Evil Is Good And God Doesn't Exist???

[infinidream]

Originally Posted by Solace

should we follow his teachings or his actions? If it's the latter, would anyone mind if I run into a church where people are doing business and start beating those people up?

I'm not sure I follow. Which actions of Jesus would teach you to to give someone a beating for doing business in church? Or are you just talking about venting your frustrations upon those who don't do as Jesus would do?

[boagie]

Thoreau read very morning the Vedanta philosophy in the form of the Hindu Upanishads, that is quite an influence.

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm not convinced of that, if you consider the cases of the American colonies in 1775, Poland / Czecheslovakia in 1938-1939, Belgium and France in 1940, all the victims of the Napoleonic wars save Russia and Britain, Kuwait in 1990, etc. It's due largely to British incompetence and moronic strategy that they could not wipe out the Revolutionary army -- and the tenacity of Washington and von Steuben that they were able to string their ragtag army together.

I'm not sure the American example works, here. The British Empire, boasting the most powerful military in the world, was constantly engaged in war. Many of their conflicts involved popular rebellion, like the American struggle, but the British were also plaque by almost constant war with major world powers. More evidence for my claim than against.

In 1940, France was considered a significant military force in the world - at least to my recollection. Wasn't it a surprise to (damn near) everyone when the Germans rolled over the French fortifications and over ran the nation so quickly? We knew the German war machine to be capable, as the Germans had already powered through Poland. But everything I've read suggests that France was thought to be a world class military power, and would at least fare better than Poland.

And one last quibble - wasn't Austria a major military power throughout the Napoleonic Wars? And, even if to a slightly lesser extent, Prussia? Or was Prussian too politically fragmented?

Poland, Czecheslovakia, Kuwait - these I admit are clear counter examples to my claim. And there are, as you say, many more examples against my claim. So, I'm curious - what wisdom do you see in the following line of thought?

Just as a bully cannot avoid a fight, and as the bully will at some point meet his match, so to will nations fare which give significant investment into agressive military spending.

So, basically, the US is looking for a bloody nose (or another one, however you look at things), and the Swiss understand the way to properly spend money on military concerns.

I'm not sure how they did it, but our government seems to have found a way to keep us just passive enough that we complain plenty but are too lazy to do anything more than that about it. Maybe they put something in the water? j/k.

It's all the pot. Where do you think marijuana in America comes from? The cheap stuff is shipped in through Mexico, and the good stuff is either grown in California or Canada. Well, and a few other choice locations in the states, but no sense giving the nosy government any more free advice.

Thoreau read very morning the Vedanta philosophy in the form of the Hindu Upanishads, that is quite an influence.

Yep, Hindu texts were also influential. Upanishads have inspired many great western thinkers - Schopenhauer used the Upanishads as his daily devotional.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Many of their conflicts involved popular rebellion, like the American struggle, but the British were also plaque by almost constant war with major world powers.

The history of the conflict itself shows otherwise, though. There was a long and bitter debate in Britain about whether or not it was worth it, and the most persuasive attitude was that the American colonies were a bunch of crude unarmed cretons who couldn't possibly stand up to the Imperial might. And Britain had this attitude pervasivaly throughout the war, which led them to conduct vainglorious and stupid campaigns all the way from Boston through Yorktown.

In 1940, France was considered a significant military force in the world - at least to my recollection. Wasn't it a surprise to (damn near) everyone when the Germans rolled over the French fortifications and over ran the nation so quickly?

Only because the Germans knew what the rest of the world didn't, that France was undermilitarized, had nonsensically dispositioned their troops leaving the Belgian border undefended, and used static strongpoints along the Maginot line that were utterly obsolete in the face of the mechanized warfare that Germany had developed. (ironically Germany tried the same thing with abysmal results along the Atlantic wall). France's military preparation was a complete ruse, and Germany, the only aggressor that matters for this discussion knew it. Hitler's whole calculus was based on ultimately fighting a one front war in the Soviet Union, and he knew that France would easily capitulate -- and he was correct.

And one last quibble - wasn't Austria a major military power throughout the Napoleonic Wars? And, even if to a slightly lesser extent, Prussia? Or was Prussian too politically fragmented?

Yes, you're correct.

Poland, Czecheslovakia, Kuwait - these I admit are clear counter examples to my claim. And there are, as you say, many more examples against my claim.

There are examples on both sides. My only point is it's hard to generalize. But what SHOULD be instructive is the example of the Cold War. The US and USSR would not let themselves engage one another militarily. So they took on Korea, and Vietnam, and funded / armed all kinds of puppet states in Africa and Latin America, and the USSR took on all the WWII-ravaged eastern block countries and all the central Asian states, and invaded Afghanistan, etc. The Cold War was essentially characterized by superpowers waging war in puny states to avoid taking one another on.

Just as a bully cannot avoid a fight, and as the bully will at some point meet his match, so too will nations fare which give significant investment into aggressive military spending.

