Here is a nice troll... or is it? [modified]
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
Spot on. Almost up there with the Team America pussies and arseholes speech :)
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
Yeah, it's a troll. Cease-fires in the Middle East haven't been the result of peace movements, the cease-fires were often imposed by outside forces (like the US and Europe) or the result of exhaustion by the participants. And to suggest that "peace movements" contributed to the beginning of WWII fails to remember that another world war had just been fought in which Great Britain had suffered nearly 2.5 million casualties.
-
Yeah, it's a troll. Cease-fires in the Middle East haven't been the result of peace movements, the cease-fires were often imposed by outside forces (like the US and Europe) or the result of exhaustion by the participants. And to suggest that "peace movements" contributed to the beginning of WWII fails to remember that another world war had just been fought in which Great Britain had suffered nearly 2.5 million casualties.
Tell that to the Czhecs. Chamberlain is still hated.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Tell that to the Czhecs. Chamberlain is still hated.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
Peace movements assume the other guy is just a bit misguided and that if you nicely explain to him the error of his ways, he'll join you in joy and harmony. Usually, he's a belligerent, opportunistic pig who'll cut your throat for a song.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Yeah, it's a troll. Cease-fires in the Middle East haven't been the result of peace movements, the cease-fires were often imposed by outside forces (like the US and Europe) or the result of exhaustion by the participants. And to suggest that "peace movements" contributed to the beginning of WWII fails to remember that another world war had just been fought in which Great Britain had suffered nearly 2.5 million casualties.
One of the problems I see in the Middle East is an overall unwillingness to formally concede defeat as a group. Typically war can resolve issues because two nations battle until one says "uncle" and they both agree upon terms of surrender, thus allowing the victorious nation to impose its will on the conquered one (within reason). There is a defined beginning and a defined end as each nation is willing to go only so far to get its way. So whether you have a cease-fire or beat them silly, they'll still operate on an indivdual level (as we see in Iraq and Israel) blowing people up. To sum it up...They lack the necessary honor to conduct a war and the only viable solution is to rain down a glorious nuclear fire upon them. Problem solved! I also disagree (partially) that WWII was the result of a "peace movement". It was, however, largely the result of the post-war containment and oppression of Germany. Europe did try to forcibly keep them peaceful without military force, which is similar to the Middle East.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
zoid ! wrote:
I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner.
Unfortunately we're no longer dealing with countries openly attacking other countries here. It's become a nasty war, with suicide bombers, and terrorists using children as shields. So who do you fight back against? And when/how do you know you've won? It's very difficult with conventional warfare, which these days seems to only benefit defense contractors and Big Oil. There's gotta be a better way. One thing that would definitely help is the elimination of tyrannical regimes that fund and support these terrorists. To do that, I'm all in favor of assasination. No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them. We them replace them with an interim, equally repressive set of leaders, and SLOWLY transition to a free and democratic system. It's the only way to do it with minimal civil unrest.
zoid ! wrote:
"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.
Peace movements focus only on peace for the sake of sparing human life. But they often fail to realize that without freedom and justice, life becomes unbearable and there can be no peace. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Yeah, it's a troll. Cease-fires in the Middle East haven't been the result of peace movements, the cease-fires were often imposed by outside forces (like the US and Europe) or the result of exhaustion by the participants. And to suggest that "peace movements" contributed to the beginning of WWII fails to remember that another world war had just been fought in which Great Britain had suffered nearly 2.5 million casualties.
-
zoid ! wrote:
I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner.
Unfortunately we're no longer dealing with countries openly attacking other countries here. It's become a nasty war, with suicide bombers, and terrorists using children as shields. So who do you fight back against? And when/how do you know you've won? It's very difficult with conventional warfare, which these days seems to only benefit defense contractors and Big Oil. There's gotta be a better way. One thing that would definitely help is the elimination of tyrannical regimes that fund and support these terrorists. To do that, I'm all in favor of assasination. No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them. We them replace them with an interim, equally repressive set of leaders, and SLOWLY transition to a free and democratic system. It's the only way to do it with minimal civil unrest.
zoid ! wrote:
"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.
