World War IV

  • 185 Replies
  • 19670 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 21, 2017, 12:18:35 pm »
----
Edit: Mod-Wilshire says: I just had to moderate a post. Lets keep personal attacks to a minimum. Granted, its difficult for me to at once be part of the conversation and moderate it, so please call me out if I'm missing something (including if I'm doing the same thing I'm attempting to moderate against.)
----

Please correct me if I'm wrong MSJ, but it seems your stance is basically that: we, as the US, have the right to topple governments and install ones that we like, then have indefinite military occupancy enforcing Marshall Law until we can 'convince' citizens to believe in the new culture we are installing against their will?

This is the same as IS, isn't it? They are using military might to kill people that have different ideologies than them, then install military enforced occupation of capture regions to force citizens to capitulate to Shariah Law.
What's the difference? (I guess you have already answered this, so asking again will just be irritating. Let me rephrase: You feel that the US version is justified because the conditions we install are better than the ones we removed, right? I'm really just trying to get it straight in my head.)

Our belief structures, though different, aren't necessarily better. This isn't Earwa. There is no objective morality. Until the world can agree on one set of rules to play by, which clearly we haven't, then no one can claim moral high ground. So how can we know, or better yet measure, which state is better?

If we want to just live in a world where the strongest guy wins, I'm on the winning side, so honestly what do I care? With the most advanced and well funded military in the world, I'll never have to worry about losing a war. Heck, I don't even have to worry about going to war - I've got a handful of medical issues that each disqualify me individually, let alone in their sum, from going into battle.
When I see anyone from the US arguing for war, I see people who are scared and want to be in control. Leave altruism out of it, because its not real. Money and power, we take what we want and kill for everything else to stay in power.

To me, the calling card of evil is this: That Means justify Ends, that all who believe differently than you should be killed, and that Objective Morality (God) is on your side.
I see both sides believing this unto death, and both sides, imo, are equally evil. I'm guessing this is where our disagreement originates.

This post is already long enough so I'll think on it a bit more before posting again, but, what's the middle ground here? I think usually in an argument the truth is somewhere in between.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 12:42:55 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2660
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #91 on: August 21, 2017, 12:54:48 pm »
[Moderator's Note: We are going to deescalate this thread, starting now.  Please pause before posting to reread what you are about to say and consider it's tone.]
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasûrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

themerchant

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Captain Slogger
  • Posts: 946
    • View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 21, 2017, 01:12:11 pm »
I saw MSJ comment as joking between me and him as we've known each other a bit longer. Who just happen to have different views of World War II probably down to geographical location more than anything else. I'm of course right though :D

"Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life. ;) "

The above to me reads as just a bit of ribbing. I've heard it from American friends as we josh with each other.

It's probably impossible to actually have an objective view of World War II anyway.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #93 on: August 21, 2017, 01:18:26 pm »
Thanks TM. I appreciate the insight.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2288
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #94 on: August 21, 2017, 02:09:26 pm »
Wilshire,

I think I've stated my stance very well. No, I don't think that any people who don't believe as me should be murdered.  I don't think I've said any such thing. I felt that the removal of Sadaam was justified purely for the reason of what he did to his own people for decades. Afghanistan because of Al-Qaeda, Bin- Laden and the Taliban.

I don't think we should occupy these countries. I think we should help their government stabilize and allow time for the military to grow strong and effective. I've stated all of this. I've stated that of course we have our own interests involved in these wars, always do.

I'm sorry if others disagree, but it's fine if they do. My post to Merch was purely a joke and thought you could tell that from the context of the post. Im entitled to my opinion as everyone else is.

Merchant, Im glad that you recognized it, for what it was. I've known you, figured you would see it as a joke. As you and I tend to have the same sense of humor.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 02:24:14 pm by MSJ »
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

Woden

  • *
  • Great Name
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 21, 2017, 02:31:21 pm »
Anyway if we have to choose between evils (and all governments are evil) I always want the lesser evil. But we have to identify who is that for us - and probably we have different points of view.
For me between IS and Sadam or Gadafi, the later two are the lesser evil. But Allah knows better.
Know what your slaves believe, and you will always be their master.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #96 on: August 21, 2017, 02:46:10 pm »
Please, correct me if I err in understanding your argument.

Clearly, revolution costs lives, we must agree on that. Military conflict kills civilians and military alike. By removing a government, we had to kill thousands.

So, how is that not a tacit endorsement to kill people with a different ideology? How is that different than IS? We kill to remove a group who's ideology is different than ours, they do the same.

You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how? I feel I've made a clear case for why I feel they are the same, and would like to see a response to that.

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.

Can you see where I'm coming from, or is my line of thought totally obscure still?
One of the other conditions of possibility.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2288
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #97 on: August 21, 2017, 02:48:49 pm »
I agree Woden. But, my pointing out that Obama (whom I voted for, so everyone here knows) pulling out troops, against the advice of military brass is what created the vacuum for ISIS to gain a foothold and thrive. IMHO, if we would have made sure Iraq was capable of governing and defending their country before doing so, it might not of happened. And you wouldn't have to choose between those evils.

And, I'm sorry, governments are corrupt, but I don't think all are evil. Now, our current president is certainly creating tensions and a environment for our government to be evil and this country slide into ruin, I'll admit that. And, since I feel a need to defend myself at the moment, he never got my vote. And, would love to see him impeached yesterday.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 21, 2017, 02:50:28 pm »
Anyway if we have to choose between evils (and all governments are evil) I always want the lesser evil. But we have to identify who is that for us - and probably we have different points of view.
For me between IS and Sadam or Gadafi, the later two are the lesser evil. But Allah knows better.

I think its really important to state these things, as you just did. We all come from very different places, both geographically and family heritage. Assuming people understand our implicit meanings leads to much confusion. :)

I don't think governments are evil, just the people that misuse them. Same as my earlier conversation with H regarding religion. Government is a tool, put someone with malcontent at the helm and you'll end up with bad outcomes. Since we can't remove people from the equation,can't remove corruption, finding a true solution becomes difficult.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2288
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #99 on: August 21, 2017, 02:54:51 pm »
Quote from:  Wilshire
You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

Where did I say they need to think and act like us? After a war, the country is chaos. I said to allow them time to establish a government (of their choosing) and a military to defend themselves. Thats all I've ever said.

And, let's not be naive, innocents die in all wars. But, our military has drastically changed they way they conduct war to eliminate civilian loss to a minimum. Sure, it still happens. But, it is a huge factor of what they do in terms of bombing and raids and so forth.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2660
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #100 on: August 21, 2017, 02:55:22 pm »
I think what it really comes down to is that almost everything that foreign powers are doing in the Middle East right now is not at all fostering anything like a greater good though.

What good is fighting tyranny with no plan to replace it with something different, something better?

What we are going to the heart of is that Western powers left that area is the lurch since pre-WW2 and all anyone keeps trying to do is to functionally attempt to repair something the is structurally unsound and most probably completely unsustainable.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasûrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #101 on: August 21, 2017, 03:07:43 pm »
Quote from:  Wilshire
You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

Where did I say they need to think and act like us? After a war, the country is chaos. I said to allow them time to establish a government (of their choosing) and a military to defend themselves. Thats all I've ever said.

And, let's not be naive, innocents die in all wars. But, our military has drastically changed they way they conduct war to eliminate civilian loss to a minimum. Sure, it still happens. But, it is a huge factor of what they do in terms of bombing and raids and so forth.

Well, isn't installing a government that does our bidding the same as installing people that have similar ideologies as us? It certainly seems like it is, to me at least. How is that different?

And then, the reason we needed to keep a military there at all was because there was a difference in opinion on who should be in charge. We ostensibly needed to stick around until the people largely agreed that the leaders we installed for them were 'what they wanted' - which to me is the same as making people think like us.

I feel like my entire post has been dismissed because you don't like how I phrased one sentence. At this point, what can I say to warrant a response rather than a total dismissal?

So I'll just ask the same question:
I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how?

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

pail

  • *
  • Nascenti
  • Suthenti
  • *****
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
« Reply #102 on: August 21, 2017, 03:25:14 pm »
Wilshire, it sounds like you're arguing against all non-defensive military interventions. To clarify your position, would this apply in all cases? For example, do you agree with the Allies not intervening at Auschwitz despite the requests of the Jewish Agency? Would you still have choosen not to intervene even if we'd had access to precision bombing technology at the time that would have allowed us to target specific infrastructure with minimal civilian casualties?

Woden

  • *
  • Great Name
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
« Reply #103 on: August 21, 2017, 03:29:42 pm »
I think that all the political systems have their flaws and no one is perfect, even democracy is terribly flawed.
I suggest the reading of the essay of J. Brennan 'Against democracy' that proposes another system, epistocracy.
I don't agree with all its points of view and proposals but I find it quite interesting.
Know what your slaves believe, and you will always be their master.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5766
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #104 on: August 21, 2017, 03:57:45 pm »
Wilshire, it sounds like you're arguing against all non-defensive military interventions. To clarify your position, would this apply in all cases? For example, do you agree with the Allies not intervening at Auschwitz despite the requests of the Jewish Agency? Would you still have choosen not to intervene even if we'd had access to precision bombing technology at the time that would have allowed us to target specific infrastructure with minimal civilian casualties?

I don't think I've stated one way or another. All I'm trying to say is that I just don't see a moral high ground here.

We don't even need to muddy the waters with 'right' and 'wrong' to justify actions. Intervening in WWII could just as easily be construed as an economic decision. It lifted us out of a depression. We got to ensure governments that agreed with our ideology were in place. We got to run up huge wartime tabs on our ally nations that are still being paid off. By all economic measures, it was a super great move.

But, honestly, if the economics weren't in our favor, I don't think the US would have intervened, and I'd guess we'd all be sitting here talking about how its a good thing we didn't waste our time and money on WWII and using that to justify not getting involved with what's going on today. How 'right' we were to not get involved, because that's how we justify morality - ad hoc.

So to directly answer your question, anything other than non-defensive military action is difficult to morally justify.
I believe that the US entered WWII because of economic reasons, and because we were mad/scared about Pearl Harbor, not for any morally justified reasons.

We can't go back and fight pretend WWII battles with 2017 weapons so I don't think my opinion there matters at all. Why not use hypothetically perfect weapons that could target specific persons without any collateral damage.
One of the other conditions of possibility.