against those directly responsible.
For direct defense and/or the defense of one’s allies.
To prevent genocide or efforts at genocide.
To impose order where another government has collapsed.
To protect critical national interests.
For the acquisition of territory that historically belongs to that nation.
To acquire territory and resources that will further the power of the nation.
To achieve world domination.
Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Protecting "national interests" is a bit ambiguous, and could be exploited.
Originally Posted by khelvan
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Hehe, world domination is #1 so far.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Mmmmm ... world domination ...
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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...
It was not theirs to reason why,
It was not theirs to make reply,
It was theirs but to do or die.
-The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"Wherever this stone shall lie, the King of the Scots shall rule"
-Prophecy of the Stone of Destiny
"For God, For King and country, For loved ones home and Empire, For the sacred cause of justice, and The freedom of the world, They buried him among the kings because he, Had done good toward God and toward his house."
-Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
A nation of sheep will beget a a government of wolves. Edward R. Murrow
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. —1 John 2:9
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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
Under construction...
"In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
I might have voted wrong, now I see; but I think that preventing genocide is defensive.
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
You should have allowed for multiple choices. There are several poll options that I would agree with.
"What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?"
- TSM
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
Why do you hate Freedom?
The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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 .
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Is appeasement the answer then?
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
It essentially hands the keys of the city to those who are prepared to further their agenda using violence.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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 .
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
You're clearly not an idealist, Pape.
I voted for critical national interests.
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
So if your country is invaded, you are just going to surrender?
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
you must be a fan of large-scale conflicts and varius genocides then.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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 .
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
Cowardice is to run from the fear;
Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
But to hold the line anyway.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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 .
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?
Never under any circumstances
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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...
It was not theirs to reason why,
It was not theirs to make reply,
It was theirs but to do or die.
-The Charge of the Light Brigade - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"Wherever this stone shall lie, the King of the Scots shall rule"
-Prophecy of the Stone of Destiny
"For God, For King and country, For loved ones home and Empire, For the sacred cause of justice, and The freedom of the world, They buried him among the kings because he, Had done good toward God and toward his house."
-Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Right. The UN stopped Saddam dead from even invading Kuwait...er...nevermind.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 .
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
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Have any links or information? Nor do I see how this in any way disputes what I said about rules needing enforcement.
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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 .
Last edited by Tribesman; 01-25-2006 at 01:46.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
Genocide can be a useful political tool.you must be a fan of large-scale conflicts and varius genocides then.
THE ENEMY IS GENOCIDING HIS MINORITIES! GET HIM !!!shift1shift1shift1shiftoneshiftone
Large scale conflicts often result in economic strength and national unity.
Why do you hate Freedom?
The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
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.
Re: Violence as a tool of national policy.
or it could backfire into death destrction and the loss of teh nation.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks