After a week of nightshifts that kept me away from the Discussion forum, I just read through the whole of this, and now, you'll have to endure my pent up argumentations <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I feel this thread went into a lot of details while missing a number of aspects of the bigger picture, so maybe it's best to have a look at the initial quote again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, a summary of what we already know:
Analyzing this quote, we come to the following two statements:
<li>The "people", later more closely defined as "common people", which by the mentioning of the "farm" is meant to mean 'people of middle or lower social status and little political involvement', will generally not have much of an interest in going to war, as the risk measured against their possible gain is intolerable.
I've not seen anyone really challenge this point. The closest we came to an objection was that some people will go to war given certain circumstances (the attack of their country), but there's the difference: They <i>will</i> go to war, they don't choke for it.
<li>This natural reluctance to going to war can however be overcome in any state or governmental system by fear and denouncation of the opposition.
Jammer argued that democracies won't allow this, as people will punish politicans not complying to their will by withdrawing their votes. This argument misses G?rings point in two ways: <li>In case of a pre-war scenario, G?ring claims that it is necessary to create a certain atmosphere ("fear") amongst the population to make it support the war. This means that the often cited high popular support immediately before the war does not prove anything wrong. <li>In a post-war scenario, it is indeed possible that a population will punish its government for going to war for a variety of reasons, as Jammer noted on multiple examples - as G?ring does however referr to "going to", ie. 'starting a war', this bears little significance. Democracy is thus not necessarily a counter-prove of G?rings assumption, which is by the way not very surprising as G?ring spent the bigger part of his political career in the partitially extremely democratic Weimar Republic before he and his allies in the NSDAP managed to replace it with the Third Reich. G?ring <i>knew</i> democracy - he just rejected it.
Thus, we'll all agree that G?rings quote has some general validity to it. It describes, as Kheras pointed out, one way of starting a war, without of claiming this to be the only one. The question is thus whether the recent actions of the US government, which this quote was used upon, fit the quote, or constitute actions of self defense, as was claimed by the administration.
It's undoubtely a fact that the United States, unlike Nazi Germany, were subject of a serious attack - both the burning Reichstag and the faked Polnish attack don't shape up against the obvious and very real happenings of 9/11. It's thus assumable that the United States government had a right of self defense, but against whom? Terrorism. Or, more exactely, the Islamic-fundamentalistic terrorist network of Al-Quaeda. And this is where the problems begin, as the two wars that were waged since 2001 didn't consist solely of strikes against terrorists, but were classic territorial wars against other <i>nations</i> presumed to harbor Al Quaeda. In the first example of Afghanistan, this could still be brought to a kind of comparability: The Taliban did obviously and openly support Al-Quaeda and admitted to harbor Bin Laden. The strike against the country they controled is nonetheless not completely 'clean' as they were allies of an enemy, but allies who had not taken direct actions against the United States on their own. Well, let's just assume that these issues are minute enough to still allow the War on Afghanistan to be labelled as act of self-defense. The second Gulf War can not be considered such an act. The thought that the atheist Saddam Hussein, who based his power on a socialist party, would be a true and steady supporter of a fundamentalistic terrorist force was never very plausible - and the claim was quickly discarded during the preperations for the war (especially after that incident with the faulty students paper that somehow became a 'trusted source' in Powells report in front of the UN). This means that there was no direct tie between Hussein and 9/11 - Gulf War II was thus <i>not an act of retribution</i>. The US were <i>not</i> the attacked party.
This is where the G?ring quote comes into play. Let's remember the situation about 18 months ago: Major combat in Afghanistan was just dying down, and slowly, the Iraq became more than one of three members of the 'Axis of Evil' in Bushs speechs. Remember the polls held around that time. I'd be thankful for someone finding links, but if my memory serves correctly, the support for a possible war on Iraq lay below 50% in most polls of those times. The population did not want to go to war. Then, the US administration began trying to get UN support for a possible new resolution that would've paved the way for a war. The issue began gaining significance, and with it, more and more claims were made. Suddenly, the Iraq had ties to Al-Quaeda, and when that didn't seem to work, it housed WMD in dangerous amounts. We all know how far those claims went - just think of the statement that the Iraq would be capable of targetting both Great Britain and the United States with nuclear weaponry within 45 minutes of preperation. And with these claims, the public became more and more 'concerned'. 'Concerned' is a fancy word for 'afraid'. With this fear, the support for the war grew, in compilance with the G?ring quote. As for the point about the opposition being labelled as unpatriotic, does "Freedom Fries" ring a bell? Remember when Salty (I think) quoted an article claiming that the whole anti-war movement was a conspiracy of European intelligence agencies to make the US look bad?
Face it, G?rings quote applies to the War on Iraq. I do not doubt that there were supporters for other reasons, as not all Germans had to be scared into WW2, but you'll have to admit that the claims of Iraq being a massive threat swayed public opinion on the large.
Note by the way that G?ring does not assume certain motivations for the leaders starting wars. The fact that a fascist made a correct observation doesn't necessarily render any action based on it evil - if Hitler claimed that the sky is blue, I wouldn't be calling all people agreeing fascists, either. The fact of the matter is that the populations of the Coalition countries were partitially "dragged along". The question whether they were for justificable reasons is another one, for another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 4 2003, 02:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 4 2003, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact of the matter is that the populations of the Coalition countries were partitially "dragged along". The question whether they were for justificable reasons is another one, for another topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and I would argue that both Gulf War II and the Afghanistan campaign have the same underlying motive and applicability to the quote. If you believe Al Qaeda actually had anything to do with 9/11, which Osama has repeatedly denied, then you might see reason for Afghanistan. Without the association to 9/11, that could not have happened the way it did. Looking at what could be gained by a new ruling faction in Afghanistan makes me suspect there were ulterior motives. All for another topic.
