Forums > Social Discussion > Shock and Awe.
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, the man who famously said this, was a member of the British parliament, who at the opening stages of the American war for Independance was in favour of that independance, seeing the wrongness of his country's continued exploitation of the American colonies.
I am certain that almost everyone reading this post will quickly hit their back button and try very hard to put it out of their mind, and quite possibly avoid any future posts I may make.
However I feel compelled to do this, in the spirit of the opening quote.
Right now I'm suffering from very real shock. I have all the telltale symptoms; shivering to warm up my muscles, feeling very jumpy and alert, paleness due to blood being diverted to my major organs, stomach cramps, feeling sick, and a need to go to the toilet to loose any weight I can, all to make running away from something as effective as possible.
All of this is because about an hour ago I sleepily opened an email from a list I'm on, posted by someone who takes the words of that quote very seriously, and followed a link.
I won't post the link to what I saw. I'm hoping people are willing to take an interest and not resort to 'Ostrich Syndrome', without having to be made physically sick.
I'll just ask you to consider a few simple facts.
In the past there have been people with complete disregard for the rights of their fellow men. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. There are also the many people who will knowingly and willingly follow their lead.
We know about all these peoples crimes, because they are the other side, and our view is not clouded by patriotism or any propaganda induced delusions.
However a great many people were induced to agree with, and follow their regiemes, many unaware of what was really happening, and believing their leaders to be fine upstanding persons of good moral character.
Now I'd like you to give me one good reason why the same may not be true of your own leaders, and go and google 'depleted uranium'
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, the man who famously said this, was a member of the British parliament, who at the opening stages of the American war for Independance was in favour of that independance, seeing the wrongness of his country's continued exploitation of the American colonies.
I am certain that almost everyone reading this post will quickly hit their back button and try very hard to put it out of their mind, and quite possibly avoid any future posts I may make.
However I feel compelled to do this, in the spirit of the opening quote.
Right now I'm suffering from very real shock. I have all the telltale symptoms; shivering to warm up my muscles, feeling very jumpy and alert, paleness due to blood being diverted to my major organs, stomach cramps, feeling sick, and a need to go to the toilet to loose any weight I can, all to make running away from something as effective as possible.
All of this is because about an hour ago I sleepily opened an email from a list I'm on, posted by someone who takes the words of that quote very seriously, and followed a link.
I won't post the link to what I saw. I'm hoping people are willing to take an interest and not resort to 'Ostrich Syndrome', without having to be made physically sick.
I'll just ask you to consider a few simple facts.
In the past there have been people with complete disregard for the rights of their fellow men. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. There are also the many people who will knowingly and willingly follow their lead.
We know about all these peoples crimes, because they are the other side, and our view is not clouded by patriotism or any propaganda induced delusions.
However a great many people were induced to agree with, and follow their regiemes, many unaware of what was really happening, and believing their leaders to be fine upstanding persons of good moral character.
Now I'd like you to give me one good reason why the same may not be true of your own leaders, and go and google 'depleted uranium'
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
stout: I'll agree that anything hosted by rense.com loses a lot of credibility, but sometimes it's not possible to have anywhere else host those kind of pictures.
faithinfire: Given that the sources for the negative view are almost entirely free (I found one independant group in Europe asking for money for their report), and produced and hosted at the expense of the people researching them, your argument is invalid. No-one is selling the negative view, and in many cases they have a lot to lose from expressing it.
stout: I'll agree that anything hosted by rense.com loses a lot of credibility, but sometimes it's not possible to have anywhere else host those kind of pictures.
faithinfire: Given that the sources for the negative view are almost entirely free (I found one independant group in Europe asking for money for their report), and produced and hosted at the expense of the people researching them, your argument is invalid. No-one is selling the negative view, and in many cases they have a lot to lose from expressing it.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
SILVER Member
c",
199 posts
Location: Ireland
c",
199 posts
Location: Ireland
Posted:
Sorry lurch im coming im in the middle of things but who do you mean by OUR side, and who is THEIR side?
Written by: Lurch
OUR side, does as much as we possibly can to make secondary casualties as small as possible even if that means putting ourselves at more risk than needed. The days of carpet bombing entire cities are long since over. THEIR side, counts on civilian casualties and views it as a good thing. Do you see the difference there?
Sorry lurch im coming im in the middle of things but who do you mean by OUR side, and who is THEIR side?
BRONZE Member
member
43 posts
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
member
43 posts
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
sorry 'bout the off-topic post above.
The whole situation surrounding DU makes me sick. I hate to think that my country would be so careless with it. No, careless isn't the right word. Blatant abuse of a dangerous substance, ignoring international and national guidlines is more like it.
I feel horrible for all of the children who will be (and already have been) born with defects as a result of all this mess. Thanks for bringing the topic up for discussion, polarity.
sorry 'bout the off-topic post above.
The whole situation surrounding DU makes me sick. I hate to think that my country would be so careless with it. No, careless isn't the right word. Blatant abuse of a dangerous substance, ignoring international and national guidlines is more like it.
I feel horrible for all of the children who will be (and already have been) born with defects as a result of all this mess. Thanks for bringing the topic up for discussion, polarity.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I thought some reliable information would be best.
WHO on the health situation in Iraq
WHO on depleted uranium. (already posted but it needs repeating)
I thought some reliable information would be best.
WHO on the health situation in Iraq
WHO on depleted uranium. (already posted but it needs repeating)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
The people in Iraq are very concerned about DU. A Canadian project is in place that gives the people film and video cameras, so the local citizens can document the experiences and issues that are of importance to them- as opposed to what we see in the typical media. It will be interesting to see what perspective they have on this subject. I know DU is one they cover. Some are to be presented soon...
Also, about Iraqu health in general-- access to health care was highlighted in the WHO report- which is three years old by the way.Lots has changed, and not necessarily for the better. One of the areas that was supposed to be a focus of redevlopment was the building of local health care centers. Huge amounts of money was spent. 150 centers were supposed to be set up within two years, using this money. Only 30 have been finished. And most of the money used... So still, no access to health care, basic sorts. This was recently discussed on a report by the Canadian news agency, the CBC radio. I am sure you can go to their site for more details regarding an audit of how the rebuilding money has been spent,and issues around that. If you are interested, the video project was also discussed last week on one of the morning shows, so you can probably find that one there to, or I can provide you with a link through some friends involved.
