Let me say at the outset that my basic premise here is that most war is totally unnecessary, a waste of precious human life, money and property. That being said, I also suppose there have been, throughout history, just wars. But nevertheless, in most cases, they probably could have been avoided.
People do not wage war against one another generally. It is governments, armies, and leaders who wage war against each other. In many cases, the people are not only caught in the cross-fire, but become its victims.
War is fought by the young, at the behest of the older, supposedly wiser generation. In those cases, it is easy to wage war, when you are not the one who has to fight it. It falls upon the younger, stronger, mostly male members of a society to do it on behalf of all. As a result, a people, a nation can lose the bulk of an entire generation.
It has been said that a general without a war is like an unemployed actor. He needs a war to be important and relevant. In some cases, war is waged to deflect issues at home, to help the people to forget about their own troubles. War can also we used to bolster a weak economy, as a nation shifts to a wartime economy and employs people back home to make the instruments and supplies of war.
Is war necessary? As I stated above, I think it can be avoided. In this modern age of the last 500 years or so, war could have been avoided in most cases had governments paid attention to the warning signs and acted sooner.
Let’s look at a couple of examples.
After the end of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles put serious impositions on Germany. As a result, they were left destitute, poor and shamed. This lead to the rise of Hitler, who, through his dramatic gift of speech, attempted to restore pride in a fallen people. In doing so, he was able to rally the people to support the preparation of the plan to dominate and takeover Europe. Whether the people truly support this notion is debatable, there is no doubt about the rise of the National Socialist Party or Nazis.
For the most part, the rest of the world stood by and watched this take place. Germany violated the Treaty numerous times and continued its build up to what was to become World War II and the Holocaust. Not only did the western powers do nothing, the leader of nations became enthralled with Hitler in large part because he was anti-communist. King Edward VIII of England even paid a visit to Germany in 1937. In short, western governments did nothing to stop Hitler and an ensuing World War cost between 70 million and 90 million lives.
After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the United States went to War in Afghanistan to rid the country of al-Qaeda and its supporters, the Taliban. However, the attacks on the World Trade Center were merely a climax in a series of events and actions that could also have been avoided.
The origin of the al-Qaeda organization is traced largely to the Soviet war in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989). The US, being against the Soviets, channeled money and weapons to the opposition, the Mujahedeen. The Mujahedeen recruited from all across the Arab world and imported fighters, training them in bomb-making, sabotage, and urban guerrilla warfare in camps set up by the CIA. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen eventually took over the government and created the Islamic State of Afghanistan. This gave rise to the Taliban.
In addition, the first Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991) to free Kuwait from the invasion of Iraq inflamed the passions of al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden, in particular because Saudi Arabia refused their help to protect the country and oil fields from the Iraqis and instead allowed the US and its allies to do so. The claim of the radical element of Islam is that the US and other forces profaned the sacred soil of their land and created further animosity against the US.
In short, the western nations again stood by and even, in some cases, aided the creation of the radical elements of Islam, which in turn have waged war against us and led to the bombing of the World Trade Centers, not once but twice. As a result, we have entered into a prolonged war in Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter, with no real end in sight. To date, we have lost over 7000 American and Coalition forces and an estimate of over 1.6M civilian people killed in both countries.
Elder Russell M. Nelson gave a talk in General Conference October 2002 in which he said:
“Nevertheless, scriptures are studded with stories of contention and combat. They strongly condemn wars of aggression but sustain obligations of citizens to defend their families and their freedoms. Because “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” members of this Church will be called into military service of many nations. “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”
“Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must “renounce war and proclaim peace.” (D&C 98:16).
This turned out to be a bit controversial, as it appeared as if he was criticizing the war effort of the US and the Church issued a statement the next day about it.
In some cases, it appears that war is inevitable as one nation invades another. But, could it have been avoided, could lives be saved, property and economies not destroyed and peace reign over the world?
Yes, but, it takes courage to do so. It seems too easy for a President, or other ruler to send his or her people into battle when they are not on the front line, leading the charge.
And these days, most wars seem to end without conclusion, with one side giving up and the other side declaring a hollow victory.
Let me see. What is war good for?
1. Unseat a dictator.
2. Give power back to the people.
3. Repel hostile invasion
Obviously war is ugly. Human lives lost. But it is sometimes necessary.
Great post! I was deployed to Iraq from 2009-2010 and saw first hand what a wast of money and lives that conflict has been. The same can be said, largely, for our efforts in Afghanistan (which I expect to be deployed to soon). I provided health care for the detainees in the largest prison in Iraq (the same detainees that were held in Abu Ghraib after it shut down). I was expecting a lot of bad guys – radicals. Instead, I mostly met a lot of non-radical fathers and young men who were out of work, and needed money to support their families. The only jobs available were the ones aiding the insurgency. They were, on the whole, very appreciative of the health care I provided to them, but I couldn’t help feeling like part of the invading force that ransacked their country. I could only imagine how I’d feel is somebody invaded my country unprovoked. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. But I saw how we made the country even worse.
A few nights ago I was helping my daughter with some homework. We discussed the situation in Iraq, the first and second wars there, and the current situation. We also discussed the estimated $3 trillion we have spent there.
Her points (wisdom from a 9th grader):
1) When told we went to war because of “weapons of mass destruction” and the fact that we never found any, she asked why we even went.
2) When the point about getting rid of Hussein was discussed, she asked if there weren’t leaders all over the world who did the same things in their countries.
3) At the end of the paper, she was supposed to define “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. When I told her it was our name for the second time we went to war there, she found it supremely ironic. We invade their country and call it “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Maybe China could invade us to get rid of our weapons of mass destruction and call it “Operation US Freedom”.
4) She also found it very ironic that we trained Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to fight the Russians, but then we fought them. We were also allies with Hussein to fight Iran, but then invaded his country.
5) Finally, she said that all politicians basically sit around, talk all day but don’t listen to each other, and make us go do stupid wars wasting lives and money. And at the end of the day, nothing changes.
The wisdom of youth. Too bad our leaders don’t generally retain common sense.
JP–great comment from someone who has seen the effects of war first hand.
It might prevent wars if we went back to the times when a nation’s leader led the army personally. Most of our presidents would think twice about starting or escalating wars if they were expected to be on the front line leading the charge.
Mike S,
That is totally awesome on the part of your daughter. I had very similar thoughts as a kid growing up in the Vietnam era.
She is one smart and perceptive young lady!
Thank you as well, JP.
You have a real world perspective on the situation. Unlike the armchair quarterbacks who sit here in the US and actually dispute what you say.
Let’s not forget Pres. Kimball’s teachings:
“We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”
I agree that almost all war can and should be avoided. The Book of Mormon teaches that the only justified wars, and the only wars where the Lord will support us, are the ones where our very homes and families and lands are being attacked. Nothing else is justified, even to unseat a dictator. That excludes just about every war this nation has fought.
Mike S: I think it says a great deal about the military literacy of the average citizen that you couldn’t come up with anything to dispel the “wisdom” of a 9th grader.
1. The Congressional act that authorized the war listed something like 32 reasons to go to war. WMDs was the one advertised the most but the congressional act includes regime change and installing a democracy as reasons as well.
2. Other leaders are as “bad” as Hussein. But having a great many dictators doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t remove that one.
3. Her comparision is rather faulty. There is no comparison between a democray’s invasion of a brutal dictatorship which sponsors terrorism and brutalizes its people with a brutal dictatorship’s invasion of a democracy which seeks to stop terrorism. If the U.S. government was opressing me the way that Saddam was to his people, and Saddam’s sons were raping my daughter I would thank God that they were removed from power.
4. The U.S. is paying the price for adopting the enemy of my enemy approach for whom we support. But the strategic situation of 2003 was far different from that of 1988 so I don’t blame the U.S. for changing its policy towards Saddam.
5. I don’t live palavering politicians either, but that doesn’t mean removing a brutal dictatorship, liberating 50 million people, and killing takfiri terrorists is “stupid”. I would argue however that our Phase three military operations triggered the “accidental guerrilla” syndrome as JP described. While the causes the of war were just the prosecution of the war can and should have been better.
On the matter of the OP: Most wars seem “open ended” today because of the nature of the conflict. The U.S.’s supremacy in conventional operations and the nature of the enemy leads to what military planners call “low intensity” conflict. Fighting these kinds of wars normally takes far longer than the average citizen wants.
I’m also curious to see how your prescription for peace, “courage”, would prevent terrorists from using nuclear weapons, prevent states from sponsoring terrorists, or make dictators choose peace?
For those that are interested, I am currently working on a paper which discusses what the BoM has to say concerning premptive war and I’m looking for qualified reviewers. My conclusion is that the real “sin” is not offensive or even preemptive war, but the hearts and intent of the decision makers.
Thanks for the thought provoking OP.
I read a little bit of Noam Chomsky when I was deployed, and I noticed – while reading -how much propoganda goes into keeping the soldiers and citizenry unaware of the true purposes of war.
In Iraq, I think the only real reason we were there was the oil. The only reason we went, the only reason we made the trumped up charges of WMD, the only reason we fought for their “freedom,” and “democracy,” and got rid of their dictator was the fact that they were sitting on the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. In order to camouflage this fact, we were dupped by our leaders and media into thinking it was all about freedom, and democracy, and WMD.
It’s just amazing at how gullible we all were (or at least most of us – including me). I will forever be skeptical of the reasons our government gives about why we need to invade another country.
JP,
“I read a little bit of Noam Chomsky when I was deployed, and I noticed – while reading -how much propoganda goes into keeping the soldiers and citizenry unaware of the true purposes of war.”
I was thinking of addressing that in the post, but it was getting too long. Military boot camp is designed to break the individual down and re-build them in the image of the unit. Therefore they are indoctrinated to beleive their mission is just. They have to be. Why would you risk your life for something you didn’t fully beleive in and commit to.
I was going to compare it to the MTC, which essentially does the same thing. It’s probably no different in any other organization that requires the loyalty and focus of its member to complete its mission and goals.
JP,
“It’s just amazing at how gullible we all were (or at least most of us – including me). I will forever be skeptical of the reasons our government gives about why we need to invade another country.”
In WWI and WWII, the people back home were intimately involved in the sacrifice of the war effort. they had to ration, they had to work in the factories and they had to BUY BONDS to finance the war.
In this day and age, what do we sacrifice. Other than those with family and friends in harm’s way, we mostly go about our business and watch the war on the nightly news.
We have, as a people, no stake in it at all, other than a personal family one.
It would probably be a good idea to read the actual resolution here. The whole idea of regime change is way down the list.
Morgan D,
I almost don’t know where to begin to address your comment. Since you have such a strong POV as to be critical of young girl exercising her thinking process and asking important questions, it is probably no use.
but here is one point, I’ll make.
“I’m also curious to see how your prescription for peace, “courage”, would prevent terrorists from using nuclear weapons, prevent states from sponsoring terrorists, or make dictators choose peace?”
It starts by not letting them be created in the first place. In the examples I gave, it is clear that the US and other nations had some direct responsibility in either creating or not stopping the situation that led to the circumstance of war.
It is not always possible, but if you do not make an effort you can hardly blame the effect when not addressing the cause.
Morgan,
1) While there may have been 32 listed reasons, the reasons given to the public to sell them on the war were WMDs and intimate contacts with al-Qaeda, both of which turned out to be false. All the other reasons were just bureaucratic filler, and none justified the war.
2) The reason it is important to understand why Hussein was targeted and not other dictators is to try to understand the real reason we went to war. As noted by other posters, the only plausible explanation is oil, which is despicable.
3) These are not justifiable reasons to go to war as taught by the Book of Mormon and modern prophets, even though they are truly awful. And Iraq had no meaningful ties to terrorist groups.
4) Your first sentence is true. Preventing war starts with foreign policy that will not lead to war in the future, which America is very bad at.
5) The causes of the war were not just, and those, again, are not justifiable reasons to start a war as understood from the Gospel point of view.
Part of the peace process is dismantling and securing nuclear weapons so they cannot fall into the hands of rogue states and terrorists. We should be striving for a nuclear arms-free world, but we hear too much saber-rattling about giving up our nukes.
Before this thread gets out of hand — my thoughts on war is that — When manipulated by older men [with little energy left], young men [with a lot of energy to spare] get sent off to foreign countries to expend the energy they’d otherwise be spending on wholesome activities like copulation on absolutely grotesque ones like killing.
Though I’ve read SunnofaBCRich’s comments on WWII, etc. on other posts and see the point he makes — I know that humans would all be better off it we’d just put that energy into sex with spouses rather than going somewhere and blowing some other young man’s guts out.
I appreciate the feedback Jeff. But don’t matters of life and death deserve critical thinking? I simply offered the counterpoints and critical feedback to a student that the parent should have and I hope that 9th grader’s teacher did the same. I do work as a teacher and I feel my coumments were no more acerbic than they would be to any of my students.
If I’m the only one that thinks China invading the U.S. is different than the U.S. invading Iraq then I think I understated my appraisal in the ability of the average citizen to assess military matters.
Jeff,
Not sure exactly what you think Western powers could have done. Not only had they just experienced the “war to end all wars” but all of the world experienced a Great Depression. Germany was probably the first nation to rise out of the Great Depression, thus was also the most powerful nation on the planet at its peak in 1938. What exactly do you think the various other nations could have done against Germany? Particularly, as you note, Nazi Germany was right wing and anti-Communist. A worthy comparison would be if someone were to take charge of America similar to Hitler and then start invading the world….wait, we already do this (—just a nice jibe to y’all—I don’t think we’re Nazis or our presidents are neo-Hitlers…), but what do you think the nations of the world could do against us if we were to take an equally similar stance as Nazi Germany? We are the most powerful nation on the planet with natural allies against particular ideologies. If we happen to start collecting up a segment of our society and killing them off, which other nation do you think could stop us? If we were to invade Canada and claim it for our own, who do you think could stop us?
Indeed, and then President Hinckley then gave his talk in the next conference in support of the war in Iraq. And so it goes.
Thanks for the reply Jacob. I’m not going to re-argue the Iraq War. I’ve been there and done that a million times over and I’m sure you have too.
I do want to mention that I have an entire paper that I’m working on which discusses offensive and preemptive war in the BoM. I’ll also be presenting this at the upcoming Mormon Perspectives on War and Peace Conference.
I don’t want to thread jack the OP but I’d be happy to send it to you if you’re interested. Simply stated, I studied every reference to offensive war, examined every offensive operation, and looked at their strategic and geographic factors and determined that offensive and even preemptive wars were not forbidden. The sin layed in the hearts for the decision makers and not necessarily their decisions.
I go into greater detail in the paper but I feel its necessary to mention the conclusions here as a counterpoint to the prevailing wisdom that the BoM forbids offensive warfare.
Jacob,
#7,
That was the argument President Hinckley used to support the war in Iraq.
Morgan,
Out of curiosity, which wars started by righteous people were “offensive wars” in the Book of Mormon?
Morgan,
“I simply offered the counterpoints and critical feedback to a student that the parent should have and I hope that 9th grader’s teacher did the same.”
I can appreciate that, but, if the Dad shares the same view as his daughter, the feedback will be different than what was offered by you. As a teacher, I suspect your job is to support the critical thinking but not necessarily interject your own POV.
I’ve often had to “correct” something my kids learned in school because it very much differed with what I wanted my child to understand about a given situation.
As for military literacy, we are propagandized by the US military into accepting their POV concerning the need for war until information is revealed to the contrary. They do not represent both sides fairly either.
“If I’m the only one that thinks China invading the U.S. is different than the U.S. invading Iraq then I think I understated my appraisal in the ability of the average citizen to assess military matters.’
I think of it as a strawman argument that represents that a different POV, while crazy, equally valid as one insisting that we must invade Iraq because of WMDs.
Morgan, please do send the paper, I’d love to read it. Email it to mormonleft at gmail. I can’t think off-hand of a single offensive war that the Nephites pursued that ended well, but I’ll have an open mind.
Dan, yeah I was uncomfortable with Pres. Hinckley’s cautioned support of the Iraq war. At the time, of course, we still didn’t have full information, and he made it clear that he was only giving personal opinion, but I just can’t square it and other similar conflicts with the teachings of the BOM.
War…What is it Good for?
Killing people and breaking things.
Patten was asked a similar question in a press briefing. His response and in later responses and talks he said: “The more Germans we Kill, the fewer or our men will be killed (he used a-lot more French)”. MacArthur said similar things. We had leaders that were not afraid to pull the trigger. America was a great military machine. We weren’t afraid to win; we weren’t afraid to bomb Mosques, Churches, Hospitals or Schools if they were hiding the enemy. We played to win and we won. Now we are a bunch of wussy, cry-babies, with a bleeding heart media trying to social engineer our military.
Kill people and break things. That should be our motto and our objective. Do everything possible to avoid a war, but when we go to war, do with the objective to win or don’t do it. This is the directive of the Book of Mormon and the 98th section of the D&C.
Will,
Dude….It’s Patton! What is it with conservatives and spelling?
Will must never have read Alma 43 and 44.
Will,
“Patton was asked a similar question in a press briefing.”
What in the world would you expect a warrior to say about a war?
Morgan D:
Regarding your comments – I would actually consider myself fairly literate regarding this. I have read a lot about these wars in particular. I have read a lot of military history. I have read Chomsky. I have read biographies of Bush and Clinton and many others involved. Yet, I still can’t come up with your reasons for the war.
1. The Congressional act that authorized the war listed something like 32 reasons to go to war…The Congressional act can list anything is wants. At the end of the day, the Administration ‘s best arguments to the citizens of the US were WMD and getting rid of Hussein. And, unlike the 1st gulf war where the majority of the world backed us, even with being able to share things “too secret for the general public” with our allies, they couldn’t really convince anyone else of our plan (except England, who did it for the sake of alliance, and a few bit countries who wanted to curry favors)
2. Other leaders are as “bad” as Hussein. But having a great many dictators doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t remove that one.So, given the dozens and dozens of dictators, which ones do you suppose we “remove”. How would you decide and when would you stop removing them?
3. Her comparision is rather faulty. There is no comparison… I suppose this is a matter of perspective. While I’m thankful to be an American, there are many people who think otherwise. They see us as exporting porn and filth. They see us as supporting corrupt regimes throughout the world. They see us as a big bully, using our military to advance our interested. They see us consuming cheap goods on the backs of oppressed workers in other countries. And we are the only country to have ever dropped a nuclear weapon on another country.
4. The U.S. is paying the price for adopting the enemy of my enemy approach for whom we support. But the strategic situation of 2003 was far different from that of 1988 so I don’t blame the U.S. for changing its policy towards Saddam.Granted, things change. I suppose it’s all an issue of us trying to play puppeteer throughout the world to advance our interests. This can come back to bite you. (BTW: It’s the same thing in the church. Polygamy was ESSENTIAL to get to the Celestial kingdom. Now, it will get you excommunicated and kept OUT of the temple, and therefore keep you OUT of the Celestial kingdom.)
5. I don’t live palavering politicians either, but that doesn’t mean removing a brutal dictatorship, liberating 50 million people, and killing takfiri terrorists is “stupid”…Again, it’s a matter of perspective. Estimates are that the war will total almost $2 trillion – or twice the cost of the health care plan for 10 years. Up to 500,000 Iraqis have been killed since we went there. There are now 5 million orphans (around 50% of the children in the country). Malnutrition rates increased from 19% under Hussein to 28% under us. Half the doctors have left since we liberated them. And the vast majority of people in the Arab world dislike us even more since we went there (thus countering the goal of fighting the war on terrorism). (Also, since there are around 31 million people in Iraq, I’m not sure where the other 20 million are that we “liberated”)
“Will must never have read Alma 43 and 44.”
