Hacker News Reader

Comment by pphysch | Hacker News Reader

> He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine.

This is, at best, a naive portrayal of how London and Washington start wars.

See the infamous Downing Street Memo [1].

In Washington, which often leads the rest of the West in military adventurism, Congress hasn't approved a military operation since 2002, despite a US-led coalition destroying sovereign Libya in 2011 and occupying Northern Syria since 2015.

Indeed, the 2002 AUMF authorized by Congress for the Iraq War is still in effect 20 years later [2], and used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation, bypassing Congressional approval.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

View on HN

It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society. Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.

It does make the statement less true, because it is evidently not based in reality.

In actually-existing 21st-century "democracies", the people do not choose who gets bombed. Those choices are made by unelected officials in the MIC and rationalized by think tanks and communications firms funded by the same MIC.

> Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.

Strawmanning isn't cool.

Hey fella, you're the one moving goal posts here.

First you say it was "used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation"... ie the executive branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes".

I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how the author came to his conclusions (described in parent replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g. whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring conversation.

Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and how it's not great.

No goalposts have been moved. The executive branch sans the president/VP are all unelected officials, and the State/Defence departments are part of the MIC.

No, you don’t get to avoid judgment for your actions just because your particular flavor of naivety favors virtue and righteousness.

People with blind faith in leaders because democracy are not demonstrating critical thinking.

"Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon."

There must be some serious cognitive dissonance going on in those people who give Congress and the President abysmally low ratings and yet believe in democracy so much that they'd join the military and then trust their elected leaders (who they have such awful opinions of) to "do the right thing" when deciding who to wage war on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com