But people, so very often and unfortunately, have to learn from their mistakes hard-way.
But people, so very often and unfortunately, have to learn from their mistakes hard-way.
('-'*)/ - "sup"
I think it's pretty obvious that war does not bring peace. What good is peace anyway if you have to go to war to maintain it? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.
I think it's pretty obvious that war does not bring peace. What good is peace anyway if you have to go to war to maintain it? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me. --eestlinc
If a few weeks or months or years or war can bring decades of peace, then it's worth it. The only reason this country still exists is because people have been willing to fight for it for the past couple hundred years. The only reason this country was even formed was because we fought for our independence. The only reason England exists is because they fought off their enemies for hundreds of years. You can trace it back in history forever if you wanted. When faced with an aggressor, there are two choices: win and live, or lose and die. Deciding not to fight at all is equivalent to the second choice. Non-violent resistence to violence fails as soon as the violent side decides not to honor your supposed moral superiority, and why should they?
I agree with Unne about that. There wouldn't be Finland if Finns never fought back, but my opinion just is, that what Bush and Blair have been doing hasn't been necessary. This wasn't about independence of USA; Iraq wasn't that much of a threat.
I'm not going in whether the war was justified or not, but the Nobel prize for that madman? Pfft.
('-'*)/ - "sup"
Not if I were one of the more than half of the people who voted in 2000 who didn't vote for Bush.Originally posted by War Angel
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?
51% is enough. As a citizen in a democratic nation, you must accept that.Not if I were one of the more than half of the people who voted in 2000 who didn't vote for Bush.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
well, the way the US presidential elections work, you don't need a majority vote of the entire country since it gets broken into state votes. Bush didn't get 50% of the national vote, but neither did Clinton in 1992.
Also, self defense is not the same thing as war. When someone invades you and you fight them off, you aren't exactly declaring war. You are fighting to return to peace. The problem isn't in defending yourself, the problem is in the countries that are going out and attacking and starting the wars. If they didn't start a war, there would be no need for self-defense. If the US didn't run around with this huge military, there would be no need for countries like Iraq or North Korea to build up huge weapons stockpiles.
So, if I punch you, and walk away, and after a week you come up to me and punch me back, does that mean you started a fight? If your answer is yes, I think your logic is flawed.
Iraq showed hostility and agression before, and it did not pay. So, it came a bit late, whatever.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
the time to retaliate is immediately. I think your logic is flawed. You don't wait years to retaliate.
Also, Iraq has paid pretty dearly under the UN sanctions. Maybe Saddam didn't suffer so much but the people did. To say the world has been letting Saddam off Scot free is a bit of a stretch.
There's ALWAYS the need for self-defense. If you have no form of defending yourself, then any country can come up to ours and kill off a thousand or so people. It might be unlikely, but that defense is needed in order to expect the unexpected.Originally posted by eestlinc
Also, self defense is not the same thing as war. When someone invades you and you fight them off, you aren't exactly declaring war. You are fighting to return to peace. The problem isn't in defending yourself, the problem is in the countries that are going out and attacking and starting the wars. If they didn't start a war, there would be no need for self-defense.
You could say the converse is true, as well - if it weren't for countries like Iraq and North Korea building up huge weapons stockpiles, the US wouldn't need to run around with a huge military.Originally posted by eestlinc If the US didn't run around with this huge military, there would be no need for countries like Iraq or North Korea to build up huge weapons stockpiles.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I'm all for self-defense. I don't think ICBMs etc are doing much for our self-defense though. You also don't go around punching people because you heard they want to beat you up.
You might, if you look at that analogy on a grander scale. With punching, the only risk is a bloody nose and a black eye. With international affairs, the risk is actual human lives. If one country was attacked by another, would it make the lives of those lost worth it just because they didn't strike first?Originally posted by eestlinc
You also don't go around punching people because you heard they want to beat you up.
Granted, there are better ways of preventing an attack on your country - diplomatic, economic, intelligence, etc... But there comes a time when talk is cheap, and you need to take action.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
There are times when it may be best to strike first, but I'm not so sure Iraq was posing an imminent threat to the US.
So, if someone in the US votes against Bush, then he or she is "anti-American" for opposing their elected leader? I don't see that it should be 'offensive' to an entire nation to criticise someone else's political leader. Slobodan Milsoevic is being tried for war crimes, that doesn't make the Yugoslavian people guilty by association. Politicians are people with independent will and minds, not a pure and unsullied manifestation of the wishes of the nation. I'm very fond of America, its achievements, some of its cultural and artistic accomplishments; this is not changed by the assertion that George Bush has commited breaches of international law and whatnot.Originally posted by War Angel
Anyone in a democratic nation would be offended, if you diss their leaders. A democratic ruler is chosen by the people, for the people. They support him - without such support, he'll go down. Therefore, when you criticise the leader, you criticise the people, questionong their integrity, intelligence and understanding. Wouldn't you be angered at that?
Gone are the old monarchist days when rulers were the 'embodiment' of their country.
it wasn't even close to 51% of the vote that he received, though, and as Big D pointed out, people are ALLOWED to be critical of their country's leaders.Originally posted by War Angel
51% is enough. As a citizen in a democratic nation, you must accept that.
I'm more or less with eest on this issue, again, by the way. Strange how that works out.
Posting Permissions
