if that was the point of your reply, you certainly hid that point between the lines. It wasn't leftist knee jerk for me to say that, I just thought it was true. If I'm mistaken I can correct myself with evidence, nothing to do with any knee jerk leftist stuff at all.

Did Americans know about what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese? I would love to learn more about that if I've been mistaken.

Japan's attack was not honourable because there was no just cause - it was naked aggression. At the same time the fire bombings of Japan and the nuclear bombs were clear war crimes as well because all of indiscriminately targeted civilians. — Benkei

I agree. The bombing of Dresden was also a war crime. It killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think anyone would hold Germany up as a pitiful victim because of Dresden, though. That's what Javi has been trying to do with Japan and the atomic bomb attack.

Under the paradigm that Israel must be a Jewish state, your flavors are apartheid or ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Tzeentch

Hence, certain flavours of Zionism (as pursued by Likud for instance) are racist. It's also pretty cool how being "Jewish" was subverted to something like a nation-race. Jabotinsky, one of the founders of Likud, wrote that "Jewish national integrity relies on “racial purity", whereas Nordau asserted the need for an "exact anthropological, biological, economic, and intellectual statistic of the Jewish people." (source: wiki on Zionism).

Also: how nice it is a pansy leftist like me can finally agree on something with your conservative ass... :razz:

:up:

Yea. We all see the world through myths, I think. There's the Muslim terrorist myth, which shows up sometimes. The America-bad myth is ever-present. What I do is just try to be slow to judgment so I can detect my own myths and try not to write off what someone says as if it's nothing but myth. Sometimes a person is appealing for a particular fact to be recognized, and it may be important. How do you get to that when there's a cloud of myths in the way? — frank

My much earlier point up on this page somewhere when talking to Javi, was to question all of it as myth. I tied it to the idea that bigger questions like "being born itself is good and should be condoned" could be a myth. How indeed, do we handle the social fictions that we are given?

So here is an example. There is an idea of "eminent domain" in many countries. In some countries (like the US with the 5th amendment) it is enshrined as federal law. That is to say, if the "government" (and this could extend to private businesses whose revenues would "help" the government with revenue as "backed up" by "Supreme Court decisions"), wanted to take your property for a Court backed cause, that is perfectly acceptable. They can pay you a "fair price" for your property/land and start building on it. You have to "take the deal" or they can technically arrest you, fine you, etc. if you refuse. Now, what if you think this is "unjust"? It's your land according to YOU. YOU HAD THIS LAND in your FAMILY. You grew OLIVE GROVES on this land. But the "evil GOVERNMENT" took your FAMILY'S LAND!! You DON'T WANT a FAIR PRICE. YOU WANT YOUR LAND DAMN IT! So instead of accepting this, you form a posse of angry individuals who also hate this idea. It's a minority of people. But you are all people who think were "screwed over" by the policy of "eminent domain". So you all get pitch forks, torches, you all stock pile a bunch of weapons, you all form a gang and call yourselves the Freedom Domain Front (the FDF). You are the underdog. You feel dispossessed. You refuse to live under this TYRANNY. You start doing terrible acts to the "oppressors" who are not letting you live on YOUR LAND! Etc. etc. etc.

It's ALL choosing which MYTHS are going to be your INDIGNATION.

It's ALL choosing which MYTHS are going to be your INDIGNATION. — schopenhauer1

True. There was once a quiet little village in the middle of nowhere. One day the blacksmith said it had come to him that he owned the moon. Startled by this, the weaver said he'd always thought of the moon as his own property. The villagers began taking sides and war broke out amongst them to finally decide who owned the Great Orb. Now they're all dead.

:up:

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster.

True. There was once a quiet little village in the middle of nowhere. One day the blacksmith said it had come to him that he owned the moon. Startled by this, the weaver said he'd always thought of the moon as his own property. The villagers began taking sides and war broke out amongst them to finally decide who owned the Great Orb. Now they're all dead. — frank

But I can always say THAT is TRULY a MYTH. I "actually owned" the OLIVE GROVES! The Government TOOK my OLIVE GROVES. It's the Great Devastation! I have passed this INJUSTICE to my grandchildren, unto generations. They will always fight. By any means necessary, WE WANT THE OLIVE GROVES FROM THE OPPRESSORS!

In fact the Netherlands and Finland has been secretly funneling money to our group in support of our FREEDOM CAUSE! Because they see the injustice of the Eminent Domainists and their colonizing ways.

Seems like John has lost his marbles, or simply gets his money from Putin nowdays: the idea of Russia being an ally of the against China is totally delusional idea now. You would have to had stupendous politicians in the past, not the mediocre ones, to have US and Russia as allies immediately when the Soviet Union collapsed. Then was the opening. That closed during the Kosovo war. Only way for this to happen would be a revolution in Russia where liberal-democratic forces would prevail. Not with the present KGB officer at the helm.

And, as this is John Lost-his-Marblesheimer, for him there's only United States, China, and Russia. Period. Nothing else in the World and his theories.

Of course, Marblesheimer, as a typical American thinking only as the US from the perspective of me, myself and I, totally sidelines that the actual working and effective alliance it has NATO and NATO countries like France, Germany, the UK and others. If and when they come along with the US, that the actual Superpower juggernaut, because these countries can work together and are totally happy with the US being at the helm. There is absolutely NOTHING like it in Asia where the US according to John (and the US establishment, it should be noted) wants the US to pivot. There is no SEATO. There is only bilateral agreements with countries and some vague speaking clubs.

Hence if "pivoting to Asia" would literally mean forgetting Europe, then NATO would go the same way as the other treaty organizations like CENTO and SEATO. And Western Europe would create it's defense towards Russia without the US. This actually has been already been discussed for example in the British Parliament when Trump put out his most eccentric tweets.

And the US pushing NATO states down throat of Russia? Again, the idea of those NATO states pushing for membership doesn't come to Marblesheimer's head. Again, anyone or any country other than the three big military one's are totally meaningless. At 11:54 he again forgets that the US isn't handling satellite states like Stalin did with NATO members and Ukraine or Georgia coming to join isn't just what an US President wants. That Sweden isn't yet in NATO shows this clearly. Only ignorant people think of NATO as a puppet of the US.

On the Ukraine war, at least he is correct that it's a war of attrition, and about the importance of artillery (it's still the king of battle). Also that it will end up as a frozen conflict is probable.

Mabrlesheimer about Israel and Hamas conflict:

How he depicts Gaza is correct. He is also correct that the US isn't able to pressure Israel for a two state solution and Israel will never accept a two-state solution. Yes, that train has left the station. Just why is the US so close to Israel isn't explained. Actually John makes a mistake claiming that the carrier group shot down cruise missiles. That didn't happened, another US Navy destroyer Carney shot down them from the Red Sea, as anything shot from Yemen towards Israel is a bit difficult to shoot down when sailing in the Mediterranean.

Geographical mistakes can happen to old men.

Also: how nice it is a pansy leftist like me can finally agree on something with your conservative ass... :razz: — Benkei

In terms of politics I fancy myself more of a classic liberal, but I'll take it. :pray:

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster. — javi2541997

I also love Japanese culture, particularly the wabi sabi aesthetic. My love of it is in evidence throughout my house and garden. I have about 7 bonsai's made from Japanese privets, and two from a cypress. What I want you to do is take a broader look at what happened to Japan in the 20th Century. Read the article I posted about the Sino-Japanese war. Understand the America's war with Japan wasn't America versus bushido. Americans were literally fighting countries that were intent on global domination. Americans were fighting for their own security.


:up:

Wrong thread...

The tone of your reply doesn't really invite an elaborate response, so I'll keep it short:

Putin has virtually for his entire time in power attempted to foster close ties with Europe. He probably felt Europe and the US were potentially more reliable allies than China (also given historical animosity).

I don't think that train left the station until March/April 2022, but now it certainly has and the Russia-China alliance is a fact of life. I share Mearsheimer's view that this is largely due to the conscious, but ultimately misguided, effort of the United States.

Just why is the US so close to Israel isn't explained. — ssu

Mearsheimer wrote a book together with Stephen Walt, and gave many lectures about the US Israel lobby.

A must-read/watch, in my opinion.

how much of it has to do with Christian evangelical Zionism?

It's one of the groups that make up the lobby, but they don't go into much detail.

It's more about how the lobby functions, and what historical impact it has had.

