So, now, i guess, if presented with examples that may challenge one's ideology, there's no problem. Simply change you're operational definitions and "ouila" problem solved. Whew, that was close. The American revolution, Civil War and WWII were WARS. There is no way around it. You can't change that fact by saying it isn't technically war if its a defense against tyranny, oppression, or genocide. Like hell it isn't! The only difference is they don't fit into you're neat little package of all war is completely unjustifiable. " Ummm..., well..., gee, that doesn't count. Jews were being rounded up, tattooed, and thrown into ovens. That means it isn't a war."
Look, i'm a lefty too. One thing i won't do, however is sacrifice my integrity and common sense out of fear someone may revoke my "liberal card". My allegiance in this case is to integrity and not John Lennon.
They were defending against attack, not waging war. There is a difference.
I'm not sure we see what that difference is. I'm curious what you think it is. Because many justified the Iraq war as defending ourselves after we were attacked by extremist Islam. It's a stretch, but it still kinda fits your definition, if you say that extremists began waging war on the US in the 90s and now we're just fighting back... then it's just a matter of arguing over the best tactics. So I'm not sure I get what distinction you're envisioning.
Iraq is the perfect example of no one looking to root causes, and the powers that be using fear of religious extremism to push their agenda. Anyone saying the conflict started in the 90's with terror attacks is flat-out wrong, and probably believes the 'hate us for our freedoms' line. the roots of the current conflict can be found in the 50’s. Now we've come full circle to disinterested, ignorant acceptance.
The distinction is in the cause and motivation behind the war. In the case of Iraq, it had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with trade and profit.
And yes, once you find the root, you begin discussion on tactics to counter the problem. Why was the Shah removed from power? Why did Iraq become an ally, and why did they fall out of favour? THOSE are the issues that need to be resolved, the policy mistakes that we need to avoid repeating to avoid further conflict. In fact, I think looking at the (trade) disputes of 60 years ago would still give clues to finding peaceful resolutions to the problems in those countries today.…
The problem with international trade is that, like with military might, the US carries a stick (purchasing power) that dwarfs all others...it's similar to Wal-Mart's dealings with their suppliers, in that once you open the door to dealing with them, you become reliant on them...once you rely on them, they hold all the cards and are pretty much free to fuck you around as they see fit. This fact is not lost on the people running the international corporations (and their US lobby groups)...they know that they can manipulate their markets and bully their way to their goal, consequences be damned. I'm hopeful the current economic situation will level the field a bit.
I
Iraq is the perfect example of no one looking to root causes, and the powers that be using fear of religious extremism to push their agenda. Anyone saying the conflict started in the 90's with terror attacks is flat-out wrong, and probably believes the 'hate us for our freedoms' line. the roots of the current conflict can be found in the 50’s. Now we've come full circle to disinterested, ignorant acceptance.
The distinction is in the cause and motivation behind the war. In the case of Iraq, it had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with trade and profit.
And yes, once you find the root, you begin discussion on tactics to counter the problem. Why was the Shah removed from power? Why did Iraq become an ally, and why did they fall out of favour? THOSE are the issues that need to be resolved, the policy mistakes that we need to avoid repeating to avoid further conflict. In fact, I think looking at the (trade) disputes of 60 years ago would still give clues to finding peaceful resolutions to the problems in those countries today.…
The problem with international trade is that, like with military might, the US carries a stick (purchasing power) that dwarfs all others...it's similar to Wal-Mart's dealings with their suppliers, in that once you open the door to dealing with them, you become reliant on them...once you rely on them, they hold all the cards and are pretty much free to fuck you around as they see fit. This fact is not lost on the people running the international corporations (and their US lobby groups)...they know that they can manipulate their markets and bully their way to their goal, consequences be damned. I'm hopeful the current economic situation will level the field a bit.
