 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
David,
I think your supposition that Libertarians would never have allowed things like the Indian wars is folly. The Indian wars were often spurred on by the aggregated actions of people who might well qualify as Libertarians today. Just because a government holds a certain philisophical bent does not negate the often deeper held feelings of it's leaders and the population at large. In the case of the Indian wars this deeper held feeling was most often the ease with which members of the public could relate to those who shared their color, language and values and the difficulty in understanding the pressures faced by the Indians or their perspective on the issues at hand, not to mention their cultures. Even when the Government of the U.S. tended to agree with the Indian POV and made treaties which obligated it to uphold Indian rights it eventually succumbed to the pressures of the population at large. In the vast majority of instances culture / language / ethnicity will trump ideology in a war for hearts and minds.
You also seem to completely ignore the notion of the balance of power. Even if you consider the notion to be outside the allowable framework of a causus belli according to your philosophy it is nevertheless a potent motivating factor for state action, and with good reason. Like many others you ascribe a level of knowledge to historical decision makers which is unrealistic for them to have had without the benefit of hindsight, and you make statements which even with the benefit of hindsight seem to me to merely be playing the odds, rather than the certainties that you make them out to be. What percentage chance of losing a war (and with it perhaps all opportunity for self rule) is acceptable for a leader to take in order for him to live up to your ideals?
.......
The whole notion of justifying war is interesting and amusing on the one hand, and a bunch of drivel on the other. It is most certainly a moving target as opinions, information and values change over time, and not always for the more intelligent, more authoritative or morally superior I might add. The march of peoples, nations, states, values etc. is not a simple deterministic machine, it is rather a very complex system. Good intentions and actions based on them can have terrible consequences, and evil intentions can likewise have positive side effects. At the end of the day we have no way of knowing whether our particular crusade has saved mankind, damned it or (most likely) had little effect in the long run.
The best I can do is to try and live up to my ideals, and act in the manner it seems to me will have the greatest positive effect for my value system. At least I will have the benefit of feeling personally satisfied with my efforts, unless of course I accidently manage to bring about something opposite to my intentions! I don't expect others to live up to my ideals, though I will try to get them to consider my way of thinking, either to persuade them to change sides or merely for the mutual advantage that a peek into someone else's mindset can bring.
This way of thinking doesn't have the advantage that the gleeming eyed fanatic enjoys in his surety of the absolute righteousness of his cause, but it does confer the benefit of not being too stressful. Taking an hour for lunch just might be the right move (via the butterfly effect) to bring about a golden age for humanity. If nothing else, it's nice to take enough time to chew properly.
I tend to agree with David to the extent that I wish the U.S. would stop playing Robocop around the world. I don't like having to keep an eye on Uzbekistan on the off chance that I may have to send my daughter there to defend a continued U.S. policy of over-extension. I temper my feelings (to the extent that they are tempered) with the realization that I am one of 200 million or so people with a say in the matter. My power is extremely limited which sucks most of the time, but my responsibility for whatever actions this aircraft carrier of state takes is likewise limited. This is good, for even I make a mistake once in a while, and I wouldn't want to bear all of the responsibility when something of the magnitude of U.S. foreign policy goes wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
 |
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
Economic reductivism is absolutely wrong. It fails to take into account nationalism, which has been by far the most important justification for war for the last several centuries. It was nationalism, not economic reasons, that the U.S. seceeded from Britain. Nationalism, not the economy caused the Union to fight a war with the South. Your simplification puts a higher premium on amassing material wealth that on fighting for survival.
David: Japan's plans could not have avoided the U.S., regardless of FDR's moves. Their plans to create a pacific empire was clearly in conflict with the U.S. What is your criterion? You seem to think that FDR pushed Japan to war, but you fail to prove that Japan would not have done so sooner or later. Evidence shows that the calculation for bombing Pearl Harbor was that they would have to do it at some point, and that maybe by surprising them, and destroying most of the Pacific Fleet, they could gain a better foothold by which to launch further attacks on the U.S. Additionally, your criteria would seem to disqualify our war on afghanistan since the Taliban were not the actors who attacked us. I support the war, but I also have a broader sense of justification.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoek
Economic reductivism is absolutely wrong. It fails to take into account nationalism, which has been by far the most important justification for war for the last several centuries. It was nationalism, not economic reasons, that the U.S. seceeded from Britain. Nationalism, not the economy caused the Union to fight a war with the South. Your simplification puts a higher premium on amassing material wealth that on fighting for survival. |
I disagree. In both cases, economic factors were primary causes for the wars (which is not to say they were the sole or determinent cause). The Americans revolted because Britain heavily restricted American trade, i.e., only allowed America to trade with Britain (legally, there was quite a bit of smuggling going on), as well as (what seemed to the Americans) unfair taxation. As well, the lower classes revolted (which is what began the war) because of the detrimental economic conditions they faced, having their farms seized because of debts, sick of indentured servitude and slavery, etc.
The same with the American Civil War. The primary issue was which economic system was to rule America, capitalism or slavery. Both systems had fought for decades over economic policies favoring one of the other. Tariffs and government interference in the economy was favor by the capitalists, no tariffs and governmental abstinence from the economy was favored by the slave holders.
