I am starting to realize that it is much easier to argue for a war than to argue against it.

[howard112211]

Very often, the arguing table it tilted in favor of a pro-war position, regardless of the question whether going to war is wise. Even more so in a world where there is no black and white, but only shades of grey.

A person who wants to advocate a war, for one, has a huge repository of highly polished, very effective, talking points from historic war advocates to draw from. Stuff as simple as "the enemy kills children /rapes women/ is a monster" does a great deal to stir emotions in favor of warfare. Add the accusation that the opposition to the war is allied with the enemy, and you already have a potent propaganda recipe, in particular in above mentioned "shades of grey" world. It is also easy to conjure historic (or mythical) national heros to advocate for warfare. "Abraham Lincoln did it", "The founding fathers did it" or "The Spartans did it" is a convincing argument for many.

Being against a war is harder, because it requires extremely detailed knowledge of the conflict, lest one be hit with the all conquering "So you would have been against attacking Hitler too?" line. Often, all one can do essentially is draw from a, in the eyes of those who have not seen or studied warfare, very vague notion that "things will spin out of control", and make principled points about the nature of war, that mean nothing to those who haven't seen or studied it.

In short, a pro-war position often can heavily benefit from half-truths, misinformation and flat out lies, "heat of the moment" moods and ignorance of the subject, while arguing against a war means being forced to systematically debunk things, which is always harder and slower. And often all one has is past experiences which often seem vague and inapplicable to the current situation.

[rug]

1. For the record, I would have been against attacking Hitler too.

As i would have been against the western financiers who helped him before he took power.

[Lasher]

2. The Nazis declared war on the US first.

This was because the US had declared war on their ally, Japan, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. After Germany had declared war, whether to fight them or not was no longer debatable.

[rug]

And if the industrialists did not support the Nazis they could not have taken power.

The invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbor did not materialize out of a vacuum.

http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.wallstreetriseofhitler.ch6.htm

[Lasher]

5. Correct.

After all, fascism is when corporations take over. That's just what happened in Germany and that's just what's happening in the US now.

[still_one]

6. So when hitler started invading other countries we should not have done anything?

[rug]

8. The time to do something was before he took power.

Most prowar arguments pluck a point out of history and argue from there, ignoring all that preceded it. Hitler persuaded millions that Versailles required the invasions.

In 50 years or less there will be demands that war with China is necessary. Meanwhile, we spend the present debating why WWII (insert Libya, Afghanistan, or your country of choice) was a just war.

[Very_Boring_Name]

11. Hindsight is always 20/20

Had they done anything before he took power, people like you would still spout the "stop interfering with their internal affairs!!!!" BS

[rug]

13. "people like me" Lol.

:patriot:

[Very_Boring_Name]

14. People who advocate violent dictatorships over preventative intervention

i.e people like you. :thumbsdown:

[rug]

15. Ok. Get your people together and preventatively intervene in half the governments in the world.

Tell me how it goes.

[Very_Boring_Name]

16. There's still an ethical obligation, whether or not it actually happens

But considering I'm talking to a guy who openly admitted that he would have preferred it if Hitler had remained in power, I don't expect you to understand that.

[rug]

18. If you are using ethics to justify killing by state power, you'd best keep your facts straight.

Starting with your last sentence.

What "people like you" don't realize is that makimg peace is inordinately more difficult, and requires more skill, than making war.

In the meantime, here;s a club for you to stroke.

[Very_Boring_Name]

20. Actually I'm using ethics to justify the prevention of killing by state power

In the meantime, you're using your own custom tailored definition of "peace" to justify the slaughter of millions of people.

[rug]

22. So now it's "the slaughter of millions of people"?

Hyperbole always flows in at the same rate as reason and facts flow out.

[Very_Boring_Name]

24. Ah I see, the Holocaust was just "hyperbole"

:eyes:

[rug]

26. And that is why the US should be droning Libya. QED.

[Lasher]

3. That just about sums it up.

Any reckless fool can start a war. It takes an intelligent leader to avoid or end one.

[boston bean]

4. Someone on DU called me unAmerican and unPatriotic last night.

for being against the US blowing children up to bits.

it was bizarre, to say the least...

[still_one]

7. They used similar arguments if one was against the Viet Nam war at the beginning /nt

[boston bean]

12. A poster also said I was rooting for the enemy. did they say that during viet nam too? nt

[bread_and_roses]

19. Yes, "they" did say that - it's standard tactic (n/t)

[krabigirl]

33. Lol, it is truly scary, isn't it?

[Gravel Democrat]

9. Many "democrats" will return to their "antiwar" postiton when the next (R) is (S)elected

And magically, the (R)epublicans will not question a thing. It's amazing!! Sham WoW!

PT Barnum laughs alot EVEN THOUGH HE'S DEAD

as dead as the Republic(RIP)

[DCBob]

10. Its similar to the argument for and against more computer security in the office..

The guys arguing for more secuirty always win even though often it is obvious overkill.

[bluestate10]

17. Again. A poster lifts the anti-war crowd to sainthood, while painting those

that occasionally see the need for war as somewhat bloodthirsty and a bit nefarious. Some wars should never had been fought. Some recent wars that were ill informed were the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. The USA lost thousands of good men and women in both, but should not have been in either from the start. But the view that war is evil misses the reality that enormous evil exists in the world and war is the last resort for dealing with that evil. A person like Qaddafi can't be reasoned with, the West, China and Russia have tried negotiation infinitum. Yes, Qaddafi is a MONSTER!, and must be dealt with as monsters are deal with, beaten to the point of surrender, or killed if he does not surrender. To allow a person like Qaddafi to kill and terrorize is a form of gross immorality.

[rug]

21. It's curious that you reference the twin evils of the last century, Russia and China, as support.

[bluestate10]

25. How wrong you are. Or is what you did distortion?

Russia and China are enablers for Qaddafi. But both nations have negotiated with Qaddafi is an effort to get him to moderate. Mostly for their own reasons, but they did negotiate. My mention of the two countries was in reference to their involvement in negotiations, there was no statement that both are models of what is good.

[rug]

27. They are yesterday's "Monsters". Qadaffi's is today's. Who is tomorrow's?

And how many lives should be ended to get rid of monsters?

[izquierdista]

30. Qaddafi has had a long run as a "monster"

He's been in power since I was in junior high; and now I'm eligible for AARP membership. The better question to ask is how to prevent "monsters" from getting power in the first place. Maybe that would also reduce the need for militaries to end a lot of innocent lives in the process.

I kind of thought that was supposed to be the object of democracy, rationally choose a level-headed leader for a fixed time period and engage in rhetorical instead of physical arguments.

[rpannier]

28. I guess that begs the question... Where do you draw the line?

Is it 'monsters' of opportunity.
The leaders in countries like Khazakstan, Belorus and Equatorial Guinea are much worse than Ghadafi could ever hope to be.
Why are Jordan and Bahrain not targets?
Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan are much worse.

How evil does one have to be to be considered acceptable for being removed?

Considering there are many bloodthirsty dictators out there, should they all be targets?
Should it only be the one's we can get to easily?

[EFerrari]

31. The view that war is evil exactly recognizes that enormous evil exists in the world.

And war is never the last resort of the United States. It is one of its main occupations.

[scarletwoman]

34. Excellently said!

"And war is never the last resort of the United States. It is one of its main occupations."

Amen.

[quinnox]

23. that is a great point

Insightful and makes a lot of sense, I agree with you. No wonder so many wars have happened in human history, its hard to argue against them from the get go.

Plus since most people are sheepish, they will go along with war because otherwise they are going to be in the minority and in a sense taking a stand versus the crowd, which is an uncomfortable position to be in for many people.

[WinkyDink]

29. Not really. It's just easier to START a war than to prevent one. All that Boom! Crash! Pow! Gotcha!

[JoeyT]

32. Especially since the arguments for this war

are pretty much a carbon copy of the arguments for the war in Iraq.

[Gregorian]

35. This is the case for so many things. Global warming, Republican talking points, a flat earth.

And now with war corporations, going to war is profitable. And then the misinforming media adds to the mess.

I like the concept that you are presenting. It's a shame people can't see. It's a shame we have to spend so much effort to basically force them to see. The world is a piece of shit now, and most people don't even see it. Some of us are shaking our heads, wondering what it takes.

It takes a lot of intelligence. Facts, arguments. It's just too hard. I guess that is what was meant by the Garden of Eden. We always have the opportunity for a brilliant world, but for some reason, it sucks.

[ZombieHorde]

36. You're right. Fear is a very powerful motivator. nt

[mountainlion55]

37. Light sweet crude

is the only reason we are in Libya! All the rest of this yelling back and forth is bullshit!:smoke: