Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
[/b]
Is your point being, that this is how the Germans were able to snowball through Europe relatively unopposed, because the “allies” were not willing to get off the farm?
I think his point is that a leader that goes up and says ‘Let’s go to war cause I feel like it’ is a better leader than one who gives legitimate reasons.
It doesn’t matter if you live in a monarchy, dictatorship, republic or democracy - when the leader decides war is going to happen, he’ll make it happen. You can always bring the public on your side in a war.
“If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs…those hours were the most nerve-wracking of my life.”
Negotiation/sanctions/inspections/political solution = “doing nothing” = triumph of evil
Bombing/missile strikes/invasion/occupation = “doing something” = triumph of good
Under this equation, how can you stand by and let the people of China suffer under their tyrannical dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents and uses slave labor to manufacture goods? We’re allowing evil to triumph in China, by gum! Time to invade China, Chet?
Negotiation/sanctions/inspections/political solution = “doing nothing” = triumph of evil
Bombing/missile strikes/invasion/occupation = “doing something” = triumph of good
Under this equation, how can you stand by and let the people of China suffer under their tyrannical dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents and uses slave labor to manufacture goods? We’re allowing evil to triumph in China, by gum! Time to invade China, Chet?
In that they pretty much are doing nothing, then yeah, that follows. Doing something that produces no tangible or effective results is effectively the same as doing nothing. Current sanctions and inspections in Iraq are sort of like the campaign finance law that we recently passed–it makes people feel good, because “something is being done.” But that something actually has no practical effect on anything, other than making people feel good about having done something.
Bombing/missile strikes/invasion/occupation = “doing something” = triumph of good
I think everyone can agree that this remains to be seen. Still, it’s time to try something different. Diplomacy hasn’t worked, and diplomacy from a position of weakness (as the UN seems to favor) probably never will.
Under this equation, how can you stand by and let the people of China suffer under their tyrannical dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents and uses slave labor to manufacture goods?
That’s a good point, if your point is that we are far too friendly with China. I agree. This proves only that our leaders are hypocrites, though, not that an invasion of Iraq is the wrong thing to do.
“Under this equation, how can you stand by and let the people of China suffer under their tyrannical dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents and uses slave labor to manufacture goods?”
I’m guessing this is why China has stayed so quiet. You don’t talk about our human rights violations and we won’t talk about Guantanamo Bay.
Current sanctions and inspections in Iraq are sort of like the campaign finance law that we recently passed–it makes people feel good, because “something is being done.”
So it’s a binary state? Current sanctions or invasion? Okay, I see. Let’s just cut to the chase and skip all those steps in between.
What middle-of-the-road alternative do you see? I think the problem is, Iraq won’t allow inspectors in unless there’s an army at the door. The US can’t afford to keep an army at the door for the length of time that it takes 108 guys to search an area the size of California. You can’t go back to the old policy, because it’s fallen to pieces–the sanctions are being flagrantly ignored, to the point that China was openly building a massive, forbidden communications network in Iraq. Saddam exports enormous amounts of illegal oil and keeps the profits. From what we’ve learned from defectors, he continues to develop nukes (and chemical and bioweapons) under our noses.
So yeah, it’s a binary state–you either invade, and get this over with, or throw up your hands and resolve to do nothing and hope that it works out okay. Unfortunately, it probably WOULDN’T work out okay, which is why invading is a good idea.
Tom, it is like when you are on a date. When the woman says no the first time, you can playfully ask again, but after the 30th time, you should get the hint.