Thw WHO report also mentions lack of access to pure water as a significant health risk. . I have heard through people involved in the Iraqi conflict that there are still many many areas where getting clean water is a huge problem, and quite dangerous to try and get. More people dying uneccessarily.
I think that we simply do not know all of the results of the use of DU. The analysis of risk by WHO was not particularly impressive, it is very cautious, working on many extrapolations and adjustments rather than measures and assessments of direct experience. I doubt there is anyone spending the time and money regularly testing monitoring and analyising the effects on people over the long term. They just drop in,as they did in Kosavo, do some short tests covering a narrow range of concerns, and then leave again. It is cost prohibitive and complicated to do the kind of analysis that would really give us some concrete information of the real life impact of its use. Even the people studying the long term effects after Chernobyl are coming to some radically different conclusions.
The WHO is not always considered a reliable source, by the way. Many of their reports, and information has been called into question by various agencies. Like all information sources, they are not infallible.
It is however, safe to say that the people of Iraq continue to suffer from inadequate health care. Power, water, bombs,disease, snipers-- who needs the DU, they are still suffering and dying on a daily basis, and we need to be active in guiding our various governments involvement in what is happenning there.
That answer is for you, Stout, in what does someone want you to do about it- first find out what your government is doing in that region, then analyse if that is in fact what you want them to be doing. If not, put some pressure on your representatives . A lot of Canadian tax money and various donations is involved in the Iraq conflict and rebuilding, though our military is not fighting. We do have to make choices, and pay attention to whether we succeed in what we attempt to do, if that money is well spent. How you chose to impact your government is up to you, there are many ways. But you do have the power to make change.
The people in Iraq are very concerned about DU. A Canadian project is in place that gives the people film and video cameras, so the local citizens can document the experiences and issues that are of importance to them- as opposed to what we see in the typical media. It will be interesting to see what perspective they have on this subject. I know DU is one they cover. Some are to be presented soon...
Also, about Iraqu health in general-- access to health care was highlighted in the WHO report- which is three years old by the way.Lots has changed, and not necessarily for the better. One of the areas that was supposed to be a focus of redevlopment was the building of local health care centers. Huge amounts of money was spent. 150 centers were supposed to be set up within two years, using this money. Only 30 have been finished. And most of the money used... So still, no access to health care, basic sorts. This was recently discussed on a report by the Canadian news agency, the CBC radio. I am sure you can go to their site for more details regarding an audit of how the rebuilding money has been spent,and issues around that. If you are interested, the video project was also discussed last week on one of the morning shows, so you can probably find that one there to, or I can provide you with a link through some friends involved.
Thw WHO report also mentions lack of access to pure water as a significant health risk. . I have heard through people involved in the Iraqi conflict that there are still many many areas where getting clean water is a huge problem, and quite dangerous to try and get. More people dying uneccessarily.
I think that we simply do not know all of the results of the use of DU. The analysis of risk by WHO was not particularly impressive, it is very cautious, working on many extrapolations and adjustments rather than measures and assessments of direct experience. I doubt there is anyone spending the time and money regularly testing monitoring and analyising the effects on people over the long term. They just drop in,as they did in Kosavo, do some short tests covering a narrow range of concerns, and then leave again. It is cost prohibitive and complicated to do the kind of analysis that would really give us some concrete information of the real life impact of its use. Even the people studying the long term effects after Chernobyl are coming to some radically different conclusions.
The WHO is not always considered a reliable source, by the way. Many of their reports, and information has been called into question by various agencies. Like all information sources, they are not infallible.
It is however, safe to say that the people of Iraq continue to suffer from inadequate health care. Power, water, bombs,disease, snipers-- who needs the DU, they are still suffering and dying on a daily basis, and we need to be active in guiding our various governments involvement in what is happenning there.
That answer is for you, Stout, in what does someone want you to do about it- first find out what your government is doing in that region, then analyse if that is in fact what you want them to be doing. If not, put some pressure on your representatives . A lot of Canadian tax money and various donations is involved in the Iraq conflict and rebuilding, though our military is not fighting. We do have to make choices, and pay attention to whether we succeed in what we attempt to do, if that money is well spent. How you chose to impact your government is up to you, there are many ways. But you do have the power to make change.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
The main complaint of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, is that organisations such as the W.H.O. are still using sources known for producing biased data and using flawed models, just because those sources are large 'respected' organisations themselves. Models from the ICRP's (the nuclear industry's) data are 100 to 1000 times off what is being seen by epidemiologists on the ground in places where D.U. has been used.
The main complaint of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, is that organisations such as the W.H.O. are still using sources known for producing biased data and using flawed models, just because those sources are large 'respected' organisations themselves. Models from the ICRP's (the nuclear industry's) data are 100 to 1000 times off what is being seen by epidemiologists on the ground in places where D.U. has been used.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
andrealee: Forgot to say that you have the best signature I've ever read
andrealee: Forgot to say that you have the best signature I've ever read
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
please because it is free and/or doesn't ask for money means that it doesn't have bias
a statment like that would make whatever you say invalid if you can say that with a straight face
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1147207426)
please because it is free and/or doesn't ask for money means that it doesn't have bias
a statment like that would make whatever you say invalid if you can say that with a straight face
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1147207426)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, it’s comments like yours that perpetuate war and violence.
What a load of RUBBISH!!!
Grow-up.
Lurch, it’s comments like yours that perpetuate war and violence.
Written by:
But the harsh reality of our world is that sometimes violence is needed. Sometimes killing is needed, and sometimes yes, even war, is needed.
What a load of RUBBISH!!!
Grow-up.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
faithinfire, you defeat your own argument. It was you who brought up the relationship of how media " sells" as an aspect of its validity...
faithinfire, you defeat your own argument. It was you who brought up the relationship of how media " sells" as an aspect of its validity...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
How do my comments perpetuate war and violence? I would be much happier if we had a world where violent acts didn't take place, but the bitter reality is we're in some of the most violent times in history, and it's not because of me.
Are you saying you're a true pacifist and violence of any kind is never justifiable?
