When will the downfall happen?

[thinkandmull]

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

Actual war is nothing like war games. To start with, people actually die in war; and its usually because someone with no experience with war thinks a war would be a good idea.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. …

Have you bumped this idea up against the Just War Doctrine?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Oldcatholicguy, your response made me laugh because it sounds exactly like something an old Catholic guy would say.

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

Well, I think a war would only make sense strategically if:

1. There was an immediate and obvious threat to the nation, or
2. There was a fast and effective way to win. It makes no sense to steadily trickle forces at an adversary like we’ve been doing in the Middle East; if we can end the conflict immediately by overwhelming or surprising them, then by all means we should do so.

Here’s what Sun Tzu had to say about it:
“2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. 3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. 4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.”
And:
"1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. 3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. " (classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html)

The Art of War is one of my favorites. I’ve actually been anticipating the day I would be able to quote it here on CAF.

I must disagree with you, however, about no religious wars… As Catholics, if we’re not going fight for God and with God, what else are going to fight for; why else would we fight?

-Greg

 

[randomusername]

I think you are making a fuss over very little. Russia playing mind games and moving troops into a non-NATO country doesn’t warrant a declaration of war. You have to take a few hits in the name of peace. We won’t get a situation like WW2 here because of nukes. War with Russia is not an option so all the US should do is try to get more nations near Russia into NATO so that Russia will be forced to stop its expansion so it doesn’t end up initiating hostilities with NATO. Russia can’t afford war with NATO either so they won’t invade a NATO nation. In the age of satellites and nukes it’s nearly impossible to wage conventional warfare against major powers since they will know all your movements and the risk of being nuked is there. That’s why at worst we’ll only ever get proxy wars where NATO and Russia are funding and supporting two sides but not directly fighting.

 

[rossum]

From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under.

America appears far too keen to invade other countries on minimal excuses. Have you counted up how many countries you have invaded since WWII? How many of those invasions have been successful? Few of them: Grenada, Panama, Kuwait. How many of then have made the locals angry at America? Most of them.

They are not even in your own long term interest. If Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq, do you think you would be worried about ISIS?

By moving outside America, you make it a lot easier for non-Americans to kill your people. How many Americans have the Taliban killed in America? How many Americans have the Taliban killed in Afghanistan? Compare the two numbers and think very carefully about whether you really want to invade yet another country.

Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line.

And the lives of children in other countries don’t matter? No wonder people sometimes get annoyed at Americans. How many Vietnamese children did your war there kill? Did you win it? How many Americans did the Vietnamese army kill after you withdrew?

American foreign policy seems far too ready to use the military as a first resort, not as a last resort. The more you send your army abroad, the more casualties you will suffer, the less people will like you and the higher taxes you will have to pay.

Pacifism is not a Christian trait.

A lot of Christians would disagree with you.

rossum

 

[FreeEver]

Simply, said:

The 5th Commandment
Thou shalt not kill.

God Bless and Peace to all.

 

[Hobbes42]

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

It’s for the children! Bah! Haven’t heard that one before.

So, slaughtering millions upon millions is perfectly kosher, just as long as it’s non-American children? So Jesus was a warmonger? (I didn’t know it was only wrong to kill Americans !! Thanks for the clarification! )

So in your vocabulary, anyone that isn’t in favor of constant war, constant slaughter, constant death, constant destruction of all other nations besides the Magical Kingdom of America (Where, I may add, an undead Ronald Reagan rides a unicorn across fields of flowers) is a pacifist?

 

[captainrick]

America appears far too keen to invade other countries on minimal excuses. Have you counted up how many countries you have invaded since WWII? How many of those invasions have been successful? Few of them: Grenada, Panama, Kuwait. How many of then have made the locals angry at America? Most of them.

They are not even in your own long term interest. If Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq, do you think you would be worried about ISIS?

By moving outside America, you make it a lot easier for non-Americans to kill your people. How many Americans have the Taliban killed in America? How many Americans have the Taliban killed in Afghanistan? Compare the two numbers and think very carefully about whether you really want to invade yet another country.

And the lives of children in other countries don’t matter? No wonder people sometimes get annoyed at Americans. How many Vietnamese children did your war there kill? Did you win it? How many Americans did the Vietnamese army kill after you withdrew?

