Forbidden Donut

WWII was a unique and very different situation to anything happening in the world today. Not being involved In WWII would have cost the USA dearly. I don't think the same could be said about Iraq, Afghanistan and other such countries.

Agreed. But it can still point to if he would be willing to intervene under certain circumstances.

What are your beliefs? Do you think the USA should put troops on the ground in Darfur? Do you think going into Iraq & Afghanistan was right or wrong?

Afghanistan was necessary for retaliation to show we still have fight in us.
Iraq and Darfur are optional places to send our troops as we could do good in both places. We should probably never get involved in optional wars, but if we do they need to have a broader purpose and we need to have the resources required to put forth our full effort in winning. Vietnam was optional but it had the broader goal of stopping the spread of socialism. However, we probably shouldn't have entered the war based on how many troops and money we shouldve expected the war effort to need. Iraq is very similar. It was optional but it fits into the broader goal of transforming radical Islam. And you can say we shouldn't have entered due to not being able to bear the cost that we should have expected. However, I can say it might be worth the cost and certainly that it is worth the cost now because victory is so near. Well victory as in irreversible progress toward democracy because it won't be a fully functioning democracy for some time.

"But mom, the other countries will make fun of us if we don't go to war!"

Yeah, we totally need to prove to the world that we can still bully them around.



Yes, every country that's not democratic needs to be invaded, so we can show those commie bastards what's up. It should not be our job to police the world, destroying every non-democratic nation. Especially not while our own country is in terrible shape.



Communists are bad. Muslims are bad. Everyone that's not Christian should burn in hell.



It's okay guys, the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq are totally justified, because Iraq will be democratic at an undetermined point in the future! That'll teach them to try to defy Western culture!



-dan

p.s. Ugh. That was probably more confrontational than I wanted to be.

I'd be conflicted about the WWII question, but I know I'd go to war after Pearl Harbor. With that said, there is a large difference between going to war with a country that actually has a military, is using it, and does pose a threat to our country.

Before you throw the 9/11 situation at me, going after Bin Laden is fine. Invading Iraq, why? Even if they had nuclear weapons, how were they going to attack us? Mail it to the US with a tag that says "don't open until Christmas"? I still don't understand the police the world aspect of our policies. Most other countries hate it (I think Israel appreciates it, at least...). It costs us a ton of money (trillions of dollars that we don't have).

Policing the world seems to be just an excuse to me, anyway. If our intention was to simply spread democracy and improve the well-being of others, why aren't we doing more for Rwanda?

The problem with World War II is that it shouldn't have happened at all. World War I was a European issue that centered around European conflicts that had began centuries before. Had it remained as such, the outcome would have been dramatically different. But even still, for the sake of discussion, our entry into World War II was exactly when it should have been. Japan started the war with us, and we handily finished it. Germany and Italy just happened to be an obstacle in the way of the defeat of Japan.

I would have supported no earlier intervention. Once again though, for the sake of discussion, let's assume Japan never attacked us and we didn't enter the war. Had Germany managed to completely conquer Russia (haaaaaaaaaaaaa), France, and Britain, I assure you they would have had plenty of their own problems to deal with. Conquering the world gets progressively more difficult, and the pursuit of it has always led to the crumbling of the empire from within, and Germany would have been no different. Heck, there was already evidence of internal conflict even amongst Hitler's closest advisers even before the end of the war.

If Canada started hanging people in the streets and it weighed on the conscience of Americans, then there is nothing stopping those Americans from taking up arms (well, aside from all of the stupid-ass gun control laws this country illegally imposes on its citizens) and heading into Canada to protect whomever they deem necessary. But that's their choice, and it shouldn't be forced upon the rest of the country.

My ideal is pretty simple: everyone deserves to be free. In my opinion, the federal government doesn't exist for any other purpose than to preserve that freedom. Freedom is the only thing that ensures that both life and happiness are in the hands of the individual instead of in the hands of society or the government (or worse yet, some other society or government). So, if free men want to stand up and fight against injustice, they should. However, the second their fight boils over into forcing a single individual to support their cause (either through manpower or property) against their will, then the fight itself is just as if not more unjust than the thing they're fighting against.

I don't value freedom because it falls within the ideals that I preach, I have the ideals that I preach because I value freedom more than all else.

And to clarify, I do not support having troops in any country on the planet right now. If it were up to me, every last soldier would be in the United States tomorrow.

Alright, that does make a lot of sense. Two more things though:
1. Does it matter to you that earlier intervention in WWII could have saved us money? -probably not if you value freedom above all else, but can't freedom be negatively impacted if our country loses money and cant defend itself?
2. What if singular citizens going into Canada couldn't make a dent in the problem while a concerted effort by our government certainly could and 80% of Americans wanted the government to do something?

Wow... I read that as 80% of America wants other people to die for a cause that they are unwilling to fight for.

Sorry, move along.

1. As you guessed it, no that doesn't matter to me. As for not being able to defend ourselves, I think that's a pretty dramatic stretch in the case of WWII. Regardless though, if a situation did arise, I don't hold the fate of the country over the ideals it was founded on. Afterall, what makes this country different than all of the others if we give up on the principles that define us?

2. This type of sentiment only exists because we've removed the value of individuals in our political system and handed all power that we have to hands of a few. We didn't even have a federal government when ordinary people organized together to create an army to defend our independence. If this was a nation that was truly governed by the people again, when 80% of Americans wanted to do something, it wouldn't take an executive order to make it happen.

However, there is a huge difference between wanting something done and wanting to do something. We've separated the government so much from the people that when 80% of America says they want the government to do something, they don't understand that that means they must do something. It's hardly the same thing, and it's the fundamental reason why we do all the stupid shit we do.

It shouldn't be that 80% of Americans turn to the government to solve a problem. That's so anti-republic it makes my head hurt. It should be that 80% of America wants to solve a problem, so they use the government to organize their efforts.

Wait, so you're saying that our armed citizens should go into another country and attempt to force change there illegally? How could the US even consider condoning that? Imagine if another country's citizens attempted to do that here. Sending armed citizens into another country would likely start with a country requesting that we prevent that from happening, and likely end with military action if we refused or sat by and did nothing. Like it or not, citizens are essentially a country's property and therefore responsibility. Failure for a country to control their citizens in a situation like that can be construed as an act of war.

Another thought. Back the WWII and Japan attacking us. Say we have irrefutable proof that Japan is hitting Pearl Harbor in 3 days (Never mind the fact that we may actually have had the knowledge and failed to take advantage of it). We have the option of meeting them head on, fighting the battle and preventing that attack. Do we do it? Do we use the option of a preemptive attack to engage the Japanese Navy before they attack Pearl? I mean, they haven't actually done anything aggressive yet. Only information that says that they will do something in a few days.

Wait. War? NO! To prevent a crazy occurrence like that from happening, let's just start a war to begin with? That makes about zero sense at all.

And no, citizens are not necessarily owned by the country they live in; there is no natural law that dictates that. The United States was not founded to support that, either. Quite the opposite: the people own their country. That's the only thing that made the US different than everyone else, and at least some of us aren't willing to shit on that essential principle for something as petty as security.

If the US wants to be nice to its neighbors by ensuring good behavior from its citizens, it can sign an extradition treaty. Problem solved.

What's wrong with simply calling them out on it? I would love to see them attempt an attack on Pearl Harbor after they realized that our entire pacific fleet was armed and ready for them. Either way, they wanted to start a war, and we obliged. The damage we'd do with a preemptive attack would be negligible when considering the entire extent of battles in the pacific throughout the rest of the war.

And then we don't have to worry about all of the problems that arise when our "sure-thing" evidence turns out to be 100% bogus and the war we find ourselves in is entirely ill-conceived.

Wasn't preemptive war what Hitler used to start WWII?

Why not defend Pearl Harbor instead?

Why punish a country for something they haven't done yet? They could just as easily have released false information to disguise their actual plan. They may have not seriously meant it. Someone may have mentioned it and had it shot down by their superiors. It could be a plot to try and pull you into a war from people who want you to be their ally. There are plenty of ways this information could be gathered without it actually being true.

