Rick Has A Word or two for sceptics.

[alexjrgreen]

hmm....

which came first... instruments of war, or instruments of agriculture?

Check out Caral:

The Lost Pyramids of Caral
Caral: the oldest town in the New World

[Betruger]

Back to the original post. I don't like the attitude of having a finite number of attempts and then agreeing to give up for ever more.

Things cost money. If something's repeatedly failed, especially if it's been an expensive failure, it's not likely to be retried (although war seems to be an exception to this rule).

Remember, the reason we're all here is to find a path to cheap energy. There's plenty of paths to expensive energy. We don't care about them, for a good reason.

Expensive paths to cheap energy?

[ZenDraken]

which came first... instruments of war, or instruments of agriculture?

These aren't completely mutually exclusive. There is not much difference between a sickle and a sword, and at one time they may have been the same thing.

Tools are a means used by great thinkers to advance our understanding by ingenious use of said tools, but they are financed and constructed at the behest of politically motivated warfarers. We do not yet appear to have moved away from that model, but, perhaps, one day we may and we will then justify the title of civilised.

We are not currently civilised, the Western world remains significantly militarised. I think this situation has changed somewhat over time, but whether being civilised will be a sufficient calling that we no longer have a need for military motivations has yet to be seen.

I think this is position is entirely dependent on your definition of "tools" and "civilization".

Certainly scientific tools are used by great thinkers to advance understanding. But when I need to dig an irrigation ditch, the tool I need is a shovel. I'm neither trying to understand something, nor am I trying to propagate ignorance. I'm merely trying to grow crops to feed myself, my family, my "civilization". But that shovel is indeed a tool, and as a tool it extends and amplifies my human abilities. Same goes for backhoes, stethoscopes, and computers.

Along similar lines, if you define "civilized" as any human organization that has no significant militarization, then yes, Western society is not civilized. I beg to differ, however, and suggest that all the major "civilizations" in history have included significant elements of organized military conflict. I'm not saying this is good (or bad), just that it is a historical fact.

Perhaps a more accurate term would be "pacifist". Western civilization is definitely not pacifist.

[Tom Ligon]

At the risk of contributing to mega-thread-drift ...

Historically, civilization has always pretty much been defined by the ability to organize and supply large armies. Those that did could impose their civilization on a larger area.

As for shovels, I've spent enough weekends recently trenching to bring my solar hot water lines to the cabin. I find the shovel is only useful after breaking the clay and rock with a pick or mattock.

I've got my eye on a mini-excavator. These owe a lot to the scientific genius of the last couple of centuries. Would we have the diesel engine without Boyle and Charles?

[chrismb]

if you define "civilized" as any human organization that has no significant militarization, then yes

I do, and, exactly!

I think there have been 'civilised' societies in the past. Various Greek city states spring to mind. I think there are a number where the military is distinctly subordinate to civil society. Japan, for example, that has to pay the US for its defence as a left-over of WW2. Even, perhaps, some countries where there is little religion and a rather small armed services contingent such as Australia, and New Zealand. Then there are countries like Switzerland that call their civil population to arms when needed, just as Czechoslovakia was (before we gave it to the Germans).

But, US and UK are clearly under the auspices of our military... if our loutish behaviour across the world isn't demonstration enough of our lack of civility then I don't know what would be! Stands to reason our nations are the most despised, given "our" incivil behaviour.

[ZenDraken]

if you define "civilized" as any human organization that has no significant militarization, then yes

I do, and, exactly!

Then in terms of logical argument, you are operating in a different realm than most people with an awareness of history.

I could start from the assumption that "civilized" is defined as "Any nation that has landed men on the moon". I could then build the rest of my arguments from that basis. But does doesn't make my conclusions true.

I think there have been 'civilised' societies in the past. Various Greek city states spring to mind. I think there are a number where the military is distinctly subordinate to civil society.

Greek city-states maintained sizable armies. They often fought one another. For the extreme version of this, see: Sparta. Also, in the United States, the military is subordinate to civil society. The military takes it's orders from the civilian Commander In Chief. The US Military has very restrictive legal limitations on its' domestic power. It's foreign power is determined by policies set forth by the (civilian) President.

That's not to say we shouldn't "beware the military-industrial complex", as Eisenhower warned. But the US is a far cry from a militaristic society. For that, I would again refer you to Sparta.