… or anything Jesus ever said.
Will – your comments are frightening. It sounds like some cry of the Crusader or Jihadist.
And, I’m not sure if the BOM has the best ideas about how to fight war. Granted, there are some good justifications there that we’d be better off if we followed. However, there is an aweful lot of it in the BOM, and it ends with the genocide of the Nephite nation. If the modern thinking is that the Nephites/Lamanites occupied a limited geography – then why didn’t the Nephites just move north a little bit?
What is so sacred about their land that they had to make a stand of attrition – causing millions of deaths? And if Mormon knew his people were going to become extinct in this final war – again – why not just move north, and away from those savage Lamanites?
Making your land holy, and defensible to the death, is part of the problem in the Middle East.
BTW: These were all my 9th grader’s own comments. We were merely discussing objective facts. She was the one who pointed out all of the absurdities in the issues. I told her that I actually agreed with her, but they were all fairly simple and obvious.
And if it’s that obvious to a 9th grader, it makes perfect sense to me why our image in the rest of the world has taken such a beating when they also look at the same facts. We can try to spin things however we want and try to justify it, but at the end of the day, there isn’t a whole lot of justification for what Bush and his cronies did.
I have a hard time with quoting scripture to justify violence. The Lafferty brothers justified killing their sister-in-law and niece through Nephi’s killing of Laban – where someone getting in the way of a bigger picture could simply be killed.
Dan,
“Not sure exactly what you think Western powers could have done.”
They could have taken a much stronger position toward German violations of the Treaty of Versailles, they could have taken action at the first sign of German aggression, they could have intervened when the Jews were been harassed and rounded up and they could have added some teeth to the impotent League of Nations.
Maybe nothing helps, but not doing anything was a travesty. The Anti-communist sentiment of the time helped create the monster. i am not condoning communism, only the short-sightedness of focus on one evil.
Methinks of the great performance of “War? (what is it good for)” by the late Edwin Starr…
OF COURSE “War” should be avoided! But only a nation of fools would naively fail to arm and train themselves in a manner sufficient to deter aggression.
If war must be enjoined, then swift and certain victory is paramount, and endless hand-wringing about its brutality is unproductive. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible act, but the likely alternative was far more Japanese deaths, both military and civilian. And imagine IF Truman had decided to not use the atom bomb but instead had Mac Arthur implement Operation “Olympic”. Imagine how the families of the American dead and wounded would have been outraged in the wake of such a grisly aftermath to learn that we had a weapon that MIGHT have persuaded the Japanese to surrender w/o an invasion (historians still debate the role of the Atomic bombings in the Japanese capitulation)
The Swiss are, IMO, the best example…not only do they have a military but every able-bodied man is involved. It’s not uncommon for every man in a town to have an assault rifle and drill regularly. There is a full-time military but it’s relatively small. Still, even the Nazis wouldn’t fool with them.
I would say that our invasion of Iraq in 2003, though many feel well-intentioned (and it got rid of Sadaam Hussein), did NOT meet this criterion. The burden of proof that Iraq posed a threat to the US that merited invasion, IMO, has not been satisfied.
I’ve actually spent far more time here than I can afford so I will have to be brief:
Jeff: You’re right. I would repsond differently (but still critically) depending on the given situation. When I refer to military literacy I simply mean an ability to critically asses and inform the government’s military decisions along the lines of this sites goal:
http://www.understandingwar.org/background
When I hear complaints about brainwashing, or uncritical praise for a 9th graders “wisdom” I don’t think we have the kind of understadning needed to do that.
Dan: I haven’t looked at my notes but I can think of Moroni’s attempt to capture Amalickiah and his vacating the east and west wilderness as examples of strategic offensives. On a tactical level the Nephites often sought out their enemy in offensive operations. Both the prophet generals, Gidgoddoni and Captain Moroni, did this frequently.
But I also argue the sucess of an operation is not necessarily tied to the inherent wickedness or righteousness of it. So another question to ask is what do the words, decisions, and deeds of the Nephites tell us? How do their geographic considerations affect ours?
Jacob: I will get you the paper. Its still a work in progress but I could use some critical feedback.
Sorry if I missed anybody, I’ve really got a great deal of work to do. But if this subject excites you please come to the conferen in Claremont this March.
We really didn’t learn anything from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, did we? One of the stated reasons we supplied the arms to fight against the Soviets was to engage them in a Vietnam-type struggle that would drag on and collapse the Soviet economy. Well, you could argue that it did just that as the USSR collapsed shortly after that.
But, now we are doing exactly what the Soviets did (although from a much greater distance from the fighting). And, almost 10 years later, here we are in a Vietnam-type struggle that is choking our economy. Plus, the Taliban is using weapons supplied to them by the CIA to fight against US forces today.
We can’t even learn lessons from the history that we tried to create.
“Methinks of the great performance of “War? (what is it good for)” by the late Edwin Starr…”
There is a link to a portion of it in the post.
“Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible act, but the likely alternative was far more Japanese deaths, both military and civilian.”
So why didn’t they do that first! I know the answer, but still.
“The Swiss are, IMO, the best example…not only do they have a military but every able-bodied man is involved. It’s not uncommon for every man in a town to have an assault rifle and drill regularly. There is a full-time military but it’s relatively small. Still, even the Nazis wouldn’t fool with them.”
Not exactly. Yes, the swiss require all men to be part of the army and yes, while they serve they have a weapon. it is not an assault weapon, but a rifle. I will ask my swiss friend if he still has his. It was stuck in the back of the closet, last I heard.
Why didn’t Hitler invade Switzerland. yes, they were neutral, but they were also the bank. Where was he going to put all his ill-gotten gains? You don’t blow up the bank holding all your money.
“We really didn’t learn anything from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, did we?”
We didn’t learn anything from the Revolutionary War, our first and only sucessful guerilla war!
Eisenhower, who knew what he spoke of, warned of the power and influence of the “Military Industrial Complex” in a poignant farewell speech. Today our military gobbles up 4.3% of our GDP with a budget of 660 billion dollars/year. The next largest military budget is China at 93 billion.
Costa Rica is listed as the happiest country in the world, by many indices. One of the reasons is they got rid of their military and plow that money into schools and other public projects. Just think what we could do with 660 billion dollars if we didn’t spend SOME of it – even 10% of it – on our vast Military Industrial Complex. We have enough domestic problems without causing more abroad.
Here is some of the data on military expenditure by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
@Morgan,
How to avoid war? By free trade with other nations and by using the axiom that Christ taught in the second great commandment (look up the non-aggression principle).
I would have to reread your “wars of aggression” from the book of mormon.
@Everyone else,
You mention Iraq for the oil but I think there was something even more lucrative than oil. Military contracts. Contractors and the military can’t make money and more weapons without war.
@Jeff,
In the OP you mention using war to create jobs or boost an economy (yes, I know you don’t believe that but I wanted to address it regardless). People who use that argument don’t understand the broken window fallacy of economics. Breaking a bunch of windows to create jobs in the window repair business doesn’t create wealth but destroys it (similar to what we saw with the car trade-in fiasco we saw recently). I believe Murray Rothbard went into the fallacy of WWII getting us out of the great depression (it was really economic liberty after FDR died).
David O McKay on justifiable war:
Sorry guys, I forgot to take the block quote off at the end.
Hugh Nibley on preemptive war:
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/01/hugh-nibley-weighs-in-on-preemptive-war.html
– Laurence M. Vance June 12, 2008
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance143.html
War sucks, lets follow the admonition of the D&C and renounce war.
I just wish that the Church put as much energy and money into opposing war as it does into opposing gay marriage. What is the bigger threat?
Jeff,
There’s a lot that “could have” happened, but at the end of the day, Jews were stateless and not particularly liked by anyone at that time. It’s like picking on the gypsies today or the Kurds. They are stateless, very easy to pick on.
We cannot hold those countries accountable for what we would have done in their place having seen the end results.
Morgan,
#33,
I hope you don’t leave yet. In the cases you cite, can you show who began the conflict? “offensive war” indicates that one party chose to act first. So if the Nephites engaged in “offensive” war, they started the shooting first, so to speak.
hey Jon, how about you offer up your own ideas of your own making instead of “appealing to authority” on every single one of your comments.
“We cannot hold those countries accountable for what we would have done in their place having seen the end results.”
Sure we can. If we can hold Bush accountable for starting wars unnecessarily, why not hold FDR and others accountable for the same thing?
Jeff,
Because the war in Iraq was a war of choice. FDR did not have any way he could actually influence results over in Europe.
JP/Dan/Mike:
It is frightening. It is frightening our government has spent so much money on wars we have no business being involved with – Iraq, Afghanistan & Vietnam. It is frightening our troops are being used to win the hearts and minds of the people. We don’t need to be wasting our time and our treasure sticking our nose in other people’s business.
JP, you clearly did not read the scripture cited. The theme of the 98th section, and the general theme of the Book of Mormon, is to renounce war and publish peace. It is to do everything possible to avoid a war. But when the decision is made to go to war, do it with the intent to win. When God has delivered the enemy into your hands, then pull the trigger, or cut off the head as in the case of Nephi. Slaying any enemy that will not stop after repeated attempts to negotiate peace is sometimes necessary and will result in peace.
Morgan
would love to get a copy of your paper as well. Partly curiosity and partly since Im in a panel at Claremont arguing against your position, well not yours per se, but that the Book of mMormon is anti-war.
As to the OP.
Contrary to those who think war is regrettable but can accomplish some greater ends, I would ask you to consider that means do not always justify ends and that in God’s economy human beings are ends in and of themselves. The sacrificial economy of satan that sacrifices others for our own benefits should be a real problem for Christians who believe in sacrificial love or agape for others.
