The propaganda for freedom

[Scoobz187]

Today i saw old archive movies about east german air units. It was very interessting to see. One movie was about the use of highways for decentralised actions. Whatever, i wrote this thread because there where some things i really found kind of funny. Often the host talked about keeping the peace. This returns my toughts to the question "Do we need more weapons to beware peace" I mean they say all this fighters, soldiers, tanks and stuff are to keep the freedom. Same goes for western hemisphere. Why do we build more and effectiver weapons??? This is kind of funny to see. Its like everyone wants a bread but no one wants to share. Its my peace.. no its my peace stop holding me back from my peace ^^ Its quit funny to see 20 years later these propaganda stuff wich only was ment to keep the people on course. Whats your opinion on that???

Note: This shouldnt be a discussion about who was better or who had have the right to say they where the real deal. This is ment to enlighten the dark side in us all. The question why we want peace but only be willing to keep it for ourselfs. If there are people with other ideas then our own we dont want to share "peace" with them. Something like "they dont belong to us, so they didnt have the right for peace."

I hope its written good enough in english that you understand what i am talkin about. Its more a philosophical thing to me.

[Lefty]

I would say peace is what leads nations to war. If that makes any sense at all.

Countries do not go to war unless they have something specific to gain. It's very unpopular, inefficient, and costly. On the other hand, if the gains of war outweigh the costs of keeping the situation of the peace then a country will go to war. It's not an "accident" just a calculated political risk.

Say I want a whole loaf of bread, but you want 3/4s of it. I have a knife, and this makes you more inclined to accept no bread. Until you get a knife of your own, and we will either make an agreement for bread, or fight for our portion. If I get cut, I may accept 1/2 the bread instead of all of it.

Weapons appear to increase the cost of war to possible enemies, thus making them more likely to broker an agreement before a conflict breaks out, thus in some ways keeping peace.

[kirbal]

I agree with Lefty, having weapons is a necessity for peace, a good example of that is Switzerland.

A lot of people think that Switzerland stays in peace during the last world wars because they adopted a neutral attitude. It's partialy true, in fact it was due to their attitude and the fact that they were pretty well armed and difficult to attack.

It's the same with the Cold war, it's not the willing of peace wich lead to peace it's more the fear of a nuclear war.

[tluassa]

With weapons, its the same as with God - as Voltaire said: If weapons wouldnt exist, we would be in the necessity to invent them.

Since Ideas are bulletproof, and Ideas about genocide and terrible crimes exist in this World and will forever, it will always be necessary to keep thousands of People organized in a thing called "Army" that are able to defend the Ideas that keep the constructs we call "nations" together against external and sometimes internal threats. Now if we cant kill the Idea or Ideology we consider dangerous or threatening, we can try let our Army kill the People carrying it out if there is no other Way. And even if nation states one time are replaced by some sort of "global government", there would still be the necessity to keep a considerable amount of some sort of "soldiers". If you get rid of them, how do you deal with the problems of a World crowded with 6 billion armed, angry People. Think of piracy, genocidal warlords, all that stuff will be around for decades if not centuries and Police-forces cant deal with it, until you give them: Weapons - Ships - Airplanes ! Than you have something that could be called "Army" again.

[Scoobz187]

You guys bring some very interessting points down here. this is what my intention was on this thread. Its very nice to read what your feelings/meanings are. Go on with that.


I think the easiest way to subscribe the need of armed forces is ( like tluassa said) to say "Who stands in front if a agressor crosses your border". That leads me to another second. From wich point do you would accept a attack war from your country?

To me is the question what this war is about. Is it to keep peace to my country (and his allies) or just a try to secure me the bigger part of the bread?

[Maj C]

Right. Stop that! It's all very well to laugh at the Military, but, when one considers the meaning of life, it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself, and without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies, then reasonableness and moderation could, quite simply, disappear. That is why we'll always need an army, and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[zifff boom]

[Martial]

Better to have it and not need it (eg. Switzerland) than to need it and not have it (eg. Kuwait).

[Scoobz187]

truly spoken martial^^

[Lefty]

To me is the question what this war is about. Is it to keep peace to my country (and his allies) or just a try to secure me the bigger part of the bread?

If you are going to war, you have no desire to keep the peace. By the time war becomes a serious consideration, the status-quo of the peace is already costly to your state. But this is all dependent on whether you have the strength to pursue your interests (Germany in 1939 is a good example of this) or whether you can only hope to defend against an aggressive foe to keep your current slice of bread.

Your choices then are to capitulate (Czechoslovakia 1938) or to stand and fight (Poland 1939, France 1940, UK 1940). Fighting offers the benefits of even a slight victory or at least increased cost on the foe, where the cost of capitulation will likely be very heavy in the long run in terms of power.

I would further argue that this is true for states regardless of ideology or type of government, very rarely does any state pursue war simply for dislike of ideology, perhaps they will do this under the guise of ideology, but tangible or power benefits gained are far more substantial than "being better than the other guy".

[CPL Trevoga]

Today i saw old archive movies about east german air units. It was very interessting to see. One movie was about the use of highways for decentralised actions. Whatever, i wrote this thread because there where some things i really found kind of funny. Often the host talked about keeping the peace. This returns my toughts to the question "Do we need more weapons to beware peace" I mean they say all this fighters, soldiers, tanks and stuff are to keep the freedom. Same goes for western hemisphere. Why do we build more and effectiver weapons??? This is kind of funny to see. Its like everyone wants a bread but no one wants to share. Its my peace.. no its my peace stop holding me back from my peace ^^ Its quit funny to see 20 years later these propaganda stuff wich only was ment to keep the people on course. Whats your opinion on that???

Note: This shouldnt be a discussion about who was better or who had have the right to say they where the real deal. This is ment to enlighten the dark side in us all. The question why we want peace but only be willing to keep it for ourselfs. If there are people with other ideas then our own we dont want to share "peace" with them. Something like "they dont belong to us, so they didnt have the right for peace."

I hope its written good enough in english that you understand what i am talkin about. Its more a philosophical thing to me.

Why don't you define what "freedom" is. For a cowboy riding through the western wilderness is "freedom", for George Bush "freedom" was an excuse to launch an attack on a country which did not submit to his will, for a prisoner outside of the prison is "freedom."