Really weak stuff this guy's coming at you with. Jefferson's quote has nothing to do with the ridiculous scenarios the guy brings up later. And war is a choice -- every time; sometimes it's easier to make, but it's always, always a choice.
"War is not the answer" is not the same as "War is never the answer".
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. But the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our choice." - Thomas Jefferson
I agree with this. War and fighting is to be avoided whenever possible, and one should never go looking to pick a fight and sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong. However, when attacked, one should be ready to defend oneself against the attacker. TJ never once says to aggressively pursue proactive warring, militarism, nation-building, invasion, and empire spreading. Nor does he talk about stationing our military all over the world and taking on military interventions in support of 'national interests'. Nor does he talk about indebting future generations in support of maintaining a global empire. Nor does he talk about engaging militarily without a formal Congressional declaration of war. And on and on.
Quote:
The "peace-niks" seem to think that war is a matter of choice on our part. Therefore, they have the idiotic slogan that "war is not the answer." They should be saying this to the predator rather than the prey.
Why do they not visit the Chicago mob and tell them that "crime is not the answer." Next they might enter the tiger cage in San Francisco and tell the tiger that "eating people is not the answer." Next they could tell a mosquito that "yellow fever is not the answer." Finally, they could tell a forest fire that "burning trees is not the answer."... Read More
It is all equally stupid and naive, but none-the-less appeals to the herd instinct.
These scenarios are all strawman arguments. They really have nothing to do with the authority given to the US federal government under the US Constitution regarding national defense and war-making. Last I understood, this still was the law of the land.
Anyway, if you wanna play the game and banter these topics, while avoiding the issue, I think the scenarios just bolster what I stated above. When being attacked directly, one has the right to defend oneself and put protections in place to keep oneself safe. However, does this imply the need to drone bomb half of Africa and India to "eliminate the potential threat of tigers ever attacking another human", spread pesticide across half the world to ensure those "suicide bombing mosquitos never get a chance to come over here and destroy our way of life", and invade, destroy, and take over Italy "because it's where the Mob has it's training camps"? Nevermind the collateral damage, etc. "Better to get them over there than over here", right?
As far as the 'herd instinct', I think this guy has more of a herd mentality than he realizes.
Great also for him to toss in words like 'peace-nik', 'naive', etc. typical namecalling, amateurish and shows the real lack of a defendable position.
