Post: #26

(06-14-2015 09:45 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Depends is it Pearl Harbor or Middle East adventure for oil?

Personally, I think that the US is now in the same phase that the British Empire was in when it claimed it was sending troops to the Boer Republics to defend the rights of minorities when it was obvious even at the time that the Empire was being used by the Oppenheimer Family and the City of London to liberate the diamond and gold mines from the Afrikaner.

The Afrikaner might have lost the war but he won the politics a couple of decades later and this probably marks the beginning of the Empire's decline.

Post: #27

It depends. I'm a citizen of two Nato member-states (soon to be three) and a Caribbean republic so odds are the war's intentions won't be very noble. However, if an army crosses the Pyrenees or the Straight of Gibraltar I'd be the first one enlisting at the Spanish embassy. But I'm not getting shot to help the Americans in the Middle East or to kick-out the Haitians in DR.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #28

Nope

Post: #29

(06-14-2015 11:21 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think major wars are on the way out. Other than skirmishes in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa I don't think we'll see any full-scale wars between major powers ever again. War has been eliminated in Europe even though their history has been nonstop war for thousands of years.

That's an optimistic sentiment, but if memory serves, similar things were said after the conclusion of World War 1.

If there's any merit to the popular notions of resource depletion, particularly with oil and water, which in turn might lead to food shortages, famines, and mass migrations, large scale armed conflict isn't off the table yet. That's not even going into the idea of climatic changes or shifts, altering the balance of power. Imagine if the traditional breadbaskets in the American Midwest or the Ukraine and Central Asia stopped being able to produce staple crops.

As for the OP's original question, yep.

   

Post: #30

Yeah I doubt very much that major wars are on the way out. It's true that the nuke has caused a chilling effect, since a pitched battle between nation states can now result in obliteration unrivaled in history, but there's still been more than a few wars since WW2. "Peace is the period between two wars".

Post: #31

(06-15-2015 01:06 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Yeah I doubt very much that major wars are on the way out. It's true that the nuke has caused a chilling effect, since a pitched battle between nation states can now result in obliteration unrivaled in history, but there's still been more than a few wars since WW2. "Peace is the period between two wars".

But if you look at things in historical context, there have been steadily fewer and fewer of them. It's pretty obvious the world is moving in a peaceful direction.



If the graph could go back a few hundreds more years we'd have an even clearer picture. Full theater wars between nations are becoming obsolete.

Post: #32

Absolutely not, even in "defense of the homeland", unless it was absolutely clear that the enemy consisted of genocidal savages and would kill me for sure if it won.

Post: #33

(06-15-2015 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:06 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Yeah I doubt very much that major wars are on the way out. It's true that the nuke has caused a chilling effect, since a pitched battle between nation states can now result in obliteration unrivaled in history, but there's still been more than a few wars since WW2. "Peace is the period between two wars".

But if you look at things in historical context, there have been steadily fewer and fewer of them. It's pretty obvious the world is moving in a peaceful direction.



If the graph could go back a few hundreds more years we'd have an even clearer picture. Full theater wars between nations are becoming obsolete.

Military Industrial companies can make money in a more stable fashion collectively if they just have constant dick measuring contests in building up militaries that never fight. The corporations that make consumer products also don't want war. To keep it this way, I am sure they have kickbacks and strategies with military companies and media to play up the need for more and more defense while never actually starting a war.

I think a terrorist getting their hands on a nuclear weapon is a much larger threat than any war of nations any time soon.

Post: #34

No,I would not risk my life for America's Corporate elite's financial interests overseas. However the next war at home could conceivably make me take up arms in defense of my fellow citizens.

The next war is going to be here against the US government as the elites overplay their hand.When the public can no longer be pitted against each other because our commonalities outweigh our differences, the media lies stop working, and people cannot even lie to themselves to avoid the painful truth right in front of them no matter how much they previously invested in the lie themselves-The government will do what it does best, violently oppress.

That is when people will learn that the constitution is just a piece of paper, the elites are inept and out of touch, and government exists just to perpetuate itself. Most police will not obey government commands to fire on Americans, so they will call in the National Guard and the Military. Roughly 3/5 of the Military will immediately desert and join the common man against the government/elite ,with a significant portion of these "deserters"(I prefer to call them true patriots) including high level Brass as well as common Infantry.The other 2/5 may blindly follow orders but once the shit really gets going, and the blood starts flowing, and the bodies of US citizen start piling up- they will begin to doubt the legitimacy of their "government"(whores of the elite), and the orders they are receiving to attack US citizens and their former comrades in arms.

Then the question becomes will I fight for my fellow Americans against an illegitimate, corrupt, abusive bureaucracy....let me think about it and get back to you.

Post: #35

I can only think of two wars for the UK where it was of national concern. The world wars and the Falkland islands.