Japan, for example, that has to pay the US for its defence as a left-over of WW2.

Doesn't this just transfer the supposed "militarism" from Japan to the US? And doesn't it illustrate the mutually agreed necessity of having a military if you want to also maintain your civilization?

Even, perhaps, some countries where there is little religion and a rather small armed services contingent such as Australia, and New Zealand. Then there are countries like Switzerland that call their civil population to arms when needed, just as Czechoslovakia was (before we gave it to the Germans).

Again, doesn't all of that argue there is a generally agreed necessity for a military, if you want to maintain your civilization? And what's the religion thing have to do with it?

But, US and UK are clearly under the auspices of our military... if our loutish behaviour across the world isn't demonstration enough of our lack of civility then I don't know what would be! Stands to reason our nations are the most despised, given "our" incivil behaviour.

Last time I looked, I didn't see any military personnel running around oppressing society, either here in the US, or in the UK. And what "loutish behavior" are you referring to?

[chrismb]

you are operating in a different realm than most people with an awareness of history.

Thank you! Most here have already spotted my unique contributions in this respect!

Greek city-states maintained sizable armies.

Not all. I was thinking of the ones who raised or hired armies only when they saw fit.

Again, doesn't all of that argue there is a generally agreed necessity for a military, if you want to maintain your civilization?

Yes, but my point is that it should be utterly subordinate to the civilian society, whereas in US and UK our supposed civilian hierarcies choose to launch and/or perpetuate wars that a clearly not what the majority of the electorate would choose, viz. civil control over the military has been lost [never been gained].

And what's the religion thing have to do with it?

Exactly. Nothing civilised about a religion. A religion may be civilis-ing but in itself is never civil as religion is anti-reason and civil society is based on reason.

Last time I looked, I didn't see any military personnel running around oppressing society, either here in the US, or in the UK. And what "loutish behavior" are you referring to?

You've clearly not been following recent history. How about CIA flights? How about surpressing civilian fraud prosecutions for supposed intelligence reasons? How about demonstrators being forcibly removed from mounting anti-war and anti-airbase campaigns? How about US intelligence trying to exert influence over UK civilian courts? Extra-ordinary rendition? Gee, those Italians with their anti-mafia technology really caught out the fumbling CIA! Of course you haven't seen these things - you're not looking for it. Open your eyes.

Loutish behaviour is applying utterly contemptible double standards on the rest of the World, like torture, like bombing the sh*t out of civilian weddings in Whichever-istan, like banning medical aid to Iraq (whilst Saddam was in power) then bombing the sh*t out of them just because of a false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction to get him out.

Are you from this planet? Are you my lift home; have you arrived to take me away from here?

[bcglorf]

You've clearly not been following recent history....

Loutish behaviour is applying utterly contemptible double standards on the rest of the World, like torture, like bombing the sh*t out of civilian weddings in Whichever-istan, like banning medical aid to Iraq (whilst Saddam was in power) then bombing the sh*t out of them just because of a false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction to get him out.

Double standards?

You can not use the removal of Saddam from power when listing off America's double standards with out being entirely ignorant of Saddam Era Iraq. You'll remember that if the anti-war movement had been listened to back in the 90's then Saddam WOULD have had a fully operational WMD program for almost a decade before the 2003 invasion. And Kuwait would still to this day be a province of Iraq under Saddam's rule.

You also need know what under Saddam's rule meant. It meant being imprisoned and likely tortured for spilling your coffee on a newspaper that had Saddam's image on it. It meant death to anyone that possessed a satellite dish or even distributed a pamphlet. And that was not a quick or merciful death like serial killers are given in Texas. Your family would not only have to watch, but be forced at gun point to applaud Saddam for killing you. They'd also receive a bill in the mail for the cost incurred for your execution. If your family failed to pay that bill, they would have officers at their door to deliver a video tape of them raping your daughter and holding her until your family should choose to pay.

And heaven help you if you were born a Kurd, you'd then wish that you could be an Arab that had distributed a pamphlet instead.

There are some lines I can't bear to see crossed, and calling America the bad guy for removing Saddam is one of them. D@#$ America for ever supporting Saddam while the real freedom fighters in Iraq were being killed by him. Do NOT condemn America for finally, at long last, fighting by their side. You seem to be under the impression that all military deployments are by their very nature evil. Their are unfortunately times were evil men with their own military must be stopped and the ONLY thing that can do that is another, stronger military.

