Do You REALLY Believe that the U.S. Initiates War to Defend our Freedom?

[OldWorldOrder]

No, but you are purposely evading the question.

How much clearer can I be? I said yes.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The question of what? I laughed at him saying the anti-war movement ended the war by saying administrations had been trying to end it for years. What do you think that implies?

Omg wait: you think the anti-war movement ended it too?!

It most certainly wasn't the defense contractors.

Of course, the politicians would say, "Hey, we wanted to end it all along! You hippies had nothing to do with it!"

And, of course, I don't believe everything that a politician says. Do you?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

It most certainly wasn't the defense contractors.

Uhh..no, it wasn't. They don't make policy.

Of course, the politicians would say, "Hey, we wanted to end it all along! You hippies had nothing to do with it!"

And, of course, I don't believe everything that a politician says. Do you?

No, do you believe everything anyone says?

 

[Hard Truth]

If someone can't understand why it is wrong why it is wrong to kill thousands of people to keep a company's profits up and/or the price of a product from rising a bit, then they can not engage in a fruitful debate. Any argument made based on human rights and morals will just get a "so what?" response.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It most certainly wasn't the defense contractors.

Of course, the politicians would say, "Hey, we wanted to end it all along! You hippies had nothing to do with it!"

And, of course, I don't believe everything that a politician says. Do you?

Public opinion is a huge thing. If it wasn't, the public relations industry wouldn't be spending the money they do to shape public perception/opinion. It's got to be working. We have gone from a time when we had so many mass movements to change things in our country including the a Civil Right's a Movement, Anti War Movement, Women's Right Movement....to nearly no opposition or movement for change at all. It's kind of strange.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Uhh..no, it wasn't. They don't make policy.



No, do you believe everything anyone says?

Certainly not the politicians.

Now, who says that defense contractors, or at least the lobbyists they hire, don't make policy? Perhaps you meant to say, they're not supposed to make policy.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

If someone can't understand why it is wrong why it is wrong to kill thousands of people to keep a company's profits up and/or the price of a product from rising a bit, then they can not engage in a fruitful debate. Any argument made based on human rights and morals will just get a "so what?" response.

Is it wrong to kill thousands of people to further your nation's economic progress?

So self righteous.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Certainly not the politicians.[+quote]

So who do you believe all the time?

Now, who says that defense contractors, or at least the lobbyists they hire, don't make policy? Perhaps you meant to say, they're not supposed to make policy.

Then lots of people make policy, by that definition. Teachers unions do then, too. Is that bad?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Certainly not the politicians.[+quote]

So who do you believe all the time?



Then lots of people make policy, by that definition. Teachers unions do then, too. Is that bad?

There is no one I believe all of the time. Believe only a tenth of what you're told, and you'll get it right most of the time.

I didn't make a value judgement on policy being made by the defense industry. I just said that it does.

But, since you brought it up, the idea of a powerful entity with the power and the motivation to keep a war going as long as possible just might not be a great idea in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Leo]

The difference lies in the difference between hierarchical and anarchism systems.

The adjective is anarchical, but I don't quite understand what you mean as anarchy suggests a lack of system. Foreign policy and international relations are human activities which depend upon human and social values, whereas economic and commercial activity are generally judged only upon economic effectiveness. E.g: A country such as Canada is less likely to attract the ire of an ideologically opposed nation, because it is seen as a non-aggressive and honest entity, which minds its own business. So similar factors are at play in international relationships as may apply to one relationship to one's neighbour.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

The adjective is anarchical, but I don't quite understand what you mean as anarchy suggests a lack of system.

lol thanks, that was my phone's autocorrect. But no, it absolutely does not mean a lack of system. It means a lack of hierarchical order. The state of nature as Hobbes described it.

Foreign policy and international relations are human activities which depend upon human and social values, whereas economic and commercial activity are generally judged only upon economic effectiveness. E.g: A country such as Canada is less likely to attract the ire of an ideologically opposed nation, because it is seen as a non-aggressive and honest entity, which minds its own business. So similar factors are at play in international relationships as may apply to one relationship to one's neighbour.

Have you ever read an international relations book or taken a class on it? I need to know where to start.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

There is no one I believe all of the time.

Great, same. So what was your point?

 

[Leo]

Is it wrong to kill thousands of people to further your nation's economic progress?

So self righteous.

I am surprised that one so sensible as yourself should feel the need to ask that question. It most certainly is wrong by every moral code on the planet - irrespective of, or perhaps particularly because of, whose interests it furthers.

There is nothing remotely self-righteous in that judgment, it is merely an indication that one employs some moral values. Nationalism (the original quote employing the term patriotism) is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I am surprised that one so sensible as yourself should feel the need to ask that question. It most certainly is wrong by every moral code on the planet - irrespective of, or perhaps particularly because of, whose interests it furthers.

There is nothing remotely self-righteous in that judgment, it is merely an indication that one employs some moral values. Nationalism (the original quote employing the term patriotism) is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Aww, if you say so.

Do you ever notice the people that say such things are the people that never have to make those hard decisions? It'd really interesting. I wonder why that is.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Great, same. So what was your point?

