NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Thoughts?

Indeed.

Warmongers can just dismiss him as a whiner who won't let them get on with their wars to spread democracy. War after all seems to be much quicker and direct then diplomacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Let's see the warmongers wriggle their way out of this one. :D

I don't get it. He's just making up a bunch of bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war -- he prefers the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, apparently, to war.

Begoner21;11688473']I don't get it. He's just making up a bunch of bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war -- he prefers the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, apparently, to war.

One doesn't need bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war. There is absolutely no justification for the Iraq War, none whatsoever.

And for the record, I opposed Gulf War I and sanctions, too.

Begoner21;11688473']I don't get it. He's just making up a bunch of bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war -- he prefers the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, apparently, to war.

I rest my case.

I'm no warmonger, although I do believe that when the right people do it in the right way war can be used for good, in spite of the terrible things it does infact bring. I want to put emphasis on the RIGHT people, people who, maybe, have family in the armed forces. Or who have fought in REAL combat and understand what the fighting men go through so they won't just see 200 dead as a statistic. Maybe someone who isn't a redneck from Texas, a state that highest one of the highest crime rates and Execution rates in the country, and is proud of it.

Yeknow, sometimes I wonder who people hate more in war, the men who sent our troops there(The Government Namely), the troops actualy fighting there(SOme people see it as they shouldn't do anything since it's so bad), the military commanders(SInce they tell our men what too do), or the enemy thats being fought(Self explanatory). It seems to blur so much in personal opinion and the media in America

One doesn't need bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war. There is absolutely no justification for the Iraq War, none whatsoever.

And for the record, I opposed Gulf War I and sanctions, too.

The only justification he had to sending us too war was the Weopons. Which is odd considering Korea obviously has the same weopons, and yet we do nothing. Not to mention we have about 12,000 of thems tashed away and yet nothing is done about those? Now to be fair, there is a chance that Saddam did have the weopons and there stashed away somewhere and we just havent found them yet. But, Bush at one time said that Osama was a top priority, and then a while afterward says he doesn't even care about him! So how do we know Bush actualy cared about those weopons, or he just thought war was a good idea?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Let's see the warmongers wriggle their way out of this one. :D

I like how he offers up realistic reasons and uses facts rather then most anti war people who just spew out so and so many people are dead and that is so bad. We need more people who can back up there claims, anti war and otherwise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Let's see the warmongers wriggle their way out of this one. :D

You're one pathetic douche

The only justification he had to sending us too war was the Weopons. Which is odd considering Korea obviously has the same weopons, and yet we do nothing.

The WMDs which Saddam was though to possess was not the only reason that we invaded Iraq. Saddam was also a brutal, oppressive dictator who slaughtered his own people by the thousands and arrested, tortured, and killed political dissidents (quite similar to Kimmy). He also funded the Taliban, and, quite possibly, Al-Qaeda. Why didn't we invade North Korea? Well, I'm pretty sure that South Korea, with their "sunshine" policy would not be too happy with that move. And where else would we be able to invade North Korea from? China?! There are too many hostile countries in that region for us to invade, and I'm sure there would be increased China-US tensions, which might have reached a breaking point.

There is absolutely no justification for the Iraq War, none whatsoever.

When people start to be dogmatic like that, it doesn't matter what they are saying, because their attitude is very close minded.

Begoner21;11688579']Saddam was also a brutal, oppressive dictator who slaughtered his own people by the thousands and arrested, tortured, and killed political dissidents (quite similar to Kimmy).

And quite similar to plenty of dictators that Bush loves. ;)

He also funded the Taliban, and, quite possibly, Al-Qaeda.

Bollocks.

I find objectionable his total rejection of all war. This is an article born of pacifism, and that is a dogma that leads most certainly to destruction of self.

War is justified when you have been, or are being, coerced with force by a third power, to do something against your will. You are justified to defend yourself in such circumstances.

I am not voicing support for the Iraq war, which I feel to be a horrible strategic error, but I feel that his ideology is fundamentally flawed. I will not, nor will I ever turn the other cheek. I'll come back with a right hook.

I find objectionable his total rejection of all war. This is an article born of pacifism, and that is a dogma that leads most certainly to destruction of self.

War is justified when you have been, or are being, coerced with force by a third power, to do something against your will. You are justified to defend yourself in such circumstances.

The author believes, as do other Misesians, that the only justifiable war is one fought purely in self-defense.

The author believes, as do other Misesians, that the only justifiable war is one fought purely in self-defense.

Which, of course, begs the question, what is defense? It's a tricky question.

It's also important to call your opponents warmongers as well, it would seem. Otherwise they might not come across as holders of such objectionable positions.

Which, of course, begs the question, what is defense? It's a tricky question.

Not really. If a nation directly attacks you and you defend yourself, that's defense. Invading countries half-way around the world which pose no threat to you is not defense.

Not really. If a nation directly attacks you and you defend yourself, that's defense. Invading countries half-way around the world which pose no threat to you is not defense.

Like I said, I'm of the opinion that the reasoning behind the Iraq war was incredibly flawed. But determining self defense is often a very tough thing to do.

Would Poland have been justified in launching an air raid against German airfields on it's borders on August 31, 1939? Would that have been self defense?

Would Poland have been justified in launching an air raid against German airfields on it's borders on August 31, 1939? Would that have been self defense?

I can't speak for the author, but I personally would say that, yes, it's self-defense.

You're one pathetic douche

You're making a personal attack instead of deconstructing your opponent's argument. That's flaming. Stop doing it.

And Congo--Kinshasa, you might want to try opening threads with something a lot more meaningful and a little less baity.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

~The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)~

You're making a personal attack instead of deconstructing your opponent's argument. That's flaming. Stop doing it.

And Congo--Kinshasa, you might want to try opening threads with something a lot more meaningful and a little less baity.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

~The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)~

Will do.

Will do.

Thanks. :)

Begoner21;11688473']I don't get it. He's just making up a bunch of bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war -- he prefers the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, apparently, to war.

why did it have to be a choice between invasion and sanctions?

both have killed far too many civilians and both should have been rejected.

Thanks. :)

You're welcome. :)

why did it have to be a choice between invasion and sanctions?

both have killed far too many civilians and both should have been rejected.

I agree.

If an unfriendly country has built up its military and an attack on your country seems inevitable, then to attack their country first is essentially self-defence. The argument for the Iraq War was that Iraq had developed weapons which they were about to use to attack other countries. This would be a good justification, but it wasn't true. Even if they did have them, they'd only be able to use them to attack Kuwait and Turkey etc.

why did it have to be a choice between invasion and sanctions?

The author of that article suggested that sanctions would have been a better preliminary step. Quoting from the article: "has evil conduct never been stopped except by war? For example, has shunning―exclusion from commerce, financial systems, communications, transportation systems, and other means of international cooperation―never served to discipline an evil nation-state?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Thoughts?
from the article.

(2) "War is terrible, war is horrible, but war is also at times necessary and the only means of stopping evil."

The only means of stopping evil? How can such an exclusivity exist? Has evil conduct never been stopped except by war? For example, has shunning―exclusion from commerce, financial systems, communications, transportation systems, and other means of international cooperation―never served to discipline an evil nation-state? Might it do so if seriously tried? Why must we leap to the conclusion that only war will serve, when other measures have scarcely even been considered, much less been seriously attempted? If war is really as horrible as everyone says, then it would seem that we have a moral obligation to try very hard to achieve the desired suppression of evil-doing by means other than resort to warfare, which is itself always a manifest evil, even when it is the lesser one.here the author is either deliberatly trying to mis lead the reader or is misinterpreting the quote. the quote is saying war is also at times necessary and also at times, the only means of stopping evil. not that it's the ONLY way to stop evil. when Diplomacy fails, or one side refuses to listen... then war may be the only solution. and those sanctions really hurt Saddam... didn't he just redistribute the resources so that he and his could live comfortably while others suffured more? and the Oil for Food program anyone?

3) "No news shows [during World War II] were showing German civilians getting fried and saying how sad it was. It was war against butchers and war is horrible, but it's war, and to defend human decency, sometimes war is necessary." [Ben Stein]

Stein is a knowledgeable man. He surely knows that the U.S. government imposed draconian censorship of war news during World War II. Perhaps the censors had their reasons for keeping scenes of incinerated German civilians away from the U.S. public. After all, even if Americans in general had extraordinarily cruel and callous attitudes toward German civilians during the war, many Americans had relatives and friends in Germany.actually, WWII was not "Heavily Censored" but Edited by many people. by the time it actually was shown, it usually passed through 2 or 3 different groups of people. remember, back then, "battlefield reporters" were not heard of. so the "News" during WWII was often feild reports passed to the Generals, who dictated the release to the secretaries then passed to the news services, who re-wrote them for public viewing/listening. the war where Censorship was first used with a heavy hand for American Media was Vietnam.

Stein appears to lump all Germans into the class of "butchers" against whom he claims the war was being waged. He certainly must understand, however, that many persons in Germany―children, for example―were not butchers and bore absolutely no responsibility for the actions of government officials who were. Yet these innocents, too, suffered the dire effects of, among other things, the terror bombing the U.S. and British air forces inflicted on many German cities.again, a mis direction. please show where the war was against ALL GERMANS? no we were fighting the butchers. again the author tries his own brand of misdirection.

To say, as Stein and many others have said, that "war is war" gets us nowhere; in a moral sense, this tautology warrants nothing. Evidently, however, many people consider all moral questions about the conduct of war to have been settled simply by their having labeled or by their having accepted someone else's labeling of certain actions as a "war." Having uttered this exculpatory incantation over the state's organized violence, they believe that all transgressions associated with it are automatically absolved―as they say, "all's fair in love and war." It does not help matters that regimes treat some of the most egregious transgressors as heroes.the quote I think this person is rilled against is this. It was war against butchers and war is horrible, but it's war. what Stein was saying that, yes, it's Horrible, that's because its the nature of War. nowhere does Stein say that atrocities committed during war is absolved. that is a conclusion the author is taking.

Finally, Stein's claim that "to defend human decency, sometimes war is necessary" is, at best, paradoxical, because it says in effect that sometimes human indecency, which war itself surely exemplifies, is necessary to defend human decency. Perhaps he had in mind the backfires that fire fighters sometimes set to help them extinguish fires. This metaphor, however, seems farfetched in connection with war. It is difficult to think of anything that consists of so many different forms of indecency as war does. Not only is its essence the large-scale wreaking of death and destruction, but its side effects and its consequences in the aftermath run a wide range of evils as well. Whatever else war may be, it surely qualifies as the most indecent type of action people can take: it reduces them to the level of the most ferocious beasts and often accomplishes little more than setting the stage for the next, reactive round of savagery. In any event, considered strictly as a way of sustaining human decency, it gets a failing grade every time, because it invariably magnifies the malignity that it purports to resist. so here, the Author is saying that it is better that Europe and Asia lie down and let Hitler's regime run roughshod over them. after all, inorder to have WAR, there must be at least TWO opposing sides. thus to the aurthor's mind, to preserve human decency, Europe should've let Hitler take over and murder all those Jews and leave America to being a part of the British Empire.

(4) "War is horrible, but slavery is worse." [Winston Churchill]

Maybe slavery is worse, but maybe it's not; it depends on the conditions of the war and the conditions of the slavery. Moreover, if one seeks to justify a war on the strength of this statement, he had best be completely certain that but for war, slavery will be the outcome. In many wars, however, slavery was never a possibility, because neither side sought to enslave its enemy. Many wars have been fought for limited objectives, if only because more ambitious objectives appeared unattainable or not worth the cost. No war in U.S. history may be accurately seen as having been waged to prevent the enslavement of the American people. Some people talk that way about World War II or, if it be counted as a war, the Cold War, but such talk has no firm foundation in facts.HEY! He's saying Slavery's OK as long as you don Whip deir asses... so much for Equal Opportunity. the works of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and others...
Didn't the Romans make slaves from their conqured people?
and, yes, it's true that WWII, Hitler did not want to ENSLAVE the Jews. :rolleyes: but fighting the Nazis was still wrong in his eyes, since nothing GOOD or DECENT comes from war.

Now note, after this, there is no mention on who says the quotes he uses.

(6) "War is horrible, but sometimes we need to fight."

Need to fight for what? The objective dictates whether war is a necessary means for its attainment. Certainly, if the objective was to preserve Americans' freedoms and "way of life," the U.S. government did not need to fight most of the enemies against whom it waged war historically. Remarkably, the only time the enemy actually posed such a threat, which was during the Cold War, the United States did not go to war against that enemy directly, although it did fight (unnecessarily) the enemy's less-menacing allies, North Korea, China, and North Vietnam. In the other wars, the United States might well have remained at peace had U.S. leaders been interested in peace rather than committed to warfare.
and he's forgetting treaties and pacs that are made with our allies. Vietnam, we were asked to help but ended up doing all the fighting. same with Korea.

but hey... according to Mr Higgs so far, he wants Nuclear missles in Cuba aimed at the US. he wants America to sit alone and not come to the aid of those who ask for it...

(7) "Of course war is horrible, but it will always exist, and I'm sick of these pacifist [expletive deleted] ruining any shred of political decency that they can manage."

Many people have observed that wars have recurred for thousands of years and therefore will probably continue to occur from time to time. The unstated insinuation seems to be that in view of war's long-running recurrence, nothing can be done about it, so we should all grow up and admit that war is as natural, and hence as unobjectionable, as the sun's rising in the east each morning. It's "how the world works."

This outlook contains at least two difficulties. First, many other conditions also have had long-running histories: for example, reliance on astrologers as experts in foretelling the future; affliction with cancers; submission to rulers who claim to dominate their subjects by virtue of divine descent or appointment; and many others. Eventually, people overcame each of these long-established conditions. Science revealed that astrology is nothing more than an elaborate body of superstition; scientists and doctors discovered how to control or cure certain forms of cancer; and citizens learned to laugh at the pretensions of rulers who claim divine descent or appointment (at least, they had learned until George W. Bush successfully revived the doctrine among the benighted rubes who form the Republican base). Because wars spring in large part from people's stupidity, ignorance, and gullibility, it is conceivable that alleviation of these conditions might have the effect of diminishing warfare, if not of eliminating it altogether. actually, war spings from (in my opinion) 5 sources, Power, Land, Pride, Freedom, and Lies. I tell you what Mr Higgs. if you can remove the Desire for and Occurances of these 5 sources, then you remove WAR. I'm sure Science will find a way. ;)

Second, even if nothing can be done about the periodic outbreak of war, it does not follow that we ought to shut up and accept it without complaint. No serious person expects, say, that evil can be eliminated from the human condition, yet we condemn it and struggle against its expression in human affairs. We strive to divert potential evildoers from their malevolent course of action. Scientists and doctors continue to seek cures for cancers that have afflicted humanity for millennia. Even conditions that cannot be wholly eliminated can sometimes be mitigated, but only if someone tries to mitigate them.anyone notices that the bolded area smacks of "Thougth Police", illegal Wiretaps, and contiual survelance? I don't know about other Governments, but outside of Iraq, we tend to Punnish Evildoers when they put in motion their malevolent course of action.

(8) "Every war is horrible, but freedom and justice cannot be allowed to be defeated by tyranny and injustice. As hideous as war is it is not as hideous as the things it can stop and prevent."

This statement assumes that war amounts to a contest between freedom and justice on one side and tyranny and injustice on the other. One scarcely commits the dreaded sin of moral equivalence, however, by observing that few wars present such a stark contrast, in which only the children of God fight on one side and only the children of Satan fight on the other. One reason why war is so horrible is that it invariably drags into its charnel house many―again, the children are the most undeniable examples―who must be held blameless for any actions or threats that might have incited the war.can anyone name any war outside of Iraq where it's Morally Equivalent?

and yes, Justice and Freedom vs Tyranny and Injust... oh I forgot... he is for Slavery and actually wanted Hitler, Kaiser and others to rule over everyone else.

Even if we set aside such clear-cut innocents and consider only persons in the upper echelons of the conflicting sides, it is rare to find all angels on one side and all demons on the other. In World War II, for example, the Allied states were led by such angels as Winston Churchill, who relished the horrific terror bombing of German cities; Josef Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers of all time; Franklin D. Roosevelt, of whose moral uprightness the less said the better; and Harry S Truman, who took pleasure in annihilating hundreds of thousands of defenseless Japanese noncombatants first with incendiary bombs and ultimately with nuclear weapons. Yes, the other side had Adolf Hitler, whose fiendishness I have no desire to deny, but the overall character of the leadership on both sides sufficiently attests that there was enough evil to go around. As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that once engaged, the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities of every imaginable size and shape.hehehehe... seletive choices here... does he mention the sneak attack authorized by the Japanese Emporer? that lead to the bombing of Japan. also the Bombings the Germans did were, of course, done in RETALIATION to the bombings done by Britan... according to Higgs so far...

