One of the biggest differences between liberals and Republicans is their view of war. Particularly among neocons, it's a narrative in which the US is continually saving the world,''making the world safe for democracy''.
For any of you who know your Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat), that phrase will ring a bell. Indeed, it may surprise some to reflect that the dems got the US involved in WW1 and WW2, as well as Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps one of JFKs best known quotes is ''we will pay any price, bear any burden... to ensure the survival and success of liberty''. As some historians have rightly pointed out, this is a lot like the rhetoric of George W Bush, though as some would no doubt joke, infinitely more articulate.
Around JFK's time, the anti war New Left movement siezed power within the dems. Before long though, cold warriors like William F Buckley gained influence within the Republican Party, making it much more hawkish. Not that the dems transformed into principled pacifists - it's easy to forget how Clinton launched various operations around the globe, albeit on a small scale, and cynics would note that these often coincided when Clinton was in political trouble. Obama hasn't started any new conflicts, but he isn't withdrawing troops from the Middle East with much alacricity either.
That said, pacifism is still associated with the left of the political spectrum. I used to have a fairly low opinion of anti war leftists (Code Pink and Michael Moore types) but as I began to connect the dots economically speaking, I came round to a new point of view on war. Much of what I previously believed was based on a faulty understanding of both economics and history - beliefs shared by vast amounts of people.
For example, you regularly hear that WW2 got the US out of the Depression. This assertion is outrageous once you look at the facts (even more outrageous than believing it was the New Deal). The government went massively into debt in order to spend billions on military manufacturing and sends off hundreds of thousands of young men to kill and be killed. This may be necessary depending on the circumstances, or worthwhile depending on the cause, but it certainly doesn't cause prosperity.
Military production creates goods people wouldn't ordinarily want or need. You would have the same economic results if the government spent billions on computers and paid a few hundred thousand people to play WoW all day, and kill or maim those who let the team down on raids. The money invested into such a scheme would show up in and raise GDP, and all the men involved would be officially employed, however none of this helps the nation become more prosperous. See here for an excellent article on the real economic costs of war. It goes over many of the things you wouldn't ordinarily consider, such as how the domination of research by defence projects makes industry less suited for providing goods people want, as it drains the best scientific minds away from making our lives better, to designing weapons.
War can be justified. The ending of slavery in the US, stopping Hitler and the Nazis, saving Iraqi Kurds from Saddam. The cost however is too great. It is unsustainable, and there are generally other ways to achieve these goals. Even the war which is most morally defencible, WW2, probably wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for WW1. Consider that if America had stayed out of the war, Britain and france wouldn't have been able to win so decisively, such a heinous treaty couldn't have been forced on the Germans, setting the stage for WW2.
I hope I've provided a coherent argument without wearing my heart on my sleeve too much, but please, do consider what I've said.
The economy didn't fully recover until after WW2, with the great boom of 1946 when most troops were disbanded and many of the wartime economic restrictions were lifted.
Exactly! He stated that he would remove the troops, yet he has sent more, and not taken out out. I don't get how anyone likes him.
Please don't turn this into an Obama thread. There are plenty of those already. But yes, troop numbers is what is relevant here.
This is what caused Vietnam. The U.S. had too much military materials, and it was burning their pockets. So they fought Vietnam to use it up.
I have to disagree. It was more the general fear of communism combined with an irrational belief in the potency of the domino effect.
War can be justified. The ending of slavery in the US, stopping Hitler and the Nazis, saving Iraqi Kurds from Saddam. The cost however is too great. It is unsustainable, and there are generally other ways to achieve these goals.
If their are other, more peaceful ways to achieve these goals, then why is war justifiable?
Most wars don't just happen. There are plently of signifying factors leading up to them. Furthermore, the Cold War proved that it is possible for two ideologically different nations to avoid a full scale war using diplomacy.
Tensions were very high. Its rather a miracle that the powers did not confront each other directly.
The fact that we were able to avoid such a confrontation given the circumstances just further proves the power of diplomacy.
But given the number of proxy wars that emerged, it can hardly be said that good diplomacy accomplished anything.
Yes, that is actually a good point.
When you look at the Cold War, you see a lot of efffective diplomacy that paradoxically creates further wars.
The Cuban missle Cris, for instance, resulted in a diplomatic solution. Both countries removed removed nuclear weapons from neighboring nations. Therefore, diplomatic success. On the other hand, some people (according to wikipedia) think that the US's participation in the Vietnam war was heavily influenced by the Missle Crisis. In which case it can hardly be considered a diplomatic success.
The Cuban missle Cris, for instance, resulted in a diplomatic solution. Both countries removed removed nuclear weapons from neighboring nations. Therefore, diplomatic success.
If anything the Cuban Missle Crises demonstrated the tensions. It was not diplomatic success. It was merely that furthering the interests of the Soviet Union would cause a direct confrontation, which none of the countries wanted. It was nothing more than a strategic drawback by the Soviet Union.
Just the fact that the USSR had to put missles in Cuba shows the height of the conflict.
None of the countries benefited from the event and there was hardly any diplomacy involved. It was more like "If you continue this, we'll nuke you, so stop." Plus the Bay of Pigs invasion?
On the other hand, some people (according to wikipedia) think that the US's participation in the Vietnam war was heavily influenced by the Missle Crisis. In which case it can hardly be considered a diplomatic success.
None of the countries benefited from the event and there was hardly any diplomacy involved. It was more like "If you continue this, we'll nuke you, so stop."
But... that IS diplomacy. Mutual threats are a basic form of diplomacy. The fact that there was no nuclear war proves it was successful. I would say that tensions between the USSR and the US were significantly less after the Cuban Missle Crisis.
And I wouldn't really consider it to be a strategic draw back for the Soviets, after all they got US missles removed from Turkey.
But all things considered, you are right. In hindsight the cuban missle crisis/cold war was a pretty bad example of diplomacy in action.
I don't see the connection o.O
I don't either.
According to wikipedia, the Cuban Missle Crisis gave the U.S. the courage to actively particpate in the Vietnam War. After the Cuban missle crisis, it was obvious that neither party would use missles against the other.
According to wikipedia, the Cuban Missle Crisis gave the U.S. the courage to actively particpate in the Vietnam War. After the Cuban missle crisis, it was obvious that neither party would use missles against the other.
I don't completely agree with that.
Yeah, the US was actively involved in wars much before Vietnam, Korea for one.