Comments
I feel this thread went into a lot of details while missing a number of aspects of the bigger picture, so maybe it's best to have a look at the initial quote again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, a summary of what we already know:
Analyzing this quote, we come to the following two statements:
<li>The "people", later more closely defined as "common people", which by the mentioning of the "farm" is meant to mean 'people of middle or lower social status and little political involvement', will generally not have much of an interest in going to war, as the risk measured against their possible gain is intolerable.
I've not seen anyone really challenge this point. The closest we came to an objection was that some people will go to war given certain circumstances (the attack of their country), but there's the difference: They <i>will</i> go to war, they don't choke for it.
<li>This natural reluctance to going to war can however be overcome in any state or governmental system by fear and denouncation of the opposition.
Jammer argued that democracies won't allow this, as people will punish politicans not complying to their will by withdrawing their votes. This argument misses G?rings point in two ways:
<li>In case of a pre-war scenario, G?ring claims that it is necessary to create a certain atmosphere ("fear") amongst the population to make it support the war. This means that the often cited high popular support immediately before the war does not prove anything wrong.
<li>In a post-war scenario, it is indeed possible that a population will punish its government for going to war for a variety of reasons, as Jammer noted on multiple examples - as G?ring does however referr to "going to", ie. 'starting a war', this bears little significance.
Democracy is thus not necessarily a counter-prove of G?rings assumption, which is by the way not very surprising as G?ring spent the bigger part of his political career in the partitially extremely democratic Weimar Republic before he and his allies in the NSDAP managed to replace it with the Third Reich. G?ring <i>knew</i> democracy - he just rejected it.
Thus, we'll all agree that G?rings quote has some general validity to it.
It describes, as Kheras pointed out, one way of starting a war, without of claiming this to be the only one. The question is thus whether the recent actions of the US government, which this quote was used upon, fit the quote, or constitute actions of self defense, as was claimed by the administration.
It's undoubtely a fact that the United States, unlike Nazi Germany, were subject of a serious attack - both the burning Reichstag and the faked Polnish attack don't shape up against the obvious and very real happenings of 9/11. It's thus assumable that the United States government had a right of self defense, but against whom?
Terrorism. Or, more exactely, the Islamic-fundamentalistic terrorist network of Al-Quaeda.
And this is where the problems begin, as the two wars that were waged since 2001 didn't consist solely of strikes against terrorists, but were classic territorial wars against other <i>nations</i> presumed to harbor Al Quaeda.
In the first example of Afghanistan, this could still be brought to a kind of comparability: The Taliban did obviously and openly support Al-Quaeda and admitted to harbor Bin Laden. The strike against the country they controled is nonetheless not completely 'clean' as they were allies of an enemy, but allies who had not taken direct actions against the United States on their own. Well, let's just assume that these issues are minute enough to still allow the War on Afghanistan to be labelled as act of self-defense.
The second Gulf War can not be considered such an act.
The thought that the atheist Saddam Hussein, who based his power on a socialist party, would be a true and steady supporter of a fundamentalistic terrorist force was never very plausible - and the claim was quickly discarded during the preperations for the war (especially after that incident with the faulty students paper that somehow became a 'trusted source' in Powells report in front of the UN). This means that there was no direct tie between Hussein and 9/11 - Gulf War II was thus <i>not an act of retribution</i>. The US were <i>not</i> the attacked party.
This is where the G?ring quote comes into play. Let's remember the situation about 18 months ago: Major combat in Afghanistan was just dying down, and slowly, the Iraq became more than one of three members of the 'Axis of Evil' in Bushs speechs. Remember the polls held around that time. I'd be thankful for someone finding links, but if my memory serves correctly, the support for a possible war on Iraq lay below 50% in most polls of those times. The population did not want to go to war.
Then, the US administration began trying to get UN support for a possible new resolution that would've paved the way for a war. The issue began gaining significance, and with it, more and more claims were made. Suddenly, the Iraq had ties to Al-Quaeda, and when that didn't seem to work, it housed WMD in dangerous amounts.
We all know how far those claims went - just think of the statement that the Iraq would be capable of targetting both Great Britain and the United States with nuclear weaponry within 45 minutes of preperation.
And with these claims, the public became more and more 'concerned'. 'Concerned' is a fancy word for 'afraid'. With this fear, the support for the war grew, in compilance with the G?ring quote. As for the point about the opposition being labelled as unpatriotic, does "Freedom Fries" ring a bell? Remember when Salty (I think) quoted an article claiming that the whole anti-war movement was a conspiracy of European intelligence agencies to make the US look bad?
Face it, G?rings quote applies to the War on Iraq. I do not doubt that there were supporters for other reasons, as not all Germans had to be scared into WW2, but you'll have to admit that the claims of Iraq being a massive threat swayed public opinion on the large.
Note by the way that G?ring does not assume certain motivations for the leaders starting wars. The fact that a fascist made a correct observation doesn't necessarily render any action based on it evil - if Hitler claimed that the sky is blue, I wouldn't be calling all people agreeing fascists, either.
The fact of the matter is that the populations of the Coalition countries were partitially "dragged along". The question whether they were for justificable reasons is another one, for another topic.
The fact of the matter is that the populations of the Coalition countries were partitially "dragged along". The question whether they were for justificable reasons is another one, for another topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and I would argue that both Gulf War II and the Afghanistan campaign have the same underlying motive and applicability to the quote. If you believe Al Qaeda actually had anything to do with 9/11, which Osama has repeatedly denied, then you might see reason for Afghanistan. Without the association to 9/11, that could not have happened the way it did. Looking at what could be gained by a new ruling faction in Afghanistan makes me suspect there were ulterior motives. All for another topic.