4 ms·

a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..." It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture. Maybe be

a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..." It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture. Maybe because all of the 'major' conflicts prior to desert storm (C/WW1/2/K/V) were headed by the opposite political party than that mentioned. This is not to say other conflicts didn't happen under other parties as they obviously have. While the reasoning is sound insofar as the 'unmentioned' conflicts were fought primarily by draftees (again - politics?), it really gives no satisfactory reason, only conjecture and opinion (politics) on the current military actions - which SPANS political parties. Sadly, the introduction of politics into an article initially put forth as something about the "morality or war" says more about the intent of the author than the question the article brings up.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danharaj 9y ago
You want to talk about war without talking about politics? And do you think the level of politics where war is decided really care which party is in power at the time?
- slamdance 9y ago
  no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one 'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable. My point is that this could have been a great article. The 'morality of war' is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel the need to defend them, and reply in kind and nothing is resolved, everyone else (who wanted an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.
  - forkLding 9y ago
    I think the author purposefully included politics in there, he probably didnt care if it was a decent article or not because he was more or less expressing his views. Sarcasm intended

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danharaj 9y ago

You want to talk about war without talking about politics? And do you think the level of politics where war is decided really care which party is in power at the time?

slamdance 9y ago
no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one 'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable. My point is that this could have been a great article. The 'morality of war' is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel the need to defend them, and reply in kind and nothing is resolved, everyone else (who wanted an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.
- forkLding 9y ago
  I think the author purposefully included politics in there, he probably didnt care if it was a decent article or not because he was more or less expressing his views. Sarcasm intended