I’ve been investigating the world of David Icke recently, and in a presentation he said something quite interesting. He said that the way to prevent war was to have a rule whereby you can only declare war if you’ll then fight on the front line.
Good point, n’est ce pas? It’s certainly one of his more sensible utterances!
Sounds good to me…but then wouldn’t at least from David’s prospective, the ‘reptilians’ just convince ‘us’ to start wars. Reptialians aside, dont we in the west goto war just as he has stipulated. We get images of people that will most likely be on the front lines, and they are the most patriotic of all citizens. Did they make the first move? I would say no, but there is no question, most forms of media represent anger of the ‘people’, whereas this is indicative of ‘us’ choosing war. 9/11 I recall hearing snap judgements of about hunting down who did this, and punishing them. Now right or wrong it isnt very far from what happened.
Icke is being way to simplistic. We goto war as nations, on all fronts either because we are scared not too, or we are persuaded to do so. We should question why we fear our governments or why we feel persuaded by them.
I think its a sensible rule,
Though its one that would never be followed.
Yes, it’s more of a thought-provoker than a possible policy.
It would also prevent war being declared where it is morally right, it would completely change the democratic system (people would vote for warrior princes), and, if only implemented in a few countries, would weaken those countries relative to the rest of the world.
Personally, I think that everytime an American President declares any sort of military intervention, they should have to do it in front of the Vietnam Memorial.
Though I do very much like the idea of those who declare the war having to fight it themselves. Or at the very least have their children do it. I actually like that a bit better.
What sort of psycho sends their children off to die except for in the most dire of situations.
I’m not so sure.
Icke’s argument reminds me of Rawls’ social theories where people would create a fair society if they had no idea what part they’d play in it. They’d make it equitable because they might pull a short straw if there is one.
While it’s fair and admirable, it has a few detractors. One of the criticisms of that theory is that it assumes everyone wants the same things in the same ways… and fails to ackowledge that some people are gamblers who’ll tolerate some inequity for a roll of the dice…
Same for this example. I think we’re making false assumptions that most people seek peace and safety and avoid danger at all times.
I can think of many men who want to die at war, regardless of who wins it (even Wittgenstein spent some time trying to die on the front lines of WWI ).
I can think of many examples of people who’d gladly sacrifice their own lives for what they think are the “greater good” - and I’m not sure that every candidate who’s prepared to sacrifice his own life is any more rational, peaceloving, or oncerned for the safety of others than the one who’s merely prepared to sacrifice other people’s lives.
I can also think of many people who are crazy and arrogant enough to think they’ll win and take the risk based on their confidence.
Icke’s theory is a nice thought, but I’m not sure it guarantees peace for all.