It is also always funny to hear people ask “what if” questions that we would never need to ask if people would actually follow and listen to those advocating non-violence in the first place.
It’s those that have seen the face of war who most oppose it. I’ve seen war up close – both in a deployed setting, and while taking care of the war-wounded at Walter Reed and Brooke Army Medical Center. I’ve seen young men burned, blown up, disfigured – their lives shattered. This changed my opinion of ANY war pretty quick. War has costs that most people don’t see.
What have you seen of war? How do you know God has delivered an enemy into your hands? That is what the Taliban and Al Qaeda believe too; they also have a habit of cutting off heads.
Sorry – my last comment was for Will.
This might have been mentioned elsewhere, but one of Mike’s comments reminded me of something:
I’ve been on a Jon Krakauer roll lately – listening to several of his books as I drive around. First it was Into the Wild, then Under the Banner of Heaven and lastly Where Great Men Win Glory. I would recommend all three of them to anyone I talk to, but especially the last 2 as it speaks to this discussion.
Where Great Men Win Glory is a fantastic portrayal of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan and should make you rethink any “pro” war perspective. That’s wasn’t the author’s goal, but it shows just how far the military will go to propagandize the people into supporting their wars – false, misleading press reports, misinformation, downright lies, fabrications, and more. All so that the “public support” is there.
It’s a hideous game. I’ll end with this beauty of a quote from Kimball:
#1
“Let me see. What is war good for?
1. Unseat a dictator.
2. Give power back to the people.”
Can I just suggest that the unseating of a dictator by the Egyptians today, as well as the velvet revolutions, demonstrate that nonviolence is a much better solution to these problems. We all know what a fake violent revolution looks like, Iraq. We can also surmise what violence would have accomplished in Egypt, massive casualties and likely no revolution
Dan,
“Because the war in Iraq was a war of choice. FDR did not have any way he could actually influence results over in Europe.”
At that point, yes, the same excuse that Bush used. but, prior to that, The US could have done much, much more to prevent war in Europe and Japan.
The US State Department ignored what was happening to the Jews in Germany because of rabid antisemitism and because they refused to believe that Hitler would do such a thing.
They looked to Hitler as a strange bedfellow because he was so anti-communist and turned a blind eye to his eastern activities because they thought he was messing with the Soviets, which they liked.
Jeff,
Well that’s what I was saying. What could western powers have done when they weren’t that much against what Germany was doing? I think we agree. 🙂
“What could western powers have done when they weren’t that much against what Germany was doing?”
Yes, we do agree. They might have taken off the anti-commie blinders. But my hindsight is 20/20, of course.
JP,
How do you know God has delivered an enemy into your hands?
The same way you can judge any person, program or principle; by, its fruits – if the fruits (results) are good, it is of God. If the results are bad, it is not of God. Thus, the Savior’s stance, by thier fruits shall ye know them. The challenge is seeing the end from the beginning and this requires communion with the Spirit.
The war with Japan and Germany is a good example. Since that war, we have had 70 years of peace with these nations. But, we had to beat them into submission. We had to take away their will to fight ever again. Neither one was going to quit. Japan, for instance, didn’t quit after we dropped the first atomic bomb. If that doesn’t show their determination, I don’t know what does. Likewise, Hitler wasn’t going to stop. Along with the Russians and Brits, we had to destroy their will to fight. We bombed anything and everything.
In both instances, they were delivered into our hands and we had the courage and foresight to finish the job. I believe our developing the bomb first was providential. It was inspired. It was God’s way of delivering them into our hands. It resulted in less lives being lost. It resulted in long term peace. It’s fruits were long term peace.
The actions of the Taliban, Al-Queda and the other sub-humans of the earth result in poverty, desperation, despair and more bloodshed. Their fruits are evil; thus, they are evil. So far, the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have not produced good fruit. Perhaps my judgment on these wars is pre-mature.
I wonder who will end up destroying our will to fight….I look forward to that day…
Will,
Perhaps by starting to not call them “sub-human” we might find a way out of this morass. I’m just saying…maybe what it takes is seeing them as God sees them. And last I checked, he hasn’t appended his view of all his children by saying “all are mine, except for the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other sub-humans of the earth.”
Then again, not seeing them as humans makes it much easier to kill them…
Will, I don’t recall anywhere in the scriptures or modern revelation where God has condoned “beating them into submission” as an appropriate means of conflict resolution. Just the opposite, in fact. Perhaps we would have had just as much success in creating lasting peace through peaceful measures instead of war, instead ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters along the way. We’ll never know because war is often our first and only choice.
Will
just curious where you draw the line. certainly you seem ok with bombs, atomic bombs, fire bombing, etc. If its a means to making sure they never attack again, do you condone torture? Do you condone raping your enemies children, wives? How about dashing their babies skulls in front of your “enemies”?
Absurd perhaps, but no more absurd then your assertions that others are sub-human with implications that anything and everything is ok in the name of beating your enemies into submission. I actually would like to know where your morality says this far but no farther.
The day we loose our will to fight is the day we are conquered
J. Madson:
Non-violence is generally considered to mean that when the dictator’s thugs start throwing firebombs at you, you dodge them, but do not throw them back. Throwing them back is called self-defense. It is violence. Marching on the presidential palace today and the anger last night are threats of violence, at least as perceived by the regime. Collapsing the economy into chaos by strikes is a threat of violence, at least by the regime, and real, innocent people suffer as a result. (Remember the arguments against sanctions pre-Iraq war or arguments about the economic suffering of Gaza now?)
The difference — if there turns out to be any after the euphoria of the moment passes and the food inflation doesn’t stop — between Cairo today and Iran 2 years ago or 32 years ago is in the violence of the regime, not in the non-violence of the protesters.
All revolutions look pretty much the same at this stage. You can’t tell ones that make things better from ones that make things worse yet. We need to be looking at how to make this one a good one.
FireTag
If you want to play a semantics game and redefine things to fit your narrative, be my guest.
Now when I ask about this non-violent revolution in Egypt I am asking whether you think if they marched around with guns and weapons and engaged in violence that things would have panned out. There is a lesson to be learned here and it is that peaceful protests have been and always will be a better way than violence and bombs to seek change or as another put it better today:
There is a lesson here for those not too fanatical or deluded to learn it. Put down the bomb, the sniper rifle, whatever weapon you have, and grab a placard, organize a rally. True, many peaceful protests have been repressed too, as we have seen most recently in Iran; but they offer a much surer road to regime change than does blowing up innocent people.
“but they offer a much surer road to regime change than does blowing up innocent people.”
I am totally in agreement with J. Madison.
J. Madison:
But you discount any notion that refusal to fight can actually increase the number of dead in the long run?
I’m not playing semantic games. Just because you don’t see the deaths doesn’t change the number of people who die.
ALL of the major Christian schools of thought — pacifism, just war, or Christian realism — require that you don’t start a violent revolution once conquered, at least unless you expect the conquest leads to genocide.
The difference comes BEFORE you have been conquered. Because then you must count all of the costs of being conquered, all of the costs of the repressed revolutions, the cost of the successful revolution, and the cost of the recovery vs. the cost of the war and the recovery.
In Christian realism, there is no universal right answer to that balancing. The implementation is NEVER flawless or even certain, and you accept guilt in the hope that you avoid doing even greater evil.
of course I see the deaths. At least 300 people were killed by Mubaraks regime during this protest and who knows how many before. What I am asserting is that many many more would have died by other violent means. Furthermore, from a moral stand point, those who advocate non-violence are more than willing to die, what they refuse to do is kill.
I personally reject Neibuhr Christian realism and its failing have been pointed out by smarter people like John Howard Yoder. I dont find anything Christian about it.
J Madson:
Your personal rejection of Christian realism is noted. I personally reject pacifism because there is often nothing realistic about it. OK. Done with the food fight and continuing the discussion.
I believe “refusing to kill” is a meaningful concept only when you stop distinguishing between active killing and passive killing. I believe murder can be either an act of commission or an act of omission. The relevant discriminator is one’s intent and expectations of the consequences of one’s decision. Jeff’s OP points out that major wars could have been prevented by actions NOT taken.
This is very much a personality-driven value judgment. There are studies where people are given a choice between taking an active choice that kills one person or taking no action, knowing that four people will die instead. One group will save the four; another group will not. Both groups will strongly defend their choice as the obviously moral one. But the group that actively kills has to consciously override their emotions.
Is that behavior reflective of a theological truth, or merely the fact that evolution hasn’t had time to build appreciation of indirect consequences into our instincts yet. I think it’s the latter, but then I’m a scientific realist, too.
Jacob,
You have very poor judgement if you compare the decision made by a leader to save lives to bashing a baby. Dropping the a-bomb saved lives. It ended the war. It saved our treasure. It resulted in unconditional surrender. It resulted
in the complete dismantling of a military machine hell bent on conquering territory. It stopped the Japanese dead in their tracks. It resulted in over 70 years of peace. If you can’t see the good fruits of this decision then you have poor judgement. If you think this is tantamount to bashing a baby’s head in, then you have poor judgement. Thank goodness it wasn’t your decision.
Jacob,
Helamans and Moroni’s armies did a good job of beating their enemies into submission; and, Nephi did an even better job with Laban.
Sorry, first response is for J. Madson
Will,
You are totally missing the point. What action is taken is the midst of war is very different than actions taken to prevent war. However, since you seem to think war is OK, J. Madison was merely asking you how much is acceptable as far as conquering the enemy.
Firetag,
“This is very much a personality-driven value judgment.”
I’m not sure I get what you are getting act. We are talking about governments who cold have taken actions to avoid or prevent war but did not. how is that personality driven?
so Morgan doesn’t seem to be coming back. Could anyone else show us where in the Book of Mormon righteous people started a war with someone else?
