| | Attack of the zebra stripes!
You guys do realize the thread was discussing broader concepts of war. Right, I knew that. Concrete examples and hypothetical situations are supposed to help us think through these problems. Most people seem to think better moving from the concrete to the general, abstracting or inducting. Others -- a minority, apparently -- are better at working with abstractions and coming up with concrete examples that meet general rules. Analogies can be strong or weak. Here is an analogy: studying war is like studying traffic accidents. If someone runs a red light, should you bash them in the front, side, or rear to do the most damage to them with the least damage to yourself? You see the problem, of course: we do not approach driving like that.
It was a discussion of how a nation that must defend itself treat innocents within the nation it is retaliating against. That begs questions. The discussion of "just war" (morally approvable war) is not without context. That is why I invented the "radioactive octopus." Where does it come from? How did it get here? Who says that "this" or "that" are your only alternatives? Constructing hypothetical challenges might be interesting to some people, but personally, I think that life has enough real challenges. So, I prefer to bring the discussion down to "brass tacks," to actual, historical cases. I see few cases where any "nation" (however defined -- and that is another problem) had to "defend" itself by striking at the innocents in a distant place.
To look at this from just the perspective of the United States is fallacious. It is not fallacious. It might be limited and limiting, if you have some other example that elucidates a point.
Great Britain was attacked and they were not a totalitarian state. I understand that you are referring to World War II. I could drag this into a new direction by pretending that you meant some other incident in the 1000-year history of British wars. The UK declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland which had a treaty with the UK. The UK was not "attacked."
France was attacked, and defeated.
Again, France declared war on Germany, in retaliation for Germany's invasion of Poland,which was, in fact, itself a military dictatorship, not a democracy. "Democracy" (so-called) was not strong in France. Action Francaise, the communists, and others, all were just variants of the same altruist politics. Only half of France was occupied. The other half was already fascist. So, I fail to see what this has to do with a "just war." All we have is examples of different kinds of unfree states warring with each other.
What about poor Beligium? What is "Belgium"? I am serious. "Belgium" (so-called) was a French corner of the Netherlands that was carved out into its own kingdom in 1830 as a negotiating point in a complicated compromise to end a rebellion in France and put Louis-Phillipe of Orleans (instead of the Bourbon Henri V) on the throne of France. You want to go war to defend the reality of that? I would rather not.
And no rational person living in a mostly free nation would want to succumb to an invading totalitarian regime. I am not sure about any of that. How "mostly" free is this "mostly" free nation? I mean, is it the kind of freedom where you can be gay, but pay 90% income tax? Or is it the mostly free where you can be rich, but you have to go to the state church? Did you have any specific "mostly free" nation in mind, or is this the generic "mostly free nation." Do you have the option of running away? That is what the Greeks did. Historically, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, when faced with overwhelming odds, the Greeks, being traders, took their bags of electrum coins and rowed away in the night, leaving the invader to seize the empty town. On the other hand, the loins of Italy produced tens of thousands of farm boys who would die for Rome, century after century.
You want to to argue the UK versus the USSR or whatever... How about the Aztecs versus the Spanish? Do you think there was a moral solution to that? Should the people of Tenochtitlan have resisted the "totalitarian" invader or should they have recognized the (marginal) moral superiority of the Spanish? That is why I insist on specific historical examples.
We are discussing the broader concepts of war theory.
We are discussing "traffic accident theory." Good driving does not come from planning accidents well. Successful human relations comes from avoiding wars.
It shouldn't matter what one, sole democracy's history was, the US is not the only mostly free nation on this planet. How many mostly-free democracies does it take? Later on (see below), you take Switzerland to task. We on RoR from the SOLO days have given quarter to "democracy." We know that democracy is just another kind of government and tyranny (to use the word in its historically correct meaning) can be just as moral as democracy. Without constititutional limitations, democracies have been immoral, and in fact, the USA has succumbed to mobocracy when the democratic majority was not held in check. The point is that you have confuted several concepts into an internally inconsistent statement. You need to take that down to its constituent statements.
These concepts are formulated to guide our future actions. Should we find ourselves under attack, there needs to be a theory that works, that allows us to stay free and secure So, there's the Lone Ranger and Tonto, surrounded by hostile Indians and the Lone Ranger says, "Looks like we are done for." And Tonto says, "What do you mean 'we.'?" If the United States were invaded (by whom? blank out) my actions and yours can be different and both us be moral. You seem to think that you can make one universal rule for everyone to follow. Again (and again and again), I have to ask: How did "we" come to be under attack? What did "we" do? Answering those questions is antecedent to deciding what to do.
Slaves built the pyramids of Egypt. Slaves picked cotton in the South. Slavery, as inefficient and evil it is, still yielded a benefit to their masters. And the German war machine seemed awfully efficient to me.
You need to read more history. I cited examples of the inefficiency of the so-called "German war machine." It was a myth of propaganda. Muscle-mystic liberals believe that fascism and communism are "powerful" but consistent advocates of capitalism know that this is not the case. If you fear the power of slave societies, then you have unresolved contradictions in your philosophy. That is the basic discussion here. You cannot prove your point by re-asserting it. You have to come up with examples from history, and there are none.
Neutrality you cite of Switzerland is always the red herring offered by isolationist Libertarians. Their neutrality was convenient for a time being, Hitler had plans for Switzerland, his stated goal ... You seem not to have followed my citation to Gen. Henrri Guisan in Post 26. Hitler could have all the plans he wanted. Making them real was another matter. Switzerland did not mooch off the allies, any more than Portugal did. Switzerland had done nothing to threaten Germany and faced with a German threat, the Swiss Army pledged to die to the man and to not surrender and to not retreat. That was but one alternative. Seizing and holding Switzerland even in the absence of a Swiss army would have been impossible. Defending themselves had nothing to do with bombing innocent German civilians.
Why do you think Canada is secure in knowing it will never come under attack? There's an 800 lb gorilla right next to it, armed to the teeth willing to protect it. Same concept of the free rider problem. Canada and its 800-lb gorilla neighbor have both been attacked by Wahabbist Muslims. You must be behind on your readings of current events. Even so, we have to dissect the origin of the Wahabbist attacks -- and then decide what (if anything) to do about them. Personally, my recommendations -- as a security professional -- begin with not offending other people and (just in case) making yourself difficult to hit.
As a security professional, I assue you that people who are in conflict with others are in conflict with themselves. Communicating with a self-conflicted individual is a challenge, but we train security guards to do it. Certainly, presidents and ambassadors ought to be even better at it.
... armed to the teeth willing to protect it.
Being armed to the teeth is more typically an invitation to attack. The Germans were armed to the teeth; the Swiss were not. Both the USA and the USSR claimed to be armed to the teeth. You see how that worked out. The demise of the USSR had nothing to do with arms and everything to do with not supporting them.
So, too, with the current war. Why, with all the millions and billions of dollars in oil money sloshing around the Arab world is Palestine so dirt poor? Why would these Wahabbists not simply pour a ton of interest-free money into Palestine and make it a utopia to eclipse Israel? Answer that and you get closer to the reasons why there is a war. As you work toward an answer, remember the advice of Ernst Samhaber (Merchants Make History): a successful merchant does not argue religion with his client.
|
|