I
I mostly agree with you, but I still think it's a cop out to say all war is wrong and immoral and you cannot wage war, but you can "fight back" against oppression like in WWII... that's a total bullshit semantics argument. You're implicitly acknowledging that war is sometimes ok and necessary and that we basically just need to consider something like the 'just war' doctrine before engaging in one. Which is what I and many others round here have been saying. We could argue all day about whether this or that war is justified, but it's disingenuous for you to try to act like you oppose all war as inherently evil and wrong and then write off your "exceptions" as not being war because they're "protecting themselves from oppression."
I mostly agree with you, but I still think it's a cop out to say all war is wrong and immoral and you cannot wage war, but you can "fight back" against oppression like in WWII... that's a total bullshit semantics argument. You're implicitly acknowledging that war is sometimes ok and necessary and that we basically just need to consider something like the 'just war' doctrine before engaging in one. Which is what I and many others round here have been saying. We could argue all day about whether this or that war is justified, but it's disingenuous for you to try to act like you oppose all war as inherently evil and wrong and then write off your "exceptions" as not being war because they're "protecting themselves from oppression."
I object. you're leading the witness :P I don't get how offence vs defence is semantics. I guess it all comes down to which side of the story you believe as far as who the aggressor is. The problem is, most people are accepting the story based on nationalism, pride and community (to use your examples)....and the stories are coming indirectly from one of the parties involved in the conflict. Yes, I think that in most cases, the party that first resorts to grand-scale theft, or violence, is in the wrong. But ya...this is a vague discussion...as usual, things need to be examined case by case. I've been trying to defend an obtuse, stream-of-altered-consciousness rant for two days now....if there's one thing I know in dealing with a hostile lawyer, it's not to say too much...and as I've said here a few times, brevity is not my forte. Maybe I should shut up before you get me totally talking in circles
I mostly agree with you, but I still think it's a cop out to say all war is wrong and immoral and you cannot wage war, but you can "fight back" against oppression like in WWII... that's a total bullshit semantics argument. You're implicitly acknowledging that war is sometimes ok and necessary and that we basically just need to consider something like the 'just war' doctrine before engaging in one. Which is what I and many others round here have been saying. We could argue all day about whether this or that war is justified, but it's disingenuous for you to try to act like you oppose all war as inherently evil and wrong and then write off your "exceptions" as not being war because they're "protecting themselves from oppression."
I object. you're leading the witness :P I don't get how offence vs defence is semantics. I guess it all comes down to which side of the story you believe as far as who the aggressor is. The problem is, most people are accepting the story based on nationalism, pride and community (to use your examples)....and the stories are coming indirectly from one of the parties involved in the conflict. Yes, I think that in most cases, the party that first resorts to grand-scale theft, or violence, is in the wrong. But ya...this is a vague discussion...as usual, things need to be examined case by case. I've been trying to defend an obtuse, stream-of-altered-consciousness rant for two days now....if there's one thing I know in dealing with a hostile lawyer, it's not to say too much...and as I've said here a few times, brevity is not my forte. Maybe I should shut up before you get me totally talking in circles
Perhaps. They usually say not to say too much because we're very good at spotting people that are trying to bullshit us by talking out both sides of their mouth... we invented, perfected, and mastered it, so nobody can use it against us!
Anyway, you're right in that offense vs. defense is not semantics. But war and not war is. Are you truly saying that WWII not a war? I mean, it was totally a defensive move to stop a psychopath. So just because it was a justified defensive reaction to a genocidal maniac means it's not a war? That's nonsense.
I mostly agree with you, but I still think it's a cop out to say all war is wrong and immoral and you cannot wage war, but you can "fight back" against oppression like in WWII... that's a total bullshit semantics argument. You're implicitly acknowledging that war is sometimes ok and necessary and that we basically just need to consider something like the 'just war' doctrine before engaging in one. Which is what I and many others round here have been saying. We could argue all day about whether this or that war is justified, but it's disingenuous for you to try to act like you oppose all war as inherently evil and wrong and then write off your "exceptions" as not being war because they're "protecting themselves from oppression."
