T
thomfra
Guest
It all depends on what you think of the domino theory…, and foreign intervention in general. Probably better to look at Iraq as a contemporary example. Has it made the world safer?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Socialism might work in small countries that are united by culture, race, morality, and religion, such as the Scandanavian countries… maybe … But the supposed socialism in those countries is falling apart since they have been substantially emigrated by folks without those cultural similarities and values.
But really, Norway are Sweden are just capitalist with high tax rates.
All the theoretical and empirical evidence says socialism is an unworkable and extremely inefficient system. No country in the history of the world has ever became wealthy without having secure property rights, including the right to own capital. Every single developed country did it in a similar way, ensuring secure property rights and allowing those who have been productive to keep the majority of the rewards through the use of their property.
In it’s most pure state, socialism is ideal. In fact, it is more or less the society that early Christians supported - the rich giving away all they had so that everyone had what they needed. The problem is that we don’t live in a perfect world.
A socialist government is run by men, and men will always seek to better themselves. Somewhere along the line, such an economy run by men will ultimately turn into some form of dictatorship. We see this already in the extension of government controls on free speech and the rise of political correctness.
The only option that people have is to vote with their feet. To go somewhere else … usually the United States.
The problem is that in a socialist government, there are no controls on excesses. In an American-variety capitalist, free-market economy, failures go bankrupt. But government operations go forever … failures just get larger and larger subsidies.
Often what happens is that a capitalist, free-market system develops a high standard of living and high standard of economic infrastructure. Then the government changes to socialist and the economic growth stops.
We’ve seen this in numerous countries. Compare East Germany with West Germany. Argentina before and after Peron. North Korea and South Korea. Hong Kong versus mainland China. England before and after adopting socialism after World War II [before WW2 and after WW2]. Cuba before and after Castro.
Compare economic growth in high tax, high government control New York State and New Jersey versus South Carolina.
Compare Larry Silverstein’s performance in rebuilding WTC 7 versus the Port Authority/NYS performance in not accomplishing much at the rest of the WTC.
But really, Norway are Sweden are just capitalist with high tax rates.
All the theoretical and empirical evidence says socialism is an unworkable and extremely inefficient system. No country in the history of the world has ever became wealthy without having secure property rights, including the right to own capital. Every single developed country did it in a similar way, ensuring secure property rights and allowing those who have been productive to keep the majority of the rewards through the use of their property.
In it’s most pure state, socialism is ideal. In fact, it is more or less the society that early Christians supported - the rich giving away all they had so that everyone had what they needed. The problem is that we don’t live in a perfect world.
A socialist government is run by men, and men will always seek to better themselves. Somewhere along the line, such an economy run by men will ultimately turn into some form of dictatorship. We see this already in the extension of government controls on free speech and the rise of political correctness.
The only option that people have is to vote with their feet. To go somewhere else … usually the United States.
The problem is that in a socialist government, there are no controls on excesses. In an American-variety capitalist, free-market economy, failures go bankrupt. But government operations go forever … failures just get larger and larger subsidies.
Often what happens is that a capitalist, free-market system develops a high standard of living and high standard of economic infrastructure. Then the government changes to socialist and the economic growth stops.
We’ve seen this in numerous countries. Compare East Germany with West Germany. Argentina before and after Peron. North Korea and South Korea. Hong Kong versus mainland China. England before and after adopting socialism after World War II [before WW2 and after WW2]. Cuba before and after Castro.
Compare economic growth in high tax, high government control New York State and New Jersey versus South Carolina.
Compare Larry Silverstein’s performance in rebuilding WTC 7 versus the Port Authority/NYS performance in not accomplishing much at the rest of the WTC.
T
thomfra
Guest
Rubbish. Prove it.Socialism works in small countries that are united by culture, race, morality, and religion, such as the Scandanavian countries. The socialism in those countries is falling apart since they have been invaded by outsiders
Those countries are getting richer, and have better social programs than every before.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Got timed out whilst editing.Socialism might work in small countries that are united by culture, race, morality, and religion, such as the Scandanavian countries… maybe … But the supposed socialism in those countries is falling apart since they have been substantially emigrated by folks without those cultural similarities and values.
But really, Norway are Sweden are just capitalist with high tax rates.
