Conquer Club

War Is Peace
by George Orwell
Excerpt of his novel, "1984"


(...)

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.



"1984," George Orwell, Signet Classic, ISBN: 0451512189, March 1969 reissue, p. 164 (originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1949).

2dimes wrote:We have the luxury of criticizing it but what would it look like if the peace keepers never went in? Do you think it would be better?

I guess it's possible but I think the Taliban would have made things worse. Maybe not much but at least a bit.

In my opinion it's not like Libya where things were somewhat stable and relatively good under a questionable leader with excellent fashion sense.

2dimes wrote:How do you deal with the Taliban short of illimination and no one was prepared to do that as far as I could tell.

2dimes wrote:So maybe the answer to qwert's OP question is "Yeah man NATO didn't win because they left one or more alive."

Dukasaur wrote:http://www.swans.com/library/art8/xxx083.html

War Is Peace
by George Orwell
Excerpt of his novel, "1984"


(...)

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.



"1984," George Orwell, Signet Classic, ISBN: 0451512189, March 1969 reissue, p. 164 (originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1949).

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

qwert wrote:But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?

AndyDufresne wrote:

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

This is why I like your posts, 2dimes.


--Andy

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

2dimes wrote:

qwert wrote:But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?

Unfourtunately I agree this is a possibility. That might be the only way to leave with any public support.

I wanted to use "sembalince of public support" but I didn't want to spell it wrong.

AndyDufresne wrote:

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

This is why I like your posts, 2dimes.


--Andy

Because you're drinking and my style makes it seem like we're posting together and having a beverage?

b.k. barunt wrote:

2dimes wrote:I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

Oh shit! I thought you meant "illumination". This changes everything. Now i'm going to have to entirely rethink my reply to your post. <uncaps bottle of Cuervo>


Honibaz

patches70 wrote:Awww....
spell anything you like how you like. I was just bustin' yo ballz a little and chuckling is all.

qwert wrote:Bombing mountains from 10000 meter above to eliminate enemies,are not so great strategy to win a war. You have big chance to make big casualty to civilians then to armed rebels.
But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?
Mine prediction its that after they move out, soon Afghan Puppet Government will collapse.( these its one of high possible scenario)

2dimes wrote:That depends a bit on what you want to do faded. Yes?

2dimes wrote:It was kind of implied to be like if you could ask for what you'd like to happen.

I'd like to see the Taliban [miss spelled word for gone] or at least neutralized. Then again I'd like the whole Middle East to become a nice safe place to go for a vacation. So I'm not being very realistic.