I object. you're leading the witness :P I don't get how offence vs defence is semantics. I guess it all comes down to which side of the story you believe as far as who the aggressor is. The problem is, most people are accepting the story based on nationalism, pride and community (to use your examples)....and the stories are coming indirectly from one of the parties involved in the conflict. Yes, I think that in most cases, the party that first resorts to grand-scale theft, or violence, is in the wrong. But ya...this is a vague discussion...as usual, things need to be examined case by case. I've been trying to defend an obtuse, stream-of-altered-consciousness rant for two days now....if there's one thing I know in dealing with a hostile lawyer, it's not to say too much...and as I've said here a few times, brevity is not my forte. Maybe I should shut up before you get me totally talking in circles
Perhaps. They usually say not to say too much because we're very good at spotting people that are trying to bullshit us by talking out both sides of their mouth... we invented, perfected, and mastered it, so nobody can use it against us!
Anyway, you're right in that offense vs. defense is not semantics. But war and not war is. Are you truly saying that WWII not a war? I mean, it was totally a defensive move to stop a psychopath. So just because it was a justified defensive reaction to a genocidal maniac means it's not a war? That's nonsense.
no, of course WWII was a war...self defense is necessary to have a ‘war’, otherwise it’s just mass murder….But this is part of the war vs waging war discrepancy I mentioned to cornifer. In my broad (naïve, idealist) opinion, a justified defensive reaction is completely different from WAGING war. I guess I interpret ‘waging war’ as attacking; the first offense, with the perp being the aggressor. Now, obviously there is grey area in what constitutes an ‘attack’, or act of war.…things get even muddier down that road… so ya…semantics.
Comments
The distinction is in the cause and motivation behind the war. In the case of Iraq, it had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with trade and profit.
And yes, once you find the root, you begin discussion on tactics to counter the problem. Why was the Shah removed from power? Why did Iraq become an ally, and why did they fall out of favour? THOSE are the issues that need to be resolved, the policy mistakes that we need to avoid repeating to avoid further conflict. In fact, I think looking at the (trade) disputes of 60 years ago would still give clues to finding peaceful resolutions to the problems in those countries today.…
The problem with international trade is that, like with military might, the US carries a stick (purchasing power) that dwarfs all others...it's similar to Wal-Mart's dealings with their suppliers, in that once you open the door to dealing with them, you become reliant on them...once you rely on them, they hold all the cards and are pretty much free to fuck you around as they see fit. This fact is not lost on the people running the international corporations (and their US lobby groups)...they know that they can manipulate their markets and bully their way to their goal, consequences be damned. I'm hopeful the current economic situation will level the field a bit.
I
I mostly agree with you, but I still think it's a cop out to say all war is wrong and immoral and you cannot wage war, but you can "fight back" against oppression like in WWII... that's a total bullshit semantics argument. You're implicitly acknowledging that war is sometimes ok and necessary and that we basically just need to consider something like the 'just war' doctrine before engaging in one. Which is what I and many others round here have been saying. We could argue all day about whether this or that war is justified, but it's disingenuous for you to try to act like you oppose all war as inherently evil and wrong and then write off your "exceptions" as not being war because they're "protecting themselves from oppression."
Perhaps. They usually say not to say too much because we're very good at spotting people that are trying to bullshit us by talking out both sides of their mouth... we invented, perfected, and mastered it, so nobody can use it against us!
Anyway, you're right in that offense vs. defense is not semantics. But war and not war is. Are you truly saying that WWII not a war? I mean, it was totally a defensive move to stop a psychopath. So just because it was a justified defensive reaction to a genocidal maniac means it's not a war? That's nonsense.
no, of course WWII was a war...self defense is necessary to have a ‘war’, otherwise it’s just mass murder….But this is part of the war vs waging war discrepancy I mentioned to cornifer. In my broad (naïve, idealist) opinion, a justified defensive reaction is completely different from WAGING war. I guess I interpret ‘waging war’ as attacking; the first offense, with the perp being the aggressor. Now, obviously there is grey area in what constitutes an ‘attack’, or act of war.…things get even muddier down that road… so ya…semantics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1Dr89xbZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KumCH0OKIng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBJYCinrv54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dz_WupUAXo
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/imag ... 20489d.jpg
dammit, I meant to hit edit not quote
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde