Go to DEFENSEWATCH
- Add a comment
- Go to A FUTURE'S MARKET FOR TERROR
Sorry for my absence...
...I've been busy with other things. I have posted (as promised) an article that addresses much of this discussion:
MAKE THE OTHER POOR DUMB BASTARD DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY.
posted by
arGee
on December 7, 2003 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
meant to say...
psychologists (in place of "scholars" -- which wasa redundancy, of course).
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 5, 2003 at 10:23 AM
| link to this | reply
GM...I agree with you
Ecellent points, as usual. As you know, I'm always interested in figuring out the
why of things.
Why are so many people enforcing this new brand of thought hegemony. And I think the answer lies in the pure "scariness" that war has become. These responses -- egregious as they are in the cases you cite -- are, nevertheless, a response to something equally wrong.
It is interesting. Most humans seem to be impetuous. It is a mechanism of flight-or-fight. It is obviously ridiculous to expell a student for drawing a soldier. Military service is admirable, and bravery gets short shrift in our world.
It's just that we now have weapons that threaten the Earth's very existence. I think the impetuous ones have it wrong when they think we can eradicate violence by expelling it from the thought lexicon -- which is what I believe they endeavor to do through the examples you've broached.
But let's not forget
why they
want to eradicate it. Herein lies the point at which I truly believe it would be helpful for the pilosophers, the scholars, and the theologians to sit down and reach a consensus. Someone ought to lock them in a room, actually, and confiscate the key until this meeting of the minds produces something that
works.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 5, 2003 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Brent-- perhaps we can give many pacifists the benefit of the doubt, that what they really want is justice and freedom. But there is a growing trend to condemn ALL violence of ANY KIND, just because it is violent. The extremes this is being taken to, are shocking to me. Spanking your children is increasingly condemned, even becoming a crime in some places. Small children are EXPELLED from school for playing "cowboys and Indians" or "cops and robbers". There is NOTHING WRONG with playing these games. At least one child has been expelled for DRAWING A PICTURE OF A SOLDIER!! That one absolutely enrages me. I was a soldier, and I consider the teacher and staff above her to be bigots against the military. The left is spawning all kinds of liberal bigotry, but that is another story. What I am talking about here is the extreme of pacifism, in which violence is condemned as something inherently bad in itself, even when responding to unjustified violence.
posted by
GoldenMean
on December 4, 2003 at 9:26 PM
| link to this | reply
DL and argee
I'm inclined to agree with both of you on many of your points here.
What's interesting is that both you and argee viscerally feel correct in the matter at hand. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's because both sides to an argument always have their merits. Neither DL nor argee would feel viscerally so if they weren't.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Check out
this and
this for some stuff intriguingly tangential to what I mean.
BTW, I hope this doesn't all seem like shameless self marketing. I'm honestly just interested in seeing what you both think.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 3:02 PM
| link to this | reply
argee...in my last post, I forgot to include linking HTML for...
...the blog post of mine that I was hoping you'd read. Here you go:
Freedom ought to be called something else
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 2:52 PM
| link to this | reply
argee
I would be interested in reading that once you find it.
As for your response here, I still say the pacifist, in his own mind, is making a stand for justice and freedom -- just not necessarily productively,
in practice.
It's important to note that, regardless of our takes on peace activists and pacifists, the notions of justice and freedom (
especially the latter; read this for my thoughts on freedom) are highly subjective. Freedom, in fact -- of the kind that politicians and activists left and right et al. entreat us to aspire to -- is really just a figment of our imagination.
Interestingly enough, "a figment of our imagination" can be there because it exists. Let's condiers, though, that the notion of "freedom" is really just semantic symbolism for a state of "happiness" for which humans yearn.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 2:50 PM
| link to this | reply
That's Such a...
...stunningly stupid arguement that it barely merits a response. Oh well...
When will you understand that harping back to WWII adds NOTHING to any conversation about war now. Why? Because Germany was a fascist state that made an unprovoked invasion into a sovereign territory. The UK leapt to the defense of the invaded (in 1939). the US finally roused itself and managed to work up the will to act by...er...1942, and helped bring the war to a close. I support that action with the benefit of hindsight. I'm sure I would have supported it then. Because one nation has no right to invade another unless it is being directly threatened, and even then, it's a questionable course of action.
Earlier this year, the situation was almost an exact reversal of 1939. A fascist state made an unprovoked invasion into a sovereign territory and I WAS EXPECTED TO SUPPORT THAT INVASION!! Well, excuse me, but what stood as right and wrong in 1939 still stands today. If you don't believe me, read the Geneva Concvention.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on December 4, 2003 at 2:31 PM
| link to this | reply
As a rule, Peace Activists are also...
