After a long hiatus on my blog-posting, I thought I'd share with you one of my favorite YouTube videos. Don't take offense, if anything, consider it thought provoking.
Posts
Utopia
-
Today in socratic we talked about the perfect society, and as we talked
about it, I realized that I've already written about it...kind of. I wrote
more abo...
16 years ago
28 comments:
I don't think that one man (the president) can go to war just because of some agenda he has. You have to get plausible evidence past with congress and give them good reasons why you're going to war. I also think it's a good thing that America's recognized as a militant nation. It scares our enemies. We currently have the best military in the world and with all the nuclear weapons out there, that's a good thing.
Unless we go into MAD again. That's definitely not a good thing.
And by comparison, America is quite un-militaristic by comparison to many historic nations, such as Prussia, or even France at times. And I doubt you could say there isn't a country that doesn't watch its own interests overseas. Yes, it is disconcerting to think of America as an empire, but you have to think, "Have we actually conquered anything?" "Do we do this to expand the nation, or just to protect our interests?"
As far as I remember, the last time we actively conquered territory for American use was the Mexican-American war. Otherwise, we've given back most everything.
What's MAD?
MAD-Mutually Assured Destruction.
It was basically the driving force behind the cold war. Both the Soviet Union and the United States had enough nuclear weapons to sterilize the world several times over. MAD pretty much meant that if the US attacked the USSR, or vice versa, they'd both be wiped out, hence, Mutually Assured Destruction.
Dang. that'd suck. What'd they do with all of the nuclear weapons anyway? Launch them into space?
There's been some minor disarmament, but for the most part, they're all still around. The US and Russia still have the top stockpiles in the world, and other nations like China have 'minimum deterrent' stockpiles.
Also, if you don't know what these things are, GIYF. (Google is your friend.)
I'm not sure exactly how things like this work, I've just seen this video, I haven't read anything like the People's History of the United States or something. War for the United States, to me, just seems quite profitable in the long run. This video is simply, like I said, thought provoking.
Oh, I don't think Switzerland, or perhaps Sweden 'preserves' its interests overseas like the US does.
Ok. Makes sense. I've seen a qoute a raceways that kinda goes along with this. "Power is nothing without control."
Oh yeah. I totally forgot about google.
Yeah I'm thinking Switzerland and Swenden are going to be shooting themselves in the foot later on.
Switzerland is secure for many reasons, like banks and geography. I'm not familiar with Sweden's safety, though.
In any case, Switzerland will be around long after everyone else has bitten the dust.
Well, someday they're going to have to pick a side, and when they do, it's going to really tick off the side they didn't choose.
No. Switzerland is safe in its neutrality. Because of the banks, it effectively plays both sides. So long as it remains neutral, investments are safe for both sides. I'm sure there are still Nazi deposits that can't be collected by us.
The way I see it, you can't stay out of the fray forever. I mean that in a religious way too.
Yes, Machiavelli for one said you can't be neutral forever. But if you look at it, Switzerland is 'neutral,' but they're very much involved politically. They definitely take sides, they just don't do it with weapons.
There. Politics. One day they'll offend someone and be in a spot of trouble where they'll have to use weapons.
No, because Switzerland isn't a big militant nation. (Though all male Swiss citizens are required to be part of the militia/army)
Switzerland has bigger friends that have mutual interests. Like America. Or Germany. Or just about any other country with significant amounts of resources invested in Switzerland.
Whatev. But someday, something negative is going to happen.
I wonder who will get the last word. I'm dying to find out.
IDK. It depends if Jack decides to continue. Why don't you hop in? I'm curious to know what you think.
BANG. LAST WORD HAS BEEN SAID.
THERE.
I DON'T THINK SO MR. PRESIDENT. FOR I'M HAVING THE LAST SAY HERE.
SO THERE.
I sometimes wonder what things were like when America was isolationist. But I guess that at this point we can't go back to that. Too much occupation in, let's see... everywhere.
Get used to it. We're trying to make peace, but we're taking sides against things that conflict with the inaleable rights (I probably didn't spell that right).
Remember
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
(especially the first part)
Christian, you're qouting big brother from 1984 who was basically communist. And that really is true though about war (read my latest post for my whole opinion of war/violence.)
Actually, George Orwell did have many communist sentiments. He was a supporter of Marx and Lenin to an extent. He strongly opposed Stalin, though. I'm simply appalled at your idea of our trying to 'make peace' through war.
Christian. 1984 is not doctrine, it is satire. (Not in the humorous sense though.)
1984 exists as a negative example of potential results of politics, not as a good example.
But, however, to declare war for peace is a generally flawed statement. It may be an intention, and maybe even at times necessary, but it should be avoided at all costs.
Yeah Marx was all right, he had good intentions, but then Stalin and some other guy made everything suckish.
Well, I don't see how you could be. Captain Moroni vs. the Lamanites for instence. That's the good kind of war.
True, war should be avoided, but it may become neccassary.
Jack, I knew that. Alex's comment just reminded me of that quote.
Also, be reminded of the Bible quote in its entirety:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
What is being said here is that a higher law is replacing a more basic one.
Post a Comment