Happens all the time. All the unethical government has to do is play off people's fear and withhold intelligence that shows the stated threat is not borne out by the facts.
I’m sure there are additional ways to convince people to support a war that they would otherwise not support.
I didn’t say it had to be a
good reason, or a valid one. I said
a reason.
Most citizens of the USA (I would like to think) wouldn’t support a war just for the sake of going to war.
Excellent.
Define enemy please. What if the only threat to you the "enemy" represents is blocking your access to their property.
The term “enemy” can’t be defined specifically, unless a specific instance is used. Even then, it would be hard…There are too many possible reasons.
However:
Enemy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>
3 a : a military adversary
b : a hostile unit or force
In this case, I would define an enemy as an entity that presents an unacceptable threat to that which you must protect, which in the case of the US government is the USA itself.
Of course, then you would have to define an “unacceptable threat” and “must protect”.
That is up to the officials who are elected to do so. And their views probably differ at least slightly from my own, for various reasons.
Please clarify what you mean in the item I emphasized above.
I believe I did, as far as possible, let me know if I did not.
What type of threat you would teach your children to take preemptive violent action against?
I believe I already said that I wouldn’t. Or perhaps I only implied such. Either way, there is a difference between what you teach your children to do/not do, and what actions a nation takes to defend itself.
As an example of a preemptive action situation, suppose you were in charge of the military defense of the USA, and you had received strong intelligence that Mexico was planning to launch a full-scale invasion of Texas.
Assume that Mexico had a comparable military strength available in that area.
Obviously, diplomatic actions would be attempted to stop this.
But if diplomatic means failed, or intelligence that Mexico was moving ahead with invasion plans, and using the diplomatic discussions as a cover, came into your possession, what would you do?
Wait too long, believing that Mexico would back down, and you might have enemy troops in Texas.
Move too soon, believing that Mexico would not back down, and you would have attacked a neighbor of the USA.
Now, obviously, this situation is highly unlikely, and would depend on many not currently in place situations and conditions to actually come to pass…But you get the idea…
The problem with intelligence is, you can only extremely rarely be 100%, or even 90% sure about something.
Well ,suppose another country produced X export good at cost Y. Your country also produced X export good, but at cost Y*2. Obviously, depending on location, transport costs, and import fees in the target consumer areas, your export goods would be less popular, despite the identical quality.
Thus, you would receive less income from the exportation of said good because of the other countries production of said good at a lower cost.
Economic threat.
Not enough of one to warrant an invasion/attack on the other country in my book, but my book isn't necessarily the book in use.
This was a somewhat simplified example, but you get the idea.
That sounds like all other governments should be complimentary of ours or be subject to war. But that's probably not what you meant so please explain further.
Not at all what I meant. And I wasn’t referring to the US, necessarily.
Suppose a country’s system of government was a dictatorship. Said dictatorship could control the press and many other aspects of information transfer to their population, but not 100%, and ideas/info from outside the dictatorship leaked into the population, causing them to become restless, due to observation of better conditions of freedom/whatever in another state with a different government system.
Political threat.
If dictatorship is sufficiently powerful, options include military subjugation of state with government system casting negative light on dictatorship.
What if they blocked access to their property which you are dependent on to sustain your economy?
If you consider that a threat, then they are a threat to you.
I said: “…If an opponent poses
no threat whatsoever, I wouldn’t see the point in attacking them. Unless you are trying to build an empire, and just want their stuff. But that’s another discussion entirely.”