I don't imagine myself fighting in a sectarian war where my enemy plants all sorts of bombs in civilian areas and then smiles as the massacre unfolds. Fuck them and their little "national security" concerns. Just keep them fenced in and take down any that are near.

Post: #36

Quote:If there was a war involving your country, would you participate in it?

That's a pretty bad way to ask that question though. What does "involve" mean? My country is being attacked unprovoked by some other? Or through some weird posturing and politics meddling my country decides that it's been a while so now is a good time to go to someone else's war? Very, VERY different scenarios


I think if they asked the question like this, the numbers would be significantly and overwhelmingly higher: "If another country suddenly, without any provocation, went to war with your country, would you participate in the war and protect your country?"

Post: #37

What happen to those that already go to a war or conflict? Just a few die from the western perspective. But many are hurt, crippled and have mental traumas. And then you go home and get a little just enough to survive payment. Great thing if you are 25 or so.

When I was 18 I was thinking going to the army, was short after 9/11. But not for my country, just for the action. Go to war is a mental challenge, a self proof that make it in a creepy way one of the purest feelings on earth. But enlist in army for glory and fatherland? Get crippled and then get aware that the whole reason for this war was a fake set up that some politicians could do their strange ideas of world shaping? Or for the Banksters? No. On the other hand Europe or the USA need also to secure the trade routes. We life in a world where big wars maybe over but to save the standard of living, to keep away threats and so on it will be necessary to interact in foreign countries. Wars and conflicts for resources and water will rise.

Still when some troops invade my country, yes I would probably fight them. Even with Russia in Ukraine or the more demanding behaviour of China I don't see a war in Europe. Terrorism, asymmetric conflicts and so on. I also predict that companies will have their own military in some way to support their mulit national interest. Then you can serve and get trained in the military of your country and then maybe join the google or apple security. They will have the money and power to outweigh legal governments for their interests

I see more conflicts on a small scale, minorities that fight for independence and so on, fanatic groups, not only islamic ones, also eco terrorism and other stuff. But all in all I have a positive outcome for the future, mankind will make it.

Post: #38

I want to say yes, but inside I know I'd be lying. Great Britain isn't "great" anymore, and certainly not worth fighting for.

Post: #39

(06-14-2015 08:35 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 08:32 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  If we're on the precipice again in some situation like WW2 where it's very clear who the aggressors are and what the situation is I think it's the duty of most able bodied American men to fight. Myself included.

It's highly unlikely we'll ever see that sort of situation again anytime in our lifetime. All the rest of the recent wars the U.S. has been involved in the past 60 years have all been pretty shady. The Korean war was semi-legit until it started to go off the rails with McArthur trying to escalate with nuclear carpet bombing and what not.

We will see World War 3 within our lifetimes. Unfortunately.

One could argue that "World War 3" has already been going on via "proxy wars", where two countries are basically at war but don't directly engage one another.

I don't think there likely won't be any more massive large scale multi-country wars spanning continents like those we historical think of with WW1 and WW2 (i.e. theatre wars), at least in the near future. But who knows.

Post: #40

Brruh. Please tell me that you didn't really post a picture of yourself in uniform.

Save this private the loss and remove his picture.


On another note I find it interesting that so many people feel that their country is essentially useless and taken over by betas and aren't willing to change it

Post: #41

(06-14-2015 11:21 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think major wars are on the way out. Other than skirmishes in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa I don't think we'll see any full-scale wars between major powers ever again. War has been eliminated in Europe even though their history has been nonstop war for thousands of years. There are no inter-country wars waging anywhere in the Americas, though there are internal matters such as marxist rebels and drug cartels. But I don't see Mexico going to war with Honduras El Salvador or Brazil against Argentina or anything like that. I don't think China cares to fight anyone, they are pragmatists. Japan? Lol. The fight is out of them. Very unlikely they'll be another war between a major East Asian power. N. Korea is the biggest threat, but I think they are paper tigers. Kim Jung is living the good life and he isn't about to lose that.

I don't see Russia and the West going to war. I think what we'll have mostly going forward is containment of hot areas using drones and smaller teams of special ops to assassinate key figures.

Some people think mankind will self-destruct, but I don't agree at all. I don't think there will be a WWIII. I think the future will be peaceful and all these other problem areas of the world will eventually go the way of Europe and the Americas.

As for fighting myself, if I felt there was a serious threat to us and our way of life, I'd be willing, although I don't think any branch would take me at my age. But there is no serious threat to us other than the ones we willfully stir up.

(06-14-2015 11:53 PM)kruger41 Wrote:  That's an optimistic sentiment, but if memory serves, similar things were said after the conclusion of World War 1.

A similar attitude also prevailed throughout the 19th century prior to World War I. We even saw an accelerated period of globalization and that did not stop the war from occurring. I wrote about this some time ago.

Quote:If there's any merit to the popular notions of resource depletion, particularly with oil and water, which in turn might lead to food shortages, famines, and mass migrations, large scale armed conflict isn't off the table yet. That's not even going into the idea of climatic changes or shifts, altering the balance of power. Imagine if the traditional breadbaskets in the American Midwest or the Ukraine and Central Asia stopped being able to produce staple crops.

As for the OP's original question, yep.

Hold on to your hats. It's going to be a wild ride.

(06-15-2015 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  But if you look at things in historical context, there have been steadily fewer and fewer of them. It's pretty obvious the world is moving in a peaceful direction.



If the graph could go back a few hundreds more years we'd have an even clearer picture. Full theater wars between nations are becoming obsolete.

This all takes place within the context of the "Long Peace." There was a similar period prior to the outbreak of World War I. After Napoleon's defeat in 1815 there was actually no major war that involved all of Europe across wide areas until World War I, and that got a lot of people thinking and hoping that wars were a thing of the past or that when they did arise, they'd be short and localized. Did not turn out to be the case.

So I'm not jumping the gun just yet.

As for the question - if the cause was just. Fuck fighting for the elites who don't even view this place as a country and push economic decline and social degeneracy.

Post: #42

(06-14-2015 06:31 PM)toroespañol Wrote:  I just saw a Gallup survey about patriotism that made me think. The question was: If there was a war involving your country, would you participate in it?


I compiled a summary:

(ranked by net balance)

94-05 Fiji [+89]
94-06 Morocco [+88]
85-01 Azerbaijan [+84]
89-07 Pakistan [+82]
89-09 Vietnam [+80]
84-08 Papua New Guinea [+76]
86-12 Bangladesh [+74]
72-13 Thailand [+59]
76-18 Georgia [+58]
75-17 India [+58]
76-20 Afghanistan [+56]
69-13 Kazakhstan [+56]
74-20 Finland [+54]
70-17 Indonesia [+53]
66-13 Israel [+53]
73-21 Turkey [+52]
72-23 Armenia [+49]
71-23 China [+48]
63-18 Malaysia [+45]
70-26 Philippines [+44]
69-27 Kenya [+42]
55-15 Sweden [+40]
59-20 Russia [+39]
62-24 Ukraine [+38]
66-30 Lebanon [+36]
58-24 Kosovo [+34]
64-32 Panama [+32]
61-32 Peru [+29]
56-27 Palestinian Territories [+29]
54-27 Greece [+27]
61-36 Colombia [+25]
54-35 Ecuador [+19]
55-39 Bosnia & Herzegovina [+16]
56-41 Mexico [+15]
41-27 Latvia [+14]
47-34 Poland [+13]
44-31 USA [+13]
46-36 Serbia [+10]
50-46 Nigeria [+4]
48-44 Brazil [+4]

43-43 Argentina [+/-0]
37-37 Denmark [+/-0]

38-40 Ireland [-2]
38-41 Romania [-3]
39-47 Switzerland [-8]
42-50 South Korea [-8]
38-49 Macedonia [-9]
30-43 Australia [-13]
30-45 Canada [-15]
29-44 France [-15]
28-47 Portugal [-19]
25-47 Bulgaria [-22]
27-51 UK [-24]
26-52 Iceland [-26]
21-49 Spain [-28]
10-43 Japan [-33]
23-57 Hong Kong [-34]
19-56 Belgium [-37]
23-64 Czech Republic [-41]
21-62 Austria [-41]
18-62 Germany [-44]
20-68 Italy [-48]
15-64 Netherlands [-49]

War is opportunity. Opportunity for quick gains, as well as total loss.

Look at the list. People that live in crowded squalor would be more than happy to "participate" in war. They didn't say what side.

People from countries that lead lives of luxury have more to lose (minus a couple with visible chances of loss like Israel and Finland), so they just say no to traditional gender roles. Men don't fight, women don't cook and raise kids. Which is fitting.

Post: #43

(06-15-2015 07:22 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  On another note I find it interesting that so many people feel that their country is essentially useless and taken over by betas and aren't willing to change it

This is the problem though, when it comes to 'fighting for your country' - the ones worth saving are the ones who are going off to die. The ones left behind were the problem in the first place. Couple it with a loss of national identity through unchecked immigration, erosion of social values and community, and 'England' as an idea doesn't even exist in the minds of the vast majority. Fuck, most people are too self-absorbed to even really give a shit about their own families these days.

Post: #44

I cannot find a reason to defend a country that allows abortion, no fault divorce, gay marriage and mass immigration. If a country performs genocide and/or suicide with any of these practices then defending it is meaningless.


