The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Was the Ukraine War avoidable?

Do our military and "Intelligence" agencies stand in the way of peace in the world? Should a liberal democracy have such things as the NSA (National Security Agency) in charge of "internal" security and CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in charge of international operations. Wasn't it the American contention that the KGB was a sinister organization because of the control it nefariously exerted over others.

Trump has suddenly reversed his course and instead of a negotiator of peace has become a proponent of conflict. How did that happen? Did the National "security" establishment exert its influence on Trump (that many Americans elected in order to bring peace)? Or who is pulling the strings in the US government that keep us eternally embroiled in conflict? Or is it inherent in the way the world works? Do "realists" run our country and now see policy as a chess game to fight for hegemony?

Are we rehashing what Kennedy, toward the end of his life, campaigned to avoid after he learned from the mistakes of the Cuban Crisis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqm9Yl1gGEY

Is peaceful diplomacy not possible?

Or what do people who are not US citizens think of my country and its behavior?

Do our military and "Intelligence" agencies stand in the way of peace in the world?

There are some nasty people in the world and a country needs a military and intelligence to defend itself.

Should a liberal democracy have such things as the NSA (National Security Agency) in charge of "internal" security and CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in charge of international operations.

Yes. Foreign countries send agents to manipulate and weaken.

Internally there are people, within a country, who want sabotage the country.

These are threats that have to be countered.

Trump has suddenly reversed his course and instead of a negotiator of peace has become a proponent of conflict.

Trump has always been a proponent of conflict. He is literally the wolf in sheep's clothing. He only used the peace card to get elected.

Watch his 1980 interview. He wanted US troops to go into Iran to get the hostages back.

He wants to use US power, including military power, to manipulate and control other countries.

That's his personality.

Is the US a rogue state?

I guess it depends on what you regard as "rogue."

From the dawn of time, empires have interfered with each others' activities, and contested security, land, resources, culture, ideology, treasure, prestige...was all of that "rogue" in the relevant sense? And would, say, a globalist government based in Brussels or Rome be less "rogue" than this government?

So what is a "rogue state," in your view? Just so we can answer the question as best we can.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D5DVHz1wPwI

Just as time and repetition have made the Social Safety Net Philosophy (SSNP) a God-given right and therefore a secular, government obligation, time has made terrorism an institution for those sixty* years old and younger.

The only reason it is accepted is because it has always been accepted, for some.

Forty-seven years ago, the now sixty-year old folks were expanding their awareness into the larger world outside themselves, and for them the larger world has always held the threat of terrorism. This is how people can say, what right does one country have to dictate morality to another country? Why shouldn't Iran have the sovereign right to slaughter its own dissenting citizens ... which for some reason is a topic oft' ignored by the West, other than those with a rogue view against what has become acceptable.

The intent to end the threat of terrorism is a rogue concept because it ends delusions that what has always been will always be, and it threatens all kinds of vested interests in what has been.

*The old age of youth’s limitations.

And then there's that TDS affliction, which throws rational causation right out the window, unless irrationality is considered as a significant factor for rational deductions.

[DELETED. That kind of language adds nothing at all to the discussion.Ed]

Don't encourage it

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 3:56 pm Forty-seven years ago, the now sixty-year old folks were expanding their awareness into the larger world outside themselves, and for them the larger world has always held the threat of terrorism. This is how people can say, what right does one country have to dictate morality to another country? Why shouldn't Iran have the sovereign right to slaughter its own dissenting citizens ... which for some reason is a topic oft' ignored by the West, other than those with a rogue view against what has become acceptable.

The silence, where it is silent, may well have to do with the how the US and European countries worked to prolong the war between Iraq and Iran ensuring many more deaths on both sides. The US intentionally supplied Iraq with precursors to chemical weapons while knowing how they were going to be used and were being used. They also supplied biological weapons grade 'diseases' - unlike the chemical weapons, which killed thousands and damaged over 100,000, the biological weapons were only tested on Kurds and captured Iranians.

Whenever the power shifted to one side of that war, the US and Europe aided the other side in a variety of ways with a conscious goal of prolonging the war.

In fact some of the same characters who later, in the Bush 2 Admin, falsely accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction were part of either getting chemical weapons or biological precursors to Iraq or covering up that Hussein used them since he was an 'ally'. Private citizens and a number of citizens have brought up the way Iran's government treats its people and many of them can manage this without hypocrisy.

So, never having managed to have apologized for any of this, it should come off as false empathy, at least at the governmental level, to be concerned about how the Iranian government treats its people. And yes, it has treated it terribly.

But unless the US actually goes into Iran, which they likely need to do to enact a regime change, the chances are very high that that regime, after the conflict, will be even worse to its people. And if we look at what happens when the US goes for regime change, countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, South American countries, southeast Asia...at best it is just a problematic there and often the people there are suffering more than before.

We can go back further in time to when the US helped the Shah get into power, help him move in the direction of absolute power, trained his notorious secret police in many things, including Nazi torture techniques the CIA learned via Operation Paperclip, did PR for the Shah. Now this can all be argued as a ends justify means process, since it was part of Cold War resistance to the USSR, but this rationale might fall on unsympathetic ears in Iran.

And they'd need to take some responsibility for the current regime. The US backed the coup that took out a democratically elected Prime minister in Iran and helped bring in the Shah. The only group that managed to be organized under the Shah was precisely the conservative religious theocrats who took over after the revolution. This was not at all intended, but still responsibility for interfering clumsily (to put it mildly) in another country has never really been acknowledged.