...Pasivists, and these guys seem willing to let the rest of us do their fighting for them. Had we followed the advice of these guys before WW II, we all would be speaking German and Japanese now. I wrote something about this that I will try to find and post in the near future.
posted by
arGee
on December 4, 2003 at 2:13 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm going to bed soon, but...
I have to say one thing. GoldenMean just added some interesting stuff to this conversation. I am inclined to agree on him on some points. Therefore, I'll simply take slight issue with the main thing about what he said that gives me some pause. Sure...peace is not as important as justice and freedom, but any peace activist, when pursued for an explanation, would eventually describe peace in terms of the ideas of justice and freedom. So, where is the disagreement?
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 3, 2003 at 10:08 PM
| link to this | reply
I may regret jumping in here.....
But I think Argee was wrong to call America a peace-loving nation, and DL was wrong to jump on it. Peace is completely irrevelant to human relations. What is all-important is JUSTICE and FREEDOM. I wrote a blog about this which I offer here
The Philosophy of PeaceBut let me have a try at your list, DL.
America bombed more countries than anyone else since WWII (during which we saved your country, England)--- OK very true. But I consider this irrelevant.
Invaded Iraq on false pretenses, breaking international law--- the "false pretenses" argument is premature, seeing as how the world gave Saddam 12 years to hide his WMD's, and the US gave him ample warning to move them out of the country. We did not break international law, we had a UN resolution calling for the use of military force to enforce the umpteen other UN resolutions that Saddam had broken or ignored.
Armed to the teeth with WMD's--- thank goodness for that! I say "PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER". Just kidding. But there is some truth in it.
We armed Israel in its conflict with Palestine--- do not forget that coalitions of Arab countries tried to destroy Israel in at least 4 major wars, and Israel needed our arms to survive. They did more than survive, they kicked some serious Arab butt! And the Arabs were armed with some of the latest Soviet stuff, don't forget.
We arm many other nations to pursue short-term goals--- yes, and we were probably wrong on some of those misadventures, arming what we thought was "the lesser evil" against "the greater evil". But most of that was during the Cold War, and the stakes were very high.
We spend 8 times more on defense than on education--- no comment. But if our kids would do their homework rather than play video games, perhaps they could graduate from high school with the ability to read on a high school level.
posted by
GoldenMean
on December 3, 2003 at 10:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh, You're Not Still...
...harping on about the wells, surely! I thought you'd at least come to the conclusion that massive water extraction over time will lower the water table to the detriment of all around. Oh well...
Just spotted this in your comment below...
"I suspect most BN readers have got your number by now."
Hmmm...have you looked at our relative rankings, argee? Just wondered.
Anyway, you've backed away from our conversations before when things get too hot for you, and I respect your decision to do the same again. But know this - whether you respond or not, if you make arguements that simply don't stack up (as in this case, and I notice you make no defence here) I will be invading your Comments section! (Feel free to delete them, of course!)
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 13, 2003 at 1:18 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm going to say this one final time, DL...
...Several times I have tried to reason with you. I have presented you with facts, calculations, and reasoned argument. You consistently reject any facts that don't fit your preconception, you don't even seem to understand the calculations even though they are at a very basic level, and you have not demonstrated any consistent ability to understand a logical path from A to B, let alone chart one.
You clearly have made up your mind about how things are, and you enthuistastically embrace anything that appears to your twisted logic to support your mindset, while ignoring anything else. You appear completely unable or unwilling to follow or even consider anything but your own silly point of view. Your apparent inability to think logically has lead you into the trap set by the far left for people like you, and so you spout all the tired old arguments they espouse, arguments that have been put to rest decades ago.
I accept that I cannot change your mind, so I will not even try. I understand that you probably are presenting your arguments with the intent of influencing the minds of those who read our discussions. I am going to let these people see my original presentations, and if they can be convinced by your prattle, then they deserve you.
I will continue to answer questions directed at me by anyone who wishes genuine interactioin, but you, DL, can use your left inspired fantasies and your grade school level logic to fill the Indian wells you believe Coca Cola has magically emptied.
posted by
arGee
on November 13, 2003 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
You're Doing...
...exactly what you criticise others for - attacking the person, and completely ducking the realities facing you. Tell me that ANY of the facts on my list are wrong. And tell me in the next breathe that that list adds up to the acts of a peace-loving nation. I defy even you to be that crass.
Going back to your idea that 'we have to make these new weapons because, if we don't, someone somewhere will and then use them against us.' It's a completely spurious and false arguement.
Think about it.
