I’m sick of war.
Officially the cost of the war on terror has been $1.3 trillion. And military spending — especially the interest on debt to pay for past wars — keeps growing year on year:
As General Eisenhower noted:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
The cost in life was been ever steeper; over a million Iraqis died.
But it’s more than cost; this a problem of responsibility. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney live a comfortable life of wealth and leisure, four years after leaving office having started two destructive, costly and ineffective wars of choice. They didn’t fight. None of their children fought. But lots of American and British soldiers and innocent Arabs got their limbs and heads blown off.
Of course, military deterrence — and sometimes military action — is necessary.
As Eisenhower noted:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
The trouble is that war is a great excuse for weapons contractors to make lots of money, and weapons contractors happily fund war-mongering politicians into power. That’s the self-perpetuating military industrial complex.
So the problem then lies in differentiating the necessary actions from the unnecessary.
I propose a simple heuristic for this purpose, one that if introduced would also render the war-mongering politician — the Congressman who votes to authorise, or the President who signs the authorisation into law — personally responsible:
If you start a war, you have to fight. If you cannot fight, then your nearest fit relative has to fight.
This puts the skin back into the game. You want to risk blood and treasure to start a war? If it’s that important, you’ll put your body and blood on the line before you ask any soldier to fight, or any taxpayer to pay. If not, then it must not be necessary.
Would George W. Bush have started the Iraq war had he known his two daughters would be conscripted, and shipped off to Iraq to find Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?
I doubt it.
Yes they should be made to fight in the front line. However because they are not trained they would probably escape this and if not they would probably get killed, injured or be a liability. This is the nature of modern warfare with extreme levels of specialization and division of labour. I agree with this in principle and admire monarchic rule of the past because wars were small scale, and Kings joined the battle field. The French Revolution has given us million man armies and total war with politicians safely at home directing war and killing from a distance.
Tony Blair has been made a Middle East Peace Envoy which is very Orwellian (and ironic if not amusing is someone having a big joke on us) given that he encouraged the invasion of Iraq and is a war monger and highly probably a war criminal who should have been brought to justice. It is a pity the political class in democracies generally face no penalties for their bad actions other than being voted out by the electorate. We should be able to go to a public square where we can boo and hiss at them where we can show our contempt for them. They can be shielded by protective glass…but maybe seeing the outrage felt against them may prevent them from doing such things in the future. We need more transparency from governments…they should not be able to hide their actions and decisions. Real Democracy means the politicians serve the people not that the people obey and serve their masters the politicians.
Did you see this headline, Mo?
I attended the anti war rallies befor ethe Iraq invasion. It was the first and only protest I attended.
Bush, Blair and Howard (Australian PM) are War criminals. I hope the UN pursues them.
The sight of the children with their limbs blown off will haunt me forever. There was no need to topple Saddam. He could have been contained like we contain North Korea. May God punish them.
“The sight of the children with their limbs blown off will haunt me forever. There was no need to topple Saddam. He could have been contained like we contain North Korea. May God punish them“…
Oh what a dreadful Boo! Hoo!
You want a reason, a real reason to whine?
Where’s your blubbering compassion for the hundred of thousands or maybe millions slaughtered by that clown that could be ‘contained‘?!?!
Where are your tears of angst for the Kurds of Hatra?
Are there any limits to liberal hypocrisy?!?!
I don’t know about his tears for Kurds, but there is a difference between condemning invasion of Iraq as immoral and approving of Saddam. Saddam was a mass murder and Bush is ALSO a mass murderer. It does not cancel itself out. It was an atrocity to slaughter Kurds and it was another atrocity to launch aggressive, unprovoked war. What is the point of looking which of this was less wrong?
Why not do the RIGHT thing and never initiate aggression? Also, it would not hurt to stop arming/propping up dictators around the World BEFORE they step on someone’s toe.
Any war is huge amount of violence and destruction. Such issues should not be taken lightly. The most severe scrutiny should be applied to them. You should not glance over inconsistencies, fabricated reasons for invasion etc. A war that is kinda – sorta close to be a just war – is extreme atrocity and every person directly responsible for starting it should face criminal consequences. With stakes this high, lives lost counted in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) and losses in billions only completely and utterly just war is permissible.
Another reason why I support Ron Paul (I suppose you think he’s an uber-liberal) is that he is a Doctor, and thus is familiar with the Hippocratic principle of first doing no harm, and I believe in a foreign policy that first does no harm.
