Salve Discordia

[Sheered Völva]

Dead Kennedy's post I classify as also cool.  This thread is full of coolness.

Not to be a total downer, but the idea of disorganized and uncooperative military makes me think of groups like Hamas and the IRA, with their persistent inability to prevent attacks by their own troops, or the savage rebel groups of the Congo that simply roam and slaughter having long ago lost any purpose.  The respected Prelate says "within minutes nobody is left to fire the missiles" but I can't help but note that pushing a button to fire a missile takes only seconds.

There's also the idea of using cells, which is how Mao Tse-tung became Chairman Mao, and transformed the incredibly-resistant-to-change nation of China.  (I think "Mao" is a onomatopoeiac term for "cat"--"mao" is "meow."  Somehow, I find the name appropriate)  If anyone captured the members of one cell, they wouldn't tell what the other cells were doing.  They couldn't, because they didn't know.  This is an excellent way of winning, or technically avoiding, the Prisoner's Dilemma (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma).

In cells, each individual group doesn't know what the other groups are doing.  Their overall mission is the same, but their specific missions are decided individually by each cell.

This is also the technique that's been used successfully by terrorists groups.  Had Al-Quaeda been organized, Osama bin Laden would probably be captured and dead by now.  (See what happened to an organized group, i.e. Iraq and Saddam Hussein).

This comes close to the Game Theory concept of "the only strategy an opponent cannot predict is a random one."  This concept, by the way, is fundamental to Operation Mindfuck.

[LMNO]

I find myself disagreeing strongly with the premise of the argument, specifically the line "The strife and discord of Eris are more the tool of the freedom fighter than of the oppressor."  This seems the very definition of hubris. 

Discord does not appear to be a tool, it appears to be an inevitability.  The mythopoetic metaphor ("strife and discord of Eris") used by Prelate Diogenes Shandor seems to acknowledge this, while the author apparently does not recognize the importance of his own words.

Who is Eris?  I don't find it particularly useful to imagine Eris as an actual goddess, but for the moment let's go with that.  She is a goddess, a being that is to man as man is to an ant, of discord and strife. These are the essential elements that compose her being.  So what the esteemable Prelate appears to present to us is the idea that "freedom fighters" (chuckles) can use the essential elements of a Goddess as tools.  And not just any Goddess, but one known as something of a Cosmic Überbitch.

This seems a sure recipe for ending up the goo scraped from the bottom of planet sized Grecian sandals.  Serious wrath of god stuff.  Hell, I see a movie in this.

If we think of Eris as something other than anthropomorphic entity of Olympic origin, as perhaps an expanded concept of entropy that includes noise, semantic confusion, the SNAFU principle, and other broad patterns of FAIL, then it becomes more obvious why it is folly to think one can use Eris as a tool.  Eris is what happens when you're making other plans. You don't do Eris, Eris does you.

The proof of this can be found in the Prelate's own examples.  While good for a laugh, his suggestions have no real useful value.  Replacing wasteful hordes of bureaucrats with intelligent agents is a far less zany and wacky idea, so obviously its boring, but at least it does not require devising a means of mapping resource allocation to body blows.  And might actually work.

Not to be a total downer, but the idea of disorganized and uncooperative military makes me think of groups like Hamas and the IRA, with their persistent inability to prevent attacks by their own troops, or the savage rebel groups of the Congo that simply roam and slaughter having long ago lost any purpose.  The respected Prelate says "within minutes nobody is left to fire the missiles" but I can't help but note that pushing a button to fire a missile takes only seconds.

The point here being that there is no need to create discord (it is already a fact of universe), and it is pure folly to try to harness Eris like a ox.

If the words Salve Discordia mean something, then I suggest they mean the small comfort we can take in knowing that the TSOG cannot ever win completely, that it can only create more and more complications for itself, that its means contain inherent flaws that always stymie it from achieving its ends.

This.


DK, you're surprisingly full of win.  I suggest you tie a few of these together and make a WINRAFT, and then float them on over to the next editon of INTERMITTENS.

[Cramulus]

yes yes! Write some stuff for intermittens!

Hoopla's doing an issue on the Law of Fives - you have any thoughts on that?

[Dead Kennedy]

Thanks for the votes of confidence.  I could probably turn the above into a standalone essay.

[Cainad (dec.)]

This makes me think of metaphor which has been applied to something else, but it works in the same way.

Think of a wave in the ocean, approaching shore. This wave started very far away, out of sight of the shore and have a certain inevitability to them. It doesn't give a crap about what it's doing, where it's going, or what the people on the shore think of it. In fact, the wave really isn't capable of giving a crap at all. It just moves.

Some people go out into the water and interact with the wave directly. One interesting experience is charging headfirst into a good-sized wave; there are very few things that act upon you with such irresistible force. You get thrown back and tumbled around until the wave finally putters out. Another thing people do is to just try and stay afloat, experiencing the up-and-down bobbing of the wave. Obviously, having a flotation device makes this easier and lets you last longer out there.

However, there is another way to interact with this irresistible force, and that is surfing. You don't really know where the wave came from and you know it has zero interest in what you want, but you also know that it possesses a certain inevitability to it. As a surfer, you wait out in the deeper waters, not knowing when a wave will come, only knowing that it will come and that you have to be ready for it. As soon as you see it building, you begin paddling towards shore so that you're moving in the same direction that it is. Once it hits, it picks you up and moves you along as part of itself. You can feel the incredible power it has and there is a thrill in realizing that you are riding along with it. You don't control the wave, but you are going along with it to do what you want.

And, if you've ever surfed, you know that you just had WAY more fun than anyone else at the beach.

Discordians, in theory, are trying to learn to surf. Chaos has a certain inevitability to it, and it is immensely powerful. However, we can know two things about it: It is coming, and if you go where it's taking you, you'll have more fun than anyone else in its path.





(here's the video I shamelessly adapted this from: http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2007/02/020507.html )

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I certainly agree with the idea that internal strife or entropy is the saving grace of many things. Corruption is best destroyed by the contraposition of other corruption. All these little forces balance out into a more or less stable structure, sort of like how a sphere is highly stable due to the lack of stress points. This is actually my main argument for the validity of anarchy as a political system, in fact, because as with the bits about internal corruptions canceling each other out, that can be scaled up to society as a whole, in which case really only the common good (in the pure sense that EVERYBODY needs it in one way or another, or really wants it anyway) is actually produced and distributed. Of course, the concept of the common good changes as the level of efficiency at producing what was the common good grows.

[Scribbly]

I find myself disagreeing strongly with the premise of the argument, specifically the line "The strife and discord of Eris are more the tool of the freedom fighter than of the oppressor."  This seems the very definition of hubris.

Note the use of the word 'more' rather than 'only'. If we take the view that politics is all about power, a position that I, personally, prefer to other, more structural definitions, then the political position of the freedom fighter as opposed to the oppressor- whether the oppressor in question is on a personal level (the policeman who busts heads at a peaceful demonstration), or on a grander scale (the tyrant who oppresses his people directly), it doesn't seem like too extraordinary a clame to state that the strife and discord of Eris are more in favor of the subjugated than the tyrant.

When in power, it appears concentrated primarily through systems. The tools of authority being the various institutions and structures which allow them to concentrate that power into direct influence. The individual seeking to change this, will find their task far easier if discord and strife mar the more rigid, controlled, and regulated systems generally employed by authority than authority will if the same discord and strife hits the canny 'freedom fighter'. As, by definition, people fighting against the system do not need to rely as heavily upon the systemic distributions of power that are utilized by authority, even if, through bad luck or disorganization, they find their plans turned in on themselves and are dispatched by the state, the results on the organization of modern, highly dispersed 'open source' resistance movements are generally far less catastrophic than the results of system breakdowns on authority groups.

See, for instance, the overall impact the failed suicide bombings against London had on Al Queda compared to the chaotic disorganization that led to

Discord does not appear to be a tool, it appears to be an inevitability.  The mythopoetic metaphor ("strife and discord of Eris") used by Prelate Diogenes Shandor seems to acknowledge this, while the author apparently does not recognize the importance of his own words.

Discord is an inevitability, certainly. But there are actions that can be taken to heighten the conditions in which discord and strife become likely to occur. In that way, we can take it to be a tool; an element which can be turned to our advantage if we predispose the systems of people we do not like to discordant situations. We are not immune to being hurt by the very same force that we seek to turn against our enemies, of course. But it may still be loosed upon them.

Who is Eris?  I don't find it particularly useful to imagine Eris as an actual goddess, but for the moment let's go with that.  She is a goddess, a being that is to man as man is to an ant, of discord and strife. These are the essential elements that compose her being.  So what the esteemable Prelate appears to present to us is the idea that "freedom fighters" (chuckles) can use the essential elements of a Goddess as tools.  And not just any Goddess, but one known as something of a Cosmic Überbitch.

This seems a sure recipe for ending up the goo scraped from the bottom of planet sized Grecian sandals.  Serious wrath of god stuff.  Hell, I see a movie in this.

I believe that the point you are making here is the same as the one above; in order to avoid having discord turn in on freedom fighters, they must not grow overconfident.

This does not negate the first point raised, however. By the very fact that the oppressor is more tightly bound to systems which are vulnerable to discord and strife, compared to the more individualistic and generally dispersed power networks utilized by modern freedom fighters, discord and strife are things more useful to the freedom fighter than the oppressor. I think that you are doing a great disservice to the ideas formulated here, by painting his ideas to read the way you want them to, and then knocking them down.

If we think of Eris as something other than anthropomorphic entity of Olympic origin, as perhaps an expanded concept of entropy that includes noise, semantic confusion, the SNAFU principle, and other broad patterns of FAIL, then it becomes more obvious why it is folly to think one can use Eris as a tool.  Eris is what happens when you're making other plans. You don't do Eris, Eris does you.

And at this point, the utility of the metaphor of Eris begins to break down, for me.

We should be discussing strife and discord instead, in order to try and avoid the semantic confusion that arises when talking about a personification, and then broadening it beyond the original bounds. All of the above, are elements that happen in any kind of organized endeavor. BUT. They are also things which one can work to deliberately instigate in the systems of the oppressor, and, as I've indicated above, it is my staunch belief that, because the systems, methods, and channels of power utilized by the oppressor are more complex and intricate than those utilized by the average freedom fighter, they are MORE vulnerable to all of the above than the canny freedom fighter can ensure that he is, whilst still being aware that some elements are always likely to come into play.

The proof of this can be found in the Prelate's own examples.  While good for a laugh, his suggestions have no real useful value.  Replacing wasteful hordes of bureaucrats with intelligent agents is a far less zany and wacky idea, so obviously its boring, but at least it does not require devising a means of mapping resource allocation to body blows.  And might actually work.

Not to be a total downer, but the idea of disorganized and uncooperative military makes me think of groups like Hamas and the IRA, with their persistent inability to prevent attacks by their own troops, or the savage rebel groups of the Congo that simply roam and slaughter having long ago lost any purpose.  The respected Prelate says "within minutes nobody is left to fire the missiles" but I can't help but note that pushing a button to fire a missile takes only seconds.

In regards to Hamas, and the IRA, I believe that is, in fact, the point. If everyone was thinking for themselves, and not slavishly following their authority figures, then yes, if someone with a gun decided they were going to continue fighting for their cause, that is precisely what they would do. Just as they may decide they prefer to continue going on, working together, and killing everyone around them (ala, the Congo.) This, however, is still a massive blow against authority. The oppressor will have a far harder time attempting to control a population that is armed, and ready to use violence in order to defend their right not to be oppressed. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how attached you happen to be to not being shot, but the point remains the same. Authority only has control so long as all involved in the system are willing to obey it. The very instant they move against it, the control of authority breaks down, and they are just as helpless as anyone else.

Thus. Strife and discord remain more useful to the people seeking to bring that authority down than it does to the people who are already sitting in command and control. I don't really see how you can possibly argue otherwise.

The point here being that there is no need to create discord (it is already a fact of universe), and it is pure folly to try to harness Eris like a ox.

If the words Salve Discordia mean something, then I suggest they mean the small comfort we can take in knowing that the TSOG cannot ever win completely, that it can only create more and more complications for itself, that its means contain inherent flaws that always stymie it from achieving its ends.

Discord exists, but it can be magnified. What you are essentially saying, is that there is no point to trying to spread free thought and kill slavish devotion to authority. Discord, after all, occurs far more when people are willing to hold and fight for their individual opinions. Most, I would say, don't even pause to consider the opinions that they spout. So our first job, if we were looking to magnify discord of course, would likely be the spread of information that causes people to engage with the arguments presented before them.

This is not the same as 'harnessing Eris like a ox'. This is more akin to spreading a glorious photoshoot of Eris as far and wide as possible. I couldn't care less what conclusions they reach, so long as they can demonstrate that they have engaged with them, and reached them through the exercise of their own rationality. Something that is, by its nature, entirely inconsistent with slavish devotion to authority figures.