America and other Western nations have vast resources at their disposal. They can access cash, research labs, equipment, scientific now-how, and what ever they need, they can easily go and source it on the open market, or they can manufacture it from scratch.
Contrast this to al-Qaueda. Yes, they have cash (allegedly) from the bin Laden coffers. But I doubt they have much of the rest of the above ingredients. It's hard to have labs when you're based in an Afghani cave! And accessing the market for scientific equipment would be risky at best, impossible at worst. Jesus - al-Qaeda don't even have a nation to call their own!
Even so-called axis of evil countries will struggle to access 10% of the resources we in the West have at our disposal.
So no - your arguement simply doesn't stack up. The uncomfortable reality is, we in the West are the only ones able to afford to bring new hi-tech weapons into the world. Even more uncomfortable is that such weapons always go the way of all new technologies; wider availablity, sharp falls in price until - guess what? - the likes of al-Qaeda CAN finally get their hands on them. As may well be the case today with nukes.
So the likes of DARPA are 100% responsible for birthing new lethal weapons, at vast costs to taxpayers, resulting in vast loss of human life. In your way of thinking, they are the cause, NOT the effect. And at the other end of their actions, the bad guys get even more sophisticated weapons, developed by us, at our cost.
In some ways, we deserve all we get.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 13, 2003 at 6:41 AM
| link to this | reply
DL, it is a total waste of time to discuss anything with you...
...because you are categorically unable to understand cause and effect. You swallow hook, line, and sinker, the line of the far left, with apparently no understanding of its nefarious goals. You are the classic example of the kind of person I wrote about in my post, I Can See Clearly Now. In the few debates we have had, I ate your lunch, and we both know it. I seem to remember one comment of yours that discussing with me was "hard work."
DL, honest thinking, real appraisal of information, accurate evaluation of its implications--these are ALL hard work. In all my contacts with you thus far, I have seen little evidence that you can handle any of this. I suspect most BN readers have got your number by now.
posted by
arGee
on November 12, 2003 at 9:09 AM
| link to this | reply
How Can You Call...
...America a fundamentally peace-loving nation????
- It's bombed more countries than any other nation since WWII
- It invaded Iraq on false pretenses, breaking international law
- It is armed to the teeth with WMDs which everyone who is not American, or a recognised American ally, are scarfed of
- It arms Israel, who maintain a nasty little war with Palestine
- It arms many other nations in order to pursue short-term goals, including Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua and so on
- It spends EIGHT TIMES more on defense than it does on education (which is spectacularly sick)
Show me the peaceful bits, argee. And before you say it, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 12, 2003 at 8:41 AM
| link to this | reply
You make a valid point, DL...
...but you miss another: A scientific "axiom" is that if it can be made, someone will make it. This is never more true than with weapons. This is why (and I discuss this in detail elsewhere) a nation like the U.S., which fundamentally is peace-loving, MUST develop biologic and chemical weapons, simply then to be able to create apropriate defenses against them, because somebody somewhere WILL make them and inevitably use them against us, unless we have the capability to defend ourselves adequately. I know it seems like a vicious cycle, BUT we have not caused it, and we do not perpetuate it. America is reactive to this things, which is why we nearly always get hit first, before we get our act together.
All that aside, however, the availability of nanodevices probably will be a net positive in our ability to wage defensive warfare, with lower casualties on all sides.
posted by
arGee
on November 11, 2003 at 8:27 AM
| link to this | reply
It's Weirdly Funny...
...that you get so excited about the possibilities of nano-technology (which are indeed awesome) at the beginning of this post and in the one below. You would probably have been just as excited in the 1940s about the development of nuclear weapons.
Of course, what you'd have failed to see then, and fail to see now, is that developing 'exciting' new weaponry is just kicking off another cycle of 'what comes around, goes around'.
Stupid amounts of public money have been thrown at the development of nuclear weapons by nations that can (arguably) afford it, like the US, and those that really can't, like India. Now, the scariest beneficiary of all that investment is the terrorist with the latest device in a briefcase, wandering around a major city with the button in his hand, picking his spot.
Inevitably, exactly the same cycle will be repeated with nano-tech weapons. They'll be developed and perfected with boatloads of taxpayers cash (which also holds an opportunity cost in that the money is not going on education, health, povery eradication and so on) and then, a few decades down the line, the scary people will suddenly be able to get hold of such weapons to potentially turn against 'us', and they won't look like such a good idea any more. Especially as we'll have to spend even MORE tax dollars to develop defenses against them....and so we go on.
However, if you're a fan of expensive new gadgets designed to kill and maim, I guess this will all fall on deaf ears.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 11, 2003 at 8:08 AM
| link to this | reply