Dude... fuck "what if's"! There might possibly be a threat to someone somewhere on or near our country. Throw all of that logic-shit out the window!

American foreign policy never ceases to amaze me. Suppress logic and reason and reward irrationality disguised as loyalty whenever humanly possible.

First, it kind of worries me that you think that. Is there a country that lives by your ideals better than us? If not, then where do you want to live when our country falls apart? And do you mind living in chaos if your goal is to stay and try to reinstitute our old ideals?

Second, I thought I was saying that. 80% of Americans want to do something and the best way to organize their efforts is to use the government. I completely agree that our politicians are separated from the people and don't do their will. However, wouldn't it be impossible to institute your ideals if we only did things when 50+% of people want action? It seems like only through falling way down on the scale of progress will Americans be forced to reevaluate their ideals- do you want it to come to that?

To your first point, there is no country that I'm aware of that lives by those ideals. I don't foresee our country falling apart if my ideals were followed, so that seems like a bit of a moot point. The only way I see our country falling apart is by continuing the path we're on. That's kind of the point. I'm not sure what chaos you're referring to.

To your second point, since the revolutionary war, there has never been a time when 80% of America wanted to do anything. I think you're still confusing popularity rating with what people want to do. The popularity of an idea is a measure of what people want done, not of what they want to do. The problems I have with this country arise from this very gross misconception.

However, let's assume the situation arose. If 80% of the country wanted to defend the Canadians from their own government, then 80% of the population is more than welcome to do so. If I'm among the 20% that could care less, then it would be unjust for me to be forced to support it. This is, of course, an extreme simplification of the principle since it doesn't consider state-level practices and laws, but in a very basic sense this describes the ideal.

I don't see why Americans would have to fall way down on the scale of progress. I'm under the impression that people are inherent innovators, so I don't see how giving them more freedom will stifle that at all.

It's cause of the terrorists, Court. Duh.

I think you misinterpreted my first point. I do agree that our country will eventually fall apart if we continue down our current path. Only then will we realize that we allowed the national govt to overstep its bounds under the Constitution and that we should have been living under a system closer to your ideals. Yet we still follow your ideals closer than most other countries. So the question is if you want to preserve America as it is now with its flawed ideals and work within the system to move back toward your true ideals or if you want to push for your ideals at all costs? If the second, I think it will only occur once we continue down our current path and lose money and power and freedom = our country has to fall apart to such a degree as to wake people up. Bad shit could happen to our country while we are in that weak position learning how to go back to our old ideals. Thus, do you want to live in our country while shit is hitting the fan and try to push forward your ideals or would you rather keep your current lifestyle and move somewhere more stable?

Can you explain more about the misconception between popularity of wanting an idea to get done and actually wanting to do the idea?

Ok, you live in Penn on the border of NY. Right over the border there are tons of thugs beating up people for fun. They even cross over into your town to do it too but then go back home. Their home town in NY cant solve the problem. Your home town can. 80% of people in your town want to stop the problem using your town's resources. You are one of the 20% who doesnt want your town spending its resources on that. Your town goes ahead and fixes the problem, is this unjust to you?

Last I agree that more freedom = more innovation. But I think our country is on a downward slope and that we won't realize that we need to go back to the more freedom end of the spectrum until we are in chaos mode. Thus, yes we fall down on the scale of progress, but once freedom ideal is reinstituted we work back up.

This is more or less how I feel about things. If we can only speed up the failure of our system we can speed up the learning process that led us develop the system in the first place. Only then can we revisit our grand experiment with 250+ years of perspective under our belt and take another swing at it.

/Pinky, the peasants are revolting!
//Oh I don't think they're all that bad, Brain.

See, the problem is, my ideal doesn't work half-way. It's actually quite detrimental to society when you're only following bits of it. The greatest example of this is our capitalist market -- it is so ass-backwards, corrupt, and bothersome to society it almost makes your head spin, and it exists in that state because we like to think we have a "free" market, and when someone says otherwise, we say we have the "free-est" market as if that somehow makes it all better. People are and always will be self-interested, so when you give them even the slightest bit more power than everyone else, they will exploit it to their own advantage (and most everyone else's disadvantage).

The only way things will get better is by educating the public. If enough of the public hear about the real problems we face as a nation, then when shit really gets bad enough that a change can take place, that change will have the support of enough people to actually happen. So I will help to do that for as long as I have to, and I'm not willing to sell out that pursuit so that I can still go to the microbrewery once a week.

Want something done and wanting to do something are two dramatically different things. For example, many people want to exercise and eat healthy, but that doesn't mean that anywhere close to that amount of people actually do it. Many people want universal healthcare, but very few of them are willing to pay for it. Many people want to spread democracy to Iraq, but very few are willing to literally write the checks to support it or put their lives on the line to make it happen. When we measure the popularity of ideas in the US, we're not measuring the actual amount of support we have to make those ideas happen, we're measuring how the amount of people that want it to happen. Unfortunately, we've twisted our republic into a democracy, so popularity is all that fucking matters anymore.

I'm totally fine with my town getting together and doing something to stop whatever the hell they want to stop from happening. The only catch is, they're not allowed to use my property (which includes money) to do it. And if my town was going to force me to pay for it, luckily, towns provide natural competition for each other, so I can simply move to another. Not so when working on an international scale where competition among an equal populous doesn't exist.

So you'd be willing to throw your education and skills of web development away to let the country spiral downward so that we can see the error of our ways? (when we have chaos technology will suffer) I know it won't happen to you in this time period, but it'll happen to your progeny somewhere down the line.

wow... the point isn't to make other people see their errors. it's about integrity. why are your arguments always trying to pit what someone says against them instead of actually arguing against it.

because hes right

I think at this point it's safe to say, "yes". But I'm still not certain where this idea of chaos came from and why you're still pushing it. I mean, I believe that the only way the American people are going to make moves towards a better society we will have to experience some unifying cataclysm, but Court's never said or intimated or implied anything of the sort. You're applying your inferences about his ideals to his ideals, and then using that inference as the basis of an argument. Don't do that /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

But if for some reason chaos, disorder, the complete dismantling of our society, or any other chicken little stuff had to occur to see his dream realized:

Can't say "this" loud enough... He's got the best vision one can have of our country, the problem with which is that it isn't pragmatic. But pragmatism wasn't written into our constitution and was not, in fact a guiding principle of our founding fathers. So while it would appear to be more effective to make concessions to ensure that some of the changes we wished to see would take place, the foudners of our country didn't make compromises, and neither should we.

(I'm not going to spell check or re-read that at all and I'm not even sure that last bit is english)

After observing months of Evestay mass-posting forums, I've noticed a good percentage of them started with "no, you misunderstand my point"

Be clearer, or don't open your rebuttal by saying that the other person's interpretation was wrong.


/cranky

I completely agree with your whole post, but I just want to point something out about the above part. I think our founding fathers were pretty pragmatic. I recently watched the HBO series on John Adams (highly recommended) and he didn't agree with slavery. He thought the very principles outlined in the Declaration made it wrong, but he was pragmatic in not bringing up the issue to the southern states as it would alienate them from listening to him when he was asking them to fight. Also, at one of the continental congresses he was asking for them to create an army or navy, but a lot of the states disagreed as it would show we were not willing to get along with the British while solutions were still possible. So Adams stopped being mad at those states for not believing in total freedom as being necessary and proposed that George Washington (from one of those states, VA) should come up to command the Massachusetts militia and got everyone to agree on it. Soon this meant VA was tied to the fight and saw the necessity and the next continental congresses saw fit to designate the force as the national army and to send money, supplies, and troops to it. However, he did still get his ideals as articulated to be in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Ind so that slavery could be delegitimized later on in accordance with his ideals. Maybe this just means he was pragmatic in pushing for his ideals and that doesn't necessarily mean he compromised on them.

And Aussie Witch- I try my best. I can't automatically be able to make clearer arguments but I will work toward it.