17 ms·

One of the many reasons to oppose war. Others include: + Control of the economy, price controls, rationing, shortages + Suspension of most (all?) of the Bill

One of the many reasons to oppose war. Others include: + Control of the economy, price controls, rationing, shortages + Suspension of most (all?) of the Bill of Rights + Wholesale slaughter of civilian populations abroad (so much for "all men are created equal ... with unalienable rights") But perhaps the most nefarious is the idea that "we all pulled together and sacrificed to defeat the enemy." The government schools teach the children the greatness of our national effort, priming them to accept the destruction of liberty again when the next war comes. The state forever uses a victory in war to foster national pride and patriotism, as if the society made those choices to sacrifice willingly. Speak out against the war? Prison. Fail to comply with economic controls? Prison. Don't want to fight after being drafted? Execution. Have friends who just happen to belong to the enemy country? You're a spy. And then the icing on the cake is when the government steals the money to pay for the war through inflation and currency devaluation through the subsequent years.

nanistheonlyist 10y ago
We did not choose war willingly, the japanese govt made the choice for us when they attacked pearl harbor.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. I'm not saying what Japan did was in any way noble, but it was certainly far from unexpected. The US administration knew the war in Europe was a serious problem if left unchecked, that Britain and its allies would never prevail, but there was considerable resistance to the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor instantly catalyzed support. This doesn't even touch on the fact that many American companies were looking at Germany as an important customer, a country spending lavishly to build up its capability, at a time when American companies were struggling. Politics are complicated. It's rare that any of those involved in a conflict are entirely innocent.
  - chrishacken 10y ago
    > Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Are you kidding me? So honor was their reason to start a war that eventually caused millions to die?
    - laumars 10y ago
      You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war. Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.
      - knz 10y ago
        I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories. It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.
        laumars 10y ago
        Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict. I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school. The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz. The reality is that there were entire industries that actively did everything they could to get that war going, in order to profit from it. People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.
  - shawndumas 10y ago
    Are you saying that Japan's decision to go to war over a hit to their oil supplies is reasonable and understandable?
  - woofyman 10y ago
    They cut off the oil exports to stop the Japanese war machine.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a strategic preëmptive strike, because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. I don't think Japanese imperialism can really be defended. Of course, Japanese imperialism was very much inspired by European imperialism in… well, everything. But that doesn't make it right either, merely just as bad.
    - knz 10y ago
      > because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire. Japan invaded numerous territories for access to resources and committed horrible atrocities while doing so. The attack on Pearl Harbour may have been preemptive but the only reason for Japan to fear attack from others was due to actions of the Japanese.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935: "At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. " https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China? Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway. Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.
- knz 10y ago
  Japan also forced the hand of the Allied nations by invading other territories. Personally I think Japan forced our hands earlier than that (Invasion of Manchuria was a big geopolitical move IIRC) - it just wasn't apparent at the time.
- stmfreak 10y ago
  There are many interpretations of history that tell a different story.
zepolud 10y ago
What about the laws of thermodynamics, pretty oppressive if you ask me. Better oppose that too.

nanistheonlyist 10y ago

We did not choose war willingly, the japanese govt made the choice for us when they attacked pearl harbor.

astrodust 10y ago
Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. I'm not saying what Japan did was in any way noble, but it was certainly far from unexpected. The US administration knew the war in Europe was a serious problem if left unchecked, that Britain and its allies would never prevail, but there was considerable resistance to the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor instantly catalyzed support. This doesn't even touch on the fact that many American companies were looking at Germany as an important customer, a country spending lavishly to build up its capability, at a time when American companies were struggling. Politics are complicated. It's rare that any of those involved in a conflict are entirely innocent.
- chrishacken 10y ago
  > Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour. Are you kidding me? So honor was their reason to start a war that eventually caused millions to die?
  - laumars 10y ago
    You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war. Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.
    - knz 10y ago
      I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories. It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.
      - laumars 10y ago
        Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict. I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        In the cases of Germany and Japan, we won very thoroughly, and then re-did their government and society very thoroughly. In the case of Iraq, we won very thoroughly, and then decided that we should not re-do their government and society. There may not have been the political will to do anything else, but that turned out to be less than effective at transforming Iraq.
djsumdog 10y ago
After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school. The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz. The reality is that there were entire industries that actively did everything they could to get that war going, in order to profit from it. People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.
- shawndumas 10y ago
  Are you saying that Japan's decision to go to war over a hit to their oil supplies is reasonable and understandable?
- woofyman 10y ago
  They cut off the oil exports to stop the Japanese war machine.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a strategic preëmptive strike, because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. I don't think Japanese imperialism can really be defended. Of course, Japanese imperialism was very much inspired by European imperialism in… well, everything. But that doesn't make it right either, merely just as bad.
  - knz 10y ago
    > because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point. This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire. Japan invaded numerous territories for access to resources and committed horrible atrocities while doing so. The attack on Pearl Harbour may have been preemptive but the only reason for Japan to fear attack from others was due to actions of the Japanese.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935: "At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. " https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China? Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway. Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.
knz 10y ago
Japan also forced the hand of the Allied nations by invading other territories. Personally I think Japan forced our hands earlier than that (Invasion of Manchuria was a big geopolitical move IIRC) - it just wasn't apparent at the time.
stmfreak 10y ago
There are many interpretations of history that tell a different story.

zepolud 10y ago

What about the laws of thermodynamics, pretty oppressive if you ask me. Better oppose that too.