5 ms·

It is good design to solve problems directly, rather than to solve them indirectly by introducting a different problem. So let's solve the problem of the US en

by javert 15y ago

It is good design to solve problems directly, rather than to solve them indirectly by introducting a different problem. So let's solve the problem of the US entering unjust wars directly, rather than by introducing a new problem (the draft). How to solve it directly? The recent unjust US wars do reflect cultural problems: a belief among politicians and the populace that it is worthwile to sacrifice thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars to occupy and rebuild other countries. The way to solve the problem is to combat that notion on an intellectual level. To speak out about it. Some other solution (like requiring a draft) is just duct tape. The ideas of society at large can improve over time. Just look at the history of women and minorities to see that. This is one of those areas where cultural activisim can lead to an improvement. I am very optimistic that my generation (I'm in my 20s) will not engage in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam once we become the generation that directly makes those kinds of decisions. In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons).

angersock 15y ago
I don't think that there is anything terribly indirect about linking (explicitly) the blood of common Americans with hawkish politicians. An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifice for any military action they support. I would also question the analogy to women and minority rights--neither has particular import here, and only muddy the waters. War is an issue that has faced all states, regardless of race and gender; it is somewhat misleading to treat it as something that may be "overcome" like a silly cultural preference of the West. "In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons)." This is also a place where I think we differ in viewpoint. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? I do not live in fear of my fellow man because he is armed--I only am worried if he is actively hostile. If your state does not pursue hostilities, what does it matter what they have in their stockpiles? I believe that the bigger threat to my (apparently, our) generation is to continue to live in fear of terrorism, war, weapons, and each other--so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.
- javert 15y ago
  An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses No. If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement. Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? It's fine for nations to have it where it represents absolutely zero threat, from the perspective of the agent (in this case, the US). Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.) I only am worried if he is actively hostile. There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups. so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime. Dude, you're asking me to just lay down and let the terrorists kill people. No way. We should just stop the bullies. There should be no tolerance for that kind of shit.
  - potatohead00 15y ago
    I'm more in agreement with angersock on the topic of the draft. I would love to live in an enlightened world where we can all talk out our issues, without ever resorting to violence. I do believe that people, on an individual level, can be reasonable. The problem <i>is</i> the masses. If a leader comes out with a compelling argument casting group X (country, terrorist cell, religious belief, etc) as a direct threat to the social group YOU belong to, you probably won't want to be the one who stands up and says "maybe that guys full of it?". You look weak and you look like you don't want to be part of the group. And the leader will tell you as much and try to push you out of the group. Now, spin that story where there's a universal draft. All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away. When someone pipes up and tells the leader he/she's full of it, they don't sound like such a nay sayer. In regards to just 'laying down and letting the terrorists kill you', I don't believe angersock meant that at all (correct me if I'm wrong) - we should avoid all this security theater BS. Do you really think that body scanners at airports are stopping terrorists? Any time I've flown into the states it seems like there's as many TSA agents as there are passengers.
vacri 15y ago
As an outsider, in the last decade it's been really weird to watch the US public demand war while at the same time demanding that soldiers don't die. It just reinforces how distant people are from the idea of war. Hell, the entire Vietnam War had less US dead than there were Allied dead in one day of the bloodiest battle in WWI. And after a decade of fighting, the US efforts in Iraq have less than 10% of the US deaths in Vietnam. Afghanistan less than 4%. And still the rhetoric is one of siege and difficult fighting. How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice at all; that effectively it should be like a video game?
- javert 15y ago
  How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing, which is what's been going on over there for quite some time. The problem is, it is a total sacrifice - people losing their lives for nothing.
  - vacri 15y ago
    Sad that so many people get so worked up over the loss of 5k soldiers, and not the unnecessary destruction of a state, involving hundreds of thousands of deaths of foreigners. If it really is 'waste' that people are worried about, why not that?
    - javert 15y ago
      destruction of a state You mean Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and the Taliban (Afghanistan)? But yeah, I definitely think we should have acted much more forcefully to end the wars much more quickly and with far fewer casualties on both sides. I think we probably could do this without resorting to nukes, but applying the same "kind" of intense pressure. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were huge successes compared to a minimum decade-long ground invasion and occupation of Japan resulting in possibly millions of deaths.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    At last check, the Taliban doesn't control Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein doesn't rule Iraq. It might not have been worth it, but it's not nothing.

by javert 15y ago

angersock 15y ago

I don't think that there is anything terribly indirect about linking (explicitly) the blood of common Americans with hawkish politicians. An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifice for any military action they support. I would also question the analogy to women and minority rights--neither has particular import here, and only muddy the waters. War is an issue that has faced all states, regardless of race and gender; it is somewhat misleading to treat it as something that may be "overcome" like a silly cultural preference of the West. "In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons)." This is also a place where I think we differ in viewpoint. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? I do not live in fear of my fellow man because he is armed--I only am worried if he is actively hostile. If your state does not pursue hostilities, what does it matter what they have in their stockpiles? I believe that the bigger threat to my (apparently, our) generation is to continue to live in fear of terrorism, war, weapons, and each other--so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime.

javert 15y ago
An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses No. If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement. Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? It's fine for nations to have it where it represents absolutely zero threat, from the perspective of the agent (in this case, the US). Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.) I only am worried if he is actively hostile. There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups. so many problems would go away if people would just accept that some day their ticket comes up, and do the best that they can in the meantime. Dude, you're asking me to just lay down and let the terrorists kill people. No way. We should just stop the bullies. There should be no tolerance for that kind of shit.
- potatohead00 15y ago
  I'm more in agreement with angersock on the topic of the draft. I would love to live in an enlightened world where we can all talk out our issues, without ever resorting to violence. I do believe that people, on an individual level, can be reasonable. The problem <i>is</i> the masses. If a leader comes out with a compelling argument casting group X (country, terrorist cell, religious belief, etc) as a direct threat to the social group YOU belong to, you probably won't want to be the one who stands up and says "maybe that guys full of it?". You look weak and you look like you don't want to be part of the group. And the leader will tell you as much and try to push you out of the group. Now, spin that story where there's a universal draft. All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away. When someone pipes up and tells the leader he/she's full of it, they don't sound like such a nay sayer. In regards to just 'laying down and letting the terrorists kill you', I don't believe angersock meant that at all (correct me if I'm wrong) - we should avoid all this security theater BS. Do you really think that body scanners at airports are stopping terrorists? Any time I've flown into the states it seems like there's as many TSA agents as there are passengers.

vacri 15y ago

As an outsider, in the last decade it's been really weird to watch the US public demand war while at the same time demanding that soldiers don't die. It just reinforces how distant people are from the idea of war. Hell, the entire Vietnam War had less US dead than there were Allied dead in one day of the bloodiest battle in WWI. And after a decade of fighting, the US efforts in Iraq have less than 10% of the US deaths in Vietnam. Afghanistan less than 4%. And still the rhetoric is one of siege and difficult fighting. How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice at all; that effectively it should be like a video game?

javert 15y ago
How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing, which is what's been going on over there for quite some time. The problem is, it is a total sacrifice - people losing their lives for nothing.
- vacri 15y ago
  Sad that so many people get so worked up over the loss of 5k soldiers, and not the unnecessary destruction of a state, involving hundreds of thousands of deaths of foreigners. If it really is 'waste' that people are worried about, why not that?
  - javert 15y ago
    destruction of a state You mean Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and the Taliban (Afghanistan)? But yeah, I definitely think we should have acted much more forcefully to end the wars much more quickly and with far fewer casualties on both sides. I think we probably could do this without resorting to nukes, but applying the same "kind" of intense pressure. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were huge successes compared to a minimum decade-long ground invasion and occupation of Japan resulting in possibly millions of deaths.
- philwelch 15y ago
  At last check, the Taliban doesn't control Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein doesn't rule Iraq. It might not have been worth it, but it's not nothing.