Jeff,
I suppose we could have sat down with Hitler before the war and asked him to be nice. Your argument is naive and dangerous.
When the Savior said there would be wars and rumors of war, I think he meant there would be wars and rumors of wars. In effect, he was telling us we would have to stand up to evil. I chose to heed his counsel.
Jeff, you may want to print this out and save it somewhere so you have proof. “I agree with your post 100%.” 🙂
Will,
Was Jesus’ counsel to participate in the “wars and rumors of wars?” Maybe you could clarify that with actual scriptures…
Dan,
As usual you missed the point. Wars are a part of this probation. They are unavoidable. That is what he was saying. With that said, we can either stand for good, or we can allow the forces of evil prevail. I choose to stand for good.
Will,
I realize you are looking at this in a purely religious sense, pitting your knowledge of the Bible against the reality that we are not destined to be ensnared by Satan, but chose to do so. Just as we chose to be ensnared, we can chose not to be.
And you don’t know whether the Savior was referring to earthly wars of spiritual wars. And while there have been wars and will be wars, trying to prevent them is not against the Savior’s teachings, but very much in line with them.
NAA,
“Jeff, you may want to print this out and save it somewhere so you have proof. “I agree with your post 100%.” ”
Printed and framed! Thank you. As we say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Will,
I’ve not missed any point. Beating them into submission is something the forces of evil do, not the forces of good. If you choose to stand for good, you would not advocate beating someone into submission. It defeats the whole idea of “willing to submit” as opposed to “forced to submit.” You advocate the plan of Satan and you don’t even know it.
oh, and wars are avoidable. How little you know your own theology:
That is D&C 115. Here is D&C 45:
Do you get it yet, Will? We claim to be building up the Kingdom of God on earth, we Mormons. Our scriptures indicate that Zion will be a place of refuge from the violence of the world. Yet here you are claiming that the “wars and rumors of wars” that were prophesied are unavoidable for everyone today, that somehow because they were prophesied to occur, we also must participate in them. Do you not understand your theology, Will? Your theology is telling you that Zion, or in other words, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its stakes are to be a place where no violence occurs. That includes its members. That its members do not participate in the calamities of the world. That its members do not endorse the violence around them. That its members show the rest of the world that if they desire peace from the violence around them, they should come unto the stakes of Zion and they shall find peace. Under your stake, Will, all I see is the blood of those whom you hate.
@Dan,
I use quotes because people tend to give them more credence. For people to take your word one has to build much re-pore over time. I’ve convinced my neo-conservative in-laws that war is bad (of course, they sway back sometimes since they listen/read too much Hannity, Beck, and the other ilk). My mother I had to have her read “The 5000 Year Leap” anti-war chapter. She is now convinced that war is bad. Also, I realize that I’m don’t always have the best tack in convincing people of what I believe to be true so using well known people (that might be 200 hundred years dead) can be useful.
BTW, the “5000 Year Leap” anti-war chapter uses WWI and WWII as examples of why we shouldn’t war with the world. Interesting that you love those wars so (probably just because your favorite dictator president was the one who got us into WWII). Useless wars. If we wouldn’t have gotten into WWI, WWII would have never happened since such a strict “peace” treaty couldn’t have been forced out the Germans. Even so there was no reason for us to get into WWII. FDR stoked the Japanese into attacking us so he could rally the American people (who didn’t want war before then) around the war. It’s all a psyop. It’s all worthless waste of life and talent.
Jeff,
The war is heaven was a billion times more damaging than any earthly war. In earthly war, one can loose their life; in the pre-existentance one-third lost their soul.
Besides, why would he warn us about the war in heaven. Your argument is flawed. Finally, the scriptures say there is a time for war
Jon,
Waaa….I love those wars? Not sure what you mean by that…
Is that what doctor Cleon Skousen calls them?
Who is we? The Americans? Or the Europeans starting the war? I mean, dude, what do you even know about World War I?
Actually there was. Germany declared war on the United States. That tends to bring us into the war whether we like it or not.
How exactly did he stoke the imperial Japanese (who by this time had already taken over Manchuria and were attacking Australia…and in regards to the will of the American people, if you actually knew your history, you would have known that the American people were itching for a fight against Japan, but were unwilling, for obvious reasons, to not go to war against Germany. In actuality, FDR wanted to get Americans willing to go to war against Germany, and wanted nothing to do with Japan. This is what you get for reading Skousen, Jon. A completely opposite position than actual reality.
Will,
What was your weapon of choice in the war in heaven? I think I had a bazooka. Blow those bad spirits to smithereens!
What war in heaven was Jesus warning us about? Warnings are generally about events not yet occurred. Is there to be another war in heaven? Mind sharing the scripture to back that up?
show the scripture…
@Dan,
Skousen said none of what I said. Like I wrote, others have a better way with words than I do so I quote them. Would you like me to quote the chapter for you? (Well, if you did I wouldn’t, it would be way too much work, just borrow the book).
Happy reading:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justin090309.html
Jon,
Mr. Raimondo does not inform you that Germany declared war on us just days after the Japanese attacked us. Whether we liked it or not, Germany forced our hand. The Japanese attacked us on December 7. The next day, FDR declared war on Japan. On December 11, Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States. On the same day, the United States returned the favor.
Just because a country declares war on us doesn’t mean we have to fight them. They have to attack us multiple times before we retaliate, read D&C 98. Who provoked the Japanese into attacking the US? FDR did. He entangled us into the war on purpose. Therefore we had no right to go to war with Japan. We should have made peace not war.
Dan, I thought we were going to be able to agree on something for once. Guess I was wrong, didn’t know you were into war so much.
I did 2 years in Iraq as a UH-60 helicopter crewchief/gunner from 2004 to 2005 and 2006 to 2007. I don’t have a yea/nay stance on war in general and any observations on that war in particular would be expletive laden rants. I will say this though, it takes a guy like Saddam to keep that area stable. I guess in places like that it’s all about authoritarianism or ultra-violence.
Jeff: #74
The “this” referred to the decision whether it was morally better to kill one person actively or passively allow four people to die. What a person chooses in that situation seems associated with the ability to override emotions, which is why I suggest it may have an evolutionary component.
People have made the point earlier in the thread about how soldiers have to be conditioned to kill, and that is a part of the cost of war. We’ve evolved a tendency for violence or lack thereof that optimizes survival over mortal and societal lifetimes. That does not say that our carnal tendencies are optimized for our eternal spiritual development. We should be careful not to mistake EITHER one for the other.
Jon,
Who is we? The country, or us individual people?
I ask again, how did FDR do this?
I’m actually far more a pacifist than a lover of warfare, Jon. But one thing I cannot stand, is the misunderstanding of such well known events in history. I’m harsh right toward your position, Jon, because your points do not reflect reality.
Jon,
Think, man. We are in a war for our souls here on earth! Satan wants them, has many of them already. We are in spiritual warfare every day. You said it yourself:
“In earthly war, one can lose their life; in the pre-existentance one-third lost their soul.”
Our soul is more important than our earthly life. Don’t you think that is more important to the Savior?
Jon:
If you think Dan is pro-war, you really misunderstand him. He asserted somewhere there’d be a diplomatic way to stop someone from trying to rape his wife in their own home.
Of course, he’d better start his intercession with words other than “dude” or “bullcrap” if he hopes to be successful. 😀
“That does not say that our carnal tendencies are optimized for our eternal spiritual development. We should be careful not to mistake EITHER one for the other.”
Ok, I think I get it now.
Firetag,
hahahahaha! brilliant comment, dude. 🙂
help, my comment is in moderation. and it’s a very nice comment. 🙂
@FireTag,
He’s talking like he’s pro WWII. He has been defending it in this blog. I know he’s mostly anti-war but then he loves FDR and since FDR started WWII then WWII must be good. That’s what I’m gathering from Dan. Not very principled about his ideas.
@Jeff,
I don’t know what you are referring to.
@Dan,
This wasn’t the best article I’ve ever read on WWII but here it is from the article I posted before:
When I say we I am usually referring to the US government and “its” people. I was schooled at a government propaganda school so I sometimes refer to we when I shouldn’t. As individuals there is no reason to enter war unless your home country is being attacked directly and you are defending your home.
My points don’t reflect reality because you read the pro-war history not the alternative history that includes points on why the Japanese attacked us (or give false/incomplete reasons for the Japanese attacking us).
Dan,
It was in SPAM!
“@Jeff,
I don’t know what you are referring to.’
Yeah, I know
Jon,
ah, we finally get to the reason. Now, since, as you note, you were educated in a government propaganda school, can you tell me why exactly did the US government put an embargo on steel and oil imports into Japan? What could have driven the United States to do something like that, knowing it might force the Japanese into war with America?
hmm, I know of no “pro-war” position that does not talk about the oil and steel embargo…maybe you could reference one for me. Otherwise, this point is a straw man.
thanks Jeff 🙂
pacifists that are alright with other people fighting for them = cowards.
Dan,
Good diversion. When your logic, or lack thereof, gets painted in a corner you either create a diversion or resort to personal attacks. The argument is pretty simple, spiritual death (here and the pre-existence) is far more problematic than physical death – Gospel Doctrine 101. I might add, the war in pre-existence took place under the jurisdiction of our Father.
*What war in heaven was Jesus warning us about? Warnings are generally about events not yet occurred. Is there to be another war in heaven*
That is what I was saying. Jeff opined Jesus may have been referring to the war in Heaven, not earthly wars. I was refuting his (as you have) argument.
Scriptural support for war being justified at times – Read the Book of Moron, D&C 98 (verse 36 is the best reference) and biblical support would be found in Ecclesiastes 3:8.
In addition to the Book of Morons you can also read the Book of Mormon
Rich,
Who is a pacifist that is alright with other people fighting for him or her?