American foreign policy seems far too ready to use the military as a first resort, not as a last resort. The more you send your army abroad, the more casualties you will suffer, the less people will like you and the higher taxes you will have to pay.

A lot of Christians would disagree with you.

rossum

Some vaild points, but I’m glad America didn’t stay home when the Nazi’s were bombing our friends in England.

 

[rossum]

Some vaild points, but I’m glad America didn’t stay home when the Nazi’s were bombing our friends in England.

You will note that I deliberately said post WWII. Before then the US government was very reluctant to send its armies overseas. Post WWII that policy seems to have changed for the worse.

rossum

 

[Hobbes42]

You will note that I deliberately said post WWII. Before then the US government was very reluctant to send its armies overseas. Post WWII that policy seems to have changed for the worse.

rossum

Following WWII, the US policy was to use its military machine as an extension of its economic empire.

BTW Rossum-what sect of Buddhism do you ascribe to? Just curious…

 

[rossum]

BTW Rossum-what sect of Buddhism do you ascribe to? Just curious…

My theory is Madhyamika, my practice is a mixture of mostly Theravada with some Soto Zen thrown in.

rossum

 

[dedo]

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

What you are proposing is mass murder on the scale of millions, if not hundreds of millions, to billions.

The amazing thing is that you have “justified” that in your mind. In history, other people have “justified” this sort of action as well including: Hitler and the Nazi’s, Japan of the early 20th Century, Khmer Rouge slaughter in Cambodia, ISIS slaughter in the Middle East, etc.

Is this the group that you want to join?

The important point of this post is that there are likely people in other countries that think the same way about us.

What we need to focus on is how to diffuse this sort of thinking before it catches on and sets fire to the entire world.

If it does catch fire, regardless of who starts it, the death toll will be what you would expect from a nuclear exchange.

Also, I would be very interested in how you got to think this way, specifically what your background is in areas where there could be a “potential cause” or a “potential cure”.

The data that I have reviewed indicates that the cause of violence is almost all “nurture”, not “nature / genetic”. People are not naturally violent. There is something in our society that is transmitted from person to person, like an infectious agent, that sometimes explodes into pandemics.

If you are willing to answer any of the following questions, I would be most grateful:

1. Were you the victim of violence, especially as a child? This could include corporal punishment or school bullying.
2. Do you regularly participate in any sort of violent simulations or activities?
3. Do you perform any sort of regular altruistic activities, volunteering, homeless shelter work, etc.?
4. Do you pray or read the Bible daily? And do you ever pray for peace?

I am not claiming to be any more “righteous” in this area than you. I am just curious because of reading in this area.

If you were treating an “infectious epidemic”, you would want to think about two areas, prevention and cure.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
The data that I have reviewed indicates that the cause of violence is almost all “nurture”, not “nature / genetic”. People are not naturally violent. There is something in our society that is transmitted from person to person, like an infectious agent, that sometimes explodes into pandemics.
…

I’m not sure about this. Around 1971, there was a civil war between East and West Pakistan resulting in East Pakistan breaking off and forming Bangladesh. CBS News correspondent Hughes Rudd said he couldn’t understand why starving people would spend money on war instead of food. His only conclusion was “people are just no damned good.”

In any event, I don’t know what data you have, but this researcher hawaii.edu/powerkills/ attributes the world’s violence to power.

As a side note, see also hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM.

 

[dedo]

I’m not sure about this. Around 1971, there was a civil

war between East and West Pakistan resulting in East Pakistan breaking off and forming Bangladesh. CBS News correspondent Hughes Rudd said he couldn’t understand why starving people would spend money on war instead of food. His only conclusion was “people are just no damned good.”

In any event, I don’t know what data you have, but this researcher hawaii.edu/powerkills/ attributes the world’s violence to power.

As a side note, see also hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM.

A book on criminal violence:

“Why They Kill” by Richard Rhodes.

Rhodes reviews the research of criminologist, Lonnie Athens, and his theory of “Violentization” that basically explains the 4 environmental factors that Athens believes are important in the development of violent criminals.

