Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Civil Liberties In America During War Time

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:35:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

Thomas Jefferson was a conservative, but he was not a war-hungry president, same for presidents like Harding, Coolidge, and Ike.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:56:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

You've got to be fvcking kidding me. So say, if the Mormon church (or something) was against the next major war and demoralizing the country, your doctrine would allow us to engage in genocide against them.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

Suppose both Khrushchev and JFK took this approach in the Cuban Missile Crisis. We would've been both dead. Fortunately, Khrushchev decided to take the upper ground and back down to prevent a nuclear war.

Reason and pragmatism trumps ideological jingoist zeal.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First Jat, your stereotyping like hell, and making it seem like all conservatives are for these measures.

Second, I'm not against special forces being restricted by things such as: Reading Miranda rights to terrorists abroad, having to check each and every one of their shots for fear of being thrown in prison for killing a civilian, having to wait for someone 500 miles away so they can do the blatantly obvious.

I am for police forces at home being restricted by these.

Bacially, I don't think the armed forces should follow the rules of the police.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:45:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The United States has a history of infringing on civil rights during wartime. It's a proud American tradition.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:47:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:45:53 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The United States has a history of infringing on civil rights during wartime. It's a proud American tradition.

I would say just about every country has done this....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:47:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:45:53 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The United States has a history of infringing on civil rights during wartime. It's a proud American tradition.

I would say just about every country has done this....

Probably true.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:40:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
First Jat, your stereotyping like hell, and making it seem like all conservatives are for these measures.

Second, I'm not against special forces being restricted by things such as: Reading Miranda rights to terrorists abroad, having to check each and every one of their shots for fear of being thrown in prison for killing a civilian, having to wait for someone 500 miles away so they can do the blatantly obvious.

I am for police forces at home being restricted by these.

Bacially, I don't think the armed forces should follow the rules of the police.

Exactly. Jat just likes to strawman and stereotype his opponent's positions. Funny thing is he rarely defends his views well in debates outside of the forums. No offense.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 6:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a debate of Politics with a few historical examples in the OP. We don't need a History forum.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:56:23 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

You've got to be fvcking kidding me. So say, if the Mormon church (or something) was against the next major war and demoralizing the country, your doctrine would allow us to engage in genocide against them.

Nope, because that is against that law. I am talking on the battlefield.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:55:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:01:49 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

Suppose both Khrushchev and JFK took this approach in the Cuban Missile Crisis. We would've been both dead. Fortunately, Khrushchev decided to take the upper ground and back down to prevent a nuclear war.

Reason and pragmatism trumps ideological jingoist zeal.

Because we should lose every war. And actually we were not at war when Kennedy and Khrushchev were in office.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:02:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:54:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:56:23 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

You've got to be fvcking kidding me. So say, if the Mormon church (or something) was against the next major war and demoralizing the country, your doctrine would allow us to engage in genocide against them.

Nope, because that is against that law. I am talking on the battlefield.

The battlefield can extend to anywhere the military and/or government says it is.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:28:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:02:56 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:54:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:56:23 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:33:05 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:30:00 AM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:36:14 PM, jat93 wrote:
It stuns me that supposedly conservative Republicans who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens. Here, I will provide two prominent examples.

Consider the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. Thousands were imprisoned as a result of this legislation. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Still not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Ron Paul,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Of course, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they were before.

So, after reading up on these two historical events, I was faced with several questions which I will now relay here.

- Are war mongering conservatives who promote "small government" at home but promote "big government" abroad, inconsistent/hypocritical in their views?

- What is it about humanity that makes us so willing to forget our recent past and trade our liberties for a false sense of security from government? I mean, scaring people into giving away their civil liberties to government has been proven to work, consistently. What does that say about us? Does it mean that most of us are just a bunch of ignorant sheep, totally lacking in critical thinking skills?

To answer you last paragraph; fear is stronger than reason.

Agreed, and in fact if I where presiden I would create a, "Whatever it takes to win doctrine"

You've got to be fvcking kidding me. So say, if the Mormon church (or something) was against the next major war and demoralizing the country, your doctrine would allow us to engage in genocide against them.

Nope, because that is against that law. I am talking on the battlefield.

The battlefield can extend to anywhere the military and/or government says it is.

Yeah, and the military fights on the battlefield.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:55:34 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:01:49 PM, Contra wrote:

Because we should lose every war. And actually we were not at war when Kennedy and Khrushchev were in office.

We were at the very brink of a nuclear war.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.

Please inform me then.

Do you honestly agree with historygenius that the government should spread propaganda and people should not question its authority during wartime? And I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:02:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.

It is...you see people have other viewpoints other than that.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:07:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:01:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.

Please inform me then.


There's no set reason people go to war. Sometimes they want land, resources, or need to eliminate an enemy. Yes, patriotism CAN cause wars, but its rarely the only reason, if ever.

Do you honestly agree with historygenius that the government should spread propaganda and people should not question its authority during wartime? And I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.

I don't, and a lot of us don't. I'm all for questioning authority.

I just saying that patriotism does not often, if ever cause war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:08:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

For many reasons.

For example, the Hundred Years War was mainly started due to the fuedal relationship beween English and French kings. French kings were suspicious that English kings would attempt to take their lands. English kings did own land in France, but were technically vassals for the kings of France and they did not like this position.