Will,
I’m not creating a diversion at all. Show me what kind of “war” was fought. Did you have a machine gun? Because I think I had a bazooka. Or was the “battle” something else entirely?
Typical Will, did you perhaps read verse 33, in D&C 98?
Read that very carefully and tell me when it is a “time for war.”
Will,
“What I see you write is that earthly war MUST happen because Jesus said there would be “Wars and rumors of Wars.”
All I was trying to point out is that there are different kind of war in the spiritual context and that He was referring to those kind, which are inevitable because Satan does exist.
BTW, I am jumping on a plane this morning, so I will be out of commission for all of Saturday. Carry on…
People stating that wars must happen because Jesus or whomever said there would be x need to distinguish between human inevitability and divine necessity. Simply because the divine sociologist states that wars are inevitable as a condition of the fall and our inability to make peace does not warrant the theological leap to wars are necessary and we should take part in them. In fact, the entirety of Jesus life and death run contrary to this position.
#109 that being said, the true test of a pacifist is, I would imagine, being a pacifist when you actually stand to lose something because of your pacifism. For you that will only come to fruition if the bad guys get through guys like me. I wouldn’t be too eager for that if I were you. If you really are though, then good on you because that’s an ideologically pure (yet suicidal) stance.
It would be pretty tough to be a pacifist. Thank goodness for the second great commandment which can be derived into the non-aggression principle, which isn’t pacifism.
“For you that will only come to fruition if the bad guys get through guys like me.”
Stand down, soldier. This is only an exercise.
“It would be pretty tough to be a pacifist. Thank goodness for the second great commandment which can be derived into the non-aggression principle, which isn’t pacifism.”
How would you know? I think it is hard to have this hostile attitude all the time where you actually think about the second amendment as an article of faith.
@Jeff,
I think we’re talking past each other. I was talking about the second great commandment that Jesus gave. You can ask Dr. Wicki about what the non-aggression principle is and read the book “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression” by Mary Ruwart
hey Jon,
Why did FDR cut off oil and steel to the Japanese?
“you actually think about the second amendment as an article of faith.”
Oops. Misread that!
but I would invoke “turn the other cheek” as Jesus call not to turn violence into violence.
SunnofaBC
Many of us who espouse non-violence are more than willing to die. The difference between us and soldiers is not our willingness to die, but willingness to take life.
J. that’s a respectable position but it’s a bit too much akin to suicide for me… Jon I think the non-aggression principle is also pretty respectable. I think that’s achievable on a personal level but as long as we have a need for national defense I don’t think there will ever be agreement on the right way to apply it in terms of national defense.
@Dan,
I don’t know.
@Jeff
Section 98 gives you the right to defend yourself, even if it’s not the higher standard. People can choose live the higher law if they wish, but it’s given unto man to live the lower law. As long as we live in a world where people refuse to be civil (and advocate the state) I will accept that some people will choose to defend themselves.
@SUNNofaB.C.Rich,
I think if we lived by the NAP we wouldn’t be in so many useless wars except for the really necessary ones, like the American Revolution (the only one that I currently think was truly necessary, of course, I’m not a historian so I reserve the right to change my mind).
Jon,
Because Japan was attacking our allies in China and the South Seas. Japan invaded Manchuria (at no one’s instigation but their own desire to expand). Chang Kai-Shek was our ally in China, and we helped them by stopping Japan’s war supplies. Not because FDR secretly hoped Japan would kill Americans so that we could start a fight and kill them back.
One thought:
Depends. Whether warfare is centralized or democratized, may depend as much on military technology than anything else.
When the key to victory in warfare was a disciplined legion, or a thundering charge of knightly armored cavalry, warfare became mostly a state-level activity. When commoners started figuring out how to skewer knights off their horses, or riddle them with longbows, combat democratized — and, coincidentally, the ratio of civil conflicts within nations, versus international conflicts, increased.
When massed artillery and close-order drill gave the advantage back to states who could afford cannons and well-disciplined standing armies, state-level conflicts came back to prominence. Repeating firearms started swinging the pendulum back. The mechanized warfare of the 20th century, coupled with the will to use Iron Age total-war methods, gave the advantage back to the State — but when populations identified for conquest got so large, and the home front so noisy, that a state combatant can’t just slaughter everybody on the enemy’s side of the border, then the relative advantage of cheap AK-47s, commercial fertilizer, cell phones, and machetes has increased again.
Technology gives leverage. On balance, it tends to increase the power of the individual faster than it increases the sustainable power of the collective.
As a result, we should probably expect more Hobbesian warfare — with small groups fighting each other, within the borders of a nation — relative to formal interstate warfare.
Thomas,
I’d prefer that to state on state warfare.
Dan:
I’m not sure why we prefer one flavor of death over another. Recently, we’ve seen tribes tear each other apart with machetes.
I suppose, as a libertarian-flavored conservative, I should, too. Better that the self-reliant yeomanry should settle their differences man-to-man, like in “Open Range,” than that the hirelings and slaves of the Leviathan state go at it.
But it depends. Some of your old-school state-vs.-state wars were almost quaint gentlemanly affairs:
OK, so Voltaire made that bit up, but still. Most eighteenth-century warfare followed a neat little script: Everybody dressed up in bright clothes and wigs, maneuvered sharply, blazed away at each other with ridiculously inaccurate muskets for a day or so, hitting only a (relative) handful of unfortunates…and then the titled generals sat back over brandy and decided who won and which provinces got switched around.
And then some damned radical Corsican showed up with new ideas, and the wars of the peoples replaced the wars of the kings…with body counts higher by orders of magnitude.
Give me the War of the Austrian Succession over the average modern African civil war any day of the week.
War is hell… kills people and gets people killed, F’s peoples lives up for a long time, puts people in extremely difficult ethical and moral dilemmas that not only involve their own lives but the lives of friends and foe, threatens to turn heroes into monsters… WWJD can almost seem inapplicable… more like what do I have to do to survive. Sometimes wars are necessary, sometimes not… probably a good idea to do what we can not to have them… should you find yourself in the midst of one though, regardless of whether it ends up on the right or wrong side of history, it’s no excuse not to try and act like as decent a human being as you reasonably can. #15 was good, Justin… liked it!
Firetag and Thomas,
I guess we should clarify some things, because Thomas is pining for the glory days of the Three Musketeers whilst Firetag is fretting over machetes. The reason I prefer small groups fighting each other as opposed to state on state violence is because small groups fighting each other kills only a small amount of people. However, state on state warfare tends to kill in the hundreds of thousands or the millions. For instance, the battles between Germany and Russia in both World Wars are the bloodiest battles fought in the history of the world.
The tools used in warfare, or the mannerisms used in warfare matter not. In the end, one guy is dead and the other is not. I prefer the smaller fights, because fewer people die then. In this case, I am very appreciative of the success of the United States in the last 100 years because the victories we led the world in, in both World Wars, has created an environment where states no longer do war with each other at the level they once did. That has much to do with rising economic growth, globalization, technological advances, and improved communication. For instance, one of the key factors in the Egyptian Revolution that just happened now, is that Egyptian military leaders have, for the past 30 years or so, studied at American military academies and have formed strong friendships and a strong understanding of something better than a military dictatorship. Thus, when the Egyptian military was faced with a population that, in the last 30 years has doubled in size, the military refused to fire on its own people, something I believe would have occurred if the Egyptian military did not have many of its high ranking officers trained at American academies.
The interdependence of the world economy is forcing nation-states to rethink its warfare methods. And I prefer it that way. We cannot stop people from killing each other, but we can contain it to smaller groups.
@Dan,
Although I still don’t agree with you on Japan and FDR it does seem there is less violence today than before and it does seem to be from a opening of trade that this is occurring. It does worry me that countries are starting to close their borders and tightening trade capabilities (Obama has been raising tariffs).
Having said that I think it is important to remember a “kinder and gentler” killer today. That killer is economic sanctions against other countries that affect the poor more than the rulers of those countries. I’ve read that the economic sanctions against Iraq between the two US led attacks there have killed over 1 million people.
What also about the “kind” killer of government intervention into people’s economic lives that stifles innovation and causes higher prices for services, how many people has that killed or decreased the standard of living? What about the drug war being waged around the world and here in the US.
Things may be better on one level but we still have a long ways to go.
Jon,
With regards to Japan and FDR, dude give it up. Your conspiracy theorist version makes you look ridiculous, Jon. Let them go. I love the Matrix as much as anybody, but to actually think there are conspiracies on a massive scale that somehow have passed by thorough inspection is just plain stupid.
On economic sanctions, no doubt they are doing their job. What is the overriding purpose of an economic sanction, Jon? To get the people of a particular nation so pissed off at their government that they would rise up in anger and overthrow them. It is a policy that I disagree with (I’m more a fan of targeted sanctions, like what we’re doing in Iran right now, which is not harming the Iranian people as much, but keeping the Iranian government from succeeding as they hoped), but would rather have than us invading a particular country. The United States invading Iraq in 2003 was up there with the dumbest ideas America has ever done.
Being killed is being equated with a lowered standard of living? What planet do you live on, Jon? What innovation has been stifled? Let me ask a more direct, pointed question. Go back to the period of 1940-1980 and answer me what innovation has been stifled? Was it not in this period of high taxation that the DNA sequence was discovered (through government funding, btw)? Was it not in this period that Norman Borlaug’s agricultural breakthroughs caused an end to much great famine? Was it not in this period that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the first personal computer? Was it not in this period that Bill Gates created Microsoft? Tell me, Jon, why is it that when taxes were so high, we had such amazing amount of innovation in this country? And also tell me why, now that taxes are so low, we’re massive consumers rather than innovators? Tell me, in these last thirty years of extremely low taxes, why innovation has lagged?
You have no idea what you are arguing, Jon.
The problem is that small groups of small groups start fighting each other, and then small groups of small groups of small groups start fighting each other, and then you have all of Congo going on a murder-and-rape spree, with more factions hacking at each other than you can keep track of.
Or make peace with. The advantage of state-versus-state conflicts is that there’s a mechanism for them to end: a formal peace treaty. Either one government decides the costs of continuing the war will drive it from power, and so seeks peace, or enough people get tired enough of the war that the government is overthrown, and its replacement installed with the express mandate to make peace.
With tribal conflicts or insurgencies — inexplicably romanticized by so many people — they can drag on and on and on. And the small-group killings — a hundred here, a hundred there — add up over the years. Nobody’s ever strong enough to win decisively. These are the circumstances where that grossly inapt phrase “cycle of violence” really does tend to apply. This is why the ordinary experience of Stone Age tribal life was more violent than even the twentieth century — the absolute worst of industrialized, state-centric warfare.
Good on you, for recognizing that. The three great contributions of Anglo-American civilization to the world are (1) the refinement and reification of the principle of consensual government; (2) the abolition of slavery (where American jurisdictions were among the pioneers in ending the institution that had existed since the cavemen, and eventually compelled the American laggards to join them); and (3) what may actually be a turning away from the old, accepted notion of national aggrandizement by acquisitive conquest.
And nukes. Don’t forget nukes.
There was an unprecedented, accelerating level of economic growth, globalization, technological advances, and improved communication…in 1913. Something was still missing. It didn’t help that the leading, progressive intellectuals were shot through with social Darwinist ideas. (Hofstadter aimed at the wrong targets.)
Props for mentioning a truly great man, who probably did more to relieve human suffering than all of the politicians and humanitarians who lived during his lifetime.
Hard-core environmentalists hate him, incidentally. Because humanity being a cancer on the Earth, it follows that anyone who prevents the teeming hordes of Third World children from perishing like flies, like Gaia intended, is an environmental criminal.
Look up a table of government revenues as a percentage of non-governmental GDP* over the past fifty years, and report back on whether taxes are “extremely low.”
*This is the relevant comparison, because when government spending is included in GDP calculation — as it typically is — a ridiculous distortion occurs: By engaging in deficit spending, taxation can appear to be a lower percentage of GDP, even when its actual take from the productive economy has remained the same.
Consider this: In an economy with a total GDP of $100, where the government takes $20 in taxes and spends exactly that amount, the government’s share of GDP is 20% (which is roughly where it’s been, regardless of marginal tax rates, since the end of World War II; the infamous “tax cuts” that are supposedly the cause of all our problems didn’t noticeably reduce this level.)
The next year, the government still takes in $20 in taxes, but spends $40, running a $20 deficit. Under the present method, the economy’s GDP is now calculated as $120. The $20 the government takes in taxes is now only 16.7% of GDP.
“Aha!” say the advocates of higher taxes. “You people complaining of high taxes are wrong! Taxes as a share of GDP have declined!. True — and completely misleading. The tax burden to the people is exactly the same.
The fact that taxes as a share of GDP dropped drastically during the present recession doesn’t mean tax rates are too low. (The tax/GDP ratio following the 2001-2003 tax cuts remained high, as long as the economy was healthy.) It’s lower now because (1) we’re running unprecedented trillion-dollar-plus deficits, thanks to bailouts and recession-driven early Baby Boomer retirements (from which God preserve us), resulting in the anomaly in GDP calculation referenced above; and (2) since our tax code is so much more progressive than other developed countries’ (we don’t have a VAT, so we rely far more on taxation of the wealthy than other countries do), it’s more vulnerable to the greater fluctuations in the incomes of the wealthy vs. the non-wealthy in economic downturns.
Regarding “innovation” lagging, although it’s never safe to say that all the useful inventions have already been invented, we may be at a point on the technological cycle where much of the low-hanging technological fruit has been picked, and so the capital cost of marginal productivity increases are greater. Still, I wouldn’t at all say innovation has necessarily “lagged,” except in comparison to the extraordinary bursts of innovation that followed truly game-changing breakthroughs like steam power, railroads, electrification, jet aviation, computers, and the Internet.
We’re far along the exploitation curves of all of those technologies, where the easiest innovative applications are clustered towards the left end of the curve. The next burst in rapid innovation will come after the next game-changing breakthroughs — fusion power, sustainable-without-subsidies biofuels, private commercial space exploitation, or something we haven’t even thought of.
If you want to talk business, there is a single factor that is dragging the country down and they are all related to the same thing:
– Short term performance – Corporations and presumably their vaulted institutional investors have come to value companies based on their quarter over quarter performance, short term.
This has caused:
– lack of investment in innovation-driven research and relying on industry standard everything. Some companies can’t help themselves and innovate anyway, thinking Apple, Google and probably some others in other industries.
-Outsourcing jobs – Companies move jobs for one reason –to save money. In spite of all the talk of a global economy, it is cheaper in other parts of the world and in spite of productivity and communication issues, they see a dramatic decrease in labor costs. This leads to:
– Less US taxes being paid. No matter what they do to taxes rates, not having 9M people paying fed, state and local taxes as well as spending money into their local economy has a impact. And, in fact, with the unemployment being paid out, it is an even bigger net loss.
So, in my mind those are the biggest factors to our currently crappy economy. Short term thinking, the mass outsourcing of jobs no investment in innovation and no taxes being paid. I could also add the loss of manufacturing as well.
China and India will be able to buy and sell the US in 10 years if this is continues. And I didn’t need to quote anyone to make my point.
Thomas,
Well, I do find it ironic that you reminisce of the “good ol’ days” of warfare…how long was that one war between the nations of Europe back in the 1600s? Or the one two hundred years previous…during that century with the black death…how long was that war? Who is “inexplicably romanticizing” what?
Gee, thanks Pops….seriously dude, lay off the condescension.
What? Are you suggesting that World War I happened because of progressivism? Com’on Thomas, I have a far more respectful view of you, but if you say stupid things akin to the ridiculousness from Jon, I’m going to be highly disappointed.
I hate to have to keep saying this, but I’m a moderate, Thomas, not some crazy extremist leftist, akin to what Jon and Will are on the right. Y’all on the right have shifted so hard to the right that the position I’m in (somewhere close to the center left) looked like deep within the heart of ultra communism to you).
yes, taxes are extremely low.
Nope, they are not.
Regarding innovation, I take it you at least don’t believe the crap that high taxes inhibit innovation. Am I correct on that assessment?
Which may explain why sweatshop labor gets outsourced, but not necessarily in capital-intensive industries. To the extent those are outsourced, the issue may not be labor costs so much as the dysfunctional American litigation and regulatory regimes.
If corporations outsource to save money, then shouldn’t that result in increased corporate profits? And aren’t those taxed at a substantially higher rate (35%, IIRC) than the typical outsourcing-eliminated paycheck is? Of those 9 million sweatshop workers, call-center staffers, and (a relative handful of) computer programmers and engineers, how many paid a 35% marginal tax rate? How many actually got back more tax money from the government than they paid in, because of the EITC and refundable credits? (Probably well over half.)
If China lasts ten years without a major political and economic cataclysm, I will eat my hat.
China nets a couple hundred billion dollars per year by its positive trade balance with the U.S. At that rate, it would take 300 years to buy out America’s $60 trillion in net wealth. Except that our currency (by which our net wealth is measured) is inflating about ten times faster than China is piling up dollar reserves, relative to American total wealth. (About a 3% post-gold standard average annual rate of inflation vs. China accumulating reserves equal to .3% of American net wealth per year.)
In other words, China gives us stuff, and in return we give them lots of portraits of President Jackson which are worth less every year. Our dollar-denominated net wealth is increasing in (nominal) value ten times faster than China is piling up dollars. It’s a game of catch-up that structurally, they can never win. The bigger the trade deficits they pile up, the more we have to borrow from them to buy it — and so the faster our currency inflates.
China’s trade deficit is based on their practice of crony capitalism, where it makes sense to run a completely irrational monetary and economic policy so long as it enriches the Party insiders who own or benefit from state-favored enterprises. My uncle has done business in China, and tells me that the asset bubbles there make our real estate bubble look like a footnote. You think all those empty condos in Miami and San Diego look bad? China has whole cities full of them. The state-controlled banks, flush with dollars, are finagled to make loans to insiders for development projects; the developers pay the money to construction contractors they have a stake in, the developments are finished — and then they sit empty. Who cares; the insiders got their money, and the zombie debt just sits on bank books indefinitely.
This is not a sustainable economic model, and certainly not one that is going to outrun the United States. Unless we go down that route ourselves, which lately we’ve done more than I’d like.
World War I happened for a lot of reasons. One of them was a stupid extrapolation of evolutionary concepts to international relations. And yes, some Progressives — virtually all of whom espoused a greater role for the State than classical liberals did or do — bought into this.
The old, free-trading, moralistic early Victorian order would never have started the Great War — or at least has the record of never having done so. The state-centric, mercantilist, technocratic, paternalistic Bismarckian world system that replaced it, did.
Explain. $20/$100 is still 20% of $100, even if government increases total GDP by deficit spending it up to $120, no?
Compared to what? The numbers don’t lie. There remains this confusion between “marginal tax rates” and “taxes.”
1. A 100% tax rate would inhibit innovation. Unless you believe that government inherently is better enable to target productivity-enhancing R&D investment than the private sector.
2. Government has a role in fostering innovation and productivity enhancements. It is most in its element when it sponsors basic research, with no immediately-apparent payoff. Profit-seeking firms then think of profitable applications for the general discoveries. Government is not remotely as good as this as greedy people are.
3. It follows that the ideal level of taxation is one that suffices to allow government to sponsor basic research, but not so high that it starves the economy of the capital that could be used to finance the exploitation of what the basic research discovers.
