The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on October 05, 2009, 09:29:21 AM
-
As anyone who has read ancient history--secular or religious--will tell you: our place in the modern world is built upon the graves of innumerable societies that have been driven into extinction. Hittites, mes-Americans, Gauls, Persians, Mings etc etc etc the list is too long.
Civilization was built tabla rasa yet it seems all but universal that one civlization would exterminate another if and when the pressure became too great to co-exist.
Many would claim "Well, ancient man's concept of morality wasn't developed yet." I refute this because the ancients' had a very highly developed sense of morality. They knew when one party or another was getting a raw deal and they knew that appeals to morality were powerful motivators.
Consider Scipio Africanus. When he took over the Roman campaign vs Carthage in Spain he sacked the city of New Carthage. In those days conquerors would take hostages from the prominent families of local tribes to ensure compliance if not loyalty. Scipio ordered the hostages returned to the local tribes.
One lass in patticular was so beautiful all heads literally turned to her. Scipio ordered his officers to send him the most religiously pious man in their ranks and this man was appointed the girl's bodyguard. Scipio then sent for her parents and her fiance, a young prince.
The parents arrived first and offered a pounds of gold as a ransom. Scipio refused the gold and returned the girl to her parents who then insisted the young general take the gold as a gift.
When the prince arrived Scipio made a deliberate point of bringing the girl to him and praising the prince's love for her and made a bigger point that the girl was safe and retained her full honor. He furthermore gave the gold from the girl's parents to the prince as a wedding present.
Still, a few years later this same man with such a highly developed sense of justice, mercy and personal morality listened without pity to a desperate Hannibal begging that Carthage be spared. Scipio would see the city destroyed, its inhabitants put to the sword or sold off. Carthage would only be a passing chapter of great epics.
So, why did the ancients never blush at the concept of genocide but we recoil at its merest mention?
-
Death was looked at differantly in those days. It's become stigmatized today, where then it was an everyday thing.
What exactly led to the change? Don't think it was any one key event. Just simple social evolution.
-
Death was looked at differantly in those days. It's become stigmatized today, where then it was an everyday thing.
What exactly led to the change? Don't think it was any one key event. Just simple social evolution.
I think the Christians played a big part in it. They've had their bout of infamies but for the most part they were the impetus behind abolition and the unction to convert all "nations, tribes and tongues" rather than see them destroyed.
I can't quite call it evolution, even social evolution. Social mutation perhaps but not evolution. Mutations simply occur, they are random, but they may not be beneficial. Evolution connotates advantage which can only be ascertained based on whether or not the organism survives. Right now the notion of non-extermination is peculiar to modern western civilization (sub-text: Judeo-Christian). It is isolated and untried in a world filled with societies that would unflinchingly destroy their rivals given half the chance.
We are the mutation--the aberration--and our survivability is not guaranteed. In fact, I would argue that unless we are willing to shake off this novelty of ours we will be headed the way of all the other dodos.
To the lurking Christians I would offer this moral salve: if you recoil at the thought of killing 1 billion muslims and another billion Maoist Chinese it is possible to ethnically-cleanse a society without killing every man, woman and child, i.e. militant shintoist Japan c 1945. We dictated to them the terms of the government and religion...and they seem pretty mello with that to this day.
-
unless we are willing to shake off this novelty of ours we will be headed the way of all the other dodos.
Couldn't agree more, MSB.
Time to "hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats".
-
Couldn't agree more, MSB.
Time to "hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats".
The other argument I hear is: That's not the way we want OUR civilization to be treated by others/lead from the front and moral high ground.
Yes, well, the other civilizations we are arrayed against already seek our total destruction. It is like saying, "We mustn't shoot at home invaders because then home invaders might shoot at us." But they have already invaded our home else we would not be in conflict with them to begin with.
The socialists of the last generation claim we invaded the muslim lands etc. The only thing we are guilty of is developing the technological means to transport ourselves around the world and project military power. There is nothing in the muslim creed of Maoist doctrines that would have inhibited these people from doing the same to us. The only difference is: their societies produce nothing so there was no harvesting of ingenuity and they are predominantly self-defeating. Ergo socialist complaints are merely sour-grapes that they didn't get there first. Whatever, Pinochet remedied their kind.
If one MUST insist on putting a moral face to this issue let it be this: We should kill them without pity until they capitulate or simply cease to be. Once the conflict passes the killing stops. In this we are superior to our adversaries because history proves that once external threats pass we stop killing but they continue to kill...their own. WW2 claimed 50 million--from all belligerents acting against each other--but the communists, after defeating the fascists and losing 20 million to the enemy then went on to kill almost 100 million of their own people.
If anyone cannot figure the difference from that simple fact let him take his seat and be instructed by his betters.
-
IMHO - they destroyed civilizations because they knew that doing any different would lead to destruction of their own, from within, if they allowed the conquired civilization to "assimilate."
I'm not for Genocide, but if my opinion has any validity, it makes great sense to me. Read "America Alone" for some other insights as to how I come to this conclusion.
-
"It worked."
The world view for most powers in those days was that it was clearly a higher moral choice to ensure the survival of your own people by wiping out a rival than to engage the Brotherhood of Man, universal human rights, etc. in fashion today - a natural point of view really, in a world that relied utterly on slave labor, which necessarily negated any idea of universal rights. Of course their mutually-geneocidal impulses were largely kept in check by their logistical limitations. Even Rome had limits to their ability to project power, as later was true of the Mongols, the Turks, the Aztecs, and all the other would-be dominators.
-
"It worked."
The world view for most powers in those days was that it was clearly a higher moral choice to ensure the survival of your own people by wiping out a rival than to engage the Brotherhood of Man, universal human rights, etc. in fashion today - a natural point of view really, in a world that relied utterly on slave labor, which necessarily negated any idea of universal rights. Of course their mutually-geneocidal impulses were largely kept in check by their logistical limitations. Even Rome had limits to their ability to project power, as later was true of the Mongols, the Turks, the Aztecs, and all the other would-be dominators.
I agree to an extent.......most ancient cultures were titular monarchies for the most part, until Greece came along, and typically the leadership either migrated through bloodlines, or internal conquest. Essentially the survival of the fittest (or most feared) attained leadership by whatever means was available to him/her. Reading between the lines of ancient history yields the tacit conclusion that many in leadership of these societies were murderous psychopaths, and projected power on the basis of their egos, desire for additional lands, resources, wealth, or just plain power (the Khans come to mind). Religious differences were relative latecomers into the equation, but the bottom line seemed to consistently be to "never leave an aggressive enemy on your borders", ergo some form of continued conquest was necessary to maintain a balance of power in a given area, and to ensure the continued security of your particular cultural group.
This model continues to be seen today in sub-Saharan Africa, following the end of the colonial period, this continent has reverted, to a great extent, into its former pattern of tribal wars over issues as important as resources, and as insignificant as relative ethnics, or religious differences. Genocidal conflict is common, when the goal is to project a given cultural influence, as well as protect your own. Simplistically, the best way to accomplish this goal is to completely eliminate the competition, rather than allow it to fight an expensive war of attrition next door.
We in the west have, to an extent followed the Greek model, which, if one recalls the lessons of history, only worked for a while, as it did for the Roman Empire.......although "enlightened", and "morally humane", it will only serve so long as it is supported by the ability to project massive amounts of destructive power if necessary, and the (assumed) will to use it also if necessary. Which, in the instant sense brings us to the real danger of modern liberalism, which threatens to remove the fangs from the tiger, so to speak.......if that ever happens, we, as a society are doomed to repeat the fate of those that have done the same in the past. The ancients taught us (and we should always remember) that it is far safer (for a given society) to be feared, than loved, by the rest of the world.
doc
-
Not to be argumentative with the details Doc, I believe we agree on the big points, but Rome's possibly-most-genocidal episodes (the Third Punic War and the Gallic Wars) were under the Republic, not the Empire, and religion was the entire motivator for the extinction of the Canaanites notwithstanding the underlying economic dimension of the conflict.
-
Not to be argumentative with the details Doc, I believe we agree on the big points, but Rome's possibly-most-genocidal episodes (the Third Punic War and the Gallic Wars) were under the Republic, not the Empire, and religion was the entire motivator for the extinction of the Canaanites notwithstanding the underlying economic dimension of the conflict.
Agreed.....I tend to look at Rome as a continuum, rather than separate it into the two periods, and there are exceptions in every case, Assyria as an example.......but overall, the basics seem to hold.
doc
-
I'm wondering if that concept of total war disappeared much later. In WWII, nations didn't shirk from that kind of destuction. Look at the firebombings of cities, the dropping of bombs, etc.
This is just an idea, but I think that changed in Aug. 1945. Once the power to obliterate entire civilizations in minutes was realized, THAT's when I think the world view changed.
-
I'm wondering if that concept of total war disappeared much later. In WWII, nations didn't shirk from that kind of destuction. Look at the firebombings of cities, the dropping of bombs, etc.
This is just an idea, but I think that changed in Aug. 1945. Once the power to obliterate entire civilizations in minutes was realized, THAT's when I think the world view changed.
You raise a good point.
-
The only difference is: their societies produce nothing so there was no harvesting of ingenuity and they are predominantly self-defeating. Ergo socialist complaints are merely sour-grapes that they didn't get there first. Whatever, Pinochet remedied their kind.
Exactly, because they "cannot" doesn't mean they "will not". We are seeing a rapid tendency for nations that are the adversaries of our political rationale and culture beginning to have large influxes of wealth due to economic, primarily due to resource output, resulting in windfalls of purchasing capital and military hardware, e.g., Iran, China, Venezuela.
-
The civilizations got in the way of the new hyperspatial express route.
-
IMHO - they destroyed civilizations because they knew that doing any different would lead to destruction of their own, from within, if they allowed the conquired civilization to "assimilate."
I'm not for Genocide, but if my opinion has any validity, it makes great sense to me. Read "America Alone" for some other insights as to how I come to this conclusion.
A few years back I read an article in a Christian Jewish magazine that gave much the same answer as to why God told the ancient Israelites to take no prisoners.
-
The civilizations got in the way of the new hyperspatial express route.
Sounds like someone's in touch with his inner Vogon.
:-)
-
Sounds like someone's in touch with his inner Vogon.
:-)
Would you care to hear some poetry?
-
Would you care to hear some poetry?
Sure. Just let me pull this fish out of my ear. :banghead:
-
Once the power to obliterate entire civilizations in minutes was realized, THAT's when I think the world view changed.
I believe this to be the answer as well. I think the possession of this "weapon" is the main reason countries are less motivated to attack or go to war.
-
I believe this to be the answer as well. I think the possession of this "weapon" is the main reason countries are less motivated to attack or go to war.
While it is easier for us to destroy entire societies I would argue that since these terrible weapons seem to be proliferating the hesitancy that they had once engendered must now become an impetus to faster action.
Our failure to treat this as a clash between irreconciliable civilizations will lead to a greater, not smaller, devastation.
-
I wonder if the Chinese will be this moral and upright when they come to slit our throats?
-
I believe this to be the answer as well. I think the possession of this "weapon" is the main reason countries are less motivated to attack or go to war.
I think part of the "problem" was the realization that the conquered lands could very well be rendered useless. Also with the advent of countries staying within their borders even in times of conflict, because the idea of "you have what we want" in a sense, doesn't apply, changed the rules of war.
Most of our conflicts, since the turn of the century, are now over ideology, not take over of land.
-
.......are now over ideology, not take over of land.
To the current crop of muslim fanatics, aren't the two one and the same??
doc
-
Most of our conflicts, since the turn of the century, are now over ideology, not take over of land.
Tell that to the Israelis.
-
Tell that to the Israelis.
Or the Hindus and Pakis...
-
The other argument I hear is: That's not the way we want OUR civilization to be treated by others/lead from the front and moral high ground.
That's the biggest bunch of Bull Shirt to ever pass a liberals lips! Like you stated above, our enemies would think nothing of wiping us off the face of the earth, yet we want to play "fair"!
Our Lord God would never put up with this crap! Unfortunately, he has left it up to us, since we killed Jesus.
What utter Bull Shirt!!!!!!!11 Until we get as ruthless and uncaring as our enemies, our hands are tied! We used to have an "eye for an eye" in this country. No longer! Now we are the biggest ***** of a country to be a super power on the planet! Thanx entirely to liberal DemonRats and Rinos like Mc Cluck
-
That's the biggest bunch of Bull Shirt to ever pass a liberals lips! Like you stated above, our enemies would think nothing of wiping us off the face of the earth, yet we want to play "fair"!
Our Lord God would never put up with this crap! Unfortunately, he has left it up to us, since we killed Jesus.
What utter Bull Shirt!!!!!!!11 Until we get as ruthless and uncaring as our enemies, our hands are tied! We used to have an "eye for an eye" in this country. No longer! Now we are the biggest ***** of a country to be a super power on the planet! Thanx entirely to liberal DemonRats and Rinos like Mc Cluck
Let's see going back in time there is not allot of good things to be said about trusting ones enemys----or admitting one has any enemy's.
This is major one problem with society's that are so egotistical they believe they can just send bad acting country's to their room when they act up. As is said "Spare the rod spoil the child."
Some animals are natural born killers, and so are some society's of humans. For thousands of years war, rape, pillage has been a way of life. It takes hundreds of years to evolve into a society with its own sets of values and traditions. The society's are PROUD of their heritage and lives of their forefathers.
Then there is all ways internal struggles to change the stats quo, people that want to be sole Sayers on how their own people live.
America is different from any other society ever known on earth. We took this land by force, we have kept this land by force, until now. No one alive for 6 generations has ever had to face foreign invaders or seen first hand war on our soil, until now.
Sad but I believe it would be better to be ruled by despots then idealists. Despots are beheaded but the idealists keep the pot boiling making way for going against human nature and refusing to face reality.
Our POTUS has an ego that wants to be remembered as a peace giver. However he has forgotten why the revolver was called " A Peace Maker" in our wild west.
He has been called a deep thinker, well he best quit the books and get on with reality. He has 24/7 protection for himself and family but has not given a thought to the citizens that have no protection.
He has all his life locked the door to his home but left the door open for everyone Else's home or life.
He should know full well what a turf war is yet he ignores the bad guys that want to come play on our turf and kill us all.
In fact he reminds me of a snotty young teenage boy who refuses to listen to his father, joins a gang of dangerous fellows and hides when a rival gang sets fire to his home.
There is something seriously out of wacko with the POTUS, he has refused to speak softly and carry a big stick. He has as his hero Abe Lincoln yet he has not the morals or the self sacrifice to what Lincoln had in his big toe.
The POTUS is coming off as a coward to the rest of the world, afraid to stand up for his/our rights and giving the bully's our lunch money.
His failure to grasp His goals is causing him to act in a manor that is not going to be viewed by history as strong, courageous, and bold.
He will go down as week, indecisive, a bit crazy, and future generations will wonder how we ever voted him in in a time of war and only 7 years after being attacked.
Rant ended--for now.
-
I would not bet the rent on nuclear weapons having produced a sea change in human nature. Only a limited number of countries have them, even now. Nobody who has them has so far been in a war that was desperate enough to require their use, and their usefulness in your typical Third World war is really pretty limited since the downwind pattern of bursts in most cases would extend beyond the territorial limits of the actual combatants (The Jordanians, for instance, are probably not too keen on the idea of anyone nuking Israel, since they'd get a great big lethal piece of the aftermath).
It's more a matter of the means not being suited to the ends than anything else.
-
It's always good when the experts agree with me...it proves how smart they really are:
In an important article in the current Middle East Quarterly, Daniel Pipes reviews the terrible failure of the 1993 Oslo accords, and homes in on the root fallacy of the diplomatic approach it embodied: the belief that the Arab-Israeli war can “be concluded through good will, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents.’’ For 16 years, Israeli governments, prodded by Washington, have sought to quench Palestinian hostility with concessions and gestures of good will. Yet peace today is more elusive than ever.
“Wars end not through good will but through victory,’’ Pipes writes, defining victory as one side compelling the other to give up its war goals. Since 1948, the Arabs’ goal has been the elimination of Israel; the Israelis’, to win their neighbors’ acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. “If the conflict is to end, one side must lose and one side win,’’ argues Pipes.
Diplomacy cannot settle the Arab-Israeli conflict until the Palestinians abandon their anti-Israel rejectionism. US policy should therefore be focused on making them abandon it. The Palestinians must be put “on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then - no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.’’
So long as American and Israeli leaders remain committed to a fruitless Arab-Israeli “peace process,’’ Arab-Israeli peace will remain unachievable. Let the newest Nobel peace laureate grasp and act upon that insight, and he will do more to hasten the conflict’s end than any of his well-meaning predecessors.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/14/the_doomed_mideast_peace_process/
This is from the Boston Globe no less. It is also 100% correct. Israel needs to simply dstroy the will of the Arabs-who-call-themselves-Philistines and if they cannot destroy their will the Israelis should destroy them outright. No shame. No crime. Just simple, self-preservation between 2 competing societies that cannot come to terms.
Jesus saves...but Darwin rules.
-
Amazing! Vespa actually made some sense! Even a broken clock is right twice a day.