How do my comments perpetuate war and violence? I would be much happier if we had a world where violent acts didn't take place, but the bitter reality is we're in some of the most violent times in history, and it's not because of me.
Are you saying you're a true pacifist and violence of any kind is never justifiable?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Polarity quoted Burke as saying that:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Polarity then gave a list of people he thought were doing evil:
"Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe"
Lurch has accepted that these men are doing evil. Rather than doing nothing (and letting them succeed), he seems to want to be a good man and do something.
What can good men do to stop people like Hitler? One possible answer is to resist his violent acts with better organized, better executed violence that will destroy his capability to carry out evil.
To say, as Mint Sauce did, that "No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being" is not something that can simply be accepted at face value. Some sort of reason must be given to back up this moral theory.
Particularly, it must be a universal reason so compelling that it should either persuade everyone to agree, or persuade those of us that do agree to condemn that portion of mankind that does not agree. Above all, it must clearly point out why humans are under a unique, non-voluntary moral duty that makes them different from the animals.
One view is that violence is inherently evil, and is never justified. Another view says that violence is neutral, and can be used either to do good or to do evil. It is a tool, like fire, or a hammer. I can use fire to burn your house, and I can use a hammer to break your windows. Alternatively, I can use fire to cook you dinner, and use the hammer to build you a new house. To call the fire or the hammer "good" or "evil" is nonsense… they are just means to an end.
This is the view taken by the folks at ninjai.com. I will post an edited portion of their FAQ:
Polarity quoted Burke as saying that:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Polarity then gave a list of people he thought were doing evil:
"Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe"
Lurch has accepted that these men are doing evil. Rather than doing nothing (and letting them succeed), he seems to want to be a good man and do something.
What can good men do to stop people like Hitler? One possible answer is to resist his violent acts with better organized, better executed violence that will destroy his capability to carry out evil.
To say, as Mint Sauce did, that "No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being" is not something that can simply be accepted at face value. Some sort of reason must be given to back up this moral theory.
Particularly, it must be a universal reason so compelling that it should either persuade everyone to agree, or persuade those of us that do agree to condemn that portion of mankind that does not agree. Above all, it must clearly point out why humans are under a unique, non-voluntary moral duty that makes them different from the animals.
One view is that violence is inherently evil, and is never justified. Another view says that violence is neutral, and can be used either to do good or to do evil. It is a tool, like fire, or a hammer. I can use fire to burn your house, and I can use a hammer to break your windows. Alternatively, I can use fire to cook you dinner, and use the hammer to build you a new house. To call the fire or the hammer "good" or "evil" is nonsense… they are just means to an end.
This is the view taken by the folks at ninjai.com. I will post an edited portion of their FAQ:
Written by:
We don't believe in violence for the sake of violence, but as martial artists we hold the viewpoint that violence is neutral. Violence can be used for good or evil. For so many years we've been sort of pissed off watching people in Congress and a lot of other people saying that all violence is bad… it's crazy to be trying to indoctrinate young people into believing that violence can never be used for good. Sometimes violence can be used to protect innocent people and to protect our freedom.
The problem is that young people, like everyone else, instinctively know that sometimes violence is necessary. People know that this is true. But when we hear the message that all violence is bad and we're all supposed to be pacifists, then we know that's a load of crock, so young people end up rebelling… what we really need is to be taught that violence is not good, but sometimes it's necessary. That's why we like martial arts. Because in martial arts we're taught how to fight, but we're also taught values…
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think it would be a good idea to found an international group of assassins who killed any political leader who advocated war. Any person who thinks you could actually justify war in this day and age is kinda daft. If a government is being belligerent then just assassinate the most outspoken policy maker. Maybe then the government would change it's tack.
There's a difference between war and violence, please note that.
And how often do you see animals methodically massacring millions of their own species? You don't. How was your point supposed to justify war?
I think it would be a good idea to found an international group of assassins who killed any political leader who advocated war. Any person who thinks you could actually justify war in this day and age is kinda daft. If a government is being belligerent then just assassinate the most outspoken policy maker. Maybe then the government would change it's tack.
There's a difference between war and violence, please note that.
Written by: Lurch
Look at the animal kingdom and you will find violence everywhere. The difference between us and them is that same species fights in the animal kingdom rarely result in the direct death of one of the opponents.
And how often do you see animals methodically massacring millions of their own species? You don't. How was your point supposed to justify war?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
Patriarch917: That you would take the initial quote so far out of context is a fine example of how pitiful the American education system is, as the context is well known enough to those of us who have the subject matter as part of our curriculum.
Long before any one of those people that you called evildoers (I merely said that they do not respect the rights of others, but I will cover the distinction later), got to the point of killing on such a huge scale, and having amassed such power that the only way to remove them was war, they made their intentions clear to people who knew of their actions.
What allowed them to gain power, and abuse that power, was the fact that so few spoke up. And when the few who had the moral courage to speak up, did so, others didn't listen, didn't join in, their minds on other things.
Wars are only necessary because of mankinds amazing capacity for ignorance.
"No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being". I consider that true, but it depends upon your definition of human.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" has been repeated many times, in many forms by moral philosophers throughout history as the governing basis for all behaviour.
We all have inalienable rights, up until the point at which we infringe upon the rights of another, whereupon, through expression of what we consider the rights of another, we also express the rights that we consider ourselves to be permitted (While you may consider this justification for capital punishment, I do not Again for reasons I'll cover later).
You wanted a reason why a moral code such as this should be followed by all?
The defining factor that seperates man from the rest of the animal kingdom is our continued capacity for learning, but above all our imagination and ability to reason. We have instincts, as does any animal, and what we learn in the first few years is about as much as any other animal will learn.
What we learn to be right and wrong, we learn from our environment. An environment that displays to a child disrespect of their rights and the rights of others, will lead to an adult that disrespects the rights of others, and expects people to disrespect them.
The same could be said of a dog, so again this is not much different from the rest of the animals. The difference that make us human is our ability to reason, and to learn something different if exposed to another source of information, or to different experiences.
[This is where I explain the reasons I hinted at earlier.]