Now why did they want to overthrow the democratically elected PM? Well, he started nationalized the oil. Well, that could sound bad. Unfair to the British. But how did the British get power over 3/4ers of the Iranian oil. Bribery, pressure and military intervention. They also used weak monarchs who made deals utterly unfair to the Iranian citizens. £20,000 'bought' the rights to the majority of Iranian oil. The great care for the people of Iraq was not really present in that deal.

So, 'British property' was being unfairly taken was the justification for interfering in democratic processes via coup and bringing in what very quickly and with intentional help became a dictator.

It is definitely important not to gloss over the horrendous regime that is the result of these processes of intervention in another country. I have no sympathy at all for these theocratic monsters. But I think it is unlikely that Iranian citizens are going to benefit from the current conflict and I am extremely skeptical that the people who set this war in motion give a shit about them. Many individuals in the West do.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 3:24 am [DELETED. That kind of language adds nothing at all to the discussion.Ed]

Actions speak louder than feminist poseurs, but are they AI?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xPljpC2v ... ture=share

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 7:17 am

Before the attack, Iran was not at all prosperous. The West had turned off their prosperity. The West can turn prosperity back on, if the new government that meets the West’s unconditional approval plays ball. That benefits the population more than a strategy of slaughtering the population. The prosperity hinges on international commerce, as it did for Japan post WWII, a country that was also required to surrender unconditionally to the West.

Let's not confuse "the West" and "the USA".

A lot of the West does not approve of this fabricated war and US/Israel hardball tactics.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:05 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 7:17 am

Before the attack, Iran was not at all prosperous. The West had turned off their prosperity. The West can turn prosperity back on, if the new government that meets the West’s unconditional approval plays ball. That benefits the population more than a strategy of slaughtering the population. The prosperity hinges on international commerce, as it did for Japan post WWII, a country that was also required to surrender unconditionally to the West.

I'm not quite sure how this is a response to my post. I certainly hope that it somehow manages to lead to a better state for the Iranians. My best friend is Iranian, with a lot of family there, and we discuss the situation daily. Neither of us with much love for any of the three regimes involved in the conflict. I don't rule out the possibility that it will go well, I just see how it has gone in this part of the world in the whole of my not short life and the record is not good. My point was about how presenting empathy for the Iranian people comes off pretty false. Not from you, but from the US and Europe. And also how the current situation is not something that the US is remotely blameless in.

Further, to get absolute surrender. I certainly hope something like that can happen without sending troops in there. Because Iran is very ready for an asymmetrical war. Afganistan and Iraq did not go well at all with troops going in and I am not sure how they would get absolute surrender without it. Yes, if they can manage to surgically get enough of the current regime. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

And given your example of Japan. Japan invaded 20 countries and attacked about six more while not invading, including of course the US. They performed atrocities wherever they went, especially in China.

This was a preemptive war against a country that has not invaded another country since the 1700s. Yes, they engage in all sorts of nasty stuff and have been on the receiving end of nasty stuff.

The US entered the war according to Trump himself because Israel said it was going to. Of course he has said there are other reasons and even mimicked Bush 2 in some of his speeches and like Bush 2 he can't quite seem to keep track of the motivations. He also can't seem to remember that he specifically said is no uncertain terms, in fact with disgust at the idea of regime change wars, that he would end regime change wars. After criticizing in blunt terms his opponents and earlier admins, both dems and reps, for doing this. But he's knuckled under to pressure just like all the others, some more willing than him. Unlike many people I think he actually meant that he hated regime change and wars that do not directly protect the US. I think as a businessman and perhaps even as a moral position he hated that. Well, he should be honest about how they managed to get him to directly contradict himself so blatantly.

Because that is much more important, actually than the war itself. Who gets to call these shots? I have my own opinion on that but that's a whole other topic.

But, again, my point in the my previous post was not that it cannot possibly go well, in the end for the Iranian people. However, if they do not manage to get a regime change, things will go worse for the Iranian people. If they manage, how will this not be a protracted war with an incredibly costly ground war involved and why should we be optimistic about what happens after than given post WW2 trends. Yes, even Germany came back from the dead, not just Japan. For reasons mentioned I think it is much more likely it will go the way of the smaller countries, the way it has for the last 70/80 years for the places the US invades.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:17 pm Let's not confuse "the West" and "the USA".

I still would like to know the precise definition of the thing Gary's asking: what does he mean by a "rogue" state? In what way, "rogue"?

I don't know how we can answer without that information. We might be agreeing to something entirely unwarranted...or something quite appropriate...but we have no way of knowing, at present.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:25 pm

I'm not quite sure how this is a response to my post.
[/quote]
You concluded that this military action will not benefit the Iranian people.

I offered possible ways it will benefit.

The Persians practically invented commerce.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:25 pm I certainly hope that it somehow manages to lead to a better state for the Iranians.

Could it be worse than what's been? It's hard to imagine how. You couldn't get anything more cruel, totalitarian, brutal, nasty and vicious than the last regime, could you? So almost anything would seem to be an advance on that.

At least, the Persians seem to think so.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2026 1:17 pm Let's not confuse "the West" and "the USA".

A lot of the West does not approve of this fabricated war and US/Israel hardball tactics.

That’s because terrorism has become an accepted institution in the Western countries that don't want to offend the terrorists, which was Starmer's knee-jerk reaction until someone reminded him what ally means. Two countries went rogue by dealing with the Iranian government that slaughters its own people, instead of ducking down and hoping they would be last to be eaten.