A book on war psychology called: “The Psychology of War” by LeShan reviews some of the difficulty that armies have had in training people to kill. One example is his discussion of Civil War battles where it was found that many fallen soldiers refused to fire their weapons, and even double and triple loaded their rifles, rendering the rifle useless. Essentially, many soldiers chose to disarm and die, rather than kill.

Thus, the weight of the literature that I have read suggests that when individuals become violent, it is because of the environment, or specific training.

However, interstate war is discussed in a different academic arena from criminal violence, and the cause of interstate war is unknown. There are several theories that are based on nations behaving rationally, and acting in their own self interest.

Power is a factor in that a couple theories of war causation, and suggest that war is more likely during a transition of power – either away from a “balance of power”, or away from “hegemonic stability” where one powerful nation “keeps the peace”.

One particular discussion of interstate war that is intriguing, but receives only limited attention in the foreign policy arena, is the statistical parameters that seem to govern interstate war casualties. The distribution is called a power law distribution and it basically means that war casualties and war frequency have an inverse relationship such that a logarithmic plot of war casualties vs frequency is a straight line. This distribution has held for interstate wars studied for several hundred years.

This implies that war is not some “random event” but may have an underlying unknown cause behind it. It also implies that periods of “relative peace” are likely to be followed by periods of intense warfare, at least until the cause of the distribution is understood and defused.

For example the two most commonly discussed power law systems in nature include earthquakes and forest fires. In each of these systems, a fueling factor (fuel in the forest or tension in the Earth’s crust) builds up over time and is released in “cascades”.

A review of the literature on power law distributions and interstate war:

www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/LarsErikCederman.ModelingSizeOfWars.pdf

Thus, if there is some unknown “fuel” that builds up over time and explodes into a war, the identity of the fuel is unknown. If there is a cure that would act like an “antibiotic”, the identity of the cure is unknown.

Cederman speculates on the identity of the “cause of war” as “technology”. He does not guess at any sort of cure.

 

[sallybutler]

Obama was chewing gum (and wearing purple?) at the international summit? Doesn’t he know that China and Russia have linked up after the Crimea incident? There is no way to prevent those two countries (and others like Syria and India) from eventually destroying the power of America in this world forever. Forget about the terrorists. The more we pay attention to them the more people join them, the more we try to kill them, the more these fanatics will try to kill themselves killing us. Talking about the Crusades in these times is especially irresponsible. From my experience with war games, I believe we should start a war and win it with either Russia or China, before they are willing to go it together against us and a West that would let us go under. Perhaps that’s extreme to say on a forum, but hey! the lives on the children in America is on the line. Pacifism is not a Christian trait. A pope from the mid-18 hundreds spoke with praise of a old post-Roman legion of Christians warriors. I am not calling for a religious war; mixing religion with killing is the problem. Its just about self-defense.

All of the attendees were wearing purple. Apparently it is a tradition that the host countries provide an outfit and all attendees wear it.

As for the gum, it was nicotine gum. President Obama chews that instead of smoking.

As for starting a war, unless we are have 100% guarantee that we will win, I’m not so sure that is the answer to anything.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
However, interstate war is discussed in a different academic arena from criminal violence, and the cause of interstate war is unknown. There are several theories that are based on nations behaving rationally, and acting in their own self interest.

Power is a factor in that a couple theories of war causation, and suggest that war is more likely during a transition of power – either away from a “balance of power”, or away from “hegemonic stability” where one powerful nation “keeps the peace”.
…

Check out Table 1.1 @ hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.1.GIF

 

[dedo]

Check out Table 1.1 @ hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.1.GIF

The table comes from a discussion of “Democratic Peace Theory” that basically says that democracies do not fight one another; however, democracies tend to fight non-democracies at about the same frequency as non-democracies fight whoever.

Democratic Peace Theory is more of a possible solution to interstate war than a cause.

I think this was part of the rational for Gulf War II, in that there was a hope of instilling democracy into the Middle East. Unfortunately, that did not work out so well.

Also, Hitler was elected so democracies can change. I don’t know the history of the Roman Empire well; however, wasn’t Rome a democracy before the first emperor?

Anyway, Democratic Peace Theory does get a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, the two main adversaries of the U.S. mentioned by the OP are not democracies.