Nationalism may have been the rallying cry, but the heart of the matter is always money.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Xeones
|
|
is it worth being shocked and appalled that 18 apolytoners think the wholesale slaughter of the indians was justified?
it about as justified as i would be to come into your home and do horrible things to your family before killing you all and saying it was my right ... my divine "destiny" even.
please tell me thats actually just 18 people with perverted sense of humor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
|
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
Hey Faded Glory, who the **** are you calling uneducated? Hmm...? You need to shut up.
Che and Chris: untrue about economics being the basis of all wars. What is the economic basis for the current war? World War I was about balance of power and nationalism, not economics.
Most armed conflict has not been over economic factors, despite what you may think. The Arab conquests in the 7th century was not an attempt to gain material wealth, it was Jihad. The crusades were religious, not economic conflicts. I am not denying that economics plays an important, even a crucial component of armed conflict, but it is not the only component, would you agree? By stripping away other factors that contribute to armed conflict, you ignore important contributing factors.
I would argue that survival is the most important cause of armed conflict, followed by economics, followed by identity conflicts (national, racial, ethnic, religious), followed by ideology (it's arguable that the communist/capitalist cold war was less over economics than it was about the labels used)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoek
Che and Chris: untrue about economics being the basis of all wars. What is the economic basis for the current war? |
The economic basis of the current war is Middle Eastern oil. Because of this oil, the U.S. subsidizes Israel and turns a blind eye towards their depredeations against the Palestinian people. Because of this oil, the US has propped up evil, decrepit, corrupt regimes throughout the Middle East. Both of these things are the cause of bin Laden's war against us. At the same time, the US needs to crush al-Qaeda (and the Taleban) not just because of their evil attack on our people, but also to re-enforce American power, lest anyone think that the US is slipping and decides to go their own way.
quote:
World War I was about balance of power and nationalism, not economics. |
WWI was about colonies. It was an attempt by Germany to get a bigger slice of Africa and Austria to get a bigger slice of the Balkans. Italy joined to get a chuck of the Ottoman Empire. Britain and France and Japan all wanted Germany's colonies (and got them).
quote:
The Arab conquests in the 7th century was not an attempt to gain material wealth, it was Jihad. The crusades were religious, not economic conflicts. |
Both sets of wars were over control of vital trade routes from the East. They merely took religious form.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Survival is a reason for fighting, but nations rarely start wars to survive. They start wars to gain economic power.
Nationalism is an important factor in many wars, but the American Revolution and Civil War are poor examples. If the colonists or rebels were able to make more money by remaining in their current nations, they would have done so happily. Nationalism is often the great cause people claim to fight for when they don't want to admit (or don't realize) they're fighting for economic reasons.
The Balance of Power is an economic more than political balance. In WWI, the Great Powers were jockying for the economic leadership in Europe. Germany wanted to eclipse Britain's role in the world, but felt European territory was more important than the few far-flung colonies they had managed to acquire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
The United States did not start the current war. Those who did start it attacked because the US is the richest nation in the world. Religion plays a very small role. Latin America may be the most Christian area in the world, but Islamic terrorists don't fly into Mexican scyscrapers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Because of this oil, the U.S. subsidizes Israel and turns a blind eye towards their depredeations against the Palestinian people. |
Don't see this at all, che. Israel is the one country in the area with no oil. If we stood back and gave no aid to either side, our relations with the oil-producing countries would probably improve. There are obviously reasons why the U.S. government subsidizes Israel, but oil isn't one of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Rex, the US subsidizes Israel because of the powerful Jewish lobby in the US...it'd be bad politics to cut off Israel, especially after the Holocaust and all that...bunch of bullshit if you ask me but that's how it is...
I hope no one thinks the US subsidizes Israel because it's "the right thing to do" - even if it were the right thing to do that isn't why we do it.
The subsidization also probably has to do with having a powerful strategic partner in that region of the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
|
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
Bah, you never get the complete picture with economic reductivism. I know you communists think that nationalism is just a veiled attempt at supressing the working class, as is everything else  , but your connecting our support of Israel to the war in Afghanistan is just wrong. Israel has no oil, and it does not serve our financial purposes anymore to subsidize them. How you connect fighting ass-backward Afghans to our supposed (yet nonexistent) financial interest in Israel is silly.
And while you're bringing it up, Israel is a perfect example of a country that engaged in armed conflict for survival. It was a country born in fire, and it never sought to engage in military action for financial gain.
As for World War I, you still ignore nationalist factors. And you fail to explain how nations are formed in the first place. They are not based on economics, they are quite unique in that their goal is either the establishment or maintainence of state institutions. How can you explain various ethnic conflicts, such as Yugoslavia? Land conflicts are not necessarily economic conflicts.
The civil war: there is considerable evidence that slavery was not actually economically beneficial at the time of the Civil War in some states, such as Virginia. Nobody can deny the ideological, particularly racial differences between the north and the south.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-11-2001 16:54
)
|
|