TnTComic
That's pretty cynical.

And I'm a cynic.

I second that motion.

I can understand the war for profit logic, in many ways I'm a supporter of that line of thought. Ultimately though the reason for a war is not the logistics of it. Historically most wars were land grabs. That was the original purpose for war: to seize land, and keep it as your own. That reasoning died out with the modern age though, as owning land did not mean controlling the land. Now the idealistic reasons are the roots of wars.

I suppose he would say "no taxation without representation" was motivated by greed.

cartoonprofessor
"strategic control of resources" = profit, ozone.

That's backwards and quite oversimplified. "Strategic control of resources" is an umbrella phrase that covers a helluva lot of things, whereas "profit" is a very specific interpretation... That describes the outcome of a transaction, the positive outcome. War is far too nebulous and complex a situation to be put into a simple profit/loss equation, even nebulous concepts like "strategic control of resources" struggle to define war, but at least they have built-in flexibility.

Truthfully, war never leads to profit for the participants, even with the gains from a victory you still lose, and people understand that when they undertake a war. That's one of the reasons for the term "strategic control of resources" and not "Profitable control of resources": basically there's only so much and you fight for a bigger share of that limited amount- that's why you have a motivation for wanting to acquire it even though you pay heavily for your gains.

People who do "profit" tend to be arms manufacturers, banks who fund a lot of it, building firms after the war... But all of that sort of thing is petty really and while those sorts of people might push for war, those wants are not enough to make it happen. You really do need a critical mass of things to push it that far, big things, fundamental things, and primary recourses are about as big as you can get.

imshard, "land grabs" are just resource wars. Land is a resource (it has energy reserves, farm land, water, room to live etc), and it's still a reason for war.
Ideology and nationalism are still drives as well, that's why the Taliban still want control of Afghanistan, that's why the US backed the Ethiopians to invade Somalia and oust the peaceful Muslim government there (it's peaceful no longer now...). Nationalism and tradition drove the Serbs to subjugate the Albanian population in the province of Kosovo, nationalisim drove the Albanians there to want their own state. ;)

TnTComic
I suppose he would say "no taxation without representation" was motivated by greed.

No, I would say it was a great slogan to motivate the poor bastards they were trying to get into uniform to stop lead balls.

The hardest part of warfare is getting a really good slogan going to motivate the boobs into dying for your dreams of great gobs of wealth.

They shed the rule of a king across an ocean, so the "boobs" got what they were fighting for.

TnTComic
They shed the rule of a king across an ocean, so the "boobs" got what they were fighting for.

they traded one tyrant a thousand miles away for a thousand tyrants one mile away... What a trade.

Mister Mxyzptlk
they traded one tyrant a thousand miles away for a thousand tyrants one mile away... What a trade.

oookay, what part of the USA do you live in? Are you even a US citizen? do you even exist in this dimension? I've seen countries with tyrants and the US is nothing like them. Anyways this got more than a bit off-topic. The topic was whether we will resume combat activity with North Korea. (technically the Korean war never ended, we're officially under a cease-fire)

TnTComic

Mister Mxyzptlk

TnTComic
In the Revolutionary War?

Revolutions are fought over the formation of new countries. Huge amounts of land, industry and valuable resources are at stake. Sure it's wrapped up in imagery of liberty and fraternity and such but at it's heart is the desire of a few to rule over the people like the old rulers have been doing.

That's pretty cynical.

And I'm a cynic.

Cynical but correct.
Wars are fought for many reasons but wars are started for profit. This point is well documented by historians and ex-generals ailke.

And Ozone... resources are profits.

My argument is that wars only start because some people see a profit in starting the war. If there was no potential for profit do you seriously think the US would have invaded Iraq? Or begun any one of its many wars in the last 100+ years.

Come on guys, stop being so niaive....

While I agree that any politician (or even any civilian), under the right/wrong (depending on your perspective) circumstances, can become a tyrant (Hitler and Pol Pot come to mind, for example) -- the U.S. is not a tyrannical dictatorship. As much as I may not personally like the President's stance on say, enforcing our borders -- if I send him an email or a postal mail or even hold up a sign in front of the White House showing my disapproval, my wife does not have to worry about me disappearing and never being seen again. For the moment at least, we have many, many freedoms in the U.S. and other countries that are not dictatorships.

If I did something similar in other countries, I would be killed or imprisoned for it.