So, it is far from clear that war is always or even typically "not as hideous as the things it can stop and prevent." On many occasions, refusal to resort to war, even in the face of undeniable evils, may still be the better course. When World War II ended, leaving more than 62 million dead, most of them civilians, and hundreds of millions displaced, homeless, wounded, sick, or impoverished, the survivors might well have doubted whether conditions would have been even more terrible had the war not taken place. (The dead were unavailable for comment.) To make matters worse, owing to the war, the monster Stalin had gained control of an enormous area stretching from Czechoslovakia to Korea; and soon, because of the defeat of the Japanese Empire, the monster Mao Zedong would take complete control of China and impose a murderous reign of terror on the world's most populous country that cost the lives of perhaps another 60 million persons (as many as 77 million, according to one plausible estimate). It is difficult to believe that the situation in China would have been so awful even if the Japanese had succeeded in incorporating the Chinese into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.and notice, he doesn't postulate what would happen if WWII was not fought. Europe, all of it, would be under the Nazi Flag. Jews would be dead and the Great Aryan race would rule. China would be under Japan's rule... Thats the future that Higgs wants. since the war was more hedious than the Holocaust...

(9) "I grant you the war is horrible, but it is a war, after all. You have to compare apples to apples, and when I do that, I see this war is going well."

This statement about the current war in Iraq exemplifies what some call the not-as-bad-as-Hamburg-Dresden-Tokyo-Hiroshima-Nagasaki defense of brutal warfare. If we make such pinnacles of savagery our standard, then sure enough, everything else pales by comparison. But why should anyone adopt such a grotesque standard? To do so is to concede that anything less horrible than the very worst cases is "not so bad." In truth, warfare's effects are sufficiently hideous at every level. What the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon recently bears no comparison with the February 1945 Allied attack on Dresden, of course, but the sight of even one little Lebanese child, dead, her bloody body gruesomely mangled by an explosion, ought to be enough to give pause to any proponent of resort to war. Try putting yourself in the place of that child's mother.one Lebanese child... how about one British child killed because a suicide bombed blew up the bus this child and his/her family was on in london. how about the look of the Spanish child as the train he was riding was bombed. or the child flying on a plane that was hijacked on 9/11? or a German teen who was blown up when the nightclub they went to was bombed. or all those children who were not killed but were left without a father or/and mother due to terrorist bombings? no, he's only arguing the Horrors of WAR here.

(12) "War is horrible but some economic good came out of World War II. It brought the United States out of one of the greatest slumps in history, the Great Depression."

This venerable broken-window fallacy refuses to die, no matter how many times a stake is driven through its heart. Most Americans believe it. Worse, because less excusable, nearly all historians and even a large majority of economists do so as well. I've been whacking this nonsense for several decades, but so far as I can tell, I've scarcely made a dent in it. Should anyone care to see a complete counterargument, I recommend the first five chapters of my book Depression, War, and Cold War (2006).maybe because you can't dent it because it's true.

oh and we see his true purpose here...

so to recap... Higgs belives that War should never be fought. no matter what the cause or what was done, war should never be started. thus when Hitler invaded Poland and began the establishment of the third Riech... it was not Hitler's fault, but France, Spain, England, and the USA's fault because if no one fights back, then it's not WAR. After Pearl Harbor, America should've sat back and cursed Japan... leaving them to invade China. after 9/11, we should've done what AlQuaida wanted us to do... sit scared in our homes.

but hey, in Higgs's mind, that's ok, we'd have our humanly treated Slaves to keep us company.

"Well-treated slave" seems to me to be an oxymoron.

It is very much armchair politics. There have always been wars, as they are part of human nature. Fighting isn't really the same as war, but makes a good analogy. If somebody starts making insults about you and your friends, is rude and discourteous, and looks like he's about to take a swing at you, what do you do? What you say you do is that you walk away, discuss it with him, or ignore him, but of course what you really do, regardless of what you want to say, is fight him back.

Begoner21;11688722']The author of that article suggested that sanctions would have been a better preliminary step. Quoting from the article: "has evil conduct never been stopped except by war? For example, has shunning―exclusion from commerce, financial systems, communications, transportation systems, and other means of international cooperation―never served to discipline an evil nation-state?"

you know i didnt read that article, it was way too long and too boring

but

sanctions were tried with iraq. they were unsuccessful in that it was utterly impossible for hussein to comply with them. he had be completely disarmed in iraq 1 with the remnants of his wmd destroyed afterwards by UN inspectors. he had nothing left.

the after-gulf-1 sanctions were designed to drive saddam hussein from power. they didnt. all they did was to keep iraq oil in the black market and contribute to the deaths of a large number of iraqi civilians.

While I agree with the basic idea behind the article... A lot of it seems somewhat vague, and I got the impression that some qoutes were taken slightly out of context. Good ideas, iffy execution of them.

I like how he offers up realistic reasons and uses facts rather then most anti war people who just spew out so and so many people are dead and that is so bad. We need more people who can back up there claims, anti war and otherwise. Read "War" by Gwynne Dyer. He is a former navy man, and a military historian. He has written a comprehensive history of war as a social institution, and why it needs to be dispensed with.

Or who have fought in REAL combat and understand what the fighting men go through so they won't just see 200 dead as a statistic.
Been there, done that, have the Combat Medic Badge, memories, and occasional bad dreams. If they'd take me, I'd go again. We are facing people who have been killing US just because we're US for 30 something years. If you want a specific name/date then 20 years. Leon Klinghoffer October 8 , 1985
As far as I'm concerned, we're on the verge of a full World War. Those who follow what is being called "The Religion of Peace" vs everyone else.


Maybe someone who isn't a redneck from Texas,
What's wrong with being a redneck from Texas?

a state that highest one of the highest crime rates

If they'd
1. Put the employers in jail
2. Build a wall to STOP THE CRIMINAL "IMMIGRANTS" from coming in.
3. Send those that are here back
you'd be surprised by the number of crimes that wouldn't be committed. I deal with the statistics and yes we'd have about a 30% drop in almost all crime categories ASAP after doing 1, 2, & 3 above.

and Execution rates in the country, and is proud of it.
What's wrong with a high execution rate?

