What's going on in India?

[Ex-California]

Those were not volunteer armies. And "the people" have never voted for a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... e_generals

Also, in representative democracies, the will of the people is expressed through the actions of their elected leaders. So you already vote for war. And have always done so. And will always do.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of “my representatives” when they are clearly acting in their own interests, and elected through an unverifiable and corrupt system.

I didn’t vote for the vast majority of what they do, and neither did anyone else.

100% correct. Bjorn is speaking of the theoretical view, while GCF is speaking of the reality

[SuburbanFarmer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... e_generals

Also, in representative democracies, the will of the people is expressed through the actions of their elected leaders. So you already vote for war. And have always done so. And will always do.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of “my representatives” when they are clearly acting in their own interests, and elected through an unverifiable and corrupt system.

I didn’t vote for the vast majority of what they do, and neither did anyone else.

Wrong. Plenty of people voted for the actions of "your representatives", you are just projecting your views on the American electorate, and coming to a false conclusion because of it.

Most Americans do not share your views, you are political misfit who is unrepresentative of the views of the silent majority. You may not have voted for it, but plenty of people did, and they are drowning you out.

Yes, I’m certain that the silent majority knew what their representatives would really do, despite their endless promises to the contrary. Realpolitik writ large. :clown face:

[SuburbanFarmer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... e_generals

Also, in representative democracies, the will of the people is expressed through the actions of their elected leaders. So you already vote for war. And have always done so. And will always do.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of “my representatives” ...

Your problem in a nutshell. But hey, I'm sure if you only you lived in a direct democratic system, you'd have less corrupt, less selfish and a more transparent democracy...

Yes I would, actually.

Very little would get done, which is fine by me.

[Smitty-48]

In the 16th, 17th and 18th centures, wars were not fought amongst the people, professional armies fought wars on tiny fields of battle, the masses were largely unaffected, in fact they would often spectate the battles like sporting events.

This was in fact the case until the American Civil War, where democratized industrial total war was born.

The Greeks invented decisive warfare, which is let's all meet in a field and settle this so we can go back to the farms after.

America invents democratic war, war for a cause which cannot be resolved other than by total annihilation.

The ultimate expression of which, is of course the hydrogen bomb.

Arguably the seeds of it were planted in the French civil war when they first started "drafting" the civilian populace into war.

Indeed, but Bonaparte was a dictator, and a gentleman, he did not fight total war, he made war on kings not the public.

It was democracy voting down slavery in America which incited the massed citizen armies to war of annihilation.

Sherman's March to the Sea performed the same role that thermonuclear weapons would now.

[StCapps]

Yes, I’m certain that the silent majority knew what their representatives would really do, despite their endless promises to the contrary. Realpolitik writ large. :clown face:

Politicians breaking campaign promises is not proof that those who voted for them don't approve of their politics. You might not like their politics, but enough people did to elect them, or they would have elected someone else.

[nmoore63]

I disagree.
Napoleon and the French invented democratic war.

Napoleonic Wars very much had massed citizens against each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino


Might be able to make the case that the American Civil War was the first where both sides were that way, but the Napoleonic wars was against France.

[Smitty-48]

I reject the notion that the Commune in Paris was a democracy. Rule of a mob is not what the Greeks did.

And what did Bonaparte do with that mob?

He put it down, with cannon fire, right in the streets of Paris.

Bonaparte was no democrat, he was an emperor, Hitler 1.0

[Smitty-48]

Industrial total war was born at Shiloh Church.

Napoleonic war could no longer sustain the effort.

The Yankees put the call out to bring the full weight of industry to bear.

Thus the Military Industrial Complex was born.

Lincoln was then reelected.

The votes were in, Antietam shall not stand.

Then General Sherman was given the green light to nuke Dixie.

They simply did it in slow motion, burning it into the stone age by hand.

Later, Dr. Teller invented the H-bomb, making the process exponentially more efficient.

[Smitty-48]

Appomattox Court House to the Sea of Tranquility.

Antietam to Hiroshima.

Ballistic missiles with hydrogen bombs on them, who knew?

[Smitty-48]

The Crown Princes of Europe get a little taste in 1870.

The French however, field no Army of Northern Virginia.

So the Prussians took them down in a blitzkrieg.

It never gets to Shiloh because it is over so fast.

This however incites the French into the Entente Cordiale.

This then runs straight into Antietam on steroids, in 1915.