I just don't think this is an argument that can be made from first principle. I mean all we can really do is look back probably no further than WWI or maybe the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars, i.e. just ~110 years ago, if we want to draw principles out of the historical record. Before that tactics, strategy, military funding, etc were so completely different. And since then we have a whole new scale of warfare, the concept of total war with general mobilization, and we have the capacity to reach any point in the globe. It's just too little history for us to say what happens with nations that invest in military spending -- and too little specificity to know what's meant by "aggressive".

So, basically, the US is looking for a bloody nose (or another one, however you look at things)

Don't blame the US as a whole. Bush has changed the whole landscape. I've got no problem with our military striving to be technologically advanced and efficient if that will 1) protect our own troops and 2) make strategic warfare much less disastrous.

On the other hand, this unchecked excess is putting us at most risk simply by destabilizing our economy and forcing us to compromise other things. This 10% cut in Medicare payouts that went through Congress yesterday is going to be devastating. Doctors offices already lose money or barely break even on Medicare patients -- and with this cut, most doctors offices are going to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether because they won't be able to afford to see them. And what makes matters worse is that private insurance companies often link their payouts to Medicare rates, so this is going to truly crush the medical system, especially in primary care and in hospitals. And where do you think this savings is going to go?

and the Swiss understand the way to properly spend money on military concerns.

Honestly, policy-wise they're like buzzards and rats coated in cheese and chocolate. Their sanctimonious policies have protected them from war, but believe me they've LOVED having war waged around them on all sides since time immemorial.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by infinidream

I'm not sure I follow. Which actions of Jesus would teach you to to give someone a beating for doing business in church? Or are you just talking about venting your frustrations upon those who don't do as Jesus would do?

As DT pointed out, I exaggerated the story of Jesus going into the temple and driving out the people who were buying and selling there. But my point was two-fold, both that business still goes on in churches and, if someone is trying to be like Christ, shouldn't they do something about it?

[Didymos Thomas]

The history of the conflict itself shows otherwise, though. There was a long and bitter debate in Britain about whether or not it was worth it, and the most persuasive attitude was that the American colonies were a bunch of crude unarmed cretons who couldn't possibly stand up to the Imperial might. And Britain had this attitude pervasivaly throughout the war, which led them to conduct vainglorious and stupid campaigns all the way from Boston through Yorktown.

How does any of this contradict the following?
'Many of their conflicts involved popular rebellion, like the American struggle, but the British were also plaque by almost constant war with major world powers.'

I'm not trying to debate that the British made many mistakes in handling the war. The point is that the British Empire, the most powerful military force in the world (of that time) was beset by almost constant warfare, whether the conflict was with another major power or in their many colonies.

Having a military capable of waging an effective aggressive war seems to increase the chances that that nation will wage an aggressive war.

Only because the Germans knew what the rest of the world didn't, that France was undermilitarized, had nonsensically dispositioned their troops leaving the Belgian border undefended, and used static strongpoints along the Maginot line that were utterly obsolete in the face of the mechanized warfare that Germany had developed. (ironically Germany tried the same thing with abysmal results along the Atlantic wall). France's military preparation was a complete ruse, and Germany, the only aggressor that matters for this discussion knew it. Hitler's whole calculus was based on ultimately fighting a one front war in the Soviet Union, and he knew that France would easily capitulate -- and he was correct.

Fair enough.

There are examples on both sides. My only point is it's hard to generalize.

Yeah, and my initial claim is a generalization. One that can't really be defended.

But what SHOULD be instructive is the example of the Cold War. The US and USSR would not let themselves engage one another militarily. So they took on Korea, and Vietnam, and funded / armed all kinds of puppet states in Africa and Latin America, and the USSR took on all the WWII-ravaged eastern block countries and all the central Asian states, and invaded Afghanistan, etc. The Cold War was essentially characterized by superpowers waging war in puny states to avoid taking one another on.

And what lessons do you pull out of this conflict with respect to military build up?

I just don't think this is an argument that can be made from first principle. I mean all we can really do is look back probably no further than WWI or maybe the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars, i.e. just ~110 years ago, if we want to draw principles out of the historical record. Before that tactics, strategy, military funding, etc were so completely different. And since then we have a whole new scale of warfare, the concept of total war with general mobilization, and we have the capacity to reach any point in the globe. It's just too little history for us to say what happens with nations that invest in military spending -- and too little specificity to know what's meant by "aggressive".

I don't see why we cannot look further than the Spanish-American war for these principles. I understand that warfare has undergone significant changes, but the waging of wars has always changed. Wasn't total war an 'innovation' of the American Civil War? The British were capable of reaching any point in the globe with significant military force before 1800.

By aggressive I mean investing in military designed for something other than defense. Establishing national militia installations across the nation with arms for the general public in the event of invasion is defensive - an aircraft carrier or a battleship is an aggressive tool.

Don't blame the US as a whole. Bush has changed the whole landscape. I've got no problem with our military striving to be technologically advanced and efficient if that will 1) protect our own troops and 2) make strategic warfare much less disastrous.

Eisenhower warned us in the 50's - he warned that the military industrial complex would become powerful enough to insight wars for the sake of a marketplace for their goods.