The neocons (yes, I know Krauthammer is a Doctor too, but he seems to have forgotten the Hippocratic oath) know no such thing.
You’re damn right.
Buddy is SUCH a liberal.
So you too recognize the rank hypocrisy, eh?
Define Liberal. In Australia the Liberal Party is the equiqalent of the Republican Party US or Conservative Party UK.
Oh you mean Liberal as in Obama Liberal. The world does not revolve around the USA anymore.
I love posters like you. It brings the trash to this intellectual forum.. Nice balance.
Pingback: One Simple Rule To Stop Unnecessary Wars « Financial Survival Network
Pingback: One Simple Rule To Stop Unnecessary Wars [azizonomics.com] « Mktgeist blog
Agreed I like the suggestion and I want to add that your enemy is not necessarily my enemy.
Because you are a mafia ruling family and you clashed with a subordinate that started to care more for his own people than your profits doesn’t make me hate him. I’m talking about Saddam here and the crime bosses of the West who got issues with a strong independent
This is what turned me against the present rulers. Plain and simple I knew it was bad, bad karma. And they went ahead anyway and destroyed a beautiful country, and yet I know that Iraq will rise again. They are strong noble people, intelligent and hardworking which is why the servents of Satan had to murder their scientists in combination with Mossad and JSOC operatives.
But the curses of the dying innocent are on the West and those that participated in this evil.
It is no suprise now we have an economy that is recessed and screwed up.
No surprise at all.
“This is what turned me against the present rulers. Plain and simple I knew it was bad, bad karma. And they went ahead anyway and destroyed a beautiful country, and yet I know that Iraq will rise again. They are strong noble people, intelligent and hardworking which is why the servents of Satan had to murder their scientists in combination with Mossad and JSOC operatives“…
Really? There’s no suprise that the economy is screwed up too?!?!
Hey Donahue don’t you want to tether yourself to reality even a little bit?
Does that “bad, bad karma” extend to Saddam’s treatment of the marsh arabs?
Juandos, you don’t use your real name on this board. Put your balls on the line you coward. Oh I forgot you would be the Neocon type sending others into war, or thew soldier killing via a rmote drone.
I for one cannot believe that there are still people talking up the Iraqi invasion — which far surpassed Saddam’s worst excesses in terms of human death and suffering. Even among the estabishment people I have spoken to recognise the folly and sheer counter-productiveness of this.
It was the classic example of “medicine” that made the patient sicker. Classic case study for future students of history.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, or are you stuck in the old testament liune of thinking of an eye for an eye?
We should have withdraw aid and isolated Tin pot dictators, however From Saddam to Qaddafi, they kept the fringe elements under control. Look at the Middle East now. Instead of being a society where religious tolerance was kept at the place of worship only, now it is a political factor.
But I guess your types love chaos. It justifies your messianic end times dream.
Ahhh, more of that libtard whining and the desire to feel good by pandering to the parasites: ‘Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed‘…
Does quoting a R.I.N.O. somehow make it all the more valid?
“The cost in life was been ever steeper; over a million Iraqis died“…
Really? Do you have a credible source for that supposed number of dead Iraqis?
BTW what’s the supposed downside to that many dead Iraquis?
This is based on a Lancet study: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
Their figure is 1.4 million, so my figure is comparatively conservative.
And the problem with that? Aside from the obvious moral problem, that’s 1.4 million people’s economic output lost.
The biggest parasites are the banks and military-industrial complex. How anyone who claims to be a conservative can defend these companies who live on government subsidies and could most likely never survive in a free market environment beats me.
And how can anyone who claims to be a conservative argue against personal responsibility in foreign policy, which is more or less all I am calling for?
You speak the language of a neocon, and we all know the neocons are the intellectual heirs of Trotsky.
Good of you aziz to cite the thoroughly debunked Lancet study…
BTW Jonathan at Chicago Boyz posted all sorts of credible information debunking the Lancet study…
Even the ‘tards‘ at ABC news reported on the debunking…
One other thing to note in passing, Lancet out of the UK, home of socialized medicine…
Gotta wonder why anything from Lancet didn’t set off alarm bells immediately aziz…
“The biggest parasites are the banks and military-industrial complex. How anyone who claims to be a conservative can defend these companies who live on government subsidies and could most likely never survive in a free market environment beats me“…
Since you aziz obviously don’t believe in the free market I find this comment hilarious!!
