6 ms·
> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other di
by darawk 8y ago
> Who gets to make that determination?
We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction.
> Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.
This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multiple concurrent motivations.
- JohnFen 8y agoSo we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.
- darawk 8y ago> So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing. Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.
- JohnFen 8y agoI guess that depends on how you define "right". Might lets you impose your will on others. Being successful in doing so does not speak to whether or not your will is right.
- darawk 8y agoIndeed. Being successful doesn't mean you were right to do what you did. However, having the ability to impose your will and choosing not to is a moral choice, just as much as choosing to impose it is. If we have the power to stop terrible things from happening in other parts of the world, at some point, it is our duty to. This is complicated and wrapped up in issues of sovereignty, of course.
- JohnFen 8y agoI agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I certainly think there are situations where violently attacking people is, on the whole, the right thing to do. I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.
- darawk 8y ago> I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.
- Gibbon1 8y ago> implies it's always right to use force. Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant? Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- abugheratwork 8y agoYou just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us, and then called someone childish.
- darawk 8y ago> You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us No I didn't. Read what I said again.
- the_duke 8y ago> Reasons for war are complex. Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence. > We do. Because we can. I think that exhausted my tolerance for further discussion with you.
- darawk 8y ago> Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Nobody has ever fought a war for 'benevolence'. It's a silly concept. If you know anything of history, you'd also know that WWII was not fought for 'benevolence'.
- duckMuppet 8y agoHe's a millennial. All us Millennials know that it's 2019, and there isn't a reason for war in 2019, anywhere..
- CamperBob2 8y agoWe do. Because we can. That is how the world works That's all well and good, but I don't want to hear a lot of whining from your corner when the next 9/11 happens.
- avmich 8y agoIndeed. While I understand shock in USA at 9/11, I also understand where opinions that "America deserved it" had their merit.