Do Politicians Lie to us about war?
In his book “War is a Lie,” second edition (April 2016), David Swanson claims he presents a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those that have been most widely defended as just and good. In essence, in his well-documented book, he says the people in power lie to us about why we should go to war, then change the lie during the war, and change it yet again after the war, all to justify the war in question. He illustrates how politicians provoke wars and why.
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Is Isreal a decent ally? I don't know. But decent or not their fight is not our fight and we should not be involved. The freedom of the seas is not the issue in the South China sea, the issue is around artificial islands built by China.
I never said we should never go to war. I said Swanson presents an excellent case that the public has been lied to as to why the US went to war and the same reasons (updated) have been given since President Adams (our 2nd president) because the lies work. the populace believes the lies. Interestsingly, the lise change from those given before the wars, those given during rthe wars, and those given after the wars. Swanson writes an excellent book.
tacked on 11 Sept 2001? Or not? Was this coun-
try attacked on 7 Dec 1941? Or not?
Is Israel a decent ally? Or not?
Do we need the freedom of the seas to trade
with allies? Or not?
I do not approve of the way the Viet Nam
War was conducted, nor am I in favor of
the military draft. It might have made
more sense either to attack Cuba, or
just leave both alone, as Ayn Rand seemed
to imply, in an article she wrote in the '60's.
But that does not mean we should never
go to war.
That said, I think politicians certainly
do lie. And American young men should
not be used as cannon fodder.
All this aside, an open mind must constantly ask itself: “Could I be wrong?” And, contrary to what we were all taught in school, is it possible the US is the great instigator of war, not peace?
Was there justification for the Strikers to go and rescue John Galt? Or should the proper objectivist only rescue himself?
Don't think on it too hard, it's only a point made half in jest. Ultimately there's good and evil in the world. And the good people don't always have the means to beat evil. While we can and should offer help, if the people are unwilling to help themselves, we'll get nowhere. For example, in Vietnam I believe that the South Vietnamese truly did want to be free (ignoring the bungling of the war on the Politician's fault). In Iraq, most of the people only want to force their view of Islam on others. I.E. They didn't want to be totally free, only free from sunni, shiite, or kurdish control / views on themselves.
Anyway, it's interesting to me that they decided they were losing the argument about WMD's, and started lying in order to keep the war going.
What did they find? I thought they only found some missiles that could exceed the range allowed by an agreement Iraq had entered and some UAVs that could potentially be used to deploy biological or chemical weapons if they had any, which they did not. Can you find a link to an article showing evidence bona fide WMDs in Iraq just prior to the '03 invasion and occupation?
I'm often reminded of Chayefsky's script for "The Americanization of Emily," outstandingly delivered by the late James Garner:
"You American-haters bore me to tears, Miss Barham. I've dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us parvenus from the States who come over here and race around your old cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-Cola bottles... Brawl in your pubs, paw your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip. We talk too loud. We think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar.
I've had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are. And perhaps so. But we haven't managed a Hitler or Mussolini yet. I've had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Miss Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn't introduce war into your little island. This war, Miss Barham, to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don't blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles. Europe was a going brothel long before we came to town."
Load more comments...