McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Never heard of the "Tough Love" concept?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Looks like Americans go against the war with Iran
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Chamberlain was all about watching Europe being gobbled up, and doing nothing about it. It was about cutting a deal with the gobbler hoping he would leave Britain alone. It was about agreeing to the death of others, to be left alone.
It was about a coward hoping that the big bad wolf would go in the opposite direction.
This was Chamberlains recipe for "peace in our time".
Some use him as the example which justifies any desired preemptive war.
It's a substitute for reasoning.
sooda
Veteran Member
The invasion of Iraq wasn't about oil. In 1998 Saddam begged the US and UN to allow Haliburton to come in and repair and update oil infrastructure. The cost was $20 billion.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Sure, when disciplining or setting boundaries for loved ones. Bombing folks is a different beast.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Are you saying it cannot apply to bombings?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
By the American government in the Middle East? Likely not.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
No, Invoking Chamberlain is all about Chamberlain. If I had wanted to invoke Hitler, I would have said so.
Why then do you bring up this individual?
When President Trump was elected his detractors said he would lead us into wars. He has been in office for three years and he hasn’t started any yet. When he and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un were trading barbs, President Trump’s haters said it would lead to war. It didn’t. When President Trump pulled U.S. troops out of Syria, his opponents said that would lead to war. It didn’t. It just frustrates Trump haters that he hasn’t started any wars. He hasn’t, and he won’t.
Last edited:
I hope you're right.
Btw, his foes also predicted he'd be the next Hitler, would
end democracy, & would stop free press. They seem
rather reckless in their flailing prognostications, eh.
Heyo
Veteran Member
No. They don't care who wins. For them it's only important how a politician votes when it comes to the military budget.
I'm not so sure about that.
Politicians cater to voters with promises. They cater to donors with votes.
I'm not at my desktop and don't have the time to search but the will of the public has nearly zero influence on US politics.
But you are right, the US public is especially pro war compared with the rest of the industrialized world. It would take a much stronger movement to end US militarism. The peace movement didn't end the Vietnam war (it may have helped a little) but it totally failed to prevent the wars the US started later (and most of them with a less convincing excuse than the Gulf of Tonkin).
As we see on RF, many people are pro-war, & they vote.
Politicians get re-elected when they vote to start & continue wars.
Note that Hillary had a plurality (the most) of votes in 2016, &
her voting record in the Senate was hawkish (starting & funding wars).
Note also that liberals were devastated the this hawk lost.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I'm not convinced that a majority of people are pro war and vote for hawkish politicians because of that. It's more that they don't care. (As we also see on RF.) The stance on the military is just one factor among many. I think it is more that pacifist politicians are often seen as soft and weak. People like the tough talking, sabre rattling politician (like Trump) but won't actually want to go to war.
A majority of hawks isn't needed for the hawkish candidate to win.
Think of it as a powerful factor, just not the only one.
But not caring is a problem I hadn't yet addressed. I wonder...which
is worse? Those who want war. Or those who don't give it any thought.
I can understand the first, but not the latter.
Btw, remember that neither Trump nor Hillary personally went to war.
And they accounted for over 90% of all votes.
It's not that Americans actually want war. The problem is that they are often presented with a skewed, incomplete, inaccurate, and biased picture of the world. This often comes from both sides of the spectrum. Even if one side might be more peaceful than the other, that doesn't change the fact that both sides basically agree on the same basic picture of "what the world looks like" from a US point of view.
Both sides also ostensibly embrace American exceptionalism and have generally gone along with the idea that America's role is that of global policeman. Americans mostly accept the general policy of foreign entanglements and permanent alliances (which goes against the principles of America's Founders). Americans mostly accept the idea of globalism and the so-called "world economy."
The problem isn't that Americans want war. What they want is all the benefits, luxuries, and wealth which come from living in a warlike, imperialistic state, while deluding themselves into believing that America's good fortune is all due to peaceful capitalism. Hawkish conservatives often deride dovish liberals for being too naive and childlike in their view of the world, unable to recognize or appreciate the dangers that are out there (yet still enjoying the fruits and benefits of America's aggressive foreign and military policies).
Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
Aye, "want war" is a short hand approximation.
But some do want it. Others will go along, reluctantly or willingly.
If too few oppose it, then war becomes likely. And when it happens,
those leaders who wage it remain in power because voters approve
of them, ie, approve of their actions. To me that is to effectively
"want war".
1) This is unsubstantiated. There's no cost vs benefit analysis
to back it up. Consider the Afghan & Iraq wars...several
trillion dollars spent, still more to spend, & what do we have
to show for it in revenue generated?
2) Look at RF's Ameristanians as a microcosm....
Not one says they enjoy economic benefit from these wars.
The reasons for attacks or wars are typically about things
political or moral.
Except that American military history since World War II has little to do with the "dangers that are out there" and much to do with supporting the industries that profit from these wars, the support of which actually increases the dangers out there.America's military presence in increased risks to Americans everywhere, as this drone attack on an Iranian general has done.
I live outside the United States, and pay substantially lower prices than Americans do for almost everything. How does that figure into your reckoning? Would you say that I benefit from America's military adventures - that the low prices I pay for most foods whatever their origin are "fruits and benefits" here, too?
Depends who you mean by "we." A lot of people got filthy rich off of those wars.
There was never anything in those wars for the citizens who fought and/or underwrite those wars except the bill, body bags, amputations, and PTSD. But hey, maybe they got a medal or two and the best care that the VA has to offer.
Names?
Evidence of their controlling foreign policy?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Becuase of what he did. It doesn't matter who or what the 'enemy' was, he would have done the same.