Well, let's see: My original statement was that the anti war protesters had actually brought about an end to the war, to which the reply was that I was totally naive about the history of Vietnam, to which I mad a reply to the effect that it wasn't all Nixon, and then the conversation went to who actually had, to which I replied that it wasn't the politicians regardless of what they might have said, that the anti war protesters had a strong influence regardless of what the pols said. Somewhere along the way I mad the somewhat sarcastic comment that it wasn't the defense contractors, which brought up a reply that defense contractors didn't make policy, to which I replied that they certainly do, through their lobbyists. That's what brought up the value judgement, to which I made the observation that a powerful entity with the power and motivation to keep a war going may not be such a good idea.

So, the point of saying pols aren't always believable, which is much like observing that water is wet, was that what the pols said about the reason for ending the war in Vietnam might not be the real reason.

There. That should cover it.

 

[Leo]

lol thanks, that was my phone's autocorrect. But no, it absolutely does not mean a lack of system. It means a lack of hierarchical order. The state of nature as Hobbes described it.

Thanks for that - my understanding is that the term can mean many things, but the general sense, is a state or society without government, or a state of political disorder due to the absence of governmental control. Which could of course be described (as you do) as a lack of hierarchical order, or even the state of nature (although nature and the animal world does impose its own hierarchical order - sometimes known as the food chain).

Have you ever read an international relations book or taken a class on it? I need to know where to start.

I hasten to add that I claim no expertise in these disciplines, but I am in the early stages of reading for a double degree in Laws, Jurisprudence, and International Affairs. LOL, make of that what you will.

 

[Hard Truth]

Is it wrong to kill thousands of people to further your nation's economic progress?

So self righteous.

No. Is there a limit to how many people you would kill for your nation's economic progress?

 

[Leo]

Aww, if you say so.

Do you ever notice the people that say such things are the people that never have to make those hard decisions? It'd really interesting. I wonder why that is.

I have no doubt that is so, but pragmatism is a virtue whose utility is, and needs to be, limited. Else, some of those 'hard decisions' may very well include killing millions of your own compatriots - as has happened in various societies (for the common good, of course). Defending one's society from annihilation, and furthering its economic interests, tend to be very different things, but it seems self interest and justification know no limits.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Well, let's see: My original statement was that the anti war protesters had actually brought about an end to the war, to which the reply was that I was totally naive about the history of Vietnam, to which I mad a reply to the effect that it wasn't all Nixon, and then the conversation went to who actually had, to which I replied that it wasn't the politicians regardless of what they might have said, that the anti war protesters had a strong influence regardless of what the pols said. Somewhere along the way I mad the somewhat sarcastic comment that it wasn't the defense contractors, which brought up a reply that defense contractors didn't make policy, to which I replied that they certainly do, through their lobbyists. That's what brought up the value judgement, to which I made the observation that a powerful entity with the power and motivation to keep a war going may not be such a good idea.

So, the point of saying pols aren't always believable, which is much like observing that water is wet, was that what the pols said about the reason for ending the war in Vietnam might not be the real reason.

There. That should cover it.

Was it mostly Nixon?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Thanks for that - my understanding is that the term can mean many things, but the general sense, is a state or society without government, or a state of political disorder due to the absence of governmental control. Which could of course be described (as you do) as a lack of hierarchical order, or even the state of nature (although nature and the animal world does impose its own hierarchical order - sometimes known as the food chain).

In the study of international relations, it means one thing: no centralized authority.

I hasten to add that I claim no expertise in these disciplines, but I am in the early stages of reading for a double degree in Laws, Jurisprudence, and International Affairs. LOL, make of that what you will.

If you're interested, it's very fascinating. But how actors deal in different systems is a critical portion of it- and actions in hierarchical systems are very different from anarchical ones. Also known as "self-help" systems; in our societies we have a reasonable belief that the police can help us in the event of a crime, the fire department in the event of a fire: it's not self help. In a true anarchical system, we can only depend on whatever help we can ourselves enlist, for whatever reason.

The long and short of it is that comparing actions from two wildly different systems isn't very fruitful.

 

[Hard Truth]

Is it wrong to kill thousands of people to further your nation's economic progress?

So self righteous.

Correction to my previous response: Yes, it is wrong.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

No. Is there a limit to how many people you would kill for your nation's economic progress?

Maybe. But whatever it is, it'd be my own personal moral opinion, and I certainly wouldn't sit around judging other people for theirs, especially if I had never been in a position to have to make such difficult decisions.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I have no doubt that is so, but pragmatism is a virtue whose utility is, and needs to be, limited. Else, some of those 'hard decisions' may very well include killing millions of your own compatriots - as has happened in various societies (for the common good, of course). Defending one's society from annihilation, and furthering its economic interests, tend to be very different things, but it seems self interest and justification know no limits.

If your point is to help your compatriots, that runs into a problem.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Correction to my previous response: Yes, it is wrong.

Okay thank you, gospel according to hard truth.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Was it mostly Nixon?

Well, he did have a secret plan to end the war, at least that was the campaign promise. It turned out his secret plan was to declare victory and go home.

Would he have had such a plan had there not been demonstrations against the war? There is no way to know for sure, but I really don't think so.