War. What is it good for ? Absolutely nothing.
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Quote:
@wysiwtf: I have played Fallout 3 and loved it (but accidentally deleted my saves, I have to start again, arghh) but not yet New Vegas. What's the things that you hated on 3 that were improved or changed on New Vegas?
you have to ask serpent that question, since he made that list =)
personally i think new vegas is better than fallout3 with the more interesting world and quests but that doesnt make fallout3 all bad. the underlying tech is the same anyway.
In past centuries most countries were absolute monarchies. The people who lived in these countries were more or less the property of the monarchs. All land was owned by the monarchs and only lent to their minions.
Monarchs had an interest to increase their wealth and used their minions for this aim. War was one of the ways they achieved their goals, marriage was another.
In the modern era we see that democratic countries never wage war against each other. My opinion of this is that in a democracy there is no incentive for the government to wage war since the government does not own the country and can be replaced any time or at least whenever there are elections.
This could be further elaborated on, but at the moment my sparetime is limited.
Monarchs had an interest to increase their wealth and used their minions for this aim. War was one of the ways they achieved their goals, marriage was another.
In the modern era we see that democratic countries never wage war against each other. My opinion of this is that in a democracy there is no incentive for the government to wage war since the government does not own the country and can be replaced any time or at least whenever there are elections.
This could be further elaborated on, but at the moment my sparetime is limited.
Quote:
In the modern era we see that democratic countries never wage war against each other
That depends on whether or not this democratic political system is owned by corporate interests and how you define "waging war" because staging an economical blockade or sanction catalogue or currency manipulation against another nation is nothing else than an act of war and leads to drastic suffering of the civilian population.
In that regard some "democracies" are on the forefront of waging war.
This could be further elaborated on, but at the moment I just don't think you're worth the effort.
it seems like these days wars are only fought in countries where there is not a big market to destroy, most of the time they are fought to create one (for the western people and companies, of course).
it doesnt seem so vastly different from the colonial times of the 19th century, national states and their territorial claims are just being replaced by corporations and their financial claims.
on the upside it means less open war and aggression, because its bad for global business (if you're not into selling weapons, that is).
it doesnt seem so vastly different from the colonial times of the 19th century, national states and their territorial claims are just being replaced by corporations and their financial claims.
on the upside it means less open war and aggression, because its bad for global business (if you're not into selling weapons, that is).
this is a fucking Seinfeld quote :)
@wysiwtf ah sorry, I missed that
Quote:
Perhaps countries that have democratic elections but are organized in an authoritarian, hierarchical way aren't true democracies and that explains why they wage wars.That depends on whether or not this democratic political system is owned by corporate interests and how you define "waging war" because staging an economical blockade or sanction catalogue or currency manipulation against another nation is nothing else than an act of war and leads to drastic suffering of the civilian population.
In that regard some "democracies" are on the forefront of waging war.
And I still think that an unconditional basic income or some other guarantee that people will earn a living even if they have bad luck on the job market would be required to make this world more humane.
thanks to war, we can have call of duty games!
Quote:
I have played Fallout 3 and loved it (but accidentally deleted my saves, I have to start again, arghh) but not yet New Vegas. What's the things that you hated on 3 that were improved or changed on New Vegas?
Well my thougths about Fallout 3 might be somewhat biased because i was so disappointent by the (imo) very weak dialogue compared to first Fallouts and especially Fallout 2. Together with the long anticipation for that game makes me post things like that when in reality i should list it as a "very good" one :) It really was a great feeling getting out of the vault and explore.
Fallout 3 vs. NV? NV is bigger with more of everything and with better side missions :) Also it imo has better dialogue than Fallout 3 and has this more anarchistic touch that was present in best game of them all, Fallout 2 :)
Some like Fallout 3 more though, maybe it can be more personal game from the view of the protagonist than New Vegas.
And thanks to Call of Duty games, we can have a new draft.. they can call it the "ultimate immersive experience" championship tournament! Live in Iraq! War is awesome!
Adok: name one true democratic republic besidesSwitzerland !
wysiwyf:
You're spot on when you comparing the geo-economic situation with that leading up to the Great War.
But war in order to "create a market" in places that don't have "a big market to destroy" I think is a little naive or at least only a sub-effect of the whole issue.
If you look closely to the nations that have been destroyed since 2003 you'll find that it were nations ( regardless of their style of government ) that tried to get out of the Petro-Dollar- System and form an own commodity exchange system.
The asymetrical and economic wars of today simply are conflicts to defend the hegemony of the "ruling geo-economic system" (i.e. the so called "western system" ) against anybody trying to get on par or out of this hegemony.
This is a symptomatic re-iteration of the situation pre-WW I, when the mid-european continental powers started to run their own system which didn't need any major naval power other than to be halfway on par with that of Britain's because it would be based on land (see "Baghdad railway"). That, however, threatened the then unrivaled hegemonial power whose colonial empire was run and controlled via maritime means.
wysiwyf:
You're spot on when you comparing the geo-economic situation with that leading up to the Great War.
But war in order to "create a market" in places that don't have "a big market to destroy" I think is a little naive or at least only a sub-effect of the whole issue.
If you look closely to the nations that have been destroyed since 2003 you'll find that it were nations ( regardless of their style of government ) that tried to get out of the Petro-Dollar- System and form an own commodity exchange system.
The asymetrical and economic wars of today simply are conflicts to defend the hegemony of the "ruling geo-economic system" (i.e. the so called "western system" ) against anybody trying to get on par or out of this hegemony.
This is a symptomatic re-iteration of the situation pre-WW I, when the mid-european continental powers started to run their own system which didn't need any major naval power other than to be halfway on par with that of Britain's because it would be based on land (see "Baghdad railway"). That, however, threatened the then unrivaled hegemonial power whose colonial empire was run and controlled via maritime means.
One true democratic republic besides Switzerland: my livingroom.
I absolutely agree with you.
I absolutely agree with you.
Without war, how are we going to defend our way of living against the evil forces that loathe our freedom? Are you a communist? It's what Jesus would want. USA! USA! USA!