Really, Mxyzptlk, I'd like to have a conversation with you but it's pretty hard when your views don't appear to have much perspective outside your own cynicism. Could things be much better here? I'm sure they could. But we're not living in Beijing...

Mister Mxyzptlk

TnTComic
They shed the rule of a king across an ocean, so the "boobs" got what they were fighting for.

they traded one tyrant a thousand miles away for a thousand tyrants one mile away... What a trade.

imshard
do you even exist in this dimension?

Just visiting. I've got a fifth dimensional visa.

imshard
I've seen countries with tyrants and the US is nothing like them.

No, Americans accept their tyranny happily. They outstretch their arms and enjoy their chains. You beg for more tyranny at every election. That's what makes you such fun people.

dueeast
Could things be much better here? I'm sure they could. But we're not living in Beijing

By and large most people in Beijing are happy with their government. Under most tyrannical regimes the majority is perfectly happy with the powers that be. It's the people who wind up on the wrong side of the regime that see the tyranny for what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... [en.wikipedia.org]

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

This is a bit broader than war with North Korea, but who needs another war thread?

So here's this link to a perspective of American Interventionism, from a two time medal of Honor recipient [fas.org].

Allegedly, mind you.

Wars are fought for many reasons but wars are started for profit.

Not necessarily. Sometimes its strategic gain.

The USA has bases in Japan, Philippines, and South Korea. Those countries have no oil.

The USA did that to counter the influence of communism. Now the bases are still there because they need to protect Taiwan from a possible invasion by China. As well as to put a stop to the Chinese sphere of influence.

Why is the USA going to the Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayaff, MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front), and NPAs? Its just a small country with no oil. What will US troops gain from helping the Philippine Government? Based on talk from Filipino soldiers, I've heard stories of US troops receiving training in guerilla tactics, hand-to-hand combat (FMA is the best weapon-centered martial arts), and counter-insurgency. Which are skills they need in Iraq. IMO, the Iraqis are worse than the Vietnamese as far as guerilla tactics are concerned because they've never fought guerilla war until recently.

I also hears stories of US troops getting shocked by the brutal training methods of the Philippine Army (Scout Rangers refuse to give details but they say they wont do it again even if given a million dollars) And that the news media just doesnt report the real facts so as not to embarrass the USA. For sure, the mighty USA empire will not want the world to know they're being taught by a little country. :)

The Colt .45 was made as a result of action in the Philippines. Seems the usual sidearm just wasn't cutting it.

mapaghimagsik
The Colt .45 was made as a result of action in the Philippines. Seems the usual sidearm just wasn't cutting it.

The .38 revolver was to light to knock down a drugged up psycho.

Mister Mxyzptlk

mapaghimagsik
The Colt .45 was made as a result of action in the Philippines. Seems the usual sidearm just wasn't cutting it.

The .38 revolver was to light to knock down a drugged up psycho.

That's Ms Drugged Up Psycho to you!

mapaghimagsik
That's Ms Drugged Up Psycho to you!

When you care enough to kill with the very best.

Oh please. Nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Should I be concerned by the direction this is going?

That would require a direction for it to go in. It is presently nowhere.

Logic and sense have left the building, looking for Elvis.

I could offer a direction...my username is a direction! lol!

imshard
Should I be concerned by the direction this is going?

cartoonprofessor
And Ozone... resources are profits.

No, resources are wht a country needs to grow. It has nothing to do with "profit". Grr... That is completely secondary and simplified, as I've already explained. Perhaps what you really mean by "profit" is "advantage"? Otherwise you sound like the Southpark underpants gnomes...
"Phase 1: collect underpants!
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!"

ozoneocean

cartoonprofessor
And Ozone... resources are profits.

No, resources are wht a country needs to grow. It has nothing to do with "profit". Grr... That is completely secondary and simplified, as I've already explained. Perhaps what you really mean by "profit" is "advantage"? Otherwise you sound like the Southpark underpants gnomes...
"Phase 1: collect underpants!
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!"

I think that's a great example of the Corporatization of America that we no longer differentiate between profits and resources?

Or, as an acquaintance said, "Its all about bitches and money."

mapaghimagsik
Or, as an acquaintance said, "Its all about bitches and money."

Lovely.

See, the reason I've always had money in my pocket and food on the table is because I understand the concepts of profits and resources. The two are not the same. A profit is what you gain at the end of a deal or interaction. Or as the dictionary likes to say:

prof-it Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun

1. Often, profits.
a. pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b. the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c. returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.
2. the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.: The company works on a small margin of profit.
3. advantage; benefit; gain.
-verb (used without object)
4. to gain an advantage or benefit: He profited greatly from his schooling.
5. to make a profit.
6. to take advantage: to profit from the weaknesses of others.
7. to be of service or benefit.
8. to make progress.
verb (used with object)
9. to be of advantage or profit to: Nothing profits one so much as a sound education.

Your resources can be tools, skills, or materials. Depending on how you apply your resources to any situation you can walk away with a profit or a loss.

imshard

mapaghimagsik
Or, as an acquaintance said, "Its all about bitches and money."

Lovely.

See, the reason I've always had money in my pocket and food on the table is because I understand the concepts of profits and resources.

I have lots of reasons I've had money in my pocket and food on the table

1) Parents who valued education, and instilled said values
2) Parents with money (funded part of my education and fed, clothed, and kept (keep!) me in books
3) College loans from the state
4) A relatively stable government
5) Living in a wealthy superpower that isn't afraid to exploit workers from other countries
6) Random chance
7) Networking contacts, friends.
8) Living within my means
9) Good health
10) Good Luck, and opportunity
11) I started saving money early, which builds up capital momentum.

I realize it spoils my liberatarian cred not to be all "I pulled myself up by my boostraps" kind of person, but really. Its great to see people who are satisfied with their accomplishments, but the ones who are self-satisfied and piss on all the people who have not made it through no fault of their own is tacky -- not saying you are, but I'm sure you know the type.

And a basic understanding of value is extremely important. But, we live in an economy which is very healthy for the most part and with the right skills one can do reasonably well. I also think the skills that get well paid are not necessarily the skills that really benefit society the most. Its the disposable part of income.

If the US economy went to complete and utter shit, the smartest stockbroker isn't going to be making a dime, and if there's a debilitating illness, even savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars aren't going to save you. I'd bet that with all my so-called brains, gumption, and bootstrap pulling, I might be fighting in the wreckage for that rotten bit of bread stick like the rest of the proles.

But there will always be rich people, and there will always be a portion of them that think they got there by some sort of God-given right, rather than by happenstance and the inertia of captial.

mapaghimagsik
I have lots of reasons I've had money in my pocket and food on the table

Did we ask for your personal history? Thats not the point. To my thinking wars are transactions just like any other human venture. You apply your resources and you either gain or lose resources as a result. Sometimes you gain some things with the loss of others. With war you often you don't gain anything.

imshard

mapaghimagsik
I have lots of reasons I've had money in my pocket and food on the table

Did we ask for your personal history? Thats not the point. To my thinking wars are transactions just like any other human venture. You apply your resources and you either gain or lose resources as a result. Sometimes you gain some things with the loss of others. With war you often you don't gain anything.

Wow, I quoted the part I was responding to. I didn't think it was that hard.

And just like any other "Wars are from x" where you place your favorite grand unification theory in with x, your thinking is obtuse, and war is not a game of Command and Conquer.

mapaghimagsik
Wow, I quoted the part I was responding to. I didn't think it was that hard.

And just like any other "Wars are from x" where you place your favorite grand unification theory in with x, your thinking is obtuse, and war is not a game of Command and Conquer.

Wow, rapier wit! Accuse somebody of being stupid by using fancy words!
When did emotion replace reason as the vogue fashion of politics and debate?

imshard
When did emotion replace reason as the vogue fashion of politics and debate?

Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years?

It's been SOP ever since politicians started using television to push their message.

Mister Mxyzptlk

imshard
When did emotion replace reason as the vogue fashion of politics and debate?

Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years?

It's been SOP ever since politicians started using television to push their message.

So says the man who who has been alive that long?
Please speak for yourself, stop using the words supplied to you by others.

But yes, you're probably right anyway. Logic, reason, even justice and fairness gave way to childishness when mass media replaced people's need to think for themselves.

imshard
But yes, you're probably right anyway. Logic, reason, even justice and fairness gave way to childishness when mass media replaced people's need to think for themselves.

Yes, the Force is strong in this one. Come, join me on the Cynical Side and we shall RULE the galaxy as Father and Son... which is only a little creepy...