[chrismb]

There are some lines I can't bear to see crossed, and calling America the bad guy for removing Saddam is one of them.

Don't put words in my mouth. Find a word of support in my piece for Saddam. I mentioned a) the 100,000s of children who needlessly suffered for a pointless US lead embargo on medical aid, and b) the supposed objective of removing WMD.

As you say, whilst America and the Allies actually gave succor to Saddam's opression of the Shias after the Gulf war, then there's little you can tell me.

I actually have family relatives who were working in Kuwait during the invasion, and no-one is going to pretend anything was pretty then. That being said, my grandfather, who was 94 at the time, never saw what all the fuss was about seeing as Kuwait was originally, effectively, separated from Iraqi territory when the British renaged on the Anglo-Ottoman agreement, so he only thought it reasonable for them to sieze it back. It is said that Iraq recognised the Kuwaiti borders in the 1960s, but they were put in no other position that they had any option otherwise. The Arabs don't like loosing face on these things and the bullying West could learn a few lessons in how to stroke egos around the World to get what they want, rather than bully their way in the uncivilised and thuggish manner that they go about trying to get what they want these days. The politics of the West is tactless and tacticless. As the Russians say, Americans do not play chess.

But let's just consider the 'head' count for a moment. How many people would Saddam have killed and surpressed if he had been let on in power, compared with how many have been killed and surpressed by the action to date. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that the latter are the lower figures. Let's be clear here, going to war always kills far more civilians than it ever does military personnel. This is my point; the waging of war is not in the interests of the civilian populations. No-one can win these current wars, no more than anyone can win an earthquake. The notion is ridiculous. And, to boot, we've already lost the wars in Iraq and Afganistan - just look at the state of them now!!!... By what measure do you think benefit has been gained for all that loss of life, infrastructure, the [literally] pallet-loads of tax-payers cash and all the smashed priceless antiquities. For what??? Just 'cot the then US President was offended that the person his daddy got into a fight with was still in power, whilst his daddy had lost power. That, oh and not forgetting trying to gain control over some of the largest oil fields in the world... you think anyone who had control over the miltary action in Iraq actually cared that much about the Iraqi population!!??

It is not the consequence of an action that needs to be examined, but the way in which it is conducted and the intent behind commissioning it. An uncivilised intent and/or uncivilised conduct will always lead to an uncivilised action.

[MSimon]

Yes, but my point is that it should be utterly subordinate to the civilian society, whereas in US and UK our supposed civilian hierarcies choose to launch and/or perpetuate wars that a clearly not what the majority of the electorate would choose, viz. civil control over the military has been lost [never been gained].

I dunno. The war in Afghanistan was pretty popular when it started. The Iraq war only some what less so (I was for it before I was against it - many politicians).

Iraq has been brought to about as successful conclusion as can be reasonably expected and a dictator who terrorized their population removed.

And in the USA we are now getting the Sharia Uber Alles crowd planning attacks that so far have been busted. We get them every six months or so.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... r-by-.html

What to do? If it gets bad enough the US population is well armed and any one supporting that sort of thing will find themselves on the short end of a long barrel. It will get very ugly.

You Brits are at the mercy. If your Army is not ordered to do something you are f*****.

[MSimon]

Don't put words in my mouth. Find a word of support in my piece for Saddam. I mentioned a) the 100,000s of children who needlessly suffered for a pointless US lead embargo on medical aid,

Ah. Saddam's propaganda boys have filled your head. Pity.

There was no embargo on medicine or food. The money went to palaces and arms. You might want to look up: Oil for Food Maurice Strong and get an education. Who knows. You might learn something about some of the Queen's subjects. And friends of the UN.

[ZenDraken]

My apologies for massive thread-drift, but anyway...

you are operating in a different realm than most people with an awareness of history.

Thank you! Most here have already spotted my unique contributions in this respect!

If that's the case, your arguments are only valid in your world. The question is: Does that represent the real world? I maintain that it does not.

Greek city-states maintained sizable armies.

Not all. I was thinking of the ones who raised or hired armies only when they saw fit.