And that is a proposition I can get behind. Rather than throwing ones hands in the air and saying that there is no need to work towards these principles at all.

[Reginald Ret]

This thread is magical, even dead kennedy said something worthwhile.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

(A quick word before i start: I'm new to this forum and not sure if this bit of philosophical speculation is being posted in the right place, but it seems to be the right place. If it isn't, then tell me. oh, and Hi )

From the Desk of Prelate Diogenes Gilgamesh Zarathustra Shandor, A.R.S.E.
(Please note that the final portion⁽¹⁾ of this rant/diatribe is written in a slightly different style, as it was originally part of a paper that (which?) I wrote for a college course)


Salve Discordia:

One thing which I have noticed about many Discordians is that many of them seem to believe that everyone can get along without arguing, forgetting that Eris is, first and foremost, the goddess of discord; A more important problem however, and one which is perpetrated by Discordians and Non-Discordians alike (particularly in the Church of the Sub-Genius) is a misinterpretation of the meaning of this discord:

   The Discord of Eris is not the bloody warfare of Ares or the wholesale destruction of J.R."BOB" Dobbs (may all acquittals be upon his name), but rather merely the small-scale petty bickering and domestic unrest seen amongst the guests of "The Jerry Springer Show" and those people picked up by the police on "Cops" and of mudslinging politicians during an election year.

   Nor is the truest and holiest Strife of Eris Discordia manifest in acts of one-sided oppression either, but is only present in the skirmishes and uprisings and general popular unrest that arise as a reaction thereto. \The strife and discord of Eris are more the tool of the freedom fighter than of the oppressor. Generally there have to be two real sides both fighting in order for there to be actual discord between them; when only one side is fighting and the other isn't fighting back, that isn't discord, its more in the realm of being stepped on.

   Her Strife and Discord are present, to some degree, in the endless forms and infuriating decision making processes of bureaucracies, but only in their most bastardized form, as bureaucracies are often put in place in order to prevent conflicts, or at least those conflicts that could harm or pose a threat to their parent governments or companies, replacing them with stodgy, bastardized pseudo-conflicts that play out only on paper under the direction of uncaring paper pushers . Bureaucracies, and other infuriating things, instead lend more to the Discord of Eris more so in the expressions of outrage which they create than they do by the outrage itself their internal decision making.

   The discord of Eris is also manifest in the system of checks and balances of our political system⁽²⁾; Even though the majority of both the Democrats and the Republicans are either promoting some corrupt personal or partisan agenda and/or (else), failing that, are incompetent, when you get both parties together in congress in approximately even numbers, the corruptions on both sides more-or-less cancel each other out. If there was only one political party, then all of that party's agendas and machinations, even those of the most corrupt nature, would quickly come to fruition and we'd swiftly be plunged into a nightmarish dystopia. If both of the parties, instead, acted truly bi-partisanly, then it would either be functionally the same as having only one political party, or else we would get stuck with compromised (and/or bastardized) laws that please nobody .

   Oh, and also evolution; Strife and Discord power evolution as well; The Natural Selection part of evolution anyway...

Since it is perhaps naïve to believe that we can ever all get along truly equitably, here are just a few examples of situations where, by replacing methods of conflict resolution that rely on warfare or dehumanizing stodginess, the Discord of Eris could enrich all of our lives, if only society would let it:

1.) Bureaucracies: these are generally put in place to ensure that resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible, but are themselves wildly inefficient. I think that we can all agree that it would less time consuming and aggravating for all involved if we settled questions of resource allocation through bare-knuckle brawls instead. This system would also represent a savings in terms of space for corporations and governmental departments based in a small number of large buildings, as a boxing ring, pit-of-death, and/or Thunderdome in each building would take up less space than that already used up by bureaucratic record-keeping facilities and the offices of existing bureaucrats

2.) Peace and War: If everyone could learn to be so uncooperative that order could no longer be maintained within the ranks of armies than there would be no more wars.
                                       Imagine, if you will, two world powers poised on the brink of nuclear war, as they were back in the dark days of the cold war. Their leaders give the order to fire, but the soldiers refuse; They feel that if they're going to be firing off nuclear missiles all of a sudden then they deserve a raise in pay. Their commanding officer browbeats them for insubordination and while he's doing so, another soldier with a preexisting grudge shoots him; The entire missile silo instantly erupts into a multi-sided firefight between the soldiers. Within minutes nobody is left to fire the missiles. Similar disputes break out in all of the missile silos on both sides of the conflict and because of this a nuclear holocaust is narrowly averted and Peace is thus restored to the world.

