Looks like Americans go against the war with Iran

[McBell]

It's calling attention to your avatar. Can someone believe in faith, hope, and love and also believe that bombing people to "do the whole job" is a virtuous course of action? That belief in faith, hope, and love would have to be limited.

Never heard of the "Tough Love" concept?

 

[shmogie]

Invoking Chamberlain is all about Hitler.
You know that. I know that.
Veiling the reference doesn't change things.

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".

 

[Revoltingest]

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]

No, it doesn't, and hasn't for a long time - at least not at the federal level. Federal government is deaf to the will of the people, who still have some say at the lowest levels of government such as whether a local bond issue will pass or the hours of the library, but they have zero say over whether America goes to war, however wrong they think that choice. Their job will be to pay for it (or at least to assume the debt for charging the war) and offer up their children to fight it on the pretext that they are serving American interests.

As somebody else noticed on this thread, they won't think about it beyond platitudes about truth and freedom, and visions of glory and honor.



Unfortunately it's determined by what is profitable to those with the means to buy congressional votes and presidential favors. No mob is involved except that one.




You might recall a recent thread on patriotism that gathered more than one comment that it is a bad idea, mine among them. Nobody need to tell you when a war is justified. You can see that it is : You are under attack, and you fight to defend your family, yourself, and your surrounding community of friends and neighbors. Americans saw that at Pearl Harbor.

But as I suspect you'd agree, America's wars since World War II are of a different nature, frequently prosecuted to secure bananas or oil, and to sell weapons systems to the government on the taxpayer's back in order to secure these bananas and this oil.

Isn't that what the invasion of Iraq was all about - the taxpayer funding the securing of the oil pipelines for the benefit of the petrochemical industry's bottom line with no return to the taxpayer? I don't know if they accomplished their goal, but I'm pretty sure that American taxpayers and America's young men and women paid for the effort with their dollars and blood whatever the outcome, and they never stood to benefit one iota from their sacrifices to the war profiteers.



Weapons of mass destruction? That was a lie. That war was for war profiteers like Haliburton, GE, and Blackwater.



The deranged ones are the ones who cannot see how utterly unfit Trump is for office. If objecting to a man who is a pathological liar, wannabe dictator, a self-admitted serial sexual predator, a serial adulterer, and a career fraud causes one to call somebody deranged, then I submit that it is that one who is deranged and has gone completely off the moral reservation.



Yeah - right here on this thread.



Really? You ask what difference does it make how Iranians and other Muslims view this action by Trump? Do you know what motivated the bombing of the Pan Am flight blown up over Lockerbie? Do you know what motivated 9/11? In my opinion, it is presently much less safe for all Americans now, especially those flying. These people exact revenge.




Yes, they do, and without a second thought. They might not like it so well when Johnny next door comes home from combat a permanently changed man.



Seriously? Have you heard of coming home in a box, or being maimed, or being made violent and unemployable from PTSD? How about you send your family to war since you don't see any reason to want to avoid that mess other than career inconvenience?



It obviously never occurred to him. It has to be selfishness motivating these upstarts to object to going to war.



So you and the rest of the right determine what is proper for the military, and that pesky left should be understood not as citizens participating in government and expressing a contrary opinion, but as people inappropriately trying to usurp conservative authority?

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]

Never heard of the "Tough Love" concept?

Sure, when disciplining or setting boundaries for loved ones. Bombing folks is a different beast.

 

[McBell]

Sure, when disciplining or setting boundaries for loved ones. Bombing folks is a different beast.

Are you saying it cannot apply to bombings?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Are you saying it cannot apply to bombings?

By the American government in the Middle East? Likely not.

 

[dianaiad]

Invoking Chamberlain is all about Hitler.
You know that. I know that.
Veiling the reference doesn't change things.

No, Invoking Chamberlain is all about Chamberlain. If I had wanted to invoke Hitler, I would have said so.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

 

[Shaul]

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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 has started any wars. He hasn’t, and he won’t.

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]

Is the MIC really the driver of who wins?

No. They don't care who wins. For them it's only important how a politician votes when it comes to the military budget.

They're not the ones directing NPR to demonize Iran.

I'm not so sure about that.

Nor do they cause our fellow posters to want war.
The voters are in the driver seat. Pols cater them
so as to gain & remain in power. It's up to voters
to say no to war. And so far, they're not.

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).

 

[Revoltingest]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

 

[Stevicus]

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!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not that Americans actually want war.

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".

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.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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).

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?

Consider the Afghan & Iraq wars...several trillion dollars spent, still more to spend, & what do we have to show for it in revenue generated?

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends who you mean by "we." A lot of people got filthy rich off of those wars.

Names?
Evidence of their controlling foreign policy?

 

[dianaiad]

Why then do you bring up this individual?

Becuase of what he did. It doesn't matter who or what the 'enemy' was, he would have done the same.