A human can learn from new experiences or information and change their habits, due to an ability to imagine alternate realities and reason which is the better. It is wrong to punish them, because their actions are based upon their initial experiences or information, not upon any inate 'evilness' within them. If someone has done something that infringes upon the rights of another, they should be given forgiveness and guidance as to what is the right kind of behavior, and why. Hopefully they will attempt to make amends for their previous behavior.
When after continued guidance they fail to accept what is obviously right to any reasonable human, then they are displaying a lack of humanity, and the rights of a human may no longer apply to them.
In a society that treats effects, but not causes, war is inevitable, as if the causes of a persons disrespect are unchecked, their lack of respect will escalate until they affect worse and worse behaviour.
That is why freedom to criticise one's leaders (and each other) is one of the foundations of any country that can consider itself civilised.
Patriarch917: That you would take the initial quote so far out of context is a fine example of how pitiful the American education system is, as the context is well known enough to those of us who have the subject matter as part of our curriculum.
Long before any one of those people that you called evildoers (I merely said that they do not respect the rights of others, but I will cover the distinction later), got to the point of killing on such a huge scale, and having amassed such power that the only way to remove them was war, they made their intentions clear to people who knew of their actions.
What allowed them to gain power, and abuse that power, was the fact that so few spoke up. And when the few who had the moral courage to speak up, did so, others didn't listen, didn't join in, their minds on other things.
Wars are only necessary because of mankinds amazing capacity for ignorance.
"No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being". I consider that true, but it depends upon your definition of human.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" has been repeated many times, in many forms by moral philosophers throughout history as the governing basis for all behaviour.
We all have inalienable rights, up until the point at which we infringe upon the rights of another, whereupon, through expression of what we consider the rights of another, we also express the rights that we consider ourselves to be permitted (While you may consider this justification for capital punishment, I do not Again for reasons I'll cover later).
You wanted a reason why a moral code such as this should be followed by all?
The defining factor that seperates man from the rest of the animal kingdom is our continued capacity for learning, but above all our imagination and ability to reason. We have instincts, as does any animal, and what we learn in the first few years is about as much as any other animal will learn.
What we learn to be right and wrong, we learn from our environment. An environment that displays to a child disrespect of their rights and the rights of others, will lead to an adult that disrespects the rights of others, and expects people to disrespect them.
The same could be said of a dog, so again this is not much different from the rest of the animals. The difference that make us human is our ability to reason, and to learn something different if exposed to another source of information, or to different experiences.
[This is where I explain the reasons I hinted at earlier.]
A human can learn from new experiences or information and change their habits, due to an ability to imagine alternate realities and reason which is the better. It is wrong to punish them, because their actions are based upon their initial experiences or information, not upon any inate 'evilness' within them. If someone has done something that infringes upon the rights of another, they should be given forgiveness and guidance as to what is the right kind of behavior, and why. Hopefully they will attempt to make amends for their previous behavior.
When after continued guidance they fail to accept what is obviously right to any reasonable human, then they are displaying a lack of humanity, and the rights of a human may no longer apply to them.
In a society that treats effects, but not causes, war is inevitable, as if the causes of a persons disrespect are unchecked, their lack of respect will escalate until they affect worse and worse behaviour.
That is why freedom to criticise one's leaders (and each other) is one of the foundations of any country that can consider itself civilised.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
We agree as an international community that there are times we will use united force to protect certain rights of people and nations. We have systems in place to do this, though somewhat ineffectual ones that need serious improvement, particularly in rapidity of response. We try pacifistic methods of diplomacy first, and slowly move to aggressive means if they are unsuccessful.
Thats how Canadian soldiers ended up fighting in Afganistan, under a UN supported mission.
However, the war in Iraq is an illegal war. It occurred because a few nations, primarily the USA, collaborated under false pretense to attack another country, depose its leader,destabilize it, and then make a bunch of money rebuilding and controlling the resources of the region.
By international law, George Bush is a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague sp?. I like Sethis's idea about an assasin, but realistically, another leader just as bad would pop up like a mushroom in the darkness. Better to make a strong political example , and charge him with his crimes.
Why is it we are not doing this? Do you think it would be different if George invaded Canada to get our oil, or "protect" us from our scary leader Stephen Harper? Would the UN or our allies intervene? I sure hope so. Why is Iraq not worthy of such protection?
I do realize that there are/were serious human abuse issues in Iraq, and that large portions of the population would have wanted some international intervention and support .
But they did not ask for US style intervention, an uncontrolled illegal war. The people of Iraq have made it very clear they want the US and its allies out.
We agree as an international community that there are times we will use united force to protect certain rights of people and nations. We have systems in place to do this, though somewhat ineffectual ones that need serious improvement, particularly in rapidity of response. We try pacifistic methods of diplomacy first, and slowly move to aggressive means if they are unsuccessful.
Thats how Canadian soldiers ended up fighting in Afganistan, under a UN supported mission.
However, the war in Iraq is an illegal war. It occurred because a few nations, primarily the USA, collaborated under false pretense to attack another country, depose its leader,destabilize it, and then make a bunch of money rebuilding and controlling the resources of the region.
By international law, George Bush is a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague sp?. I like Sethis's idea about an assasin, but realistically, another leader just as bad would pop up like a mushroom in the darkness. Better to make a strong political example , and charge him with his crimes.
Why is it we are not doing this? Do you think it would be different if George invaded Canada to get our oil, or "protect" us from our scary leader Stephen Harper? Would the UN or our allies intervene? I sure hope so. Why is Iraq not worthy of such protection?
I do realize that there are/were serious human abuse issues in Iraq, and that large portions of the population would have wanted some international intervention and support .
But they did not ask for US style intervention, an uncontrolled illegal war. The people of Iraq have made it very clear they want the US and its allies out.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
just because there is no monetary exchange does not mean they aren't selling something
they are selling a perspective aka a bias that you will buy into-higher readership viewers listeners all are sought after by nearly any media form including scholarly, it is what keeps them around. negativity on the war is what is in style, my friends were and are happy to be over there rebuilding and helping, i get letters and emails about the boxes of school supplies they dropped off or how they thwarted an attack on civilians, how they feel as if they are doing good-oh look there is my bias
there is always spin
more people more credence more people more credence
say something shocking people listen and start to whisper and everyone wants to be in on a secret. that is what infomercials are built on.
this is something the big media doesn't want you to know, it's a secret but i will get you in on the ground floor. honest i did research look at all those foot notes, now you can do this all yourself but because the government or big media doesn't want you to know, it's really hard, and i am just trying to make this as easy and simple for you because i know you, you are good people, you deserve the truth. i don't sell the truth, i give you the truth and you can make your own decisions. believe me or not, but don't tell too many people, because it's a secret.
researchers don't have bias and those that fund them don't have bias, and an agenda
just because there is no monetary exchange does not mean they aren't selling something
they are selling a perspective aka a bias that you will buy into-higher readership viewers listeners all are sought after by nearly any media form including scholarly, it is what keeps them around. negativity on the war is what is in style, my friends were and are happy to be over there rebuilding and helping, i get letters and emails about the boxes of school supplies they dropped off or how they thwarted an attack on civilians, how they feel as if they are doing good-oh look there is my bias
there is always spin
more people more credence more people more credence
say something shocking people listen and start to whisper and everyone wants to be in on a secret. that is what infomercials are built on.
this is something the big media doesn't want you to know, it's a secret but i will get you in on the ground floor. honest i did research look at all those foot notes, now you can do this all yourself but because the government or big media doesn't want you to know, it's really hard, and i am just trying to make this as easy and simple for you because i know you, you are good people, you deserve the truth. i don't sell the truth, i give you the truth and you can make your own decisions. believe me or not, but don't tell too many people, because it's a secret.
researchers don't have bias and those that fund them don't have bias, and an agenda
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
note:I'm in the middle of class right now so sorry this if this is a bit incoherent and random*
Oh how I wish the world worked that way...
In many ways I agree with you, you just hide behind the justification that the people I see just cause to bring violence against, are no longer considered 'human' by you. It's fine if you want to look at things that way, but beef is still a cow, pork is still a pig. Call them whatever you want or use whatever reasoning you wish but people are and always will be people. Some are good, some are evil, most are innocent and neutral.
To call someone 'inhumane' is just a way of keeping your hands clean. You yourself just stated the war *is* necessary, because man is ignorant. I'm not denying that, there are plenty of ways to avoid war, but there comes a point where pacifism is useless. Yes people *should* listen to reason, they *should* learn. Yes it is partially our fault for not saying something sooner. But when you are fighting a violent, oppressive society that has been bred that way for thousands of years, it's a wee bit hard to just raise your hand and say 'maybe you guys should think about changing?' That was done over and over and over by the UN in Iraq and please tell me what it accomplished, because I never saw much good come from it.
But I digress, I've been trying to keep this seperate from Iraq and purley ethical, so lets step back to that.
There are "good" people, and there are "bad" people. The vast majority of people are relatively neutral, prefer not to cause drama, and would be perfectly happy to go about their daily lives without conflict.
The "bad" people, thrive on said conflict, and use the neutral people for their personal gain, because the neutral people avoid this conflict and appease it rather than confront it, it's remarkably easy for the "bad" people to do... (this has been discussed before in other threads, search for my quotation on sheepdogs and you can probably find it)
You have to face the fact that there are people out there willing to wage war, and kill you merely for who you are and the principles you stand for. Your views of pacifism are viewed as weakness. If you cannot see the boundry where diplomacy fails to have any more effect, than you are doomed.
There was an article written awhile ago by a German journalist, I found it rather interesting, and it'll probably push more buttons so I might as well post it
Sethis: Other animals don't massacre their own species, I'm not denying that. But neither do they build communities (at least not beyond small social groups), nor any of the other countless things we do either.
My point was what Patriarch made, violence is neither good nor evil, it is inherently neutral and can be used for both. As such war can be used for both as well. While you may view all war as evil, there are two sides to it, if you wish to define the aggressor as evil than so be it, but the defender is still involved in the war. Does that make them evil as well for participating? Should they roll over and submit to the will of the aggressor? Saying 'no' will not get you very far with someone willing to resort to violence to get you to follow their will. At some point, unless you're willing to fight back, you will either submit, or die.
note:I'm in the middle of class right now so sorry this if this is a bit incoherent and random*
Oh how I wish the world worked that way...
In many ways I agree with you, you just hide behind the justification that the people I see just cause to bring violence against, are no longer considered 'human' by you. It's fine if you want to look at things that way, but beef is still a cow, pork is still a pig. Call them whatever you want or use whatever reasoning you wish but people are and always will be people. Some are good, some are evil, most are innocent and neutral.
To call someone 'inhumane' is just a way of keeping your hands clean. You yourself just stated the war *is* necessary, because man is ignorant. I'm not denying that, there are plenty of ways to avoid war, but there comes a point where pacifism is useless. Yes people *should* listen to reason, they *should* learn. Yes it is partially our fault for not saying something sooner. But when you are fighting a violent, oppressive society that has been bred that way for thousands of years, it's a wee bit hard to just raise your hand and say 'maybe you guys should think about changing?' That was done over and over and over by the UN in Iraq and please tell me what it accomplished, because I never saw much good come from it.
But I digress, I've been trying to keep this seperate from Iraq and purley ethical, so lets step back to that.
There are "good" people, and there are "bad" people. The vast majority of people are relatively neutral, prefer not to cause drama, and would be perfectly happy to go about their daily lives without conflict.
The "bad" people, thrive on said conflict, and use the neutral people for their personal gain, because the neutral people avoid this conflict and appease it rather than confront it, it's remarkably easy for the "bad" people to do... (this has been discussed before in other threads, search for my quotation on sheepdogs and you can probably find it)
You have to face the fact that there are people out there willing to wage war, and kill you merely for who you are and the principles you stand for. Your views of pacifism are viewed as weakness. If you cannot see the boundry where diplomacy fails to have any more effect, than you are doomed.
There was an article written awhile ago by a German journalist, I found it rather interesting, and it'll probably push more buttons so I might as well post it
Written by:
Henry Broder wrote in WELT AM SONNTAG (Sunday World): "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt UN. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany. I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
Sethis: Other animals don't massacre their own species, I'm not denying that. But neither do they build communities (at least not beyond small social groups), nor any of the other countless things we do either.
My point was what Patriarch made, violence is neither good nor evil, it is inherently neutral and can be used for both. As such war can be used for both as well. While you may view all war as evil, there are two sides to it, if you wish to define the aggressor as evil than so be it, but the defender is still involved in the war. Does that make them evil as well for participating? Should they roll over and submit to the will of the aggressor? Saying 'no' will not get you very far with someone willing to resort to violence to get you to follow their will. At some point, unless you're willing to fight back, you will either submit, or die.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Bush recognizing "everything is at stake"?
Like maybe his own position of power and the finacial interests of his friends?
Give me a break, there was no humanitarian/democratic motive behind his action ivading Iraq. And there have been little humanitarian results either. Maybe some will be seen in the long term, but I feel that will be despite his actions, not because of them...
Yet surprisingly, after years of practicing absolute pacifistic activism, I would now have to say I agree with you, that there are times when force appears to be necessary.
I would not say violence is neutral though. I would just say that there are times when it may be necessary/appropriate. I am not so sure we are skilled at recognizing those times and acting appropriately.I dont beleive that as individuals or as nations we show the degree of consideration required to make the distinction. I still think the consequences of using violence as your tool to resolve a conflict are profound, underestimated by most, and frequently negative.
Unfortunately, I dont think we see many, if any, good examples violence used posatively, like to protect the weak from anothers agression. Most of the time, from what I see, those kind of values are presented across the surface to justify behaviour that would be otherwise unacceptable.Lip service to values. The real motive behind violent behaviour- small scale or large- is almost always the same: power, and money.
Bush recognizing "everything is at stake"?
Like maybe his own position of power and the finacial interests of his friends?
Give me a break, there was no humanitarian/democratic motive behind his action ivading Iraq. And there have been little humanitarian results either. Maybe some will be seen in the long term, but I feel that will be despite his actions, not because of them...
Yet surprisingly, after years of practicing absolute pacifistic activism, I would now have to say I agree with you, that there are times when force appears to be necessary.
I would not say violence is neutral though. I would just say that there are times when it may be necessary/appropriate. I am not so sure we are skilled at recognizing those times and acting appropriately.I dont beleive that as individuals or as nations we show the degree of consideration required to make the distinction. I still think the consequences of using violence as your tool to resolve a conflict are profound, underestimated by most, and frequently negative.
Unfortunately, I dont think we see many, if any, good examples violence used posatively, like to protect the weak from anothers agression. Most of the time, from what I see, those kind of values are presented across the surface to justify behaviour that would be otherwise unacceptable.Lip service to values. The real motive behind violent behaviour- small scale or large- is almost always the same: power, and money.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
you go over there and talk to the soldiers and tell them all their efforts are not humanitarian
they'll laugh at you
you go over there and talk to the soldiers and tell them all their efforts are not humanitarian
they'll laugh at you
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Faith, I do beleive as individuals, many people, soldiers and otherwise, are taking actions considered humanitarian. Some organizations have also unselfishly put themselves at great risk to help out.I do know that many soldiers enter their work with the best of intentions, to help and protect.But, they have no choice about applying their own values as to when a war is acceptable, and when not.They must go where ordered and do the best they can, even if such a milatary action is unjust and illegal.
I dont dispute that any humanitarian actions are happenning in Iraq. I know people there working under crazy conditions, because they beleive the Iraqi people need support.
My point is that this war is not, and never was intended as, a humanitarian based action. Furthermore, it is not actually bringing about humanitarian results . The good works being done are despite that, not because of it.
Because along with soldiers helping out, we also have soldiers shooting innocent people, killing, detaining, interrogating, torturing, imprisoning, raping, and otherwise denying people their basic human rights.
The effects of this will be harmful to the soldiers as much as to the citizens. Sad. Did you know, that statistics show that at this point in time,more Vietnam vetrans have died of suicide, then were actually killed in the war?
Interesting...
Faith, I do beleive as individuals, many people, soldiers and otherwise, are taking actions considered humanitarian. Some organizations have also unselfishly put themselves at great risk to help out.I do know that many soldiers enter their work with the best of intentions, to help and protect.But, they have no choice about applying their own values as to when a war is acceptable, and when not.They must go where ordered and do the best they can, even if such a milatary action is unjust and illegal.
I dont dispute that any humanitarian actions are happenning in Iraq. I know people there working under crazy conditions, because they beleive the Iraqi people need support.
My point is that this war is not, and never was intended as, a humanitarian based action. Furthermore, it is not actually bringing about humanitarian results . The good works being done are despite that, not because of it.
Because along with soldiers helping out, we also have soldiers shooting innocent people, killing, detaining, interrogating, torturing, imprisoning, raping, and otherwise denying people their basic human rights.
The effects of this will be harmful to the soldiers as much as to the citizens. Sad. Did you know, that statistics show that at this point in time,more Vietnam vetrans have died of suicide, then were actually killed in the war?
Interesting...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
it's called a draft
not everyone is cut out for war
war is happens, resources peoples and beliefs clash...
because they are a limited amount of people in a very large armed forces that go into the miliatry to abuse power, don't hold it against the others who are disgusted to serve with those people
if this is just a job that they have to do, you would expect retention to be down and in fact most branches met and exceeded their goal...i have had more than one soldier tell me they want to go back because they feel like they left stuff unfinished
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1147290531)
it's called a draft
not everyone is cut out for war
war is happens, resources peoples and beliefs clash...
because they are a limited amount of people in a very large armed forces that go into the miliatry to abuse power, don't hold it against the others who are disgusted to serve with those people
if this is just a job that they have to do, you would expect retention to be down and in fact most branches met and exceeded their goal...i have had more than one soldier tell me they want to go back because they feel like they left stuff unfinished
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1147290531)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
The soldiers in Iraq right now were not drafted. They are people who voluntarily chose to sign limited contracts with the military, often believing they would be serving a vital role protecting their country.
Or maybe they were poor, and just thought signing up for the army would be the only way they could get access to education and stable employment.
Regardless, though the draft is not in place, these soldeirs are not permitted to refuse to fight this illegal war. If they do, they are jailed.
Once again, we are seeing contientious objectors-- american soldiers ,fleeing to Canada, in an attempt to avoid killing innocents in an unjust cause. I personallyhope we allow them to stay...
The soldiers in Iraq right now were not drafted. They are people who voluntarily chose to sign limited contracts with the military, often believing they would be serving a vital role protecting their country.
Or maybe they were poor, and just thought signing up for the army would be the only way they could get access to education and stable employment.
Regardless, though the draft is not in place, these soldeirs are not permitted to refuse to fight this illegal war. If they do, they are jailed.
Once again, we are seeing contientious objectors-- american soldiers ,fleeing to Canada, in an attempt to avoid killing innocents in an unjust cause. I personallyhope we allow them to stay...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
you were talking about vietnam, the reason why there are so many suicides is because not everyone is made for war
a draft was and always will be a poor idea
joining the military you sign a contract, those that run away are deceptive little people, keep them in canada, we don't need vacillating people in the military...people like that get good soldiers killed
i went through half of rotc and decided i wouldn't be able to do it, instead i worked full time carryied a full load took out loans sold my car
most anyone can get a unsubsudized student loan for tuition, college is not a good enough excuse to sign up any more
illegal war lol--do you have a no war for oil sign
you were talking about vietnam, the reason why there are so many suicides is because not everyone is made for war
a draft was and always will be a poor idea
joining the military you sign a contract, those that run away are deceptive little people, keep them in canada, we don't need vacillating people in the military...people like that get good soldiers killed
i went through half of rotc and decided i wouldn't be able to do it, instead i worked full time carryied a full load took out loans sold my car
most anyone can get a unsubsudized student loan for tuition, college is not a good enough excuse to sign up any more
illegal war lol--do you have a no war for oil sign
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Funny, we kind of agree. Those that dont want to fight in a war, should not. I agree, they put everyone, including themselves, at risk.
If they recognize their mistake, why not let them go? Why jail them?
I am not sure what you find funny about the international laws? It is an illegal war, as determined by very clearly laid out agreements and legal definitions. Likewise, actions taken by George George Bush, under international law, make him a war criminal. I dont make the laws, and I dont actually find them particularly amusing. If I did make them I would make them radically tougher , and have the consquences for breaking them significant enough to act as a deterrent. Give the UN some teeth.
The deception used by George Bush and his allies to initiate the Iraq war is of far more significance than any used by soldiers that became aware of the lies and injustice and acted out their conscience/values by leaving.
On a more posative note, but still off topic, I do think the USA should be commended for steadily and loudly applying pressure on the UN to offer more military and relief support to the Darfour sp? region.
That is a cooperative initiative, respectful of international laws, and might end up being an example of appropriate untied military intervention if we can pull it together.
Don't assume that people who are against the war in Iraq are anti - american. It is too big a generalization.I was married to an american for a decade and half my family are there.Wonderful people. Lots of american initiatives are great.
But this war is not one of those great moments, imho.
**I dont have a no war for oil sign, but I do have a cute "burning Bush" t-shirt... and another that has some cheeky pictures, " good bush" and " bad Bush"
Funny, we kind of agree. Those that dont want to fight in a war, should not. I agree, they put everyone, including themselves, at risk.
If they recognize their mistake, why not let them go? Why jail them?
I am not sure what you find funny about the international laws? It is an illegal war, as determined by very clearly laid out agreements and legal definitions. Likewise, actions taken by George George Bush, under international law, make him a war criminal. I dont make the laws, and I dont actually find them particularly amusing. If I did make them I would make them radically tougher , and have the consquences for breaking them significant enough to act as a deterrent. Give the UN some teeth.
The deception used by George Bush and his allies to initiate the Iraq war is of far more significance than any used by soldiers that became aware of the lies and injustice and acted out their conscience/values by leaving.
On a more posative note, but still off topic, I do think the USA should be commended for steadily and loudly applying pressure on the UN to offer more military and relief support to the Darfour sp? region.
That is a cooperative initiative, respectful of international laws, and might end up being an example of appropriate untied military intervention if we can pull it together.
Don't assume that people who are against the war in Iraq are anti - american. It is too big a generalization.I was married to an american for a decade and half my family are there.Wonderful people. Lots of american initiatives are great.
But this war is not one of those great moments, imho.
**I dont have a no war for oil sign, but I do have a cute "burning Bush" t-shirt... and another that has some cheeky pictures, " good bush" and " bad Bush"
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
i never said i thought you were anti american
the UN no longer works we need something new, the world has changed too much
personally i think we should pull out of every where in a supreme sulking move
others nudge us saying "so in so is giving a country a hard time, go help the poor country, i got your back
and then they don't"
we are a teenage country in terms of development, i say we act like a teenager
"fine, you deal with it!!! You don't want my help. You'll be sorry, you'll miss me"
*slams bedroom door & remains unseen for the next couple of weeks*
:P
i never said i thought you were anti american
the UN no longer works we need something new, the world has changed too much
personally i think we should pull out of every where in a supreme sulking move
others nudge us saying "so in so is giving a country a hard time, go help the poor country, i got your back
and then they don't"
we are a teenage country in terms of development, i say we act like a teenager
"fine, you deal with it!!! You don't want my help. You'll be sorry, you'll miss me"
*slams bedroom door & remains unseen for the next couple of weeks*
:P
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
regardless of any 'deception and lies' that you seem to think they put out to 'cause the war.' Do you honestly think that Saddam should have remained in power? UN Sanctions and their weak little slaps on his wrist did nothing to stop him. We let those sanctions go on for 12 years in hopes that they might work, how much longer would you have waited? The sanctions themselves killed somewhere between 500,000 to 1.2 million people. How is THAT humanitarian? They punished innocent people instead of the person that should have been punished.
Technically speaking this is just a reinteration of the Gulf War anyways. There was no peace treaty at the end, only a cease fire, meaning the war could be back on at any time.
As I said before though, I'm not all that wild about the war, but I'll support the troops until the day I die.
regardless of any 'deception and lies' that you seem to think they put out to 'cause the war.' Do you honestly think that Saddam should have remained in power? UN Sanctions and their weak little slaps on his wrist did nothing to stop him. We let those sanctions go on for 12 years in hopes that they might work, how much longer would you have waited? The sanctions themselves killed somewhere between 500,000 to 1.2 million people. How is THAT humanitarian? They punished innocent people instead of the person that should have been punished.
Technically speaking this is just a reinteration of the Gulf War anyways. There was no peace treaty at the end, only a cease fire, meaning the war could be back on at any time.
As I said before though, I'm not all that wild about the war, but I'll support the troops until the day I die.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, to answer your last question first, How is THAT humanitarian? Violence and terrorism has escalated since the Bush led invasion. The world is much more violent now, and Bush et al have not made the world a safer place.
Lurch, what would the world look like if there was no violence? It would be Eden. When people say that violence is a necessary evil it perpetuates the myth that there are no alternatives. A good example of this isPatriarch917 quoting ninjai.com to back-up his violence is good view.
Ghandi has shown the world that truly powerful leaders don’t need violence to be effective. In reality, violence is the tool of weak leaders as in the example, Bush, Hitler etcetc. To shift this violence is necessary paradigm and create world peace we need to start saying that violence is evil, and world is better off with out it.
Patriarch917, asked how we differ from other animals. The answer is through language and communication.
Lurch, to answer your last question first, How is THAT humanitarian? Violence and terrorism has escalated since the Bush led invasion. The world is much more violent now, and Bush et al have not made the world a safer place.
Lurch, what would the world look like if there was no violence? It would be Eden. When people say that violence is a necessary evil it perpetuates the myth that there are no alternatives. A good example of this isPatriarch917 quoting ninjai.com to back-up his violence is good view.
Ghandi has shown the world that truly powerful leaders don’t need violence to be effective. In reality, violence is the tool of weak leaders as in the example, Bush, Hitler etcetc. To shift this violence is necessary paradigm and create world peace we need to start saying that violence is evil, and world is better off with out it.
Patriarch917, asked how we differ from other animals. The answer is through language and communication.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Stone, I dont think that accepting violence as a method of dealing with some situations neccessarily negates the exploration and use of other methods...
So, it seems most of us agree that the UN is lacking the power it needs to be effective. I think we all agree that something should have been done to intervene and help the Iraqi people. Some of us think war might be one way, some think diplomacy, some think??
Wondering if we should start a new thread, as I am seriously interested to know what people would suggest is the best form for an international organization to take, if not the UN. I agree, the picture of the international balance geopolitically has changed radically since its formation.
How can we revise it, or create something new that does have the power to apply pressure/offer motivation and support for posative change where needed? What could have been done better in the Iraq situation and others, what support was needed, how do we inspire people to support resources for peacekeeping instead of military action?
What do you think, new thread?
Stone, I dont think that accepting violence as a method of dealing with some situations neccessarily negates the exploration and use of other methods...
So, it seems most of us agree that the UN is lacking the power it needs to be effective. I think we all agree that something should have been done to intervene and help the Iraqi people. Some of us think war might be one way, some think diplomacy, some think??
Wondering if we should start a new thread, as I am seriously interested to know what people would suggest is the best form for an international organization to take, if not the UN. I agree, the picture of the international balance geopolitically has changed radically since its formation.
How can we revise it, or create something new that does have the power to apply pressure/offer motivation and support for posative change where needed? What could have been done better in the Iraq situation and others, what support was needed, how do we inspire people to support resources for peacekeeping instead of military action?
What do you think, new thread?
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi andrealee , apologies in advance. But how much help can one country take before it is destroyed. Look at Iraq today, and before Bush decide to help them. Hmmm.
My comment on the UN, is that the UN can work effectively, as in Bosnia. However, re: Iraq the decisions of the UN were undermined because America would not agree or cooperate with the UN decisions. Instead Bush went off to play cowboy. Indeed, Bush has little regard for the UN, Geneva Convention or anything else that gets in his way.
Perhaps better leadership and cooperation is need, because all the fixing is just making the situation worse and worse and worse!
Hi andrealee , apologies in advance. But how much help can one country take before it is destroyed. Look at Iraq today, and before Bush decide to help them. Hmmm.
My comment on the UN, is that the UN can work effectively, as in Bosnia. However, re: Iraq the decisions of the UN were undermined because America would not agree or cooperate with the UN decisions. Instead Bush went off to play cowboy. Indeed, Bush has little regard for the UN, Geneva Convention or anything else that gets in his way.
Perhaps better leadership and cooperation is need, because all the fixing is just making the situation worse and worse and worse!
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
What are you apologizing for? I agree.
But how does the international community get better leadership and co-operation out of counties like the USA? Or Iraq pre invasion for that matter? What authority determines what is good leadership, and what is acceptable to do when it is lacking? Who then actually does what is necessary to assure that leadership?
There is some debate over whether the UN was effective in Bosnia... That is actually what my ex is doing his PHd on, the humanitarian efforts in that regoin and their success or failure. It is fascinating. I think we made a good attempt, and had reasonable success, but not everyone thinks so.
What about examples such as the UN's failure to empower us sufficiently to act and prevent genocide in Rwanda? And currently, Canada is already stretched to the limit with our military in Afganistan. How will we contribute to the situation in Darfour? What are we obliged to do as part of an international community?
I like to think we can work with the idea of the UN, but improve it. Like take a serious look at what is up with the security council,examine and take action around the question of who is actually contributing their dues and how to go about collecting from those that have not... other suggestions?
What are you apologizing for? I agree.
But how does the international community get better leadership and co-operation out of counties like the USA? Or Iraq pre invasion for that matter? What authority determines what is good leadership, and what is acceptable to do when it is lacking? Who then actually does what is necessary to assure that leadership?
There is some debate over whether the UN was effective in Bosnia... That is actually what my ex is doing his PHd on, the humanitarian efforts in that regoin and their success or failure. It is fascinating. I think we made a good attempt, and had reasonable success, but not everyone thinks so.
What about examples such as the UN's failure to empower us sufficiently to act and prevent genocide in Rwanda? And currently, Canada is already stretched to the limit with our military in Afganistan. How will we contribute to the situation in Darfour? What are we obliged to do as part of an international community?
I like to think we can work with the idea of the UN, but improve it. Like take a serious look at what is up with the security council,examine and take action around the question of who is actually contributing their dues and how to go about collecting from those that have not... other suggestions?
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [shock awe] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Shock and Awe. [82 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com