Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bludog

7 Reasons To Abolish War.

Recommended Posts

War is bad.  I'd add "our military members get killed" to your list of reasons.  I'd like to abolish war.  How do we do that?  I went to the website. 

 

The 'abolish bases' campaign is way off the mark.  I could oppose foreign bases on financial grounds, but not for the reasons stated on the site.  They describe U.S. military bases...

 

Quote

...as a manifestation of U.S. imperialism and global domination, and as a constant implicit threat. Additionally, because of a history of military aggression, countries with U.S. bases are targets for attack.

 

That's absolutely false.  No U.S. bases were in Iran or Iraq before those countries went to war with each other.  Ukraine/Crimea did not have U.S. military bases.  Kuwait did not have U.S. bases.  Sudan...no.  Yemen?  Lebanon?  Israel?  Syria?  Somalia? Georgia?  Lots of countries beset by wars that have no U.S. bases.

 

Most of our foreign bases are in places like Japan, Germany, and Korea.   No wars there.  No attacks on their territory.  No aggression against them of any kind.  South Korea was invaded before they had U.S. bases...not after.

 

History shows that U.S. bases deter wars rather than provoke them.  If you want to abolish war, reducing U.S. foreign bases is a step in the wrong direction.  

 

Are they a "constant implicit threat"?  Sure.  Absolutely.  The threat is:  "Don't attack the country with the base in it or you're messing with the USA."  I wouldn't even call it implicit.  It's explicit.  

 

The site also recommends that we "Divest from Weapons".  That seems to mean making sure pension funds don't invest in defense stocks.  That's a moral choice.  It's like religious organizations that won't invest in alcohol or tobacco companies.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.  But, I don't think your investment in the defense industry will "enlarge the war industry".  Lockheed Martin won't add or subtract capacity based on your ownership of their stock.  They respond to purchases.  If you want to hurt the defense contractors, we need to shrink the defense budget.  That's something I support.  We spend too much on defense.  Although there's still room to cut, defense spending as a percentage of GDP (currently 3.1%) is not as bad as it once was. It's not like the Reagan years (5.7%).  It's not even as bad as the Bush years (4.5%).

 

I actually have a recommendation for ending war, but no one seems to like it:  world government.  The only time wars ever end is when a larger/more powerful entity enforces peace.  If we surrender our precious sovereignty to a world government, wars will go away.  With a world government, national armies are mostly obsolete.  We could take most of that 3.1% of GDP and use it on something productive and useful.

 

Without a world government, there will always be wars.  So long as there is no larger/more powerful entity to protect us, we (and every other nation) will insist on a significant defense capability...capabilities that will inevitably be misused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 10:40 PM, Renegade said:

That's absolutely false.  No U.S. bases were in Iran or Iraq before those countries went to war with each other.  Ukraine/Crimea did not have U.S. military bases.  Kuwait did not have U.S. bases.  Sudan...no.  Yemen?  Lebanon?  Israel?  Syria?  Somalia? Georgia?  Lots of countries beset by wars that have no U.S. bases.

 

Most of our foreign bases are in places like Japan, Germany, and Korea.   No wars there.  No attacks on their territory.  No aggression against them of any kind.  South Korea was invaded before they had U.S. bases...not after.

 

History shows that U.S. bases deter wars rather than provoke them.  If you want to abolish war, reducing U.S. foreign bases is a step in the wrong direction.  

 

Are they a "constant implicit threat"?  Sure.  Absolutely.  The threat is:  "Don't attack the country with the base in it or you're messing with the USA."  I wouldn't even call it implicit.  It's explicit.  

 

Our military bases, around the world may be keeping the peace for now.  But they are a constant provocation that will, ultimately be challenged.  In the long run, we cannot realistically expect to remain the most intimidating military power on Earth.  What it comes down to, in the end, is  M.A.D.   There never was a weapon invented that wasn't used in battle.   N.B.C. weapons  are no exception.  It's not a matter of if, but when. 

 

Keeping the peace by force is the worst way to do it.  History shows it is temporary..  There is a better way which you suggest below.

 

On 7/25/2019 at 10:40 PM, Renegade said:

The site also recommends that we "Divest from Weapons".  That seems to mean making sure pension funds don't invest in defense stocks.

 

It also means making sure to support lawmakers who would push for legislation to divest.

image.jpeg
On 7/25/2019 at 10:40 PM, Renegade said:

If you want to hurt the defense contractors, we need to shrink the defense budget.  That's something I support.  We spend too much on defense.  Although there's still room to cut, defense spending as a percentage of GDP (currently 3.1%) is not as bad as it once was. It's not like the Reagan years (5.7%).  It's not even as bad as the Bush years (4.5%).

 

 

 

On 7/25/2019 at 10:40 PM, Renegade said:

actually have a recommendation for ending war, but no one seems to like it:  world government.  The only time wars ever end is when a larger/more powerful entity enforces peace.  If we surrender our precious sovereignty to a world government, wars will go away.  With a world government, national armies are mostly obsolete.  We could take most of that 3.1% of GDP and use it on something productive and useful.

 

Without a world government, there will always be wars.  So long as there is no larger/more powerful entity to protect us, we (and every other nation) will insist on a significant defense capability...capabilities that will inevitably be misused.

 

This   ^   ^   ^   

War is getting increasingly destructive (and expensive) while the nuclear club only grows.  Maybe, we've reached a point in history when sovereign nations, with their uncompromising self-interests, have become too dangerous to continue unchecked.  Another potential benefit of world government would be to combat climate change on a scale which would make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We always talk about demand, or at least some of us do, regarding the growth of jobs and a sustainable economy that promotes a larger middle class. 

The Iraq War was supposed to come under 50 billion tops, but ended up costing a couple trillion, still counting. 

Dealing with climate change the right way I believe will cost no less than a few trillion, possibly more. But it will also save the planet, create jobs, help third world nations, 

and be the right thing to do. Actually, it would be a lot for people to get excited about if they only knew - knowledge is power. Solar can go a lot farther than we think.

 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...