Your neo-marxist-socialist preconceived narrative comes out in that tired cliche regarding banks and the military-industrial complex…
You’ve shown a distinct inability to do homework that might counter to your narrative…
May I suggest to you that you read the following from the American Thinker which is replete with links that will debunk your cliche ridden post: Iraq: The War that Broke US – NOT
The Lancet study is the high end. There have been numerous criticisms of it (but “thoroughly debunked” is hugely inaccurate), but all surveys agree there have been Iraqi deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and a million is hardly the most excessive figure.
In any case, the numbers are not the point, because the point is that of personal responsibility, which is a point that thus far you have failed to respond to.
I’m not even a pacifist. Sometimes you have to have a war to save your skin, but I want a way to differentiate the necessary wars from the unnecessary. If Bush was prepared to send his daughters to fight on the front line to topple Saddam, then fine. But I don’t believe he would have. It was a war of choice and empire, not necessity.
I spend a whole lot of time arguing in favour of market solutions:
The truth is you seem to equate corporatism — government handouts to big business, i.e. the military-industrial complex — with “free markets”. You seem to be a war-loving, corporatism-loving neocon, which is why you cite other neocons like Michelle Malkin and the people at the American Thinker. The military-industrial complex is anathema to capitalism, because it lives on government subsidies. Government subsidies kill the market mechanism, which you need for a capitalist economy, which leads to a misallocation of capital.
The sad reality is that the neoconservative school of thought to which you seem to subscribe is the intellectual descendant of Trotskyism, and so the deep irony is that you and your pro-war pro-corporatism brethren are the ones with a Marxist flavour.
Seriously, you’re embarrassing yourself. And for what? You don’t like the idea of personal responsibility?
Just how how socialist and clueless is aziz?
Let me count the ways…
“Another reason why I support Ron Paul (I suppose you think he’s an uber-liberal) is that he is a Doctor…“…
No, Ron Paul is an uber moonbat that loves earmarks…
“The Lancet study is the high end. There have been numerous criticisms of it (but “thoroughly debunked” is hugely inaccurate)“…
ROFLMAO! Good one!
Just because Lancet makes the claim: “Lancet is the world’s leading general medical journal…” doesn’t make it so…
All you’ve done aziz is proven that you either didn’t read the data or you didn’t understand the data and my money is split evenly on both reasons…
Using Wikipedia in an attempt to prove you’re a free market kind of guy, well that’s yet another epic fail…
BTW I wonder if this is the same jon who’s infamous for saying the stupidest comments over at Carpe Diam also belted out this delusional gem: “Aziz, you are talking to religious fanatics. Thats what Juandos and is ilk are“…
I was laughing so damned hard I nearly had a hernia…
“The interest on debt is a component of the Pentagon budget. This is not debt accrued from welfare programs (unless we mean corporate welfare)“…
Now there’s a hell of a reach aziz, a reach all the way out to planet delusion…
So to wrap it up the aziz has to make sure that he sticks his foot in his mouth one more time with the following: “Jon you’re forgetting something very important: arguing with the incoherent makes you look good“…
So yeah aziz, you’re long on whine and short on substance… Can’t hardly get any more liberal than that…
Hello Juandos is that you?
Your Avatar says it all!
Come friends there is little to discuss here.
Juandos cannot answer whether or not he is for or against personal responsibility in the arena of foreign policy, which is the topic at hand. All else is secondary to that matter.
Juandos: throw every epiphet, every label, every ad hominem argument you like, to attempt to make whatever case you want; that somehow I am being negligent in my use of statistics, that I am a fool, or delusional, or a liberal, or that Ron Paul is x or y or z.
I do not need to respond; your words respond to themselves: it is all noise. It is all tangential. It does not wash here.
asiz whines: “Juandos cannot answer whether or not he is for or against personal responsibility in the arena of foreign policy, which is the topic at hand. All else is secondary to that matter“…
Well I’m sorry but it struck me as yet another incredibly stupid strawman argument that I thought you were joking…
I mean let’s face it, this was coming from the brain of a real lib and we know that libs don’t give a damn about personal responsibilty, that’s government’s job in the eyes of a lib…
“You start a war, you or your kids or your brother or your grandkids must fight. Is that too much personal responsibility for you?“…
Well gee I guess I shouldn’t be overly suprised that you know so little about the history of western cultures clashing with the creepy religion of the pedophile prophet…
Yes all those wars were multi-generational and if you had taken any worthwhile world history you would know that…
So libs take responsibility for mult-generational war such as LBJ’s let’s pander to parasites or the so called war on poverty?