Then we have the French and Indian War. British and French colonists both wanted to control the Ohio Valley so as to exploit trades in wood and fur. This evetually led to conflict between the whole country.

Another war is the War of 1812. Britain seemed to be encouraging the Native Americans to stop western expansion. The Americans were interested in Canada. Trade was also an issue as France and Britain were at war and the US was trying to trade with both.

Then we have World War 1. One issue was the fact that many of the countries involved were in entangling alliances. Britain was the world power at the time in Europe, but Germany was building up an empire of its own that could rival the British. We also cannot forget the assassination of the Archduke and his wife.

Four different wars from four different centuries for many different reasons.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:10:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Um, false collectivism in the form of patriotism is usually either an impetus for war or a factor in motivating people to seek vengeance and thus wage war.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:16:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:01:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.

Please inform me then.

Do you honestly agree with historygenius that the government should spread propaganda and people should not question its authority during wartime? And I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.

I don't mind if people question authority during wartime. They will just be wrong. I am only advocating ways to get people to support their country and get active in helping it during wartime. What is wrong with this:

http://www.google.com...%

This:

http://www.google.com...

And this:

http://www.google.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:07:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 9:01:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.

Please inform me then.


There's no set reason people go to war. Sometimes they want land, resources, or need to eliminate an enemy. Yes, patriotism CAN cause wars, but its rarely the only reason, if ever.

Do you honestly agree with historygenius that the government should spread propaganda and people should not question its authority during wartime? And I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.

I don't, and a lot of us don't. I'm all for questioning authority.

I just saying that patriotism does not often, if ever cause war.

There are many catalysts for war, yes, but patriotism is the mindset that allows war to occur. It is not the cause, per se, but without it war would not occur. When you encourage blind patriotism, you increase the likelihood of war.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:19:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:08:06 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

For many reasons.

For example, the Hundred Years War was mainly started due to the fuedal relationship beween English and French kings. French kings were suspicious that English kings would attempt to take their lands. English kings did own land in France, but were technically vassals for the kings of France and they did not like this position.

Then we have the French and Indian War. British and French colonists both wanted to control the Ohio Valley so as to exploit trades in wood and fur. This evetually led to conflict between the whole country.

Another war is the War of 1812. Britain seemed to be encouraging the Native Americans to stop western expansion. The Americans were interested in Canada. Trade was also an issue as France and Britain were at war and the US was trying to trade with both.

Then we have World War 1. One issue was the fact that many of the countries involved were in entangling alliances. Britain was the world power at the time in Europe, but Germany was building up an empire of its own that could rival the British. We also cannot forget the assassination of the Archduke and his wife.

Four different wars from four different centuries for many different reasons.

If not for intense patriotism, who would have been willing to fight those wars? If everyone was more or less indifferent about their nationality, soldiers wouldn't go charging into battle as eagerly as they do when the government encourages patriotism, which allows them to manipulate the population.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:21:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:19:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 9:08:06 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

For many reasons.

For example, the Hundred Years War was mainly started due to the fuedal relationship beween English and French kings. French kings were suspicious that English kings would attempt to take their lands. English kings did own land in France, but were technically vassals for the kings of France and they did not like this position.

Then we have the French and Indian War. British and French colonists both wanted to control the Ohio Valley so as to exploit trades in wood and fur. This evetually led to conflict between the whole country.

Another war is the War of 1812. Britain seemed to be encouraging the Native Americans to stop western expansion. The Americans were interested in Canada. Trade was also an issue as France and Britain were at war and the US was trying to trade with both.

Then we have World War 1. One issue was the fact that many of the countries involved were in entangling alliances. Britain was the world power at the time in Europe, but Germany was building up an empire of its own that could rival the British. We also cannot forget the assassination of the Archduke and his wife.

Four different wars from four different centuries for many different reasons.

If not for intense patriotism, who would have been willing to fight those wars? If everyone was more or less indifferent about their nationality, soldiers wouldn't go charging into battle as eagerly as they do when the government encourages patriotism, which allows them to manipulate the population.

Actually your wrong. In the case of Vietnam. The war continued even when unpopular. The government was not manipulating everyone. The government's oppinion at the time was that we needed to stop communism.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:16:11 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/11/2012 9:01:37 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:50:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:30:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Besides, I would also put in propaganda posters and bring back pariotism. We need to support our country in war. We need to eliminate spies which is why it is necesarry to look into people's backrounds. I would want a Winston Churchill and not a Neville Chamberlain.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that countries go to war?

If Your gonna say patriotism, that's not true at all.

Please inform me then.

Do you honestly agree with historygenius that the government should spread propaganda and people should not question its authority during wartime? And I thought this site was full of libertarians. I guess I was mistaken.

I don't mind if people question authority during wartime. They will just be wrong. I am only advocating ways to get people to support their country and get active in helping it during wartime. What is wrong with this:

http://www.google.com...%

This:

http://www.google.com...

And this:

http://www.google.com...

The only thing wrong with it is that every war of the last 150 years that the United States had been involved in except for World War 2 has been a waste of lives and money on America's part. Did it ever occur to you that a war could be not worth fighting?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK