What do you think of Wkileaks?

[MrPopo]

The point I was trying to make is that public opinion will always be against war if they know everything about a war.

Good! I'm glad you've come around and can see why absolute transparency is the best policy.

Except you're ignoring the fact that the public is made up of ignorant boobs who don't understand that war has value. Thus absolute transparency is the WORST thing if you're trying to run a country. Hell, not even your goddamn household has absolute transparency.

[Hatta]

war has value

War, ungh, good god. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I think you're the only person I've ever talked to admitted to being against world peace. Anti-democracy, too. Kind of disturbing actually.

[Limewater]

war has value

War, ungh, good god. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I think you're the only person I've ever talked to admitted to being against world peace. Anti-democracy, too. Kind of disturbing actually.

If it makes you feel any better, I am also against world peace and democracy.

*EDIT* I should clarify.

I am against world peace. I don't mind if you participate in a democracy. I just don't like being forced to be a part of it.

[MrPopo]

war has value

War, ungh, good god. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I think you're the only person I've ever talked to admitted to being against world peace. Anti-democracy, too. Kind of disturbing actually.

When did I say I was against world peace? Or that I was against democracy? Just because I understand the sheer absurdness of democracy (let's get a bunch of idiots together and have them decide stuff) doesn't mean I think it's a bad system compared to the alternatives. And world peace? It's a pipe dream; years of study in human behavior shows that we'll never have true peace. Sure, I'd be fine if everyone kissed and made up and it was all flowers and sunshine from here on out. But to think it would actually happen is pure naivetivity. So given that we can show that some nations at some times will be belligerant towards us, and the proper recourse might be war. It's not a fun thought, but it's the truth.

[kgcarini]

war has value

War, ungh, good god. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I think you're the only person I've ever talked to admitted to being against world peace. Anti-democracy, too. Kind of disturbing actually.

Make me number three! The United States of America has never been a democracy. The form of government our founding fathers set up is a republic. There is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a republic. World peace is an absolute joke. Just look at human nature! If you believe world peace is possible your naive.

[jfrost]

There's a huge difference between saying that ending up in absolute peace is unlikely and giving some kind of support for war.

[ZeroAX]

The point I was trying to make is that public opinion will always be against war if they know everything about a war. If you're going to play the "human rights" angle then all wars are a violation of human rights.

a defensive war is not a violation of human rights. At least for the side that is defending.

The public opinion will be against an offensive war that's about keeping trade routes open (as the link I posted 1 page ago hinted). If the British knew what their empire was doing around the world, they'd probably be against it, even if that was centuries ago and society wasn't so advanced.

[Hatta]

I was sympathetic when we were talking about secrecy as a strategic concern. Don't let the enemy see your hand, I get that, in principle. Still don't think the risk of corruption is worth it, but I understand the position.

But now, when you're talking about not letting the people know what's going on in a war in order to deprive them of an informed choice. That's way off the deep end.

You know what's more absurd than democracy? Giving ambitious people the power to wage war, and not even checking to make sure they're using it to further your interests, instead of theirs. Any power that can be abused, will be abused. Always. This is why democracy (ideally small scale, ad-hoc, direct democracy) is the best form of government. It dilutes the authority to minimize the harm.

[MrPopo]

But now, when you're talking about not letting the people know what's going on in a war in order to deprive them of an informed choice. That's way off the deep end.

Except that they still aren't making an informed choice. They might be aware that there are X number of civilian casualties without actually understanding how combat goes down or the general tactical and strategic situation. Thus they will make a decision based on partial information, which can be worse than making a decision based on no information.

Let's use an example. Let's say I have a product that I guarentee (and is backed up with testing) will remove all acne. A young teenager would immediately want to purchase this product. However, the teenager doesn't know that one side effect is a 10% chance of total hair loss. When he knows some, but not all, of the information about this product his decision making abillity is more impaired than it was when he knew nothing.

This is why democracy (ideally small scale, ad-hoc, direct democracy) is the best form of government. It dilutes the authority to minimize the harm.

We get it, you don't like government. Can you admit that a country on the scale of the United States CANNOT operate as a true democracy and let us move forward? I do agree for a true democracy to function all the voters need to be well informed. But we don't have a democracy, we have a republic. And strictly speaking it is only the elected representatives that need to be well informed; the general voting public only needs to be brought up to speed on a specific incumbant's performance when he's up for reelection.

[Hatta]

Except that they still aren't making an informed choice. They might be aware that there are X number of civilian casualties without actually understanding how combat goes down or the general tactical and strategic situation.

If the public values avoiding civilian casualties more than victory, that's their prerogative. The fact that military commanders have engaged in wholesale slaughter through history in the name of victory is a great reason why they can't be trusted to choose which wars to fight and how to fight them.

The military may be more skilled at making war than the general public. But they do not possess superior morality.

We get it, you don't like government.

Government is an important tool, but a dangerous one. Like fire, if used thoughtfully it can bring us civilization. If you don't watch it carefully, it can destroy everything.

Can you admit that a country on the scale of the United States CANNOT operate as a true democracy and let us move forward?

I suppose you'd prefer a military dictatorship?