Rhyme Asylum wrote:
Arterion, I have a few questions, but it's fine, I'm not expecting an answer. First, why are soldiers expendable? Are they worth less than regular civilians? What about people who are drafted against their will? Why are human rights great for waging war? Why is war profit? What do you mean by 'profit'? Is all war profit? Is profit, a concept we invented, important enough for members of our race to die over? Why? If war is profit, and you see profit as something of utmost importance, then why isn't a love of war universal and open? Why can't civilians know that wars are being declared purely for the profit? Why aren't soldiers laying down their lives in the name of profit?
In answer to your question, yes, more explanations are needed. By which I mean, you gave none in the first place.
Soldiers are payed and trained to fight, kill and die if necessary. Unless they do this they are a waste of money. Every country invests in its army and invests countless funds, for what reason? To have the soldiers stay in the barracks and clean the trucks? No, unless they are out there and fight for something tangible they are useless. And if they fight they have a chance to gain something for their county, be it an oil rig, a piece of ground or simply political power to levy. If you have a resource (soldiers) you should use it, not squader it, but use it. If thousands die to secure an oil rig, well the return in money more than justifies the investment of manpower. On a side note I consider the civilians much more expendable...
I consider a man worthy as much he is worthy to his country and state. A doctor, a lawyer, a buisnessman, even a soldier, have some tangible worth for their societies, suerly much more than a drug addict, a line worker or others. But all evetually should be considered expendable. The chinese are profittable just becouse of that. There are far too many people around, why not use them?
The human rights, while a collection of nice words are a great excuse for the international organisations to force a punitive action (war) on a country or a people. With the pretense of protecting the human rights for example America siezed Iraq and build a Coca Cola factory there, Europe got a nice excuse to run again the weapon industry, the oil... well you get the idea. Same for Lybia, the intervention was costly and under the pretense that we are the so called "paladins of democracy and human rights", as soon as the engagement ended the first coorporations were already repairing the oil fields, all this under the UN flag. See the irony? Now Syria is kinda a bad investement and a political hot nut thus the UN is redundant to take action, for the profits for the interested countries will be low.
It is not my fault that the human rights are interpreted as a political manifest and a legal structure that allows the westren countries to wage war. If you ask the iraqi or the afgan people you will see that the so called human rights are still a dream down there, for there is no interest to enforce them. The longer a conflict runs, the better, as long as you have the upper hand.
Why is war profit?
Well it is simple, first the war industry is a great buisness. Thousands of people work in the weapon factories and every metal or electronic industry can be quickly switched to a weapon industry. In war time millions of weapons have to be assembled, tested and shipped, as well as thousands of people mobilized. The countries take massive debts to build their armies but the return is great indeed. If a country enters war nowdays there are a great many opportunities for profit. They sieze by force new markets, secure natural resources, obtain political power, dictate in the international circles and are able to test and develop a myriad of new systems, systems that if they prove viable will sell like hot croissant, again profit.
The major thing in war time is the sudden influx of money in all sectors. Massive contracts for ship/airctaft/armour building, technology, research, all benefit from this influx. Millions of workers are called unto the assembly lines and between soldiers shipped off and workers back home, a good number of people have money in their hands. Money that is returned into the national bonds as it happend in most of the wars in the previous century.
The profit I speak is much more than just money or resources. Is the political power that is the great prize. If you win a war you can dictate the rules, the rules that will to an extent benefit your country or your people. Being the victor in a war is perhaps the most proffitable enterprise that a country can accomplish and even if you loose a war there is much to rebuild, thus again it is profittable. If a country looses war than it too can have some margins of profits, building contracts, the elimination of political parties/opponents with the consent of the public, integration in the victor's society which proved superior...well you get the idea.
Now to the last questions and than I am off, I have a wagonload of work to do. Why the civilians and the soldiers are illuded? Well it is simple, war is a bloody buisness. While the ultimate goals of the war are precluded to the masses it is beneficial for a country to have a stable relationship with its people and a solid political consent. Thus the human rights are used as an excuse, the soldiers are brainwashed with all kinds of messages, the religions preach their way into the masses. All to keep the people ignorant of the true play behind the war and gladly work them to death or make them happy to throw themselves at the enemy guns.
War is not universally liked as in it the common man suffres, but those who understand its reasons are more than willing to gamble the lifes of their subjects. War is a phenomena of human society as much as a storm is a phenomena in nature. It is intrinsic to our society, a vent to steam off and earn some profit with it. A great solution to a global economic crisis.
I appologise for my English, fell free to correct me if you spot mistakes. I would really appreciate it.
Your views offend me. 