3.) Peaceful Conflict Resolution: I believe that the most sensible way for the leaders of the world's various nations to settle conflicts without going to war is to attack each other directly, or, failing that, to attack each other's families. This would be preferable both in terms of loss of life and effects on the national economy.
          To give just one specific example (of many possible) of just the economic benefits of this plan, current estimations show that the United States of America could have saved up to possibly as much as 4.5 trillion dollars (and almost countless lives) to date by bribing one of Saddam Hussein's bodyguards to murder him in his sleep⁽³⁾ instead of going to war in Iraq.

I am not a crackpot, (or, at least, if I am, then that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong)!
      -Diogenes Shandor      
      -Bohandas Banannafannafofondas       [11:04 05 09 13AM]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 yes, really, the final, "rant' portion, not the beginning.


2 (I live in the USA, but this is true to a greater or lesser extent of any democracy with at least two or more political parties)


3 Note that the included estimations of savings have already factored in an expenditure of up to 500 Billion Dollars in bribes and other expenses to carry out said hypothetical assassination.

I disagree with this in its entirety.

[Sheered Völva]

I disagree with The Good Reverend Roger's disagreement in its entirety.

[Sheered Völva]

Dead Kennedy started out being recognized as insightful and witty. Then the feces flinging started. What a shame.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Prelate Diogenes Shandor cool.

I do have a question re:

2.) Peace and War: If everyone could learn to be so uncooperative that order could no longer be maintained within the ranks of armies than there would be no more wars.
                                      Imagine, if you will, two world powers poised on the brink of nuclear war, as they were back in the dark days of the cold war. Their leaders give the order to fire, but the soldiers refuse; They feel that if they're going to be firing off nuclear missiles all of a sudden then they deserve a raise in pay. Their commanding officer browbeats them for insubordination and while he's doing so, another soldier with a preexisting grudge shoots him; The entire missile silo instantly erupts into a multi-sided firefight between the soldiers. Within minutes nobody is left to fire the missiles. Similar disputes break out in all of the missile silos on both sides of the conflict and because of this a nuclear holocaust is narrowly averted and Peace is thus restored to the world.

Yes, complete uncooperation could technically mean the end of war (and of civilization).  But many people would think of two armies killing each other as being war.  I realize that in your example there isn't exactly a war, but more of an individualized "me kill" scenario.  But once the  bodies are dead, it makes little difference, except to the historians.

But all in all, Bravo.

A recent post in another topic by The Good Reverend Roger just gave me an insight about this. A counterpoint to your counterpoint...

Check out what TGRR's uncle has to say about the Second World War

Hey, Cain, my Uncle is dying, and he's the last WWII vet in our family.  He has told me many stories about when the world went mad and black fascism was allowed to run loose for a while, stomping around in their hobnail boots.

He said it took 55 million nails to hammer Hitler and Tojo into thier coffins.

You'll note that Mussolini isn't mentioned on that list, and you know why? Its because, thanks to internal strife among Italy's ruers, by 1943 it was Mussolini's rivals in the Italian government (epecially King Vittorio Emanuele III and Pietro Badoglio) who were suplying the nails^*.

In fact, this internal discord and strife within the Italian government also directly resulted in Albania and Ethiopia being freed early from fascist rule without needing to first be liberated by the Allies. You see, Victor Emmanuel voluntarily relinquished control of Italy's conquered territories in Albania and Ethopia back to Amhet Zog and Ras Tafari^**, for the express purpose of distancing himself from Mussolini...





^* To continue Roger's uncle's metaphor.

^** (Albania^*** and Ethopia's previous rulers, respectively)

^*** Although there were some in Albania who had considered the cold and impersonalpression of the fascist to be a welcome change from Zog, who had managed to personally offend just about everybody in the coutry (or at least somebody in nearly everybody in the country's extended family)

[The Johnny]

One thing which I have noticed about many Discordians is that many of them seem to believe that everyone can get along without arguing, forgetting that Eris is, first and foremost, the goddess of discord; A more important problem however, and one which is perpetrated by Discordians and Non-Discordians alike (particularly in the Church of the Sub-Genius) is a misinterpretation of the meaning of this discord:

Which "many discordians" ? Thats a retarded generalization.