Thus, the actual cause of interstate war, as well as the cure /solution remain unknown.

As a believer, I believe that part of the answer is in evangelization since I don’t think we can promote peace without God’s help.

 

[unstoppable_II]

The table comes from a discussion of “Democratic Peace Theory” that basically says that democracies do not fight one another; however, democracies tend to fight non-democracies at about the same frequency as non-democracies fight whoever.

Democratic Peace Theory is more of a possible solution to interstate war than a cause.

I think this was part of the rational for Gulf War II, in that there was a hope of instilling democracy into the Middle East. Unfortunately, that did not work out so well.

Also, Hitler was elected so democracies can change. I don’t know the history of the Roman Empire well; however, wasn’t Rome a democracy before the first emperor?

Anyway, Democratic Peace Theory does get a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, the two main adversaries of the U.S. mentioned by the OP are not democracies.

Thus, the actual cause of interstate war, as well as the cure /solution remain unknown.

As a believer, I believe that part of the answer is in evangelization since I don’t think we can promote peace without God’s help.

There is something more at play in interstate war. Democracies don’t fight each other because they have constituencies to which they must account. IMHO, wars are caused mainly by the rise of despotic dynamic leaders with popular appeal.

Hitler certainly fit this bill, although he never won an election. [His party did get enough votes that President Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. When Hindenburg died, conveniently a couple of months later, Hitler combined the offices of chancellor and president, making him the supreme ruler.] Something similar can be said about Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and probably others reaching all the way back to Caesar. One political commentator called this “The Mussolini Syndrome,” the desire on the part of the people for a dynamic leader, who can do no wrong and that they feel they can trust. Personality types politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56 play a huge role in this, I am convinced.

After the despot’s rise to power, this syndrome described in Death By Government takes over and war follows the corruption by power. An observation by Dr. Thomas Sowell is in order here: "Anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should run for the hills when they encounter a politician with charisma.”

 

[dedo]

There is something more at play in interstate war. Democracies don’t fight each other because they have constituencies to which they must account. IMHO, wars are caused mainly by the rise of despotic dynamic leaders with popular appeal.

Hitler certainly fit this bill, although he never won an election. [His party did get enough votes that President Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. When Hindenburg died, conveniently a couple of months later, Hitler combined the offices of chancellor and president, making him the supreme ruler.] Something similar can be said about Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and probably others reaching all the way back to Caesar. One political commentator called this “The Mussolini Syndrome,” the desire on the part of the people for a dynamic leader, who can do no wrong and that they feel they can trust. Personality types politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56 play a huge role in this, I am convinced.

After the despot’s rise to power, this syndrome described in Death By Government takes over and war follows the corruption by power. An observation by Dr. Thomas Sowell is in order here: "Anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should run for the hills when they encounter a politician with charisma.”

Interesting. So Hitler was “appointed”, buy his party was elected. It sounds like Germany had some sort of parliamentary democracy prior to WW II where the party is elected, but the leader of the party is not directly elected? Nevertheless, Hitler emerged out of a democracy.

So, if a charismatic leader is the endpoint for starting wars, then there must be steps along the way that are precursors.

Understanding, the precursors may help with prevention as it may be possible to reduce precursors. For example, a recent theory of war is that one side has “inside information, and a reason to conceal it.” Thus, simply improving communication may make concealing information less likely if the “inside information” involves incorrect perception of a threat. However, if the “inside information” involves intention to conquer, then the belligerent actor will conceal intention regardless of the communication.

Another late stage precursor may be grandiosity of thinking. LeShan discusses this in “The Psychology of War”. Thus, if a leader exhibits grandiose rhetoric, (create a grand society etc.) – watch out.

These are late precursors. Early precursors may include exposure to violence early in life. One author who studies genocide speculated that a societal acceptance of corporal punishment may make that society more likely to follow an authoritarian leader.

There may also be cures that would offer another way to prevent war other than controlling precursors.

My own interest in this comes mainly from reviewing literature on power law distribution that imply that some unknown causal agent may build up in society over time and is eventually released in war.

If this is true, then it is important to either slow the buildup, or reverse the buildup if possible.