I don't know what world you live in but mine is inhabited by some people who pollute the air simply by exhaling. There are TRUELY EVIL people out there. I have no problem with exercising retroactive birth control on those folks.

War is horrible, but we need some reason to watch the news.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

Thoughts?
Last paragraph says it all:

If someone demands that the skeptic about war offer constructive criticism, here is my proposal: always insist that the burden of proof rest heavily on the warmonger. This protocol, which is now anything but standard operating procedure, is eminently judicious because, as we all recognize, war is horrible. Given its horrors, which in reality are much greater than most people appreciate, it only makes sense that those who propose to enter into those horrors make a very, very strong case for doing so. If they cannot―and I submit that they almost never can―then people will serve their interests best by declining an invitation to war. As a rule, the most rational, humane, and auspicious course of action is indeed to give peace a chance.

Last Paragraph (bolded):

"If someone demands that the skeptic about war offer constructive criticism, here is my proposal: always insist that the burden of proof rest heavily on the warmonger.

Absolutely. But what would this "proof" consist of to people who consider ANY military behavior to be "evil"?

The "proof" should look something like this:

1) The "Warmonger" presents their best case to those representatives ("Reps") of the people who's job it is to decide on these things, as far as they have powers to do so.

2) The "Reps" decide to fund the action, or not, in the aggregate (majority vote of some sort).

3) The "Warmonger" does whatever he feels needs doing, with the money he has to do it with.

4) The population in aggregate decide AFTER THE FACT whether it was a good decision on BOTH the Reps' and the Warmongers' parts, and votes them in or out (as individuals) during the next election cycle.

5) The story of the nation is written further...

This protocol, which is now anything but standard operating procedure, is eminently judicious because, as we all recognize, war is horrible. Given its horrors, which in reality are much greater than most people appreciate, it only makes sense that those who propose to enter into those horrors make a very, very strong case for doing so.

True. And yet,.. who decides, ultimately, whether to go to war or not..?


If they cannot―and I submit that they almost never can..

They NEVER can if those making the decision to go to war feel that ANY war is "evil",.. but would it be wise to have those people "in charge" of making those decisions?

The answer to THAT question tells me precisely where you stand in regards to the use of any military force.


..―then people will serve their interests best by declining an invitation to war. As a rule, the most rational, humane, and auspicious course of action is indeed to give peace a chance."

A war is not a "party" for human intercourse (old definition).

A war is a surgical/medical activity.

Wars, like surgeries, will never go away, until the very "biology" of humanity is changed. Warlike "surgeries" can diminish in number, if more "healthy" ways of living can be promulgated (capitalistic freedom).

My contention is that this biology can not be changed, and that those who believe that it can, while well meaning, are to be treated precisely like those who believe that "all medical problems can be healed by faith and by faith alone".

Any admission that "military force" has ANY utility admits that "war is a useful function".

It should NEVER be entered into lightly, as it's MUCH more horrible than anyone can imagine, but it's very characteristic of "horribleness" is what makes it a useful and powerful a deterent to "evil human ignorance".

(( By "evil human ignorance" I mean the ability of some humans to "ignore" the consequences of their actions. ))


-Iakeo

The author believes, as do other Misesians, that the only justifiable war is one fought purely in self-defense.

I prefer striking my enemy before he strikes me.

GERMANY WAS NOT BEHIND SEPTEMBER 7TH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last Paragraph (bolded):

"If someone demands that the skeptic about war offer constructive criticism, here is my proposal: always insist that the burden of proof rest heavily on the warmonger.

Absolutely. But what would this "proof" consist of to people who consider ANY military behavior to be "evil"?

The "proof" should look something like this:

1) The "Warmonger" presents their best case to those representatives ("Reps") of the people who's job it is to decide on these things, as far as they have powers to do so.

2) The "Reps" decide to fund the action, or not, in the aggregate (majority vote of some sort).

3) The "Warmonger" does whatever he feels needs doing, with the money he has to do it with.

4) The population in aggregate decide AFTER THE FACT whether it was a good decision on BOTH the Reps' and the Warmongers' parts, and votes them in or out (as individuals) during the next election cycle.

5) The story of the nation is written further...

This protocol, which is now anything but standard operating procedure, is eminently judicious because, as we all recognize, war is horrible. Given its horrors, which in reality are much greater than most people appreciate, it only makes sense that those who propose to enter into those horrors make a very, very strong case for doing so.

True. And yet,.. who decides, ultimately, whether to go to war or not..?


If they cannot―and I submit that they almost never can..

They NEVER can if those making the decision to go to war feel that ANY war is "evil",.. but would it be wise to have those people "in charge" of making those decisions?

The answer to THAT question tells me precisely where you stand in regards to the use of any military force.


..―then people will serve their interests best by declining an invitation to war. As a rule, the most rational, humane, and auspicious course of action is indeed to give peace a chance."

A war is not a "party" for human intercourse (old definition).

A war is a surgical/medical activity.

Wars, like surgeries, will never go away, until the very "biology" of humanity is changed. Warlike "surgeries" can diminish in number, if more "healthy" ways of living can be promulgated (capitalistic freedom).

My contention is that this biology can not be changed, and that those who believe that it can, while well meaning, are to be treated precisely like those who believe that "all medical problems can be healed by faith and by faith alone".

Any admission that "military force" has ANY utility admits that "war is a useful function".

It should NEVER be entered into lightly, as it's MUCH more horrible than anyone can imagine, but it's very characteristic of "horribleness" is what makes it a useful and powerful a deterent to "evil human ignorance".