   The Discord of Eris is not the bloody warfare of Ares or the wholesale destruction of J.R."BOB" Dobbs (may all acquittals be upon his name), but rather merely the small-scale petty bickering and domestic unrest seen amongst the guests of "The Jerry Springer Show" and those people picked up by the police on "Cops" and of mudslinging politicians during an election year.

Fuck you and your interpretations of what "discord" is supposed to be.

   Her Strife and Discord are present, to some degree, in the endless forms and infuriating decision making processes of bureaucracies, but only in their most bastardized form, as bureaucracies are often put in place in order to prevent conflicts, or at least those conflicts that could harm or pose a threat to their parent governments or companies, replacing them with stodgy, bastardized pseudo-conflicts that play out only on paper under the direction of uncaring paper pushers . Bureaucracies, and other infuriating things, instead lend more to the Discord of Eris more so in the expressions of outrage which they create than they do by the outrage itself their internal decision making.

"Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos" (or something like that)

   The discord of Eris is also manifest in the system of checks and balances of our political system⁽²⁾; Even though the majority of both the Democrats and the Republicans are either promoting some corrupt personal or partisan agenda and/or (else), failing that, are incompetent, when you get both parties together in congress in approximately even numbers, the corruptions on both sides more-or-less cancel each other out. If there was only one political party, then all of that party's agendas and machinations, even those of the most corrupt nature, would quickly come to fruition and we'd swiftly be plunged into a nightmarish dystopia. If both of the parties, instead, acted truly bi-partisanly, then it would either be functionally the same as having only one political party, or else we would get stuck with compromised (and/or bastardized) laws that please nobody .

What the fuck does mental jacking off about the political parties has to do with anything?

   

Oh, and also evolution; Strife and Discord power evolution as well; The Natural Selection part of evolution anyway...

If you are gonna make a claim, be decent enough to argue why so.

Since it is perhaps naïve to believe that we can ever all get along truly equitably, here are just a few examples of situations where, by replacing methods of conflict resolution that rely on warfare or dehumanizing stodginess, the Discord of Eris could enrich all of our lives, if only society would let it:

1.) Bureaucracies: these are generally put in place to ensure that resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible, but are themselves wildly inefficient. I think that we can all agree that it would less time consuming and aggravating for all involved if we settled questions of resource allocation through bare-knuckle brawls instead. This system would also represent a savings in terms of space for corporations and governmental departments based in a small number of large buildings, as a boxing ring, pit-of-death, and/or Thunderdome in each building would take up less space than that already used up by bureaucratic record-keeping facilities and the offices of existing bureaucrats

A society privileging the mindless tough grunts. Great.

2.) Peace and War: If everyone could learn to be so uncooperative that order could no longer be maintained within the ranks of armies than there would be no more wars.

Yea, so you go to jail for being non-responsive to a superior officer's command. Got any military experience? Dont think so.
                                       

3.) Peaceful Conflict Resolution: I believe that the most sensible way for the leaders of the world's various nations to settle conflicts without going to war is to attack each other directly, or, failing that, to attack each other's families. This would be preferable both in terms of loss of life and effects on the national economy.
          To give just one specific example (of many possible) of just the economic benefits of this plan, current estimations show that the United States of America could have saved up to possibly as much as 4.5 trillion dollars (and almost countless lives) to date by bribing one of Saddam Hussein's bodyguards to murder him in his sleep⁽³⁾ instead of going to war in Iraq.

I am not a crackpot, (or, at least, if I am, then that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong)!

Are you like 15? Mentally retarded? Live in a bubble? Please do answer.      

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

2.) Peace and War: If everyone could learn to be so uncooperative that order could no longer be maintained within the ranks of armies than there would be no more wars.

Yea, so you go to jail for being non-responsive to a superior officer's command. Got any military experience? Dont think so.

For what it's worth, to be jailed for being non-responsive to a superior officer's command, you need other officers willing to obey orders enough to jail you. If everyone was uncooperative enough that order could not be maintained, no one could really be imprisoned for not maintaining order, because the order would not be in place to maintain or enforce order. There could, of course, be a lot of people getting shot for disobeying orders, from officers both superior and inferior (and both)