5 ms·
That sounds more like "peace through superior firepower" rather than "war is peace".
by rl1987 7mo ago
That sounds more like "peace through superior firepower" rather than "war is peace".
- pphysch 7mo agoThere's a vast gulf between "having" superior firepower as a deterrent and "using" superior firepower for mass murder, particularly against elementary schools and desalination plants. The latter is war, at its worst.
- nyeah 7mo agoCan we be literal? It means peace through using superior firepower to kill people.
- randallsquared 7mo agoSure, but it's not equating the states of war and peace, but asserting that war is a method for achieving peace, presumably when everyone on the other side is incapable or undesirous of attacking or threatening same.
- tovej 7mo agoAre we forgetting the context of who started the war?
- randallsquared 7mo agoIt's just not relevant to the statement "I'm punching until they can't punch back" who threw the first punch.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- tovej 7mo agoI'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that it makes no sense to say you're fighting a war to achieve peace if you're the one who started the war, breaking the peace that existed before then. If peace is your goal, then the status quo was already in line with your goal. Starting the war contradicts your stated goal of peace. Do I really have to spell all that out?
- randallsquared 7mo agoThere are at least two ways to view this in the "war for peace" proponents' favor, I think: First, it could be that you believe that war is already happening. In this case, Israel and other opponents of Iran might think that the status quo was a shadow war, and they are just continuing the war in a way that is to their advantage. Second, even if peace technically exists at the moment, one side might believe that the other is moving toward war, and if allowed to complete preparations, will be significantly harder to overcome when they start a war in the future. In that case, preemptive war might be thought to engender peace in the medium or long term. We don't have to agree with these casus bellis to acknowledge that they are at least superficially reasonable justifications, presuming they fit the facts.
- tovej 7mo agoRight. Only problem is, I wouldn't usually take into account hypotheticals that don't match reality. And neither would any reasonable person.