What is interesting to me is looking at how complex our discussion of the one on one scenario(s) described has been, with a wide variety of viewpoints, every one of them a perfectly valid take on the issue, how is it that the discussions of use of force on the macro level, i.e. war, seem so much more simplistic?

It seems to me that human beings seem to make hold a different set of opinions when an issue is manageable like the one on one scenarios described here and tend to hold often contradictory beliefs as soon as we are talking about groups, societies, or countries. One would think that given the consequences folks would be doubly and triply resistant to larger scale conflict when actually it seems that, often, the very same person who on and individual level would praise restraint, promote the rule of law over use of violence, and be very critical of non-proportional reactions to conflicts will simultaneously be willing to use force on the macro level much more readily than at the individual level.

We went into Viet Nam simply because Kennedy was terribly embarrassed by the Bay of Pigs fiasco and was looking for someplace he could show the Right that he was tough on Communism and wasn't a whimp. The American public which largely had no idea where Viet Nam even was on a map at that time, simply went along with the whole thing. There was very little if any debate of the kind that we seem to be able to generate over responses to a one on one situation. Is it merely because the one on one seems comprehensible to people but the macro issues seem too complex?

I am not saying that no one generates this kind of discussion. But it seems like there is a huge disconnect between the way most folks in our society treat the individual and his interactions and how they think about the society, which is merely made up of lots of individuals, think about these same issues.Just something that occrred tro me while rereading the various takes on the thread.