Are wars actually as pointless as they seem?

I believe there is yet another fundamental catalyst for conflict that hasn't been touched upon in this discussion quite yet... the existence of multi-ethnic or multi-national states. If we set aside those classic imperialistic expansions, I would argue that perhaps ninety percent—if not even more—of all warfare is driven by nationalistic friction. It seems to boil down to a cycle where either a specific group or a minority finds themselves suppressed, or conversely, they are actively attempting to suppress others... essentially a struggle over territory that mirrors the primal instincts we see in the animal kingdom. In that sense, one could argue that war becomes an issue of pure survival, making it a tragically natural phenomenon when viewed through the lens of existence itself. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean that war is inherently good or something we should ever welcome...

David Bennett53 said:Back in the day, wars were fought over living space, but today they are fought exclusively for resources needed by corporations to expand. Back then, these massive financial and military powers hadn't even formed yet, so clearly, they couldn't have been corporate!

If this doesn't apply just to modern times, look at the Opium Wars. That happened after the Chinese man tried to ban opium and got in the way of British monetary interests (which is where the roots of corporate thinking actually lie). Those wars crushed the uprising in blood, and in the 19th century, it established the Saasoon family as the rulers of the opium trade in Taiwan, effectively screwing over the Chinese people and establishing the world's first true drug corporation. Later, in 1915, Saasoon married Alan Rothschild (it's pretty obvious how they knew the Saasoons were smuggling opium
🤣) and thus—by some strange coincidence, I guess 🤣—the biggest drug smugglers merged with the greatest financial power in the world.

Over several hundred years of draining billions from China through opium, most of the British nobility and lords earned their titles specifically through the opium trade.

So much for the idea that historical wars "weren't corporate at all.".

As for oil, it's perhaps the dirtiest energy source imaginable. It was conceptualized right when Tesla and Murray were already experimenting intensely with free, clean energy. But that didn't suit the banking interests of the major energy mogul, J. P. Morgan. So, Tesla missed his chance to give the world clean energy, and Murray's lab was destroyed just to ensure the future of oil—meaning the bankers and investors—wasn't called into question.

There's that much regarding how "perfect" an energy source like oil isn't "artificial."

It's not a conspiracy to me; it's just good old dirty economics.

This whole argument is just pure nonsense... saying wars were only fought for "living space" is such a massive oversimplification of history. People have gone to war for a thousand different reasons, honestly—it could be anything from a ruler's ego and a desperate thirst for dominance to spreading a religion or some radical ideology. Then you've got the sheer terror of being invaded, the scramble for resources—both natural wealth and manpower—and eventually, that whole surge of nationalism... there's just so much more to it than that. I mean, look at Genghis Khan; he wasn't exactly just looking for a bit of extra room for his tribes when he conquered something like 7 million square miles... and even the Roman wars had this huge defensive component to them, not to mention a million other things I could go on about...
Your other point is totally flawed too. You’re basically claiming that modern wars are just corporate resource grabs to fuel expansion, but the problem is you’re starting with a theory and then desperately hunting for facts to fit it... Let’s actually look at the wars happening today. Take the war in Iraq, for example—if your logic holds, that would mean it was fought just because American corporations needed more oil, right? That's the idea you're pushing. But here's the thing: American companies aren't even the ones pumping the oil in Iraq. You won't find Exxon, Chevron, or ConocoPhillips operating there. Almost all the oil in Iraq is controlled by their own national company, and when it comes to foreign players, you've got someone like the Canadian company MOL involved... there was even a chance for Exxon to get a piece of the action, but they passed on it. So, if anything, it looks like the Canadians are the ones who actually pushed the Americans into that conflict...
Let's keep this rolling... Afghanistan, man. Which corporation is actually pulling the strings there and what kind of resources are they really after? Then you look at the wars that tore through the old American territories... again, which corporations were involved and what was the real prize? And don't even get me started on Rwanda! Who were the corporations then? What resources were they hunting for... 😵

The whole thing about Tesla and Murray is just a joke... honestly, let’s stop with the myths and that third-rate sci-fi nonsense. "Pure energy"? Please. If Tesla had actually stumbled upon some magic way to power the world, we’d be using it right now, plain and simple. But he didn't. Millions of physicists have tried to replicate those ideas over the years and they all hit a brick wall... claiming it's some massive conspiracy by banking and oil lobbies is just straight-up bullshit, especially when you look at how much our energy mix has changed anyway. Sure, big oil companies might not love competition, and they can lobby until they're blue in the face, but nuclear plants exist despite them, and we have all these alternative sources like wind turbines—even if they're cleaner, they're way more expensive to pull off. And I mean, really, how much "green" impact are you actually making if you try to cover the entire California coastline in wind turbines? It's not even practical because the wind only blows hard enough in specific spots, which means you have to deal with storage issues, and that just drives the cost of electricity through the roof... There's always a new "miracle" idea, like ten years ago when everyone was obsessed with biofuels; every environmental group was pushing it without a single thought about the consequences, if you ask me. Now that hype has totally fizzled out. Food prices skyrocketed because of it, and even with government subsidies, that fuel isn't any cheaper than the gas you buy at the pump today. At the end of the day, oil is still king because we actually need it, simply because there aren't any other solutions out there that are actually good enough... everything else is just burying your head in the sand...

rustymaker5 said:And what exactly did I write? ☕

There’s something else that plays that kind of role...☕

There is no such thing as a "balance of power," if it ever truly existed to begin with. There aren't any guarantees, and there isn't anyone left who can actually provide them.
And what do you honestly think constitutes the interest zones for Russia and China? Just wait and see when the Chinese person starts reaching for the oil while America sits perched on those massive reserves! It'll be a total blowout, enough fireworks to be seen from the other side of the universe!

An oil war is a global war, regardless of whether it's being fought on "local grounds" or under different names and excuses, and it's always the same story where certain individuals walk away with the profits while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

My bad, I got a little tripped up with the quoting there. We're saying the same thing.

Of course there are no guarantees. It's more about a general "shared" interest in avoiding total annihilation.

America isn't just sitting on reserves. Chavez and the Russians are hovering over reserves too, but whatever.

Just playing with words here. It's not a global war; it just has global consequences. To me, there's a huge difference there!

Anthony Rivera17 said:To you, that looks like progress, but to me, it just feels like we're inching closer to hell... you seem far too enamored with this idea of
"advancement," so naturally, we aren't going to see eye to eye on anything, least of all when it comes to war...

Man, there's so much to unpack there! "Progress" is such a loaded term. It really all just depends on how you look at things.

swiftdriver11 said:Look, that’s not what this thread is about. I didn't start this discussion to sit here and listen to people whine about war profiteers; the whole point was to explore the connection between nature and conflict.

War is just baked into our DNA. It’s part of that primal, ancient instinct we all carry deep down.
Survival is a necessity. Honestly, Glam already nailed the explanation perfectly! 👍

casualowl1 said:Man, there's so much to unpack there! "Progress" is such a loaded term. It really all just depends on how you look at things.

I am not entirely sure what perspective you are operating from, but it seems to me that your focus has narrowed exclusively toward them...
He uses what essentially amounts to a direct byproduct of "progress"... but my focus lies elsewhere...
Everything we truly need to survive is slowly unraveling, and honestly, it’s all just slipping through our fingers...
The standard of living for the average individual continues to erode, steadily sliding toward a future defined by an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-wealthy elite and everyone else...
Just more of the same idiocy from people cut from the exact same cloth... It’s a grim tale regarding the erosion of human liberty...
Equality and parity... coming from those who wouldn't have the slightest clue what to actually do with wealth if it were ever placed in their hands...
They sit there clutching hundreds of millions while people of the exact same kind are starving to death... it’s just senseless...
Don't kid yourself about any kind of real progress... there is only that supposed "advancement" which will eventually...
It’s all going to cost us dearly... perhaps not even us, but the generations that follow will certainly pay the price...
We might just end up destroying ourselves through this relentless, obsessive drive for progress... sliding from the high-tech comfort of a modern internet cafe straight back into the dark ages, if we aren't careful...
The caves will still be there... 🙄

The current situation is undeniably a mess, but there’s no reason to descend into total pessimism... things have a way of shifting eventually...
I could attempt to change things, though I find it unlikely to actually come to fruition if most people remain preoccupied with nothing more than the illusion of "progress"...
It’s much like the shift we saw at Progress... I suspect there is immense power hidden within that specific pivot in focus, and perhaps...
I wonder if people will ever truly grasp that the future being depicted in the Matrix movie is actually unfolding right before our eyes...
It’s unlikely to happen outright, though one could argue they are already caught in a milder version of that same illusion...
If they don't catch on before it's too late... well, it wouldn't be a bad idea to open up some betting lines on the whole situation...
Will the Matrix actually manifest itself... or is that just another pipe dream? Honestly, it seems like a losing bet, especially when I consider how impossible it would be to actually track down the real ones...
I wonder if I’ll actually make any money once we’re all living in some digital wasteland... 😕 It’s somewhat akin to the notion that I might place a bet on...
It’s all just going to end in a total collapse... 😛

At its core, we’re talking about a massive power struggle. Honestly, these huge multinational corporations hold way more sway today than most actual countries do. It’s a total reality right now, and looking ahead? It’s not even wild to think that corporations might be the ones calling all the shots on a global scale.

David Bennett53 said:While some of what you mentioned are actual needs, things like oil and technological progress feel more like imposed requirements. Oil, for instance, is an imposition by massive energy conglomerates like ExxonMobil; they’ve basically engineered a global dependency to ensure their own profits, making it part of our very fabric—from fuel and heating to plastics and medicine...

As for progress, that's a deep philosophical question. I guess the world could function at a different level of development if everything were managed on a local, community scale. In that scenario, energy, food, and basic welfare would be produced right where they are used.

There would likely be far less theft and violence, too. But the issue remains the imposition of values by corporate overlords; the world essentially functions as one giant corporation. These companies have seized almost everything, including the ability for individuals to produce their own food or power.

Wars might be necessary, but perhaps not for us, but rather for the global corporate machine which can't sustain itself—let alone expand—without them.

Kyle Morris7 said:I believe there is yet another fundamental catalyst for conflict that hasn't been touched upon in this discussion quite yet... the existence of multi-ethnic or multi-national states. If we set aside those classic imperialistic expansions, I would argue that perhaps ninety percent—if not even more—of all warfare is driven by nationalistic friction. It seems to boil down to a cycle where either a specific group or a minority finds themselves suppressed, or conversely, they are actively attempting to suppress others... essentially a struggle over territory that mirrors the primal instincts we see in the animal kingdom. In that sense, one could argue that war becomes an issue of pure survival, making it a tragically natural phenomenon when viewed through the lens of existence itself. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean that war is inherently good or something we should ever welcome...

It’s really a clash of civilizations. If you look at the conflicts in the old North America, that was exactly what happened—a clash of cultures. The USA is a multi-ethnic nation.

I want to go on a little tangent here. What even *is* war? If you look back through history, war has "evolved" just like humans have. One of my absolute favorite books is a total classic, "The Art of War." It's a Chinese masterpiece that's over 2,000 years old.

We went from clubs to swords, then rifles, then planes, missiles, bombs, and so on...
Even with all that tech, diplomacy has always been a weapon—and sometimes the most important one.
Everything comes down to a grab for power, and if you look at the biggest messes in history, most of them stem from a clash of civilizations. The stronger side survives.

Since Sun Tzu is still so relevant today, his wisdom hits harder than ever. "Win without fighting." I honestly think physical conquest isn't even the goal anymore. You’ve got the banks, you’ve got the corporations. You don't "conquer" a country physically; you just buy it. That's how wars work in the 21st century.

overklokan had this pretty solid piece in The Economist a couple of months back... it was basically a response to that Krugman article in The New York Times warning everyone that the income gap between the rich and the poor in the USA is ballooning right back toward those insane levels we saw during the Gilded Age, you know, back when you had guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan running the show.
But here’s the thing The Economist argues—yeah, sure, the dollar amounts look massive, but what you can actually buy with that cash isn't nearly as different as it was back then. Back in the day, a rich guy had a car while the poor guy didn't, a rich guy had a fridge while the poor guy didn't, and it was the same story with phones and everything else... nowadays, the gap between the wealthy and the working class isn't even that drastic. Both sides drive cars—okay, fine, the rich guy's ride is nicer, but they both get you from point A to point B just the same, and both have fridges and TVs, even if one is flying economy and the other has a private jet... basically, the actual standard of living gap is shrinking...
and there's zero real connection between the ultra-wealthy and people who are literally starving to death. Handing out charity to those folks doesn't move the needle. It hasn't worked before, either. Look at how much aid has been poured into Africa and yet nothing really changes. The only things that actually make an impact are real investments, building factories, and stuff like that...
but once that finally happens, and once all 6.5 billion people on this planet are driving cars and eating half a cow every month, I bet you'll find some new reason to complain and start lecturing everyone about morality, won't you? 🙂

Linda Hughes88 said:overklokan had this pretty solid piece in The Economist a couple of months back... it was basically a response to that Krugman article in The New York Times warning everyone that the income gap between the rich and the poor in the USA is ballooning right back toward those insane levels we saw during the Gilded Age, you know, back when you had guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan running the show.
But here’s the thing The Economist argues—yeah, sure, the dollar amounts look massive, but what you can actually buy with that cash isn't nearly as different as it was back then. Back in the day, a rich guy had a car while the poor guy didn't, a rich guy had a fridge while the poor guy didn't, and it was the same story with phones and everything else... nowadays, the gap between the wealthy and the working class isn't even that drastic. Both sides drive cars—okay, fine, the rich guy's ride is nicer, but they both get you from point A to point B just the same, and both have fridges and TVs, even if one is flying economy and the other has a private jet... basically, the actual standard of living gap is shrinking...
and there's zero real connection between the ultra-wealthy and people who are literally starving to death. Handing out charity to those folks doesn't move the needle. It hasn't worked before, either. Look at how much aid has been poured into Africa and yet nothing really changes. The only things that actually make an impact are real investments, building factories, and stuff like that...
but once that finally happens, and once all 6.5 billion people on this planet are driving cars and eating half a cow every month, I bet you'll find some new reason to complain and start lecturing everyone about morality, won't you? 🙂

The "poor" person you are describing (the one who owns a car and can afford an economy class ticket) is actually part of the upper-middle class... these people view themselves as impoverished simply because they compare their lives exclusively to those earning more, all while the truly destitute remain completely marginalized and hidden from public view...
The Economist does a fine job of helping maintain the illusion that everything is functioning beautifully FOR EVERYONE, rather than just for those who already hold the cards... 👎

casualwolf12 said:The "poor" person you are describing (the one who owns a car and can afford an economy class ticket) is actually part of the upper-middle class... these people view themselves as impoverished simply because they compare their lives exclusively to those earning more, all while the truly destitute remain completely marginalized and hidden from public view...
The Economist does a fine job of helping maintain the illusion that everything is functioning beautifully FOR EVERYONE, rather than just for those who already hold the cards... 👎

nah, that guy is what we consider poor by American standards. and that guy has a house and a car and a fridge and a TV and all that stuff.

and the ones who don't even have that are just a tiny fraction of the population...

Linda Hughes88 said:nah, that guy is what we consider poor by American standards. and that guy has a house and a car and a fridge and a TV and all that stuff.

and the ones who don't even have that are just a tiny fraction of the population...

I have to wonder, exactly which reality are you inhabiting?

An urban poor resident in America typically lives in public housing—those so-called "projects" that are physically segregated from the wealthier districts—and they usually rely on social assistance, lack a reliable vehicle, and possess a fridge and perhaps a TV if they can manage to scrape the money together...
A rural poor resident in America typically resides in a trailer park, which is physically isolated from established neighborhoods, mostly subsisting on government aid, lacking a functional car, and owning a fridge and a TV only if they can afford it...

The "poor" person you are referring to, according to American standards, actually belongs to the middle or upper-middle class... and by American standards, yes...

casualwolf12 said:I have to wonder, exactly which reality are you inhabiting?

An urban poor resident in America typically lives in public housing—those so-called "projects" that are physically segregated from the wealthier districts—and they usually rely on social assistance, lack a reliable vehicle, and possess a fridge and perhaps a TV if they can manage to scrape the money together...
A rural poor resident in America typically resides in a trailer park, which is physically isolated from established neighborhoods, mostly subsisting on government aid, lacking a functional car, and owning a fridge and a TV only if they can afford it...

The "poor" person you are referring to, according to American standards, actually belongs to the middle or upper-middle class... and by American standards, yes...

Look, I'm talking about Americans who are actually living below the poverty line, so maybe do a little better digging into your data first😉

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in New York City, Washington, D.C., the United Nations, and other cities throughout North America. These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color Television ; over half own Two or more color televisions
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Linda Hughes88 said:Look, I'm talking about Americans who are actually living below the poverty line, so maybe do a little better digging into your data first😉

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in New York City, Washington, D.C., the United Nations, and other cities throughout North America. These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color Television ; over half own Two or more color televisions
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Honestly, I didn't think I'd ever encounter an article quite this blatantly biased in my lifetime...
But then again, why should I be surprised? Given the current social climate, this kind of rhetoric—this outright denial of systemic issues—is exactly what thrives. It’s all part of the effort to continue peddling this myth of America as some flawless "land of opportunity" where poverty simply doesn't exist if you just work hard enough...

casualwolf12 said:Honestly, I didn't think I'd ever encounter an article quite this blatantly biased in my lifetime...
But then again, why should I be surprised? Given the current social climate, this kind of rhetoric—this outright denial of systemic issues—is exactly what thrives. It’s all part of the effort to continue peddling this myth of America as some flawless "land of opportunity" where poverty simply doesn't exist if you just work hard enough...

man, look, these numbers come straight from the Census Bureau. the authors didn't just pull them out of thin air.
so, if you happen to have some private agency over there that ran a similar study, feel free to show us what you've got. until then, I'm afraid you're stuck accepting the official data that backs up my point...or you can just keep denying it, which I guess is always the easiest way out...

casualwolf12 said:Honestly, I didn't think I'd ever encounter an article quite this blatantly biased in my lifetime...
But then again, why should I be surprised? Given the current social climate, this kind of rhetoric—this outright denial of systemic issues—is exactly what thrives. It’s all part of the effort to continue peddling this myth of America as some flawless "land of opportunity" where poverty simply doesn't exist if you just work hard enough...

"it's called the american dream cause you have to be ASLEEP to believe it"

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI

If anyone here still hasn't grasped how all this absolute garbage came to be, I am imploring you
to actually educate yourselves, because this isn't just an American issue—it's the dominant trend in almost
every society currently existing on this planet... to make your search a little easier:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24550497129264

For a more extensive analysis of the "current state" and the historical facts behind how we arrived at this point:

Right now, I find it "interesting" to track these familiar, recycled economic manipulations:

Linda Hughes88 said:Look, I'm talking about Americans who are actually living below the poverty line, so maybe do a little better digging into your data first😉

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in New York City, Washington, D.C., the United Nations, and other cities throughout North America. These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color Television ; over half own Two or more color televisions
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Interesting enough...
It certainly challenges some common assumptions...

Jack Ortiz7 said:People just go out and build exactly what they end up needing
It’s like they're wired to tear themselves down, and honestly? They usually follow right through with it
Amen to that, if you ask me

.. this will provide endless entertainment for those who possess a natural, twisted urge to pick through the remains of others..
.. people who clearly lack a shred of humanity..