5 ms·

> “The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.” They are literally saying, "War is Peace".

tinyhouse 2y ago
War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.
- malermeister 2y ago
  As we've seen by the wonderful results in Afghanistan.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
  The US created ISIS in Afghanistan via their proxy war with Russia. Reap what you sow.
Lucasoato 2y ago
Si vis pacem para bellum.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc. War is real.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > War is real This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
      - pdimitar 2y ago
        I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered Do you have a historical example?
buildbot 2y ago
A desolation called peace (A great phrase and book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desolation_Called_Peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desolation_Called_Peace)
mupuff1234 2y ago
If you think the world is better off with the US as a global policing power then one could argue that having an overwhelming force is key to sustaining peace. So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.
- more_corn 2y ago
  I don’t and that’s dumb.
- IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
  "The result for citizens in the US is disastrous. It mirrors the decline of the Roman Empire, which spent extravagantly on its legions, and the only growth came from conquering other peoples, looting them, and taxing them. This threat could not be sustained forever, and so the gold and silver coins were reduced in precious metal content, and the treasury (like the USA, which just prints money like a never-ending waterfall) created debased coins, resulting in inflation. Just as the US doesn't invest in infrastructure the way other countries do or have an efficient nationalized healthcare system. Why? We burn trillions on military and weapons. The military-industrial complex must be fed, and it is always hungry. Think about retirement, healthcare costs, and the greedflation by corporations, as well as the government taxing your Social Security. It is intentional cruelty."
listless 2y ago
No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Reciprocally, it's not hard to envision how an overly-zealous military-industrial complex could promote the wrong ideas at-large. The Lavander AI's recent coverage is a good example of why you shouldn't stoke the flames of information-fetishizing warmongers.
  - listless 2y ago
    It definitely cuts both ways. I’m not trying to pretend like that isn’t also the case.
jmdeschamps 2y ago
Civis pacem, para bellum

tinyhouse 2y ago

War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.
malermeister 2y ago
As we've seen by the wonderful results in Afghanistan.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
The US created ISIS in Afghanistan via their proxy war with Russia. Reap what you sow.

Lucasoato 2y ago

Si vis pacem para bellum.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc. War is real.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > War is real This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered Do you have a historical example?

buildbot 2y ago

A desolation called peace (A great phrase and book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desolation_Called_Peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desolation_Called_Peace)

mupuff1234 2y ago

If you think the world is better off with the US as a global policing power then one could argue that having an overwhelming force is key to sustaining peace. So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.

more_corn 2y ago
I don’t and that’s dumb.
IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
"The result for citizens in the US is disastrous. It mirrors the decline of the Roman Empire, which spent extravagantly on its legions, and the only growth came from conquering other peoples, looting them, and taxing them. This threat could not be sustained forever, and so the gold and silver coins were reduced in precious metal content, and the treasury (like the USA, which just prints money like a never-ending waterfall) created debased coins, resulting in inflation. Just as the US doesn't invest in infrastructure the way other countries do or have an efficient nationalized healthcare system. Why? We burn trillions on military and weapons. The military-industrial complex must be fed, and it is always hungry. Think about retirement, healthcare costs, and the greedflation by corporations, as well as the government taxing your Social Security. It is intentional cruelty."

listless 2y ago

No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.

talldayo 2y ago
Reciprocally, it's not hard to envision how an overly-zealous military-industrial complex could promote the wrong ideas at-large. The Lavander AI's recent coverage is a good example of why you shouldn't stoke the flames of information-fetishizing warmongers.
- listless 2y ago
  It definitely cuts both ways. I’m not trying to pretend like that isn’t also the case.

jmdeschamps 2y ago

Civis pacem, para bellum