Subject:
|
Re: Medical Marijuana
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:12:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
903 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Do you want a system in which the current population of China and India can
> > > vote to nuke Scotland???
> >
> > I want a system where countries do not want to "nuke" others and where
> > wars are not fought via focus groups and media driven opinion polls.
> Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is
> common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and
> media polls existed; there's no benefit in blaming them for war, as if they
> were chiefly responsible for it.
Yes, but aren't they in fact responsible, not for war as a concept, but for
certain kinds of war, and certain ways of carrying out war?
Arguably focus groups and the media had convinced successive administrations
that the american populace wanted painless, casualty free, no collateral
damage wars...
Arguably they were a factor in the decision not to prosecute the Iraq war to
its logical conclusion (occupation of Bagdahd and replacement of the Kuwaiti
dictatorship with a democratic government instead of restoring the previous
gang of thugs to power)... if said conclusion had been reached the world
would be a different place today, ne?
Arguably they were a factor in Clinton's irresolute behaviour in so many
interventions on his watch as well.
http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-hanson112201.shtml has
some perspective on this.
(rearranged order of cites)
> It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed.
My preference for many states rather than fewer is that smaller states have
less materiel to prosecute wars with. Arguably a world government, though,
no longer HAS to go to war (against whom?? it's all there is, ne?). But
there's not much difference between a small war and a large repression if
it's your house that's being hit by a sabot round from a tank...
Further, the argument is that small states, being less powerful at
projecting aggression, will compete in other ways, said ways tending to be
more (market driven ==)peaceful. The librarian Dave Low cited claims it's
not true that democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies. But
I'm not convinced he refuted that assertion very well at all.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) While the manner in which wars are executed is influenced by these institutions, I don't think they're responsible for the wars themselves, which is what I hoped to say. The fact that they're the current flavor of the month for influencing war (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed. Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and media polls existed; there's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