Peace movements focus only on peace for the sake of sparing human life. But they often fail to realize that without freedom and justice, life becomes unbearable and there can be no peace. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
One thing that would definitely help is the elimination of tyrannical regimes that fund and support these terrorists. To do that, I'm all in favor of assasination. No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them. We them replace them with an interim, equally repressive set of leaders, and SLOWLY transition to a free and democratic system. It's the only way to do it with minimal civil unrest.
The historical record on assisinations is almost completely the opposite of your intent. The people who end up running the show afterwards are almost universally worse.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
the cease-fires were often imposed by outside forces (like the US and Europe)
It could be argued that peace movements within Europe and America pressured their own governments into intervening and imposing cease-fires in the middle east.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
One thing that would definitely help is the elimination of tyrannical regimes that fund and support these terrorists. To do that, I'm all in favor of assasination. No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them. We them replace them with an interim, equally repressive set of leaders, and SLOWLY transition to a free and democratic system. It's the only way to do it with minimal civil unrest.
The historical record on assisinations is almost completely the opposite of your intent. The people who end up running the show afterwards are almost universally worse.
dan neely wrote:
The historical record on assisinations is almost completely the opposite of your intent. The people who end up running the show afterwards are almost universally worse.
That's a shame. I would try the shampoo method then: "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". :) Death is a great motivator.
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Spot on. Almost up there with the Team America pussies and arseholes speech :)
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Team America
Is that a reference to the movie? Did you see it? Do you recommend it?
led mike wrote:
Do you recommend it?
That movie is great. Like all great satire, it transcends politics so you should like it even though I did.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
zoid ! wrote:
I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner.
Unfortunately we're no longer dealing with countries openly attacking other countries here. It's become a nasty war, with suicide bombers, and terrorists using children as shields. So who do you fight back against? And when/how do you know you've won? It's very difficult with conventional warfare, which these days seems to only benefit defense contractors and Big Oil. There's gotta be a better way. One thing that would definitely help is the elimination of tyrannical regimes that fund and support these terrorists. To do that, I'm all in favor of assasination. No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them. We them replace them with an interim, equally repressive set of leaders, and SLOWLY transition to a free and democratic system. It's the only way to do it with minimal civil unrest.
zoid ! wrote:
"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.
Peace movements focus only on peace for the sake of sparing human life. But they often fail to realize that without freedom and justice, life becomes unbearable and there can be no peace. Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them.
:laugh: Oh, if only W was smart enough to think of that! "Send in the Jedi Knights, Donald!"
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No full scale invasion or occupation or reconstruction. We infiltrate the country with a special force, hunt down the leaders, and kill them.
:laugh: Oh, if only W was smart enough to think of that! "Send in the Jedi Knights, Donald!"
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oh, if only W was smart enough to think of that! "Send in the Jedi Knights, Donald!"