Of course if the invaders go on slaughtering civilians I would resist, but if it is just an occupation, then one government lacking morality is no better then another.

Post: #45

It is reasonable for a good man not to expose himself to danger for the sake of his country, for that he ought not to discard his own prudence for the sake of benefiting those who have none - Theodorus

Post: #46

(06-15-2015 07:36 AM)kleyau Wrote:  People from countries that lead lives of luxury have more to lose (minus a couple with visible chances of loss like Israel and Finland), so they just say no to traditional gender roles. Men don't fight

I think you have the gist of it. There's a very visible potential loss right next to our border, and the general consensus is that nobody gives a fuck about Finland if they'd have to deal with Russian power (or that we should be able to defend our own country). Living on the other side of the world with no actual threats is probably going to net less will to defend the country than when living next to one (imagined or real, makes no difference. With the situation in Crimea and Ukraine, military force to influence European politics is back on the table). Having that kind of threat probably does polarize the views on this; some people are vehemntly opposed to the whole idea here, even making some antimilitary rallies close to some larger trainings, while a larger group of people will think you a spineless shit for not having the balls to stand up for your country. Compared to Russia, the standards of living are just so much better in here, the society is safer, less corrupt, the list goes on, so I think it might be understandable.

As for the original question, yes I would. I have a good life, all things considered, with plenty of good people around me. No way I am going to let someone rape and burn it all, seeing as I have a limited chance of taking it all with me. As things are, the best way to keep it safe is to join with the bigger tribe (that being the Finnish Defense Forces) and trust that it does it's job.

I think I'm biased in this though; the Russians I know are all cool people. Granted, I only know Russians doing various Masters degrees(and all of them women), so I have a very good image of well educated Russian women, and a shit (=lacking) one of Russian men. I'm sure, when that's added to the normal Russian state shenanigans they pull close to Finland annually, it affects my opinion of Russia as a whole.

At least, that's the way I think now. We'll see how things are later. Maybe I'll move abroad.

Post: #47

If Canada was invaded, then yes, I would be happy to die to defend my native country. Compared to what I've seen in other countries, I consider Canada well worth defending.

However, if someone wanted to invade and simply kidnap all of our native born women, they could have at it.

But you couldn't pay me enough to become involved in wars of global influence.

Post: #48

(06-15-2015 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  But if you look at things in historical context, there have been steadily fewer and fewer of them. It's pretty obvious the world is moving in a peaceful direction.



If the graph could go back a few hundreds more years we'd have an even clearer picture. Full theater wars between nations are becoming obsolete.

That's because of practical reasons. Large conventional conflicts as it occurred in the past are no longer warranted when you can have always threaten nuclear war in various ways. MAD is still in effect. That's why countries are pretty restrained these days.

I don't think WW3 is likely but if it does happen and if it's between great powers it'll be an orgy of destruction that's unprecedented.

The quote by Einstein: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” ― Albert Einstein

It's still true to this day. We're not at 1945 atomic bomb levels of destruction anymore but hydrogen bombs..fusion and maybe neutron bombs a little later.

The power of the sun wielded at 100X the levels of what it was. We can completely fuck each other into fine dust. Go look at those thermonuclear war geographic maps sometime..it's like 200 miles radius on each blast. The first 40-50 mile wave kills everything and the secondary blast just kills everything a little later. Then you get radioactive dust and all sorts of other killing and wanton destruction after civiliation gets fucked.

Great powers aren't going away. What do you think the U.S., Russia, and China are? There's plenty of antagonism there to go around. The same games are being played in geopolitics as they were before in history. It's just that people aren't using gunboat diplomacy as much anymore because it's very risky.

There's this thing called the Fermi paradox. One of the theories was the reason why we haven't actually encountered extraterrestrials capable of advanced space travel is because most intelligent life forms just end up destroying each other in their native habitat after a certain amount of time.

Post: #49

I would decide based on what I know on the war.

Actual Alien invasion where we might have a chance? Yes - would fight, unless I found out that Aliens were more benevolent in rule than our current usury-banking-crowd with a long-term depopulation agenda.

But fighting against any current enemies with the full understanding of our politics? No way in hell. The only countries remaining that are beyond the clutches of the global banking mafia are maybe Iran partly, North Korea and a few African ones. All those countries pose no danger and Sweden and Switzerland alone could defeat all of them barring nuclear weapons.

So - no - I don't see any war on the horizon that I would be fighting for any country at all. At least for patriotic reasons I don't. Still - I can sympathize with enlisting and fighting next to your comrades for money and experience. But I wouldn't lie to myself and claim that bombing an Afghan village is "protecting my liberty at home". That simplistic propaganda is just plain nuts.

Post: #50

No chance. What would I be defending? A culture I despise. I have next to nothing in common with the majority of people in this country and wouldn't miss many of them.