1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

The Roots of War

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Truth-Bringer, Nov 3, 2007.

  1. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    excerpts from "The Roots of War"

    "Just as [Woodrow] Wilson, a "liberal" reformer, led the United States into World War I "to make the world safe for democracy" -- so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another "liberal" reformer, led it into World War II, in the name of the "Four Freedoms." In both cases the "conservatives" -- and the big business interests -- were overwhelmingly opposed to war but were silenced. In the case of World War II they were smeared as "isolationists," "reactionaries," and "America-First'ers."

    World War I led, not to "democracy," but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to "Four Freedoms," but to the surrender of one-third of the world's population into communist slavery.

    If peace were the goal of today's intellectuals, a failure of that magnitude -- and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale -- would make them pause and check their statist premises. Instead, blind to everything but their hatred for capitalism, they are now asserting that "poverty breeds wars" (and justifying war by sympathizing with a "material greed" of that kind). But the question is: What breeds poverty? If you look a the world of today and if you look back at history, you will see the answer: the degree of a country's freedom is the degree of its prosperity.


    Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into "haves" and the "have-nots." Observe that the "haves" are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the "have-nots" have not.

    If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged "good" can justify it -- there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations."

    And I can't put it much better than that. The Neoconservative Republicans have taken the leviathan welfare state created by the Liberal Democrats and turned it into a leviathan warfare state. If you want to oppose war, oppose statism! The Founding Fathers knew this well:

    "War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home: the object of it is an increase of revenue: and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditures. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part 1
     
  2. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    TB. I dont disagree with the overall theme of the post. But I will add and correct a few things.
    While true, one could not fully know the consequences of dismantling three major empires into nationalistic bodies. Part of the failure of this we are seeing today with totally arbitrary lines that made for easy surveying rather than the scene on the ground.
    I will not disagree than WWI led to WWII, and WWII led to the cold war, the cold war has led to our current conflicts.
    Hindsight is always 20/20. If Wilson and the other allies knew the deep impacts that the treaty of Versailles would have to this day. They would have probably done something different.
     
  3. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    "Poverty breeds wars"... if we were all equally wealthy, not to an exact number, nor forced to be equal, but had more than enough to be meet our subsistence, there would be no war, or significantly less war.
     
  4. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right - and significantly less need for government. This is why governments want everyone to be poor, because if you're not poor, you really don't need them.
     
  5. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, but the problem is people have not learned those lessons. The war in Iraq will only lead to greater evils. As the old saying goes, those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them...

    Wilson's War

    How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II
    Written by Jim Powell

    History - United States - 20th Century Hardcover | March 2005
    $ 27.50 | 1-4000-8236-6

    About This Book

    The fateful blunder that radically altered the course of the twentieth century—and led to some of the most murderous dictators in history

    President Woodrow Wilson famously rallied the United States to enter World War I by saying the nation had a duty to make “the world safe for democracy.” But as historian Jim Powell demonstrates in this shocking reappraisal, Wilson actually made a horrible blunder by committing the United States to fight. Far from making the world safe for democracy, America’s entry into the war opened the door to murderous tyrants and Communist rulers. No other president has had a hand—however unintentional—in so much destruction. That’s why, Powell declares, “Wilson surely ranks as the worst president in American history.”

    Wilson’s War reveals the horrifying consequences of our twenty-eighth president’s fateful decision to enter the fray in Europe. It led to millions of additional casualties in a war that had ground to a stalemate. And even more disturbing were the long-term consequences—consequences that played out well after Wilson’s death. Powell convincingly demonstrates that America’s armed forces enabled the Allies to win a decisive victory they would not otherwise have won—thus enabling them to impose the draconian surrender terms on Germany that paved the way for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

    Powell also shows how Wilson’s naiveté and poor strategy allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia. Given a boost by Woodrow Wilson, Lenin embarked on a reign of terror that continued under Joseph Stalin. The result of Wilson’s blunder was seventy years of Soviet Communism, during which time the Communist government murdered some sixty million people.

    Just as Powell’s FDR’s Folly exploded the myths about Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, Wilson’s War destroys the conventional image of Woodrow Wilson as a great “progressive” who showed how the United States can do good by intervening in the affairs of other nations. Jim Powell delivers a stunning reminder that we should focus less on a president’s high-minded ideals and good intentions than on the consequences of his actions.
     
  6. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    well if we know about this, truth... why don't we do anything about it? shouldn't we be, at least, planning Revolution... I realize we need gradual change, but to make an impact, you must resort to extremes at first
     
  7. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    the key is to find the extremes that don't sacrifice value.
     
  8. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We definitely need reform, but we must have a non-violent revolution only. There is no acceptable use of violence, unless your life is directly threatened. But government agents and politicians sometimes do that, and they were taught a lesson by an armed citizenry not too long ago.

    It unfortunately will have to be gradual, for the simple fact that education has to be the first step, and the majority of Americans are far too ignorant about political realities.

    The best thing we can do right now is send monetary donations to the Ron Paul campaign and vote for him in the Republican primary. The more he speaks, the more people he has a chance to influence with these ideas.

    Be sure to send him a donation tomorrow. "Remember, remember the 5th of November!"
     
  9. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    yeah... maybe your right... but I don't think donations will be to any avail (call me a pessimist) I think we need to discuss extreme measure, that doesn't sacrifice value. Big enough to get in the media, without a stigma.
     
  10. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Ron Paul is one man... and although change must be gradual... It still needs to be big change... too small of a change will not result in any significant change. (if that makes sense) Ron Paul is a little to rational. He restores the REVOlution, but shy's away from our globalist responsibility. We are on the same page though (thank God)
     
Loading...

Share This Page