Unfortunately there's a lot more money to be made from the dropping of bombs: 1. Tax payers pay for the weapons. 2. Tax payers pay for the reconstruction from the damage caused by the bombs. 3. Tax payers pay for the meals, shelter, vehicles, and fuel needed by the occupying force. 4. Tax payers pay for the interest on the loans needed to fully pay for the operation. 5. Tax payers pay more at the pump because gasoline prices go up. :sigh:
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
I ran in this post while reading slashdot.. although it was meant as a troll, if found it quite interesting. I don't think that now was a good time for Israel to attack, but i do think that in order to have lasting peace you need to have a real winner. ---- Pacifists versus Peace by Thomas Sowell (July 24, 2006) One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts. "Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war. Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy. There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated. "World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions. That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in
There's some huge problems with this commentary. First of all, it takes one (or two) situations and tries to use it as the model for peace movements and war. We are human beings with brains, and we should think about using our brains to differentiate the situations where peace movements are the most benefitial path from the situations where war is. Of course the only path in World War 2 against the Axis was war. Because of the nature of the Axis and the situation, peace movements would've accomplished nothing. But this commentary wants to use that one situation to argue that all possible situations are like World War 2 - and therefore, the solution is war. This is just brain-dead thinking. Why not do a more comprehensive look at conflicts? Is the author going to argue that Ghandi's peace movement for India's independence accomplished nothing? That it would have been better to lead a violent uprising - despite the deaths that it would have incurred? Is the author going to argue that Martin Luther was misguided in his peaceful attempts for black civil rights and that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X had it right to use violence? Does the author even realize that this paper can be used to urge Muslims towards violence against the US and Israel - they shouldn't work for a peaceful solution because peace movements accomplish nothing. Similarly with the Black civil rights movements of the 1950s. Similarly with Pakistani terrorist attacks against India. One of the problems I have with all this pro-war commentary is the fact that it always ends up being extremely self-centered and self-interested. If you took a step back and said, "What if everyone acted this way? What if everyone accepted this logic?" then you'd quickly realize that the whole world would be engulfed in war. I'm not a believer in Christianity any more, but sometimes when I read these pro-war commentaries, in the back of my mind, I can help but play with the idea that some of these people are agents of the one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - specifically, the one called "war": "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oh, if only W was smart enough to think of that! "Send in the Jedi Knights, Donald!"
Unfortunately there's a lot more money to be made from the dropping of bombs: 1. Tax payers pay for the weapons. 2. Tax payers pay for the reconstruction from the damage caused by the bombs. 3. Tax payers pay for the meals, shelter, vehicles, and fuel needed by the occupying force. 4. Tax payers pay for the interest on the loans needed to fully pay for the operation. 5. Tax payers pay more at the pump because gasoline prices go up. :sigh:
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
money to be made spent
-- modified at 15:52 Thursday 27th July, 2006
-
There's some huge problems with this commentary. First of all, it takes one (or two) situations and tries to use it as the model for peace movements and war. We are human beings with brains, and we should think about using our brains to differentiate the situations where peace movements are the most benefitial path from the situations where war is. Of course the only path in World War 2 against the Axis was war. Because of the nature of the Axis and the situation, peace movements would've accomplished nothing. But this commentary wants to use that one situation to argue that all possible situations are like World War 2 - and therefore, the solution is war. This is just brain-dead thinking. Why not do a more comprehensive look at conflicts? Is the author going to argue that Ghandi's peace movement for India's independence accomplished nothing? That it would have been better to lead a violent uprising - despite the deaths that it would have incurred? Is the author going to argue that Martin Luther was misguided in his peaceful attempts for black civil rights and that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X had it right to use violence? Does the author even realize that this paper can be used to urge Muslims towards violence against the US and Israel - they shouldn't work for a peaceful solution because peace movements accomplish nothing. Similarly with the Black civil rights movements of the 1950s. Similarly with Pakistani terrorist attacks against India. One of the problems I have with all this pro-war commentary is the fact that it always ends up being extremely self-centered and self-interested. If you took a step back and said, "What if everyone acted this way? What if everyone accepted this logic?" then you'd quickly realize that the whole world would be engulfed in war. I'm not a believer in Christianity any more, but sometimes when I read these pro-war commentaries, in the back of my mind, I can help but play with the idea that some of these people are agents of the one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - specifically, the one called "war": "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword."
Brit wrote:
If you took a step back and said, "What if everyone acted this way? What if everyone accepted this logic?" then you'd quickly realize that the whole world would be engulfed in war.
The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the cost of war, which is very high. Nations go to war only when their conflicting interests are so great that one or both of those nations believe that the money, lives and destruction inevitable with war are justified. War allows them to force their differences to a conclusion. Compulsory peace only allows differences to simmer and fester over time.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy