re:war is an outcome decided by an elite, never the masses and those who choose it as a way forward never count the cost nor have to bear the consequences themselves. It is always a lazy outcome.

is that what Machivelli had to say? as i recall, he advocated negociations, and war was a extention, a physical level of negociations, to be avoided, and only used as a last resort. he also stressed war was expensive...

obviously, avoiding war is always a goal, and just as obviously, failed efforts at negociating peace often lead to war.

the american revolutionists thought it was perfectly logical for england to just back off and let us go our own way. we had a declaration of independance, not a declaration of war or even revolution. the english government saw things differently. England response to our declaration was to send in troops.

but after the war, we didn't end up with england as an enemy, but rather one of our prime trading partners-- we continued the negociations!

i don't want to go off on a political bent, and discuss good wars vs. bad wars, but countries and goverments generally only enter war after repeated attempts at other solutions.

unfortunately, it is often only with the twenty twenty hindsight that time gives us, that we see the real causes of the war, and how peaceful solutions might have been achived.

i actually think the whole of your quoted statement is very politically loaded..

war is an outcome decided by an elite,
often true... but then the elite often decide on the peace too, and lots of other things..even more so in countries that are Monarchies.

those who choose it as a way forward never count the cost nor have to bear the consequences themselves.

The second half of that segment, in italics is most definately not true. it might be somewhat true for the winning side, (but even there, history is littered with stories of kings, or lords, or the rich, losing sons, or family, or fortunes in wars) but it is most definately not true for the losing side.

the US hasn't been as vindictive as the romans, but Robert E Lee's beautiful house, and grounds, called Arlington, in virginda, is now a massive cemetary. it was a personal punishment to the general for siding with States rights (ie, Lee thought himself a citizen of Virgina, not of the United States) . So not only did this elite, West Point educated, person lose politically, he lost socially (his house, his slaves, his fortune) and personally (as i recall, one of his sons)...

i am sure there are countless other examples...

It is always a lazy outcome.

war is a lazy outcome of what?
do you mean by this war is the path of least resistance? that it is easier to wage war than change politcal policies with education or other means?

gearing up physically for war, and beating the war drums (physically or metephorically) is not easy or the lazy way to change thing. it might be the most dramatic, but lazy outcome?

the whole statement seem like a bit of war mongering propaganda to me! i suppose i should have just ignored it, but it is an interesting exersize in propaganda

(aaugh!--i am in the middlle of a move, and with out a dictionary handy..what is the root to propaganda?)

propaganda is a war waged with words, and your bit of propaganda is of interest for this point.

one way to beat the war drums is to start with propaganda. blame war on the elites, (not us common men and women), claim the elites are immune to negitive effects, but rake in all the positive effects, and claim, that war could have been avoided if an unnamed 'someone' just worked a little harder...

well done... perhaps you'd like to explain your position... you seems to be 'anti war' but drop yet another political bomb into a word thread, on a BB devoted to words...and risk provoking a flame war-- which i suspect you would then claim was not your fault, but rather the fault of some AWAD elitist, who wanted to keep the BB about words, and not politics!

i think you are acting elitist... you have stated you think politics should be part of every intelegent discussion.. (so either i get to say i am a dummy, or i must discuss politics..) and interesting way to frame an arguement.

but if i stick to words, and not politics, then i am some sort of AWAD elitist, and impossing my will on everyone here...(again, it is a framing issue.. if this is a place to discuss words, then discussing words is not elitism, it is the common thing to do... to suggest other wise is to create propaganda...)

i think the propaganda is a very important part of the word... by framing an arguement as being a positive, pro--for something (not against) and then claiming what you are for is somehow better... is at the heart of propaganda.

In US history, no one was "pro slavery"-- the southerns were for States rights and the north was anti slavery...

by choosing the right thing to be for.... propaganda hopes to change our way of thinking... (even the nazis were For a pure germany, and equated racial purity with economic and social success. it action, it was translated into anti semitism, but it was first sold as a good thing, one that it was easy to be for!



my other obsession