How about the previous program, FDR’s ‘let’s use taxpayer money to buy votes from the stupid’ but its really Ponzi scheme program, do you want to take responsibility for that one?
How about the rest of the redistribution of someone else’s money programs, are you libs going to take responsibility for those also?
O.K., let’s talk about responsibility…
If Aziz won’t argue with you, I will.
This is the most fucking bizarre whacked-out nut job shit I have ever seen anyone write, and I lurk in the comments section on Zero Hedge. You’re almost as wacked-out as $MDB which leads me to conclude you are nothing other than a troll.
The turnaround from personal responsibility to collective responsibility (blaming Aziz for LBJ and FDR) could not come from the mind of a conservative, because conservatives believe in personal and not collective responsibility. Your pathetic attempt to smear users of this site as “liberal” when it is blazingly obvious a conservative/libertarian audience could only have come from the mind of someone either so whacked-out on CIA mind control drugs, or purposely trolling.
Let’s just count the fallacies:
1) Smearing Aziz with collective responsibility for LBJ/FDR, two Presidents who as far as I know he despises.
2) Claiming that the Islamic world has collective responsibility for its history with the West.
3) Claiming the West has collective responsibility to hostility to Islam
4) Failing to answer whether you’re for or against personal responsibility in foreign policy
5) Failing to denounce corporate handouts and bailouts, which hold the taxpayer collectively responsible for the misdeeds of bankers.
Conclusion: troll, and not a very funny one. Try harder!
To wit, I would rank LBJ and FDR in my bottom 5.
Pingback: If you start a war, you have to fight » Why Aren't You Outraged?
You act like the war is extra. NO, the wars are paid for.
The social spending isn’t paid for.
If the war is paid for why is there an interest on debt component?
Oh stop pandering to the welfare parasites Aziz, you libtard.
Yes, it should be obvious from his belief in free market capitalism and his liking for Ron Paul that Aziz is a big liberal.
“If the war is paid for why is there an interest on debt component?“…
I should think that should be painfully obvious aziz, extorted tax dollars wasted on pandering to parasites programs…
The interest on debt is a component of the Pentagon budget. This is not debt accrued from welfare programs (unless we mean corporate welfare).
The wars are just as unpaid-for as the social spending.
Read the chart, that’s why it says “interest on debt, defense-related”
“You act like the war is extra. NO, the wars are paid for.
The social spending isn’t paid for“…
Except this article isn’t even really about war debt. It’s about personal responsibility in foreign policy. I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility?
You start a war, you or your kids or your brother or your grandkids must fight. Is that too much personal responsibility for you?
Aziz, you are talking to religious fanatics. Thats what Juandos and is ilk are. Assertion after stupid debunked (hundreds of times btw) assertion, and all the Neo-cons, or whatever these morons call themselves these days can do is rinse, wash, and repeat. Citing the American Thinker? That’s priceless!! I guess mister Juan has never heard of confirmation bias…
Jon you’re forgetting something very important: arguing with the incoherent makes you look good.
And it’s just too much fun… Seriously, how many bong hits does it take to start to believe that I of all people am a Neo-Marxist…?
“Jon you’re forgetting something very important: arguing with the incoherent makes you look good.
And it’s just too much fun… Seriously, how many bong hits does it take to start to believe that I of all people am a Neo-Marxist…?”
Pingback: Guest Post: One Simple Rule To Stop Unnecessary Wars » A Taoistmonk's Life
Pingback: Guest Post: One Simple Rule To Stop Unnecessary Wars
Pingback: Sunday Articles » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
having skin in the game is an important concept. Same for investment bankers, as I recall from the HBO movie- investment bankers used to invest there own money- now much of wall street make money regardless of their success in investment (or gamble).
Yes this is a fundamentally important concept. Nassim Taleb’s new book is all about this.
“Hello Juandos is that you?“…
Yeah buddy ‘I cry crocodile tears for brats I don’t know Rojek…
BTW how do you know my name isn’t juandos?
Did you pull that nugget of information out of you private library?
Juantroll, what exactly is your purpose? Are you here because you love us so much? Are you here because you like to argue? What’s your point? Is it to tell everyone what your limtus test for going to war is?
You make me laugh. Why don’t you join us, we are very very very connected 😉
If you are writing on this site you are the top 0.001% of geopolitical economic fanatics in the world. Please write further comments, as I appreciate the balanced neocon view ( I find it a facinating study of the mind). If you can use a computer and attracted to sites such as Zero Hedge and the creme of the crop Azizonomics, we can use your opinion.
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
Given that such a law would have to be passed and signed into effect by the very people who abuse the current system, there is ZERO chance of any such law being passed. It falls into the same category as, “If all Americans would just refuse to (insert your fantasy here), then the gummint wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
It’s a nice fantasy, but it’s actually less likely than having libertarian UFOs show up to declare Free Market Galactica.
If this is impossible to implement (which thanks to political cowardice it might be) then the point is to show up the politicians for the cowards they are.
After the dust of war settles, Realestate should be cheeper that it already is. Less demand you know. There is an up side to everything if you look for it. I am all for our representatives being first in line when they start setting a dangerous and foolish course on whatever it is. I also hope they would be the first in the line of responsibility and accountability for the deficit created by QE1, QE2, and all the Private sector Bail Outs they did. Pay back should come out of their personal estate to cover the bottomless pit until they are penniless and if there is any debt left after that, give the dollar back to the Federal Reserve Bank as the dollar actually belongs to them. Let them have it all including including the dollar denominated debt. We can initiate a new, clean currency that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Bank. Let them scream. So what. They have had their pound of flesh out of America a long time ago and we keep handing them the carving knife so they can continue. We need to wipe the plate clean and start over again.
How about a national plebiscite (vote) whether to go to war or even authorize a police action?
Seems far more reasonable than your proposal. Of course, it doesn’t let you bash past presidents, just voters.
What a concept.
Well according to the constitution it is Congress that decides to go to war. Personally, I think it is far too easy for non-fighting citizens (and Congressmen, of course) to authorise war when they have little or nothing to lose. If you mean that war should be by plebiscite, and that everyone who votes for it effectively volunteers to fight, then that would put the skin back in the game.
Or the government could just — gasp — be restricted by the Constitution and require an act of war from Congress.
Yes, but that doesn’t quite expose the cowardice of it all…
Of course if they had followed the constitution we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Submit this to Congress to see if anyone will sponsor it as a bill. Of course they will probably say for the good of the country the President and Congress they must be able to make decisions without the pressure of the well being of their relatives…bla bla bla.
I doubt any Congressmen would support this. Maybe Justin Amash, or Ron Paul, but it would never get mass support, not in this cowardly age where war is fought like a video game.
Your proposal has historical precedent. In the age of chivalry, kings went into battle.
Absolutely correct. Kings fought on the battlefield with their troops. A much less cowardly age.
I agree with your point about the perpetual cycle of defense contractors self promoting more and more weapons, but your thesis about having the politican who votes for war fight in it is just plain silly. Who would run the government if they were all fighting? the next of kin thing is a can of worms that would never ever work. Sorry, back to the drawing board on this one.
How would the next of kin thing not work? It’s easy. You want a war you send your kids or your brother or sister, or nephew or niece. They are conscripted. Obviously the ideal is that the Commander-in-Chief commands the troops on the battlefield (skin in the game), but if that is not possible then send the next of kin. This would also keep a lot of cowards out of politics.
Who runs the govt now? Save for a few good guys/gals our congress sucks large nuts.
Yeah, it would be easy to replace politicians…
Pingback: Officially the cost of the war on terror has been $1.3 trillion… And military spending keeps growing year on year… « Investment Watch Blog
I think the best policy is if a country wants us to help them out and fight a war that we use their AMEX card to pay the bill for the war not ours! We end up picking up the bill for being the world’s policeman!
Pingback: This simple rule could end America’s unnecessary wars « Brain Cramps
It is a very despicable country that requires its women or children to fight, while men remain home. After 9/11 , should we have done nothing?
I’ll put it like this:
I’d send my kids on an extremely limited mission to get bin Laden. I wouldn’t send them to do nation building anywhere, or into countries like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. That’s what I believe America should have done, and I believe that’s what Congress would have done if they had to send their loved-ones.
US Government could learn from the Ukrainians
If they were to have read the ancient Chinese classic “The Art Of War,” we would not have
become entrenched and trapped into a lengthy and expensive un-win-able war, a warning
that generable Sun-Tzu repeatedly mulls over in his writings, and of which President Bush
had no working knowledge of (War). The Russian’s kindly tried to warn us of the foolishness
of our ways, as they had considerable (negative) experience as well.
While requiring family members to “stand in” for the leadership may have some merit, I do not find it feasible. However at one time we had a way to control military egress. After a short 90 day military involvement, for necessary police actions, it should be law that the congress and the administration convince the American public to invest in war bonds to pay for any protracted war effort – no foreign investment allowed. This should also require full disclosure to the people of the actual and projected costs and the amount of bonds required to continue. If the people support the action, and want to put their financial skin in the game -so be it. If however, the President can’t sell the reasons for war, then the US operation ends -full stop. We must remain a military superpower to have any influence in the world. We have abandoned our roles as the commercial, intellectual, or productive power as we follow the path of the British following Victoria; so the use of our military is the only way the government maintains its image. Removing the unlimited purse from the Pentagon is the only way we can focus on rebuilding the true strengths of the American empire.
The old addage of “follow the money” still applies to the US and our foreign policy.
1. If we didn’t supply foreign aid, and our military might including foreign bases, to countries that cannot stand on their own, we would force them to deal with their own issues and pay their own expenses. YOU CANNOT BUY FRIENDS—PERIOD.
2. Starting wars is extremely profitable to the military complex, just like our founding fathers tried to protect us from by the design of our constitution. If we aren’t at war someplace, we don’t need to continually upgrade our equipment and replace equipment that has been used or destroyed. Why is it that we still need huge numbers of troops at a time when most miltary conflicts are guerrilla-type, human bomb, low tech adversaries. SPENDING ON THE WAR MACHINE HAS A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON OUR COUNTRY, INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE WHO DIDN’T RECEIVE THE TYPE OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN FUTURE. Yes, I said it, our eductional system is providing cannon fodder instead of an employment-ready workforce.
3. Our politicians are out of control and it is our fault. They have voted for a congress that includes cushy jobs and retirements for themselves and lots of oppotunities for the lobbyists that support their elections—NOT FOR THE CONSTITUANTS WHO ELECTED THEM. WE MUST RETAKE OUR COUNTRY IN DURING ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS. Vote only for those who believe our constitution is still valid and that our country is good because her people are good.
Just 2 simple laws ARE needed to be progressively implimented across all cultures before wars can diminish.
They are ALWAYS nurture life – in all its forms. And: politicians – public servants – are responsible, are to be held responsible by their own populations, for the damage and death they intentionally cause in their own cultures or others. Deliberately imposed suffering does not always nurther life… Does it? This law is so simple we can instil it in kindergarten.
Recognition of just 2 more things are needed as a part of this. The first is: when a governmental branch is corrupt, you can tell and you can correct it fast because people are getting hurt or killed or the environment is going backwards because of it.
The second is: when your environment is going backwards, so is your culture.
The ultimate cure for an environment going backwards is deliberate birth control to reduce human predation upon it. Without voluntary people reduction, war is the terminal default constant.
Until we can universally learn these few things our world will repetitously follow the biological balances set by overpopulation – world desertification. We strip every living thing for every land steadily then we turn upon each other and rape and desecrate until nothing remains.
A heavy truth to accept but it is absolutely clear and nothing has changed from this fact since the dawn of our species – ‘homo destructusall’
History shows the universally followed path and our present shows where each nation is on this path. A sobering truth indeed.
If some one wants to be updated with latest technologies then he must be go to see this web site
and be up to date everyday.
Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful information specially the last part 🙂 I care for such information much. I was looking for this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
To say that Bush & Cheney started two wars is only half right. I was dead set against the Iraq War, Bush & his advisers allowed faulty British intel to alter their mind set. But who should we have responded to for 9/11? The Saudis had 19 pilots & crew in those 4 planes, Bin Laden was also Saudi born. Bush/Chaney & Rumsfeld decided on the Afgan invasion, & 12 yrs. later we’re still there. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2004, I felt he didn’t deserve a 2nd term just like Obama didn’t deserve his 2nd term.
War is hell, Syria is not our concern, let some other nation(s) spill their blood for a change, ’nuff is ’nuff!
sex,porn,fuck,slut,slag,bitch,cock,pussy,vagina,horny,boobs,tits,asshole,shit,gay,cunt,lesbian,whore,shit porn,xxx,anal,cream pie,bbw,bang bros,penis
I constantly spent my half an hour to read this website’s posts all the time along
with a mug of coffee.
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So good to find someone with some original ideas on this subject. realy thanks for starting this up. this website is one thing that is wanted on the internet, somebody with a bit originality. useful job for bringing one thing new to the web!