(( By "evil human ignorance" I mean the ability of some humans to "ignore" the consequences of their actions. ))

-Iakeo
You have gone and complicated the whole ideology.

Your premise is that man can never evolve from his primordial instincts.

And I guess you will use that as your excuse to promote war rather than peace?

You have gone and complicated the whole ideology.

Your premise is that man can never evolve from his primordial instincts.

And I guess you will use that as your excuse to promote war rather than peace?

Not at all. :)

Man (humans) have evolved sociological systems that handle (with varying degrees of success) all known "biological" problems.

My point is that "war" is as necessary a function as "blood", or "bones", because man will never relinquish the ability to be able to selectively ignore some parts of his environment while fixating on other parts.

When man does "evil" he's selectively ignoring those parts of the environment (his conscience, the cries of his victims, etc) that would naturally prompt him to stop doing evil things, so that he can "enjoy" the fruits of his evil deeds.

As long as this is possible, there will be those who locally try to gain pleasure from their evil, and when this evil-doer has set up systems which make it locally impossible for him to be "overthrown", the only QUICK (and therefore humane) way for this evil-doer to be excised is through the human function of war.

War is nothing more than removing evil things as quickly as possible.

When we are bitten by a mosquito, we make war on it. (swat!)

This is not something that can be "evolved out of".



To PROMOTE war is like PROMOTING SURGERY.

Why, or HOW, would one PROMOTE surgery..?


-Iakeo

I will not, nor will I ever turn the other cheek. I'll come back with a right hook.

No, what you do is duck and then kick them in the last spot they'd want to be kicked... then proceed to remove all weapons from their control.

Or do it ninja style and run under them, kick their gut upwards, and then jump-kick their sorry @$$. (Saw that somewhere...)

I'd like to point out that technology often advances most rapidly during war. Without WW2 we would not have the jet. Without the Cold War we would not have landed on the moon.

This guy talks about blockades in his second point for stopping evil. We actually tried that once. On Cuba. It didn't work.

In his third point he seems to defend WW2 Germany saying that war wasn't justified because too many civilians were killed. They were being ruled by a facist, single-party state with genocidal tendancies. Not good. You don't just let someone get a free pass to do anything, like kill millions of innocents, because they've got a human sheild. I'm part German, I have family over there, and even with that I'd still be for a war against Nazi Germany because it wasn't the real Germany, it was a rabid cat in sheeps lederhosen.

In his fourth he states that slavery might be a good thing. Try telling that a black guy just about anywhere in the US. I don't think you'd get a good response. He also says that the US never fought a war to prevent the enslavement of our people. During the Civil war, the most costly and bloodiest on our record, we fought to free American slaves and prevent the further enslavement of Americans.

In his sixth he says that we never justified with anyone except the Soviets. How about the first one we fought? The one that made this a sovereign nation? Or the one to end slavery and preserve the nation? Or the one to end the mass slaughter in Europe? The Nazis were working on nukes and giant cannons. If we didn't get involved when we did they might have finished those projects and just plowed over everyone nearly unopposed.

In number seven he implies that conservatives worship Bush as a god.

After that I just could not handle the bitter hatred of this militant pacifist. It's saddening that someone could be so deluded. What's worse is that he has a choir eager to hear and parrot his sermon.

No, what you do is duck and then kick them in the last spot they'd want to be kicked... then proceed to remove all weapons from their control.

Or do it ninja style and run under them, kick their gut upwards, and then jump-kick their sorry @$$. (Saw that somewhere...)

Well, yeah, but I'm just making a play on the old saying.

Begoner21;11688473']I don't get it. He's just making up a bunch of bullshit reasons about why we shouldn't have gone to war -- he prefers the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, apparently, to war.

Those sanctions were a form of undecleared war.

War is horrible, but we need some reason to watch the news.

That's what sports are for.

Sport is not proper news. That's why it gets pushed to the back section of newspapers.

As far as I'm concerned, we're on the verge of a full World War. Those who follow what is being called "The Religion of Peace" vs everyone else.


Hmmm ... us against them. If it worked for Oceania ...


I don't know what world you live in but mine is inhabited by some people who pollute the air simply by exhaling. Or by driving their excessively large, highly inefficient American-made cars.

This guy talks about blockades in his second point for stopping evil. We actually tried that once. On Cuba. It didn't work.


If you meant the Cuban Missile Crisis, it stopped a nuclear holoclaust by forcing a new balance of power.

The United States tried military force too, that became known as the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

(1) "War is horrible. But no one wants to see a world in which a regime with no regard whatsoever for international law―for the welfare of its own people―or for the will of the United Nations―has weapons of mass destruction." [U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage]

With the exception of "its own people" thats America, really.

There are many countries which do those things, but virtually no country which does all of them at once.

Intriguing.

As far has the history of mankind their has always been some sort of war and until the last of mankind is deceased there will always be a war. As for the dictators that choose to kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, restrict women to their home fronts and to have laws not given the women a chance for any education, to beat them, to torture, to gas your own people. Well, I'll be damned somebody needs to stand up for the People for a change. I find it funny how the world cries for human rights but a lot seems to take the side of Saddam Hussein who has gased his own people and have their women stay at home with covered faces and prevented them from getting educated and not allowed to vote and to beat them if they spoke of any of their own opinions. I would of thought that the world would be happy for the Iraqi women who now are going to school and now are allowed to vote by the countless numbers. If you talk to an Iraqi women today, They would tell you that yes they are happy and enjoy attending the schools and going to vote and yes they are also sad for the continued violence.
As Americans, we see the rights of women and we don't agree with enslaving women as if they were animals. We pleaded our case with the world and a lot chose to send their little bit of help while America once again does the most and a lot of other countries have and continue to choose to turn their backs on the Iraqi People including their women. Well, as Americans we feel that all People have the right to education, to elections, etc... And to be quite honest, Saddam Hussein, it saddens me that he wasn't taking out sooner. We asked the world for their help and a lot chose to ignore us and to me that was them choosing that the Iraqi women should not have any rights at all. This war in Iraq could of been a lot smoother if the world would of seen these atrocities committed against the people by an evil dictator. As for the UN, which in my opinion has completely failed as an organization, as for France I see why their government fought to prevent America, which in itself is quite funny but anyways with the french government having secret deals with the Saddam mainly over the oil for food which in my eyes turned into oil for blood. I ask the world if the Iraqi Women should have any rights at all?

The only justification he had to sending us too war was the Weopons.

That's because Korea actually has weapons.

Bush may not be the smartest cookie... but he wasn't dumb enough to attack a country that actually could hurt us.

Even if Iraq did have weapons it wouldn't have been able to attack America with them because it's too far away. Of course, it might have threatened Kuwait, Iran, Syria, or Turkey.

Even if Iraq did have weapons it wouldn't have been able to attack America with them because it's too far away. Of course, it might have threatened Kuwait, Iran, Syria, or Turkey, but they weren't America and Britain's apparent concerns when they went to war.

Certainly not the ones we claimed when we started the killing.

...when we started the killing.

War isn't about killing people. It's about frightening them into submission and surrender. Sometimes this involves killing some of your enemy or threatening them with harm. Sometimes it involves showing off superior weapons and a larger army. Sometimes it depends on propaganda. The main objective of war is not to kill people, but to make them surrender.

War isn't about killing people. It's about frightening them into submission and surrender. Sometimes this involves killing some of your enemy or threatening them with harm. Sometimes it involves showing off superior weapons and a larger army. Sometimes it depends on propaganda. The main objective of war is not to kill people, but to make them surrender.

I thought that was the main objective of terrorism?

What would be the difference between our actions in Iraq, and the 9/11 tragedy, if we accept that deifnition?

I also find myself thinking... If the goal of war isn't killing people, what's with all the mines, daisycutters, nuclear technology... guns, etc? Why would we still be at 'war' in Iraq, after the leadership we were supposed to be after was deposed?

Killing might not be the 'goal'... but it is certainly a large part of the process.

I find objectionable his total rejection of all war. This is an article born of pacifism, and that is a dogma that leads most certainly to destruction of self.

War is justified when you have been, or are being, coerced with force by a third power, to do something against your will. You are justified to defend yourself in such circumstances.
Self-defence isn't really war, it's resistance.

I prefer striking my enemy before he strikes me.

GERMANY WAS NOT BEHIND SEPTEMBER 7TH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Do unto others before they do unto you"? Is that it then? Still, it can't be applied to the Iraq war. Hussein could never attack America.

I am a monger monger. I exist to monger...WAR is just an extension of diplomacy by other methods.

"As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that once engaged, the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities of every imaginable size and shape."

Thats just an insult to the thousands of brave men that went out to fight and die in the wars of the past. These people saved lives and commited amazing acts of courage and bravery, far above the norm of any citizen (especially the writer of the article, it would seem, who understands little of what war really is, only the political contexts behind it). To say that they "routinely" commit atrocities and imply that they obviously don't care about said atrocities (remember, they're brutalized) is just crazy.
In wars such as world war II, men did have to do terrible things (think of the person that had to switch the gas chamber on in a nazi concentration camp, for example) but it would not be routine or normal, and i can bet these men had nightmares about it for a long time. They were not brutalized at all.

"As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that once engaged, the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities of every imaginable size and shape."

Thats just an insult to the thousands of brave men that went out to fight and die in the wars of the past. These people saved lives and commited amazing acts of courage and bravery, far above the norm of any citizen (especially the writer of the article, it would seem, who understands little of what war really is, only the political contexts behind it). To say that they "routinely" commit atrocities and imply that they obviously don't care about said atrocities (remember, they're brutalized) is just crazy.
In wars such as world war II, men did have to do terrible things (think of the person that had to switch the gas chamber on in a nazi concentration camp, for example) but it would not be routine or normal, and i can bet these men had nightmares about it for a long time. They were not brutalized at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets

"We’ve never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn’t kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: 'You’ve killed so many civilians.' That’s their tough luck for being there." - Paul Tibbets to Studs Terkel, 2002 [1]

Humane. Very humane. I'm thinking he didn't really have any nightmares. At all.

If they'd
1. Put the employers in jail
2. Build a wall to STOP THE CRIMINAL "IMMIGRANTS" from coming in.
3. Send those that are here back
you'd be surprised by the number of crimes that wouldn't be committed. I deal with the statistics and yes we'd have about a 30% drop in almost all crime categories ASAP after doing 1, 2, & 3 above.


Right. Becuase only illegal immigrants commit crimes. And when they do it, it's because they are illegal immigrants, not because they are poor.

The reality my friend, is that the US requires a permanently poor underclass in order for its economy to function the way it does ... you need the cheap labour. If it is not illegal immigrants, it will be someone else.


What's wrong with a high execution rate?


Two things: it's not an effective deterrent, and with the number of wrongful conviction that occur in the US in capital cases (as proven by the hundereds of inmates released from death row based on more recent evidence) means it is virtually certain you are frequently executing innocent people.

JiangGuo, the blockade didn't get rid of what was alread there and it didn't topple a government. I know that we tried military force too but it got screwed up. If you screw up military force you'll lose but at least with a fight you have a chance to win.

Outer Glaven, a wall would never work. People'd either climb over it or dig under it.

Evil Cantadia, some people just deserve to die. When you're really sure you've got the right man, when there's no about his guilt, and he did something that warrants death, he should get it. There are some times when capital punishment is ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Embrough
War isn't about killing people. It's about frightening them into submission and surrender. Sometimes this involves killing some of your enemy or threatening them with harm. Sometimes it involves showing off superior weapons and a larger army. Sometimes it depends on propaganda. The main objective of war is not to kill people, but to make them surrender.