Look at the Internet. It evolved from a simple government initiative — a DARPA military networking system. When the technology was made available to the public, everybody, not just a handful of public officials, got to run their ideas for using it up the flagpole. The viable ones worked out and hit it big; drkoop.com went plop. Does anyone seriously think that government, alone, would have come up with a fraction of the beneficial applications of the Internet as profit-seeking firms did?
Look at the transcontinental railroads, another example of public-private partnership that strict libertarians probably ignore too much: The Golden Spike would not have been driven anywhere near as early as it was — to massive economic effect in speeding the development of the West, though the Indians and the buffalo didn’t do quite as well — without government loan guarantees and land grants. What’s less well known, is that the government ultimately made out like a bandit itself; the loans were repaid, with substantial interest, within thirty years. And that was separate from the government’s contractual rights for discounted mail, freight, and official-travel service, not to mention the increased tax revenues from development along the line. Win-win.
What’s interesting is that a different approach was tried in Russia. The czar was appalled by the corruption involved in building the American transcontinental — the Credit Mobilier scandal and so forth. So the government built the Trans-Siberian itself, to keep things honest. It took much longer to get the job done, and at a higher human cost, despite the relative lack of difficult geography to deal with. (No Sierras and Rockies, for instance. Plus the Yakuts weren’t as feisty as the Sioux.)
The American approach was to more or less tolerate a level of greed and corruption, at the price of getting the railroad built quickly. It worked.
The problem was that government involvement in railroad-building proceeded to go too far. As so often happens, the fact that a public-private enterprise paid great dividends once, provided ammunition for advocates of increased government to say “hey, let’s do lots more of it.” The problem is that government is inherently susceptible to capture by interest groups, and as a result very bad at picking winners and losers. The result, in the nineteenth century, was that the government subsidized the construction of a heavily redundant railroad network — the inevitable contraction of which, under regulatory and technological pressures, beginning in the 1920s, helped bring on the Great Depression.
So the answer to your question is yes, high taxes do sometimes inhibit innovation, when the line is crossed from government being a facilitator of private enterprise, to a dominant player on the field.
@Thomas,
Look at the transcontinental railroads, another example of public-private partnership that strict libertarians probably ignore too much…
This is why I like the Anarcho-capitalists the most, they are pure to the principles. Thomas here is the man that got screwed because of the government subsidies. They didn’t need government money.
See http://mises.org/daily/2317
On a separate thread:
Yes, tribalism isn’t good and neither are nations fighting with each other.
Jon,
Hill was a stud.
That said, the Great Northern didn’t get built until, IIRC, the nineties, after which four subsidized transcons had already largely opened up the West enough to generate the traffic the GN needed to be profitable. All things being equal, the subsidized transcons — or at least the first — probably created more economic value quicker than would have been the case if unsubsidized railroads had inched their way across the continent one immediately-profitable segment at a time.
Thomas,
Looks like you’re gonna have to go into the wikipedia page on the topic and change history, because they certainly don’t have anything about eugenics or social darwinism or progressivism as having anything to do with the causes of World War I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I
(and yes, wikipedia is the God of the Internet) 🙂
I only point out the wikipedia page because it is consistent with the history I have learned. Social Darwinism had little if anything to do with World War I, and also social Darwinism has, generally speaking, little to do with progressivism. We are quite off topic though if we get going on this tangent. I’ll save you the trouble, I shan’t respond to your comments that lead back to the old conservative/liberal sparring. The same goes with the tax issue. I frankly don’t give a damn whether or not taxes are higher.
well duh. But that’s a straw man. Nobody argues for that. I agree with your #2 and #3.
of course not. But you’re still arguing a straw man here.
Straw man, or reductio ad absurdum?
If a 100% tax rate would inhibit innovation completely, might not a 90% rate inhibit it, but a little less? How about a 70% rate? 50%? 40%?
As the man said to the lady, we’ve already established what you are; now we’re just haggling over the price. 🙂
Re: the Great War, take a look at your link, under paragraph 3.3, “Changes in Austria”:
Fascinating time, the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. The reality of the cultural currents — with so many threads of thought utterly refusing to fit within modern understandings of “liberal” and “conservative” (no thanks to that old partisan fraud Hofstadter) — is so much more interesting than what the conventional wisdom would have it.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I’ve always liked this quote (from some irrelevant dead guy or other):
“War is the health of the State.”
War tends to expand the power of government. And not just for the duration; the need to plan in war, has given ammunition to advocates of increased government in peacetime. The progressives and New Dealers did exactly that: “We planned in war” was their justification of extending the wonders of central planning to peacetime economics, too.
But just as war can be the health of the state, so can the state be the health of war. Warfare — whether on an international or more retail basis — is almost always the function of coercion. Person A gives up trying to convince Person B to trade with him, or agree with him, and so decides to force him to do what Person A wants.
Which is why I believe that embracing a comprehensive non-aggression principle (with “aggression” including all forms of non-consensual coercion) is the best way to avoid conflicts, both international and civil. Heck, add “familial” to that list, too. “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority….”
Thomas,
aha! I knew you would go in there and change it! 😉
Thomas,
huh…and here I thought war tended to reduce the power of government and nation. Consider for instance the Vietnam War and its effect on both the government of the United States and of course the people. You’d think war tends to expand the government, but it actually weakens it, Thomas.
huh…and here I thought war was a continuation of diplomacy using other means…if we are to continue quoting dead guys…obviously warfare is intended to produce enforcement, the coercion upon another person. That’s why it tends to be the weapon of last resort, so to speak, and also, for the most part, the least effective.
War is a continuation of politics by other means, said the dead guy in question.
Interesting point. An unpopular war can reduce the power of a particular government. But did that actually happen after Vietnam? The scope of government kept right on growing, even accelerating, throughout the 1970s, and only slowed down a touch in the early eighties. Add the litigation explosion (courtesy of judges adopting more expansive theories of what nonsense they’d allow in their courts), and it’s hard to see the Vietnam War as any kind of Big Government high tide.
Vietnam, in any case, was a war fought as more or less an afterthought. President Johnson’s main focus was the Great Society. I had more in mind the last good war, World War II — which absolutely did, like World War I, allow a growth of government control that continued after the coming of peace.
If Vietnam weakened anything, it was the old internationalist New Deal liberal school, which after being discredited in Vietnam was largely replaced by the New Left…the guys who read and take seriously Marcuse, Chomsky, and Zinn. But the new guys weren’t for reducing the power and scope of government any more than the old-line liberals they replaced; if anything, they wanted even more radical expansions of its power.
Fastest keyboard in the Far West. 🙂
Thomas,
What are you smoking dude?!?!?!?! The government had one of the greatest expansions of power under Reagan. Seriously, can I have what you’re smoking?
But as for the decline of the New Deal liberalism (which had control of America from FDR to LBJ, you put it well that the decline was because of the Vietnam War. The difference with America is that we’re a very robust democracy. When one governing party wanes, another is ready to take charge. I’m thinking more of like Russia in World War I as a fairly classic example of a nation that ended up failing completely because of the war. Or China in World War II as another example. Not everything is about us. 🙂
Reagan talked a good game but compared to most righties today, he was more just right of center in his actual policies, in spite of the rhetoric and semi-God status he has obtained in the conservative movement.
After all, he was an Actor, playing a part.
There is an interesting dynamic one sees, where conservative figures once damned as the second coming of Attila the Hun, are suddenly discovered, once safely dead and unthreatening, to have been wise and judicious moderates. Not at all like conservatives today, you see.
Thomas,
What are you talking about? Reagan would not be welcomed in today’s conservative world. They have shifted so hard to the right, Reagan might as well be a secret commie. After all, that’s what Eisenhower was, right, Thomas?
Oh, pish posh, Dan. Assuming you’re old enough, you were right there with the rest of the Left, alternating between rolling your eyes at that addled old actor and screaming in terror that the cowboy Ray-Gun was going to get us all nuked. Or (to quote the late, and ludicrously nicknamed, Conscience of the Senate), bring back segregated lunch counters and back alley abortions, etc., etc.)
The guy who airbrushed Trotsky out of the official Party photograhs is smiling knowingly at all this. What’s history if not for re-writing, when it suits a noble purpose?
“Not at all like conservatives today, you see.”
Exactly correct! I had no love for Reagan as Governor of California certainly not as President. I am just amused at the Semi-God status he has achieved when he was miles away in practice from the extremes of the right today.
He always talked a good game and the way he recoved from having both legs amputated was wonderful…..
Thomas,
I was not old enough, except for really enjoying Genesis’ “Land of Confusion” video. 🙂
Again, we hear this a lot, but are there really facts to back it up? Is there all that much daylight between Ronald Reagan’s political philosophy, and, say, Paul Ryan’s?
To the extent there are substantial differences, how much of that is a function of where Reagan started working from? You work with the terrain you find yourself in; Rome wasn’t built in a day; etc. Just as people who really want single-payer health insurance are happy to start (wink, wink) with a lesser “reform,” compromises at the outset of a movement, may not reflect its basic principles or ultimate aims.
Again, the self-serving rehabilitation of Ronald Reagan is all part and parcel of a campaign to smear the opposition as “extreme.” As low as this hackneyed approach is (“lower than whale s*** on the bottom of the sea — AND THAT’S PRETTY LOW!” growls Grandpa J. from Forest Lawn), it’s (a) somewhat effective; and (b) about all that crew has left these days. So of course this talking point is front and center…whether or not it holds up once you look under the hood.
There was another guy who made his political reputation exaggerating his opponents’ garden-variety political views into scary extremism. A good friend of the Kennedy brothers, if I recall.
Thomas,
yes, YES, a thousand times yes! Then again, Paul Ryan did vote for Medicare Part D….
You’re such a silly man, Thomas. You think we haven’t “looked under the hood” at this old piece of crap.
No exaggeration is required in regards to today’s conservatism. All I have to do is pull out a good old Glenn Beck quote. No exaggeration is needed.