Just curious, do you think the inverse is true? As you imply the US has a (insert common trope Israeli lobby), European countries might have an Anti-Israeli bias/lobby? Could both be true then if you proffer one side or is Europe “objective” and “too meek” for this to be an issue (which I predict to be a response in some couched form).

Putin has virtually for his entire time in power attempted to foster close ties with Europe. — Tzeentch

Wrong.

Putin at his start tried to foster close ties with Europe. On his terms, of course. And unlike many think, there were indeed those close ties. And a lot of work to renew those good ties, remember the reboot button? Even after the Russo-Georgian war, we have to remember. But then, he would have to had to make an economic recovery and give a lot of prosperity to the Russians, which he and his robber barons failed to give the people (even if oil prices rose). So on with Russia is an Empire card!

I don't think that train left the station until March/April 2022, but now it certainly has and the Russia-China alliance is a fact of life. — Tzeentch

What happened in March/April 2022 with Israel and the Palestinians?

Mearsheimer wrote a book together with Stephen Walt, and gave many lectures about the US Israel lobby. — Tzeentch

That's true! Darn, forgot about that.

Why no court condemned Truman for letting the American army destroy two cities? A bit of hypocrisy and cynicism. Don't you think, Tim? — javi2541997

I do think, and no. They wanted to die and they did not have to. And they made it necessary to kill them. By most estimates, the losses in the two cities were a fraction of potential losses resulting from invasion, a conclusion most Japanese accept.

Now there is a fundamental error in thinking (I think) you're making. That is, failing to distinguish between what is and is not demonstrably the case, and what is the best thing to do in a given circumstance. These call for two different kinds of logic, one logic so-called, and the other Rhetoric. With logic you can prove 2+2=4, and compel assent. But logic itself can never determine whether, for example, it is better to build triremes or instead to invest in city walls, or whether to attack at dawn or to wait. If, then, you wish to "prove" that it is terrible to wipe out a city, you can do that. But in terms of what to do, your conclusion is based on wrong thinking and thereby wrong. And your mistake can be a "cure" worse than the disease itself. This is part of what I mean by learning, growing up, and taking the blinders off. And to learn more about Rhetoric, Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics is a good place to start

Just curious, do you think the inverse is true? As you imply the US has a (insert common trope Israeli lobby), European countries might have an Anti-Israeli bias/lobby? — schopenhauer1

I view the European countries as little more than US vassals. What they do or think is generally irrelevant, because on important issues they fall in lockstep with the US.

But in its actions Europe has largely been as supportive of Israel as the US has, and all my criticisms apply to Europe as well.

What happened in March/April 2022 with Israel and the Palestinians? — ssu

I'm not sure if I follow the link to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but what I'm referring to are the failed negotiations that took place.

I think in March/April the Russians still believed NATO did not really want a war with Russia, and therefore could be negotiated with if Russia showed it wasn't bluffing with their red lines.

Only after the blocked negotiations did the Russians realize that the Biden administration was serious about pursuing regime change in Russia and trying to destroy Russia economically, etc.

In my view that was the definitive point of no return.

view the European countries as little more than US vassals. What they do or think is generally irrelevant, — Tzeentch

So basically what I said here:

if you proffer one side or is Europe “objective” and “too meek” for this to be an issue (which I predict to be a response — schopenhauer1

Do you think there is still more anti-Israeli bias (and I’m going to say bias because each side thinks it’s objective and right) than the US proportionally? Or is philosophy forum just representative of a Non representative trend?

I think popular opinion within Europe is generally more critical of Israel, if that is what you're asking. The term 'anti-Israel' would be a misrepresentation, though.

I think popular opinion within Europe is generally more critical of Israel, if that is what you're asking. — Tzeentch

:up: that is what I was asking.

The term 'anti-Israel' would be a misrepresentation, though. — Tzeentch

Yes terms can be very indicative of how the debate is framed. For example, “anti-Israel” implies that it should never exist in the first place and any action it takes is wrong tout court. It could be a subtler suggestion though.

Ok.

At 11:54 he again forgets that the US isn't handling satellite states like Stalin did with NATO members and Ukraine or Georgia [...] — ssu

Never mind. We'll do it our own way later. — Stalin

Maybe Mearsheimer forgot post-Yalta. At least that Stalin-world ended.

And Western Europe would create it's defense towards Russia without the US — ssu

I suppose one could hope anyway (all of Europe preferably). Expensive, though. The (present somewhat Stalin'esque) Kremlin looms large on the horizon.