My history gets shaky sometimes (as you can tell), but I'm having a hard time thinking of an American President after WW2 who did not push to expand the military.

Maybe it's worth noting that I'm a pacifist who advocates the total disarmament of all nations - I'm biased on this issue.

On the other hand, this unchecked excess is putting us at most risk simply by destabilizing our economy and forcing us to compromise other things. This 10% cut in Medicare payouts that went through Congress yesterday is going to be devastating. Doctors offices already lose money or barely break even on Medicare patients -- and with this cut, most doctors offices are going to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether because they won't be able to afford to see them. And what makes matters worse is that private insurance companies often link their payouts to Medicare rates, so this is going to truly crush the medical system, especially in primary care and in hospitals. And where do you think this savings is going to go?

Military spending I would imagine. As an aside, I didn't realize the changes in Medicare would be so devastating. I knew it couldn't be good, but... well, this is terribly sad to hear.

Honestly, policy-wise they're like buzzards and rats coated in cheese and chocolate. Their sanctimonious policies have protected them from war, but believe me they've LOVED having war waged around them on all sides since time immemorial.

Well sure. The Swiss make a lot of money when other nations wage war.

But the modern Swiss state, to my knowledge, has kept a purely defensive military. But as you know, I don't know a whole lot.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

How does any of this contradict the following?
'Many of their conflicts involved popular rebellion, like the American struggle, but the British were also plaque by almost constant war with major world powers.'

It doesn't, but you neglect the real historical phenomenon of the deterrent effect of strong adversaries -- and the British militarism was emboldened by the idea that they could run ragged over anyone. Breed's/Bunker Hill and the Battle of Trenton were immense shocks to Britain.

Yeah, and my initial claim is a generalization. One that can't really be defended.

When you're dealing with the historical record, it's difficult to generalize because the conditions change so much from event to event.

And what lessons do you pull out of this conflict with respect to military build up?

Only that the US and USSR were very scared of one another, such that they were willing to play cat and mouse but never take one another on. There was a REAL deterrent effect -- one that should have been realized in 1914 but Europe hadn't really come to understand modern warfare yet.

Wasn't total war an 'innovation' of the American Civil War?

Not until 1864, and it's besides the point because both sides were relatively under-armed at the beginning of the conflict, so it's hard to argue that armament is what potentiated the conflict.

The British were capable of reaching any point in the globe with significant military force before 1800.

Yes, and take on comparatively unarmed tribesmen in most cases. Point is that it's the discrepancy in armament that potentiated the aggression.

Maybe it's worth noting that I'm a pacifist who advocates the total disarmament of all nations

That's fine, and it's fine to be for world peace and harmony and lions lying down with lambs, and I don't disagree with your viewpoint. But honestly it's hard to talk about total disarmament as a realistic goal -- it's an ideal that you know as well as I will NEVER happen -- so what do we do in the meantime?

[Didymos Thomas]

It doesn't, but you neglect the real historical phenomenon of the deterrent effect of strong adversaries -- and the British militarism was emboldened by the idea that they could run ragged over anyone. Breed's/Bunker Hill and the Battle of Trenton were immense shocks to Britain.

Strong adversaries would be cautious to engage one another. But how does this apply to the British example? The British, as you say, were emboldened by their military prowess. They assumed their military might to be supreme, and so they not only had little problem going to war, but also were ill-prepared for war against enemies perceived as weak.

The Americans were, militarily, weak. The British underestimated the Americans and lost.

Only that the US and USSR were very scared of one another, such that they were willing to play cat and mouse but never take one another on. There was a REAL deterrent effect -- one that should have been realized in 1914 but Europe hadn't really come to understand modern warfare yet.

Right, and so they avoided direct military conflict with one another, and instead fought several conflicts elsewhere in the globe. Not only did the USSR and US fight wars, but other nations fought, often against the will of the local populations, wars because the two big players would not fight each other.

Yes, and take on comparatively unarmed tribesmen in most cases. Point is that it's the discrepancy in armament that potentiated the aggression.

Right - the British had a massive military capable of world wide aggression and used this force against other nations. If the British did not have such a force of arms, they could not have been so aggressive.

That's fine, and it's fine to be for world peace and harmony and lions lying down with lambs, and I don't disagree with your viewpoint. But honestly it's hard to talk about total disarmament as a realistic goal -- it's an ideal that you know as well as I will NEVER happen -- so what do we do in the meantime?

Tibet demilitarized at the height of their military power and maintained sovereignty for hundreds of years. During the Cold War, as Communist China began to assert it's power, Tibet was invaded and conquered.

[Aedes]

Thomas, you may not realize it but you've swung your argument around 180 degrees here. You've been arguing for the past couple posts that a highly militarized state is likely to be aggressive.

What I've been responding to is the following quote of yours:

I'm increasingly convinced that having a (significant) military only increases the danger of being the victim of aggression.

I've provided examples of how the victims of aggression are disproportionately the weak, undermilitarized states.

[Didymos Thomas]

Haven't I already admitted the error of that statement?