No, it's not. And by extension, I'm saying anything of the sort.
OP keeps using the word government and then people, as if the two are distinct and different. It's a technique to make you ignore the fact that the government isn't some other being. It's made up of people.
Treating the government as some alien entity is a political tactic used to frighten people.
> Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.
That's a rather naive look, and ignores the own premise set forth by the OP I was responding to (in his case, the people should decide).
He's under the belief that the people wouldn't have supported war with Iraq (despite overwhelming support in 2003 for the war).
So, I'm not sure what you are really trying to say? On one hand, the OP says we should attack regardless of a direct threat. On the other hand, you say we should only attack unless we are seriously threatened (and the will of the people be damned). Maybe you think we should be seriously threatened and require that people support the war? This would of course require that people be told how the threat is seriously threatening them.
Ok well it seems like you are confusing the concept of society and government. They aren't the same thing.
By serious threat I really mean someone is attacking you actively. No sure how you would ever seriously think Iraq could injure the United States. They had to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.
No, it's not. And by extension, I'm saying anything of the sort.
OP keeps using the word government and then people, as if the two are distinct and different. It's a technique to make you ignore the fact that the government isn't some other being. It's made up of people.
Treating the government as some alien entity is a political tactic used to frighten people.
> Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.
That's a rather naive look, and ignores the own premise set forth by the OP I was responding to (in his case, the people should decide).
He's under the belief that the people wouldn't have supported war with Iraq (despite overwhelming support in 2003 for the war).
So, I'm not sure what you are really trying to say? On one hand, the OP says we should attack regardless of a direct threat. On the other hand, you say we should only attack unless we are seriously threatened (and the will of the people be damned). Maybe you think we should be seriously threatened and require that people support the war? This would of course require that people be told how the threat is seriously threatening them.
And that's how we got into the war with Iraq.