[eDebate] Never ending War (reply to hoe and webb)

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Wed Apr 15 16:18:49 CDT 2009


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-April/078412.html
_

josh hoe: "...the K authors make claims that are generally non-falsifiable..."

can you provide an example?, and keep in mind there's a difference between a
claim that's genuinely non-falsifiable and a claim that you generally don't know
how to falsify. whether it's 90-degrees fahrenheit outside is a falsifiable claim,
but whether the degrees outside are fahrenheit or celcius is not - just to give
a theoretical baseline.
_
_
_

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-April/078404.html
_

clay webb: "This article is just about the number of wars since the cold war.
Nevermind 
that the bloodiest conflict in history was fought before we had the
bomb?and then? abra kadabra?superpowers don?t want to fight each other
anymore.
Realism is a failed ideology?!?!?"

i fail to see how a technological advancement in armaments exonerates an
international relations theory - realism existed before and after the splitting
of the atom, correct? ...if lightning happens to strike as i'm waving a magic
wand over a rabbit i wish to make disappear, and the rabbit is vaporized,
that doesn't mean my magic wand made the rabbit disappear, now does it?

perhaps you're confusing realism with imperialism, though it's written between
the lines of the card you cite; perhaps 'when empires fall apart,
they rarely do
so quietly', because empires make for a quieter world - what the united states
calls 'making the world safe for democracy' (i.e., protecting global markets). so,
if 'the demise of the russian empire' resulted in multiple wars all over the globe,
how many wars will the demise of the american empire result in?

oh, i forgot: america's not an empire, plus it'll never fall...
-- is that what passes for 'realism' these days?

_
"Yeah I have got a better idea, lets all sit around and read Nietzsche all

day and see where that gets us. Perhaps we can structure the international

order around the ubermensch ... I wonder where we would be then?hmmm?.
wait?that?s right?Nazi Germany."

well, since you mockingly asked for his opinion, here it is, circa 1880:

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that it
keeps
an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather
the army
is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality
that approves
of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and
the neighbor's immorality;
for the neighbor must be thought of as eager
to attack and conquer if our state
must think of means of self-defense.
Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring
an army imply that our
neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much
as does our
own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons
of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like
nothing better
than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without
any fight. Thus all states
are now ranged against each other: they
presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition
and their own good
disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as
war
and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause
of wars,
because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the
neighbor and thus provokes a
hostile disposition and act. We must
abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of
self-defense just as
completely as the desire for conquests.



And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by
wars and
victories and by the highest development of a military order
and intelligence, and
accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for
these things, will exclaim of its own
free will, 'We break the sword,'
and will smash its entire military establishment down
to its lowest
foundations. Rendering oneself unarmed when one had been the
best-armed,
out of a height of feeling - that is the means to a real
peace, which must always rest on
a peace of mind; whereas the so-called
armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is
the absence of peace
of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one's neighbor and, half
from
hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate
and fear,
and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -
this must someday become
the highest maxim for every single
commonwealth too.



Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time for
reflecting on the nature
of man: else they would know that they work in
vain when they work for a 'gradual
decrease of the military burden'.
Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest
will the kind
of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of war-glory can
only be
destroyed all at once, by a stroke of lightning: but lightning,
as indeed you know, comes
from a cloud - and from up high.

(aphorism #284 from 'the wander and his shadow'.)

if only the nazis had been more nietzschean!

_
"...things aren?t that bad"

tell me how many millions have died in central africa in the past 20 years, and if
you can muster up the gall to repeat that statement in total seriousness, then i'd
ask you to remember that the officer in charge of guantanamo bay played by jack
nicholson, whose final monologue you quoted from at some length in the previous
post, went to directly to prison...

do not pass go.
do not collect 200 dollars.
...i say good day, sir.

_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090415/d75bd684/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list