All the theoretical and empirical evidence says socialism is an unworkable and extremely inefficient system. No country in the history of the world has ever became wealthy without having secure property rights, including the right to own capital. Every single developed country did it in a similar way, ensuring secure property rights and allowing those who have been productive to keep the majority of the rewards through the use of their property.
In it’s most pure state, socialism is ideal. In fact, it is more or less the society that early Christians supported - the rich giving away all they had so that everyone had what they needed. The problem is that we don’t live in a perfect world.
A socialist government is run by men, and men will always seek to better themselves. Somewhere along the line, such an economy run by men will ultimately turn into some form of dictatorship. We see this already in the extension of government controls on free speech and the rise of political correctness.
The only option that people have is to vote with their feet. To go somewhere else … usually the United States.
The problem is that in a socialist government, there are no controls on excesses. In an American-variety capitalist, free-market economy, failures go bankrupt. But government operations go forever … failures just get larger and larger subsidies.
Often what happens is that a capitalist, free-market system develops a high standard of living and high standard of economic infrastructure. Then the government changes to socialist and the economic growth stops.
We’ve seen this in numerous countries. Compare East Germany with West Germany. Argentina before and after Peron. North Korea and South Korea. Hong Kong versus mainland China. England before and after adopting socialism after World War II [before WW2 and after WW2]. Cuba before and after Castro.
Compare economic growth in high tax, high government control New York State and New Jersey versus South Carolina and North Carolina.
Compare Larry Silverstein’s performance in rebuilding WTC 7 versus the Port Authority/NYS performance in not accomplishing much at the rest of the WTC.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Not true.Rubbish. Prove it.
Those countries are getting richer, and have better social programs than every before.
Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes.
While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium’s was able to create 8% new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to create any jobs at all in over two decades.
Go here and read this paper. Quite detailed.
brusselsjournal.com/node/510
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.
A paper [pdf] from the economics department of Ghent University does the same. This paper, Fiscal Policy Employment and Growth: Why is the Euro Area Lagging Behind, was also subsidized by the government. In the selection of data comparing the performance of EU economies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated Ireland, Spain and Portugal (three of the four best performing EU economies) from their research and added oil-producing non-EU member Norway (which has a GDP more than 20% of which is based on income from oil). It is hardly imaginable that professors of one of Belgium’s major universities would not be aware of how this arbitrary selection must distort the result.
R
Randolph
Guest
What is wrong with socialism? I am afraid that we are going off topic here. Perhaps, it should be another thread by itself.
Socialism reduces human struggles to class struggles. The class structure itself it what causes the problems. If this class structure is eliminated, there goes the struggle. People just need subsistency to do what their heart desire. Sounds good? And why not? The problem is the “big brothers” are the ones that determine and define subsistency; ie what is good for you.
Communism, in a way, is a product of socialism. I believe the Soviet Union crashed and burned some years ago. The biggest problem with socialism is it denies God and prohibits the worshiping of God.
Socialism reduces human struggles to class struggles. The class structure itself it what causes the problems. If this class structure is eliminated, there goes the struggle. People just need subsistency to do what their heart desire. Sounds good? And why not? The problem is the “big brothers” are the ones that determine and define subsistency; ie what is good for you.
Communism, in a way, is a product of socialism. I believe the Soviet Union crashed and burned some years ago. The biggest problem with socialism is it denies God and prohibits the worshiping of God.
J
JMBNH
Guest
In the case of Marxism I’d agree, but countries like Venezuela manage to be socialist without being atheist and in fact unlike capitalist USA it bans abortion (with the exception of when a woman’s life is at risk), something most people on here would support, but won’t happen whether the Democrats or Republicans win as they both support abortion (some of the Republicans may claim otherwise but it still goes on the same after 8 years of the Republicans).Communism, in a way, is a product of socialism. I believe the Soviet Union crashed and burned some years ago. The biggest problem with socialism is it denies God and prohibits the worshiping of God.
The reality is that US-style capitalism is very far from Jesus’s teaching as it relies on the oppression of poor both in the own country and in the third world. Any system that sees people living in huge mansions while the poor go without medical treatment (save the small percentage who qualify for Medicare or Medicaid) and that also sees countries bombed to support the US economy is very very un-Christian.
I actually think if you Catholicised Cuba while keeping the economic/healthcare etc setup the same it would be a far better country than the USA or my own country (the UK)
G
grandfather
Guest
Did a quick search on religion in Vietnam. According to the information available there are three main religions, Buddhism, Catholicism and Cao Dai. Buddhism has the most adherents. The majority of Vietnamese consider themselves Buddhist. Catholicism is the next largest group. Cao Dai is third largest. It is a syncretist religion with Confuscianism being one of the components. Taoiosm and ancestor worship are the others. Catholicism was introduced in the 15th century and was long established and was popular before the French arrival, although the French encouraged it. I could not find any information that said Confucianism has a presence or is practiced other than in syncretist forms.***Catholic??? ***Please. Only a small percentage is Catholic, and was viewed as an elitist, French, colonial clientele by the masses. Also, Confucianism co-exists with Buddhism. It’s a philosophy and a religion, just as Buddhism is both. Asian religious syncretism has made their co-existence not only possible, but very popular throughout n.
R
Randolph
Guest
Capitalism has its own set of problems. I respectfully agree. Materialism and consumerism are big problems, and are leading people astray and bewildered. Governments and cultures overtime have attempted to have different economic systems. None is perfect and, I believe, will ever be.In the case of Marxism I’d agree, but countries like Venezuela manage to be socialist without being atheist and in fact unlike capitalist USA it bans abortion (with the exception of when a woman’s life is at risk), something most people on here would support, but won’t happen whether the Democrats or Republicans win as they both support abortion (some of the Republicans may claim otherwise but it still goes on the same after 8 years of the Republicans).
The reality is that US-style capitalism is very far from Jesus’s teaching as it relies on the oppression of poor both in the own country and in the third world. Any system that sees people living in huge mansions while the poor go without medical treatment (save the small percentage who qualify for Medicare or Medicaid) and that also sees countries bombed to support the US economy is very very un-Christian.
I actually think if you Catholicised Cuba while keeping the economic/healthcare etc setup the same it would be a far better country than the USA or my own country (the UK)
The Church does not promote one system over another. I am more interested in systems that recognize the human free will, the freedom to recognize the human soul, the freedom of exchange of ideas and thoughts, and the free of worshiping God.
T
thomfra
Guest
I can see where you come from. But arguably a more important measure is The Human Development Index (HDI). …"a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.Not true.
Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes.
While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium’s was able to create 8% new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to create any jobs at all in over two decades.
Go here and read this paper. Quite detailed.
brusselsjournal.com/node/510
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.
A paper [pdf] from the economics department of Ghent University does the same. This paper, Fiscal Policy Employment and Growth: Why is the Euro Area Lagging Behind, was also subsidized by the government. In the selection of data comparing the performance of EU economies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated Ireland, Spain and Portugal (three of the four best performing EU economies) from their research and added oil-producing non-EU member Norway (which has a GDP more than 20% of which is based on income from oil). It is hardly imaginable that professors of one of Belgium’s major universities would not be aware of how this arbitrary selection must distort the result.
The scandinavian countries (and more socialist leaning countries -strong arbeidepartie/labor party/unions etc) have always been high on this index.
The scandinavian model is a special mix of socialism and a free market economy. It seems to work, and many of the newer EU contries such look to this model. ’
But this passage from the Economist sums it up:
The Nordic region …] has the world’s highest taxes and most generous welfare benefits. And yet Sweden, Finland and Denmark (Norway’s oil sets it apart) have delivered strong growth and low unemployment, and rank among the world’s most competitive economies. Nordic companies are strong in technology and research and development. Their health-care and educational systems are much admired. And, unlike other European countries, most Nordic states run healthy budget and current-account surpluses. Sweden, whose 9m people make it by some way the biggest Nordic country, is a particular favourite. A year ago the Guardian, a British newspaper, said it was the most successful society the world had ever known.”
The Economist (2006)
R
Randolph
Guest
Grandfather:Did a quick search on religion in Vietnam. According to the information available there are three main religions, Buddhism, Catholicism and Cao Dai. Buddhism has the most adherents. The majority of Vietnamese consider themselves Buddhist. Catholicism is the next largest group. Cao Dai is third largest. It is a syncretist religion with Confuscianism being one of the components. Taoiosm and ancestor worship are the others. Catholicism was introduced in the 15th century and was long established and was popular before the French arrival, although the French encouraged it. I could not find any information that said Confucianism has a presence or is practiced other than in syncretist forms.
I agree with you about the fact that Buddhism, Catholicism and Cao Dai are the main religions in Vietnam. Most of the population belongs to a variety of buddaism sects. About 8% are Catholics. Cao Dai is a religion that combines many important figures from different religions and heroes. A small segment of population also practices ancestors worshiping.
I also agree with you about Confucianism as not being a religion there. Confucianism is not a religion as many would define it, but rather it is a system of thoughts and wisdom from Confucius himself from ancient China. This system, at its best, places importance on family, loyalty and service. It is not a religion in Vietnam, or even close to it. Most Vietnamese would not know what Confucianism is, or who was Confucius. But the influence does exist in pockets in Vietnam. This influence exists because China did rule, on and off, what is now Vietnam for over one thousand years. But it has been over 500 years since China last conquered Vietnam.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Two of the most often overlooked tenets of the Just War Doctrine is that there must be a real prospect of success and that the war cannot cause more evil than would likely exist if it were not fought.
It is not enough to determine that the cause is worth defending; a nation must also determine that the fight can be won and done so without inflicting more damage than would have occurred without the intervention.
Can we say with reasonable certainty that either of these is true about the Viet Nam War?
Was there a real prospect of success given
The brutality of a dictator or potential dictator cannot be enough rationale to engage in a war. There must also be a legitimate prospect of success and a reasonably lower impact on innocent civilians.
Peace,
Dante
It is not enough to determine that the cause is worth defending; a nation must also determine that the fight can be won and done so without inflicting more damage than would have occurred without the intervention.
Can we say with reasonable certainty that either of these is true about the Viet Nam War?
Was there a real prospect of success given
- The will of the people of Viet Nam to support the fight against Communism?
- The restrictions placed on American forces to avoid antagonizing other parties (i.e., China and the USSR)?
- The fact that continuing the war may eventually have escalated it into a conflict with China and/or the USSR, thus risking a nuclear exchange?
- The difficulty in telling friend from foe?
- The financial, political, and material support that the NVA enjoyed from China and/or the USSR?
- The will (or lack thereof) of the American people to fight?
The brutality of a dictator or potential dictator cannot be enough rationale to engage in a war. There must also be a legitimate prospect of success and a reasonably lower impact on innocent civilians.
Peace,
Dante
T
thomfra
Guest
Great post!Two of the most often overlooked tenets of the Just War Doctrine is that there must be a real prospect of success and that the war cannot cause more evil than would likely exist if it were not fought.
It is not enough to determine that the cause is worth defending; a nation must also determine that the fight can be won and done so without inflicting more damage than would have occurred without the intervention.
Can we say with reasonable certainty that either of these is true about the Viet Nam War?
Was there a real prospect of success given
Would the war have prevented mass slaughters of innocent people? We don’t know for sure, and given that many innocents were killed during the war, imagine what would’ve happened if it had continued for another year or two…or five…or ten.
- The will of the people of Viet Nam to support the fight against Communism?
- The restrictions placed on American forces to avoid antagonizing other parties (i.e., China and the USSR)?
- The fact that continuing the war may eventually have escalated it into a conflict with China and/or the USSR, thus risking a nuclear exchange?
- The difficulty in telling friend from foe?
- The financial, political, and material support that the NVA enjoyed from China and/or the USSR?
- The will (or lack thereof) of the American people to fight?
The brutality of a dictator or potential dictator cannot be enough rationale to engage in a war. There must also be a legitimate prospect of success and a reasonably lower impact on innocent civilians.
Peace,
Dante
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Lower impact than what? At a point, this would automatically preclude opposing any regime or force that was particularly brutal with civilians, or that chose to hide among civilians. Where is the line drawn for you?There must also be a legitimate prospect of success and a reasonably lower impact on innocent civilians.
Peace,
Dante
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I claim to no expertise in military strategy. I agree that the VN question will probablly never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Everyone who talks about it comes in at the point he or she thinks is crucial, all the way back to Eisenhower’s coooperation with the French or Kennedy’s seeming connivance at the assassination of Diem, or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or something else.
The following will also be questioned by many. Whatever one might say about it, the turning point came when a substantial number of Americans wanted the country out of the war.
I can’t speak for all, certainly, but I clearly remember when that change seemed to happen. At a point; perhaps in 1968, but possibly a bit before or after, the perception became wide that there was, in Washington, no intention of actually prevailing. That perception was shared by many, many soldiers as well, and almost suddenly. To their credit, soldiers fought on, but with a certain bitterness of heart. Most, at least that I knew, believed victory was possible, but believed the political powers were not willing to undertake it. Consequently, many of them, and many civilians as well, no longer saw any point in continuing in it, and resented, more and more, the political powers that kept it going. It was not only the “hippies” that opposed and vilified Lyndon Johnson toward the end of his term. That’s why he didn’t run again. The “hippie vote” wasn’t big enough, taken together nationally, to elect the mayor of New York City, or perhaps even the mayor of Duluth. But the hard left was certainly resented by most ordinary people, and certainly every military man I knew, and its nastiness probably was responsible for the election of Richard Nixon. Certainly, the outcome of the VN war had an effect on the psyche of Americans; an effect upon which the enemies of the U.S. play. How many times have we heard some murderous dictator promise “This will be another Viet Nam?” If no one else knows it, they, at least know, that the frustration of VN was founded on the perception that we could not prevail, not on something else.
I have a lot of trouble believing we can ever ensure the establishment of any kind of civilized state in Afghanistan. That place has never been anything but chaotic and murderous. But then, I don’t know any Afghanis, and cannot personally get a good picture of how they think. I do know Iraqis, and know that they do have a cultural basis for a positive attitude toward having a civil society. Most want that. Pacifism is a school of thought having its own channels of thinking, and to those who hold to it, nothing positive can be thought about the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan either. But to most Americans, I think, the big issue is the prospect of success. There are different points of view about that, and it certainly is not going to be resolved on CAF.
But what seems to me the most interesting aspect of all of this debate about Iraq is the failure of many to clearly state what determines their points of view. We have, in the media and elsewhere, people who oppose the war because they’re pacifists. They would oppose all wars, but argue this one without saying that’s where they are coming from. We have those who really are “blame America firsters”. But they don’t ever say it. Doubtless there are those, particularly with connections to the military or its industrial support structure, who tout victory for reasons they do not disclose.
Unfortunately, the American people, whose real foundational start point is the prospect of success, and who truly do not want to create casualties out of proportion to the goals to be achieved, are told all sorts of things that are clothed in those terms, but do not really reflect where the speakers are coming from. This is a great disservice to the American people.
The following will also be questioned by many. Whatever one might say about it, the turning point came when a substantial number of Americans wanted the country out of the war.
I can’t speak for all, certainly, but I clearly remember when that change seemed to happen. At a point; perhaps in 1968, but possibly a bit before or after, the perception became wide that there was, in Washington, no intention of actually prevailing. That perception was shared by many, many soldiers as well, and almost suddenly. To their credit, soldiers fought on, but with a certain bitterness of heart. Most, at least that I knew, believed victory was possible, but believed the political powers were not willing to undertake it. Consequently, many of them, and many civilians as well, no longer saw any point in continuing in it, and resented, more and more, the political powers that kept it going. It was not only the “hippies” that opposed and vilified Lyndon Johnson toward the end of his term. That’s why he didn’t run again. The “hippie vote” wasn’t big enough, taken together nationally, to elect the mayor of New York City, or perhaps even the mayor of Duluth. But the hard left was certainly resented by most ordinary people, and certainly every military man I knew, and its nastiness probably was responsible for the election of Richard Nixon. Certainly, the outcome of the VN war had an effect on the psyche of Americans; an effect upon which the enemies of the U.S. play. How many times have we heard some murderous dictator promise “This will be another Viet Nam?” If no one else knows it, they, at least know, that the frustration of VN was founded on the perception that we could not prevail, not on something else.
I have a lot of trouble believing we can ever ensure the establishment of any kind of civilized state in Afghanistan. That place has never been anything but chaotic and murderous. But then, I don’t know any Afghanis, and cannot personally get a good picture of how they think. I do know Iraqis, and know that they do have a cultural basis for a positive attitude toward having a civil society. Most want that. Pacifism is a school of thought having its own channels of thinking, and to those who hold to it, nothing positive can be thought about the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan either. But to most Americans, I think, the big issue is the prospect of success. There are different points of view about that, and it certainly is not going to be resolved on CAF.
But what seems to me the most interesting aspect of all of this debate about Iraq is the failure of many to clearly state what determines their points of view. We have, in the media and elsewhere, people who oppose the war because they’re pacifists. They would oppose all wars, but argue this one without saying that’s where they are coming from. We have those who really are “blame America firsters”. But they don’t ever say it. Doubtless there are those, particularly with connections to the military or its industrial support structure, who tout victory for reasons they do not disclose.
Unfortunately, the American people, whose real foundational start point is the prospect of success, and who truly do not want to create casualties out of proportion to the goals to be achieved, are told all sorts of things that are clothed in those terms, but do not really reflect where the speakers are coming from. This is a great disservice to the American people.
G
grandfather
Guest
Christianity is not a pacifist religion. The just war theory is an attempt by St. Thomas to determine when figting war is justified, to define conditions that make fighting a war morally justifiable. It is not Catholic dogma, something of the faith to be believed and held with religious faith. It is his theory.
One of the conditions in the theory is that a war must be limited to combatants. Care must be taken to safeguard the lives and property of civilians. In the 13th century when Thomas lived, armies went out in the field and faced off and did battle. If this condition has to be met in order for a war to be just, there has been no just war in the last century including WWII. Civilians were regularly bombed and indiscriminately killed by aircraft. The Civil War saw widespread destruction of property and farms to try to starve out the enemy.
War is mentioned in Revelations as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. War is always evil. Stopping the tyranny and genocide of the Nazis by force is a morally right thing to do. There were tens of millions killed in the process, cities bombed and burned. The spector of dead bodies strewn about is horrific. Yet stopping the Nazi regime was good. It was a morally correct thing to do.
A human being deliberately killing another human is always evil. Sometimes in is immoral to not kill a person. A policeman has a moral obligation to defend innocent life. If a policeman confronts a situation where a burglar is going to kill an innocent person and orders him to stop, or drop the knife or weapon and the burglar moves to kill the intended victim, the policeman must shoot the criminal. A half hour from where I live a police sniper killed a man holding a knife to a little girl held hostage. They tried to get him to release her and he would not. This was the moral thing to do, but it was evil. The little girl was traumatized, her life threatened, saw a man’s brains blown all over the car and his life violently instantly ended. This is not good. It is evil, but it was moral and just.
War is always evil, but it can be just. I do not think war can ever be justified when its purpose ir to impose a political ideology on a country. The outcome of WWII was the imposition of democracy on some of Germany and the imposition of Communism on the rest. But that was the outcome, not the purpose or objective of the war.
The stated purpose of the U.S. for fighting in WWI was to make the world safe for democracy. WWI saw millions of dead for no just cause. It was about stupidity, nationalism and political arrogance. Why did it happen? We can look at the history, events, political tensions and rivalries, ideologies, etc., but what is the essential cause? Is there a spiritual cause of war?
Our Lady tells us in her visits that war is a punishment for sin. Societies grow evil and war and the evil of war is an outcome or consequence of moral disorder.
The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the imposition of Communism. Two ideologies, two political and economic philosophies were faced off against one another on the world stage to see which would dominate and control the world’s populations and nations. Vietnam happened to be the place where the showdown occured as was Korea previously.
Cuba had fallen to Communism and there were insurrections threatening different places in Latin America.
This pattern and phenomenon is the same in all empirical expansions. Nothing has changed other than particular ideologies, one replacing another. Alexander wanted to conquer the world. The Roman empire spread and reached as far as it could, to be able to control nations under its domination. The British built an empire with its navy, the largest most farflung empire in history, controlling most of North America, India, China, Australia, and lesser countries. What was there justification? They said they had a moral obligation to bring the benefits of their civilization to more backward nations. They forced their government on their colonies as colonial masters and brutally crushed those who would try to stop them.
If we want to understand this disorder we have to look at human nature, not the ideological claims of the day.
One of the conditions in the theory is that a war must be limited to combatants. Care must be taken to safeguard the lives and property of civilians. In the 13th century when Thomas lived, armies went out in the field and faced off and did battle. If this condition has to be met in order for a war to be just, there has been no just war in the last century including WWII. Civilians were regularly bombed and indiscriminately killed by aircraft. The Civil War saw widespread destruction of property and farms to try to starve out the enemy.
War is mentioned in Revelations as one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. War is always evil. Stopping the tyranny and genocide of the Nazis by force is a morally right thing to do. There were tens of millions killed in the process, cities bombed and burned. The spector of dead bodies strewn about is horrific. Yet stopping the Nazi regime was good. It was a morally correct thing to do.
A human being deliberately killing another human is always evil. Sometimes in is immoral to not kill a person. A policeman has a moral obligation to defend innocent life. If a policeman confronts a situation where a burglar is going to kill an innocent person and orders him to stop, or drop the knife or weapon and the burglar moves to kill the intended victim, the policeman must shoot the criminal. A half hour from where I live a police sniper killed a man holding a knife to a little girl held hostage. They tried to get him to release her and he would not. This was the moral thing to do, but it was evil. The little girl was traumatized, her life threatened, saw a man’s brains blown all over the car and his life violently instantly ended. This is not good. It is evil, but it was moral and just.
War is always evil, but it can be just. I do not think war can ever be justified when its purpose ir to impose a political ideology on a country. The outcome of WWII was the imposition of democracy on some of Germany and the imposition of Communism on the rest. But that was the outcome, not the purpose or objective of the war.
The stated purpose of the U.S. for fighting in WWI was to make the world safe for democracy. WWI saw millions of dead for no just cause. It was about stupidity, nationalism and political arrogance. Why did it happen? We can look at the history, events, political tensions and rivalries, ideologies, etc., but what is the essential cause? Is there a spiritual cause of war?
Our Lady tells us in her visits that war is a punishment for sin. Societies grow evil and war and the evil of war is an outcome or consequence of moral disorder.
The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the imposition of Communism. Two ideologies, two political and economic philosophies were faced off against one another on the world stage to see which would dominate and control the world’s populations and nations. Vietnam happened to be the place where the showdown occured as was Korea previously.
Cuba had fallen to Communism and there were insurrections threatening different places in Latin America.
This pattern and phenomenon is the same in all empirical expansions. Nothing has changed other than particular ideologies, one replacing another. Alexander wanted to conquer the world. The Roman empire spread and reached as far as it could, to be able to control nations under its domination. The British built an empire with its navy, the largest most farflung empire in history, controlling most of North America, India, China, Australia, and lesser countries. What was there justification? They said they had a moral obligation to bring the benefits of their civilization to more backward nations. They forced their government on their colonies as colonial masters and brutally crushed those who would try to stop them.
If we want to understand this disorder we have to look at human nature, not the ideological claims of the day.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I recall the Buddhist monks burning themselves to death in protest over the Catholic government of the south.
Some say it was protest over their being Catholic, others say it was protest over it just being a corrupt puppet government of the USA, which just happened to have Catholics at the top.
Jim
Some say it was protest over their being Catholic, others say it was protest over it just being a corrupt puppet government of the USA, which just happened to have Catholics at the top.
Jim
R
rlg94086
Guest
And, which “some” would you be?I recall the Buddhist monks burning themselves to death in protest over the Catholic government of the south.
Some say it was protest over their being Catholic, others say it was protest over it just being a corrupt puppet government of the USA, which just happened to have Catholics at the top.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
As far as the hippie protest against the returning troops, this was in fact true. So true that my drill instructor’s best friend was stabbed to death when the troops were unboarding the plane, and a group of protesters attacked them.
This caused the Pentagon to order , that all troops returning home from Asia, would no longer land at commercial airports.
When I returned home from Okinawa, I landed at Travis Air Force Base and it is my understanding that all flights transporting troops from Asia, landed there.
Jim USMC 1970-1972
This caused the Pentagon to order , that all troops returning home from Asia, would no longer land at commercial airports.
When I returned home from Okinawa, I landed at Travis Air Force Base and it is my understanding that all flights transporting troops from Asia, landed there.
Jim USMC 1970-1972
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I think it was a combination of both, but more to do with the corrupt government.And, which “some” would you be?
Jim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.