This conversation started when I stated I do not discuss with people anything if they persist on using ad homs in their argument. I assumed two responses; obstinate one in which you continue to use ad homs or you stop using ad homs. In the case of the former, I would had simply ignored all of your post indefinitely. In the latter, I would continue. For some reason you decided to be defensive about it and debate the point. The choice is really yours. When it comes to hellheaven, I think you made your point and I have made mine. I am not sure we can continue to belabor the same points. I consider your points to be unjustified; you disagree. Again, if you want to continue, the choice is yours.
Originally Posted by Turtler
You can on and on about this if you like, but the question was is there any bad or good side in a conflict. I say, no, states are neither bad or good, but inherently amoral. The fact that some numbskull in the past made a dumb dumb decision doesn't change the amoral nature of the decision.
Which is why that approach is flawed cripplingly even on its' own standards, and by any other is of at best marginal importance by itself. Being able to plot out complexities is part of what gives these models power in the first place, and one of those complexities is the ability to take bad decision making into account, amongst other things...By and large, yes. But what happens to a model when it would struggle (and more often than not fail to) give voice and reason to a large number of said littered states. It would be severely hard-pressed to explain matters such as Louis XII's frankly *dazzling* display of incompetence and often times charity in his campaign(s) in Italy, which led to precisely why Machiavelli cited him as a bad example. It is intellectual shallowness masquerading as a model promising great cosmic truths; from your own admissions here it is at best a very two dimensional model that works best only when applied in hindsight. The central truisim may be useful, but the overall system collapses because it cannot account for things other than the universe unfailingly obeying and adhering to its' single truism.
If someone came on this forum here and claimed to be able to distill the laws of physics down to gravitational pull, we would call them pseudo-scientists and charlatans of the worst form and kind. Statescraft might not be the same exact and unvarying science (or "science") as physics but I fail to see how this does not apply here.
I am not concern with my ability to impress anyone. I cannot control on the merit in which I am judged. I am not in a habit of judging anyone. I endeavor to respond only to the substance of the post with little or no concern about the nature of the person(s) I am speaking with.
You seem to underestimate my ability to be unimpressed with your examples. Especially with how you have butchered and mischaracterized the origins of both the Second World War and the American Civil War.
The South's political power was waning and it felt its socio- economic system would be destroyed- thus destroying the South. The South acted out of self- preservation- The North wanted to maintain its economic tides in which it was depended on. The minute the South seceded, war was inevitable.
it's all well and good to characterize the latter as not being fought at first to free the slaves, because it wasn't; but the sheer idea that one can leech all morality out of the opposition to a group of militia fanatics taking up arms and seceeding because they *lost* a legitimate election does not and can never stand the test of time, especially since it begs the question what would have happened if it were somehow solved without a single drop of blood being shed (given how you strictly conflate amorality with warfare itself, but that raises the questions of where the issue stands when it doesn't get far enough to be armed conflict).
Here is the map of the Election of 1860:
Note that even if the entire south had voted one way, Lincoln STILL wins!
Ok, I will play along- how, partially, did each side acted morally or immorally?
Secondly, World War Two was not started purely because Germany magically attacked everybody simultaneously. It was built on the many, many, many treaties, guarantees, principles, and yes interests that the various sides had cooked up in the interbellum and before. If attacked, you fight explains the situation wonderfully for China and Poland and Ethiopia, but it does jack all to explain why the Soviets and/or the Western Allies entered the war as well. That can be partially explained through interests (such as the obvious benefit to the Soviets of not having an expansive Japanese Empire on their Eastern doorstep at this time, and the West's chronic and justified fear of Germany) but only partially.
If I had "washed" away good evidence, please do bring them back to focus. I am not filled with pride.
And you are welcome to your own opinion, as we all are. But you are not in the least entitled to your own facts or reality. Nobody is save maybe the guy upstairs. Washing away the evidence that does not conform to a hypothesis is just sloppy experimentation.