What about the majority of Greek city-states? Were they not part of Greek "civilization"?

Again, doesn't all of that argue there is a generally agreed necessity for a military, if you want to maintain your civilization?

Yes, but my point is that it should be utterly subordinate to the civilian society, whereas in US and UK our supposed civilian hierarcies choose to launch and/or perpetuate wars that a clearly not what the majority of the electorate would choose, viz. civil control over the military has been lost [never been gained].

So, do you propose that the military should be commanded by democratic vote, rather than by a civilian Commander In Chief? How would that be better? Majority rule can result in decisions as bad as those made by an individual, and can result in tyranny by majority.

I'm not saying the US system is perfect, but neither is the alternative you seem to be suggesting.

And what's the religion thing have to do with it?

Exactly. Nothing civilised about a religion. A religion may be civilis-ing but in itself is never civil as religion is anti-reason and civil society is based on reason.

I agree that a civil society *should* be based on reason. As for religion and reason, I'd recommend studying Zen Buddhism. I'm not suggesting it's a paragon of perfect reason, but goes a long way there. Other religions also respect and incorporate reason to some imperfect degree.

As for the rest of your previous post, I don't condone torture, suppression of free speech, murdering civilians, or generally the other things you mentioned. I do believe a military is necessary for the defense of civilization, and militaries break things and kill people, war is ugly, and that is a sad reality. But it is reality.

When all human beings become angels, we won't need the military any more. We also won't need any laws, or a government, and nobody will have to suffer. The world will be at peace. But I seriously doubt we will ever achieve that state of moral perfection.

[chrismb]

There was no embargo on medicine or food. The money went to palaces and arms. You might want to look up: Oil for Food Maurice Strong and get an education. Who knows. You might learn something about some of the Queen's subjects. And friends of the UN.

eh??? The UN itself imposed the embargo, from 1990. The oil for food thing didn't kick off unitl '97. It was someone from the UN that I heard give an interview in the mid 90's stating that though he'd been responsible for it in the first instance, but he resigned because of the terrible damage he was seeing it was doing and wanted to close it down. Can't remember the guy's name, but I'll look it up, if you like. D'you want me to look up the UN resolution aswell??

[ladajo]

The whole embargo process was a joke. Saddam made sure it was. We (the US) and the UN created a micro-economy all based around the embargo. All it really did was provide another mechanism for Saddam to screw his people. The UN did try to move in aid and other key population sustainment items through those years, not just oil for food. And Saddam alwasy found a way to corrupt it. One of my favorites was a metric butt ton of trucks tagged to be used to deliver medical aid and supplies around the country that got cleared via the sanctions process, and offloaded in country, then promptly distro'd to military facilities where they were mounted with Ack-Ack guns and other assorted tools of mayhem. Not one of those trucks saw duty moving anything useful for the peeps.
I was over there in the late 90's chasing the embargo ghost, and conducting multiple boardings (daily at times) catching oil smugglers. We racked up a healthy total of intercepts and busts, a number of them repeat offenders. They all got their buck, and a chunk of our gas go paid for by the busts as well.
What a joke. At the end of the day, the biggest error we made was not taking him out the first time. It cost us a lot to leave the devil we knew in place.
I am curious Chris, did you think he had WMD before Gulf 2 rolled? A lot of people did.

[chrismb]

I am curious Chris, did you think he had WMD before Gulf 2 rolled? A lot of people did.

To me, the UN weapons inspection team (UNMOVIC/Blix/&c.) were credible and asked for more time as they hadn't found anything. I heard, I think it was, Powell saying something along the lines of 'if they [the iraqis] really had destroyed their weapons [post 1990] then it is unbelievable that they wouldn't have paperwork to show for it', which to me showed that the US Administration knew nothing at all about the Arab mentality! The very fact that they had no evidence suggesting they had detroyed the weapons meant, to me, they had. If they hadn't, then they'd have faked them! So, no, I didn't think they did and it seemed self-evident to me that the war was waged for ulterior purposes.

It also seemed wrong for a purely strategic issue. It gets hot there, real hot, and starting a war in spring was daft. They could've easily waited until Autumn [like Saddam did, going into Kuwait] and for the UNMOVIC report. So I didn't understand it at all. Seemed barking mad, and was, on that observation, likely to be unrelated to the stated purpose.