I suppose one could hope anyway (all of Europe preferably). Expensive, though. The (present somewhat Stalin'esque) Kremlin looms large on the horizon. — jorndoe

Without the US, Russia has quite a say in Europe. Finlandization could come back as be trendy.

And of course there is a new armaments program going on already in Europe. For example in Poland.

“The Polish army must be so powerful that it does not have to fight due to its strength alone,” said Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in November last year, as the country celebrated independence from the Soviet Union.

He promised that the country would have “the most powerful land forces in Europe.”

“We want peace, and if we want that we must prepare for war - in connection with that, we are strengthening the Polish Army in contrast to those who governed until 2015,” said Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak.

By definition anyone resisting a just cause is acting unjustly. — Benkei

It seems that way, but I think politics gets murkier. Also, I want to stick to your original phrasing of a justified cause rather than a just cause ("the Palestinian cause for independence is justified").

Regarding politics, suppose Bob steals Fred's land in 1800. The land passes on through his descendants until in 2000 Bob Jr. owns it. At that time Fred Jr. demands that the land be returned to his family. He has a justified cause. Bob Jr. resists the claim, pointing out that he inherited the land that has been in his family for 200 years, during which time the land was substantially improved. Whatever we want to say about Bob Jr's resistance, I do not think we can say it is immoral. Two justified causes exist which are in conflict with one another. Such is politics. To reiterate my conclusion, "Not every action taken against a justified cause is immoral, much less punishable."

So we see here it's not the opponents cause that gives rise to a justification to use violence but it arises from how the opponent pursues that just cause. — Benkei

This decision tree is somewhat useful, but if you made it yourself I would suggest reorganizing the three boxes in the bottom right. They don't seem to follow from, "No [your cause is not just], you're not allowed to resist."

There's some room for weighing what is and isn't proportional given the cause of course. The greater the good we're pursuing, the more intense violence we would likely accept. As an example, I think the moral intuition that we are allowed to use more violence to protect our lives then to protect our things, seems reasonably. — Benkei

This question of violence is interesting and important, but I want to avoid it given my time constraints. Generally, though, I would say that violence is only justified by injustice, and therefore more is required than simply a cause. My goal was only to oppose your claim that, "every action [against a justified cause] is already contaminated as something immoral."

I view the European countries as little more than US vassals. What they do or think is generally irrelevant — Tzeentch

Yep, and that's why you don't get what actually happens in the World.

And so does John Marblesheimer. After all, who care about EU and the West European integration? Who care about the existing allies of the US?

I'm not sure if I follow the link to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but what I'm referring to are the failed negotiations that took place. — Tzeentch

The talk was about the two-state solution here. Did you watch the whole lecture? That the time for a two state solution has passed away a long time ago. And here I agree with Marblesheimer. The topic wasn't anymore about Ukraine, fyi.

Yep, and that's why you don't get what actually happens in the World. — ssu

What's actually happening in the world? Enlighten us please. :roll:

The topic wasn't anymore about Ukraine, fyi. — ssu

That's why I didn't understand why you mentioned March/April 2022 in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue.

What's actually happening in the world? Enlighten us please. — Tzeentch

Have done it all the time when discussing events with you. :snicker:

Regarding politics, suppose Bob steals Fred's land in 1800. The land passes on through his descendants until in 2000 Bob Jr. owns it. At that time Fred Jr. demands that the land be returned to his family. He has a justified cause. Bob Jr. resists the claim, pointing out that he inherited the land that has been in his family for 200 years, during which time the land was substantially improved. Whatever we want to say about Bob Jr's resistance, I do not think we can say it is immoral. Two justified causes exist which are in conflict with one another. Such is politics. To reiterate my conclusion, "Not every action taken against a justified cause is immoral, much less punishable." — Leontiskos

This seems to parallel my points here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849629

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849634

But with the added element that much of these things are social myths (stories) of indignation and selecting which ones “matter” (and carried in generationally) and with what means and intensity one uses to justify one’s injustices and “indignation”.

Someone STOLE your olive groves! No amount of compensation will allay your indignation over this! If your great grandchildren rape and pillage those who you think STOLE your olive groves that is the Great Devastation, is something off with this myth? Does it even seem reasonable anymore or has it morphed into something else?