I thought that was the main objective of terrorism?

Firstly, HOWDY Grave..!! :) {iakeo "the oft banned" here}

It is the main objective of terrorism. All war is terrorism, be it symmetrical or asymmetrical. The choice of tactics and "behaviors" is up to the parties involved, which is the only difference between the various forms of warfare.

BUT,.. if you choose THE WRONG (ie evil, however you define that) tactics and behaviors you are due the label "TERRORIST" by those who think you're doing evil things.

[/quote]
What would be the difference between our actions in Iraq, and the 9/11 tragedy, if we accept that deifnition?[/quote]

Individual actions are judged according to the "wants" of the judges.

Individual actions are taken (performed) by the "wants" of the performers.

It is REALLY a surprise that occassionally these "wants" don't match..?


I also find myself thinking... If the goal of war isn't killing people, what's with all the mines, daisycutters, nuclear technology... guns, etc? Why would we still be at 'war' in Iraq, after the leadership we were supposed to be after was deposed?

Killing might not be the 'goal'... but it is certainly a large part of the process.

In the (really) OLD days, war meant extermination of the opponent, on the genetic level.

Then we decided that there were benefits in not completely exterminating the opponent,.. such as slaves, ready tribute givers, etcetera.

Then we decided that the mere threat of war was enough to get what we wanted.

The "threat" portion of this last theory requires that the opponent be REALLY scared of what could happen to them.

The main ingredient of this "threat" is having nastier and more destructive ways of creating pain for the opponent.

The pain of societal collapse (infrastructure destruction) is a GREAT deterent, BUT it only works on those who don't thrive in "developed" societies.

Guess who thrives best in "collapsed" societies? Guess who doesn't consider our massive technological war machine to be a deterent?

When you defeat a "country" by technology, but don't set up a "replacement" society for that country, you've given LAND to the vermin.


-Iakeo

Firstly, HOWDY Grave..!! :) {iakeo "the oft banned" here}

It is the main objective of terrorism. All war is terrorism, be it symmetrical or asymmetrical. The choice of tactics and "behaviors" is up to the parties involved, which is the only difference between the various forms of warfare.

BUT,.. if you choose THE WRONG (ie evil, however you define that) tactics and behaviors you are due the label "TERRORIST" by those who think you're doing evil things.

Individual actions are judged according to the "wants" of the judges.

Individual actions are taken (performed) by the "wants" of the performers.

It is REALLY a surprise that occassionally these "wants" don't match..?


In the (really) OLD days, war meant extermination of the opponent, on the genetic level.

Then we decided that there were benefits in not completely exterminating the opponent,.. such as slaves, ready tribute givers, etcetera.

Then we decided that the mere threat of war was enough to get what we wanted.

The "threat" portion of this last theory requires that the opponent be REALLY scared of what could happen to them.

The main ingredient of this "threat" is having nastier and more destructive ways of creating pain for the opponent.

The pain of societal collapse (infrastructure destruction) is a GREAT deterent, BUT it only works on those who don't thrive in "developed" societies.

Guess who thrives best in "collapsed" societies? Guess who doesn't consider our massive technological war machine to be a deterent?

When you defeat a "country" by technology, but don't set up a "replacement" society for that country, you've given LAND to the vermin.


-Iakeo

Agreements all round, I think.

Sigh. It would be nice if you were less 'oft-deleted'. You were far from the worst element on the forum. Hell, I can think of half a dozen people who will probably post today, that went further, and are a LOT more abrasive than you ever were. Indeed - you got in trouble for being (perceived as)harsh to another poster, but Eutrusca is still totting up the hours after talking about how he wants to strap explosives to his body and blow up mosques...

There ain't no justice.

You are missed, my friend. Hopefully, one day, the powers that be will re-assess your situation.

No, actually, Iakeo wore out his welcome by posting past ban repeatedly -- as he continues to do.

This was not the way to request we reassess the situation. He's DOS, thank you.

No, actually, Iakeo wore out his welcome by posting past ban repeatedly -- as he continues to do.

This was not the way to request we reassess the situation. He's DOS, thank you.

I wasn't requesting anything. If I'd been making the request, I'd have thought the Moderation forum would have been a better place to do it.

I was posting a response to clamsands, in which I expressed sadness at his deletion, and a hope that he might one day be a regular fixture again. I did not aim it at moderators, nor ask for moderators to act on it.

Indeed, if I were being an 'activist' about it - I would have suggested that Clamsands/iakeokeo/the -keo collective... make his own representation to Moderation, to see whether an appeal might serve a purpose. But, I wasn't.. I was just expressing sympathy.

Off topic ^^^

Begoner21;11688579']The WMDs which Saddam was though to possess was not the only reason that we invaded Iraq. Saddam was also a brutal, oppressive dictator who slaughtered his own people by the thousands and arrested, tortured, and killed political dissidents (quite similar to Kimmy). He also funded the Taliban, and, quite possibly, Al-Qaeda. Why didn't we invade North Korea? Well, I'm pretty sure that South Korea, with their "sunshine" policy would not be too happy with that move. And where else would we be able to invade North Korea from? China?! There are too many hostile countries in that region for us to invade, and I'm sure there would be increased China-US tensions, which might have reached a breaking point.

1. He knew all too well the sectarian strife that we are now learning about today.

2. What is better? People dying through sanctions or people dying from errant bombs?

3. "There is absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda" Senate ntelligence comittee. Yoru crap bout Funding Al Quaeda and the Taliban are completly untrue and you will be unable to priovide a reputable source. So stop making shit up and debate honestly with some integrity you apologistic asshat.