|
 ~`Tursiops truncatus`~
enthusiast
Registered: 11/01/00
Posts: 105
Loc: CO... UsA
Last seen: 23 years, 2 months
|
 Re: pacifism  [Re: MrKurtz]
#421508 - 10/10/01 11:32 PM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's the goverments responsibillity to defend the nation, right, but when does defending somthing involve hunting down everyone that might want to steal or destroy what it is that you're defending? Even if they've already destroyed a part of what it is that you're defending why kill them for it? Terrorists are human too ya know, they're not just some cyborgs that have KILL! KILL! KILL! programed into them and that thats all they're capable of, they're human and maybe they do have kill! kill! kill! programed into them but that dosin't mean they're incapable of loving us, It just means that the society they're living in is a cesspool for breeding violence and hatred. So with that it's simple to see that they're just a product of they're enviroment and unless we address why it is the way it is and what we can do to end that cycle, the violence and hatred will continue to fester. War will not end the cycle.
And just because I'm against war and violence dosin't mean I can't defend myself. I may not fight back, but I'll see that punch comin a mile away and respond to it acordingly. It may result in you being in a very uncomfortable position but thats about it, and from there we could continue our talk ( ; I leave you with this...
"The real art of Peace is not to sacrifice
a single one of your warriors to defeat an enemy.
Vanquish your foes by always keeping yourself in a safe and
unassailable position; then no one will suffer any losses.
The Way of a Warrior, the Art of Politics, is to stop trouble
before it starts. It consists in defeating your adversaries
spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions.
The Way of a Warrior is to establish harmony."
~Morihei Ueshiba.
|
 MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MrKurtz]
#421551 - 10/11/01 12:13 AM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
>Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass. Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not. And every other country is scared shitless to object.
They had tried diplomacy in the past. The guy in charge of Afghanistan has been linked to bin Laden and in fact there are indications that bin Laden helped him get power(their beliefs of Islam are the same). Why would he give up his power? Do you realistically think that the Taliban has the power to get bin Laden if he's them one that helped them get power? They turned down the only government(Pakistan) that recognized them for a diplomatic mission and nearly a month is plenty of time(time enough to build a coalition). These people were using what's called a delay tactic, delay tactics are useful to dig in so that they have a better control over a country. Trenches can't be dug over night you know(I'm not claiming that they're actually digging trenches, but I hope you understand the example).
If you are so opposed to war that you do not think it should be engaged in, you clearly should be able to provide an alternative to be taken seriously(wish I could think of an alternative, but since I can't I fully support the current conflict). To have any change in policy from today, someone must give an alternative. The unfortunate truth of war is that civilians die, this is of course why no one wants war. If you want them to "get the terrorist" please tell me how without the use of some form of violence and without the permission of the Taliban.
The fact is that if we do nothing, we're screwed and it will happen again; if we do something, we may be able to disrupt their system enough so that we're not attacked again(though it may still happen again).
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MrKurtz]
#421567 - 10/11/01 12:41 AM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
MrKurtz writes:
"That often happens when you allow a dictatorship to come to power."
The US did not "allow" a dictatorship to come into power in Afghanistan. The US, through the CIA, supplied funding and gave other assistance to Afghanis who were trying to evict an occupying army. The Soviets withdrew many years before the Taliban came to power.
Or are you saying that the best way for the US to defend its citizens is to make sure that no dictatorship ever comes into power in any country in the world? This would necessarily mean massive US intervention in the internal politics of dozens of countries. Are you in favor of that?
"But, i think it is wrong to bomb random targets in Afghan just in case some terrorists may be living there."
So do I. That is not even close to what is occurring now.
"Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass."
Bush is not a redneck. He didn't yell. He never used the word towelhead, or ass.
"Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not."
There was plenty of talking, both directly and with the Pakistani government acting as go-betweens. Both sides knew going into it that this would accomplish nothing, since everyone knew going into it that: (a) the Taliban would never turn bin Laden over, and (b) even if they wanted to turn him over, they are powerless to capture him. Nonetheless, they were allowed plenty of time to at least admit something like: "Hey, guys, we'd like to stay out of this. This is between you and bin Laden. Since we can't capture him, why don't you come on in here and see if YOU can. We won't help you get him, but we won't hinder you either."
But that is not what the Taliban said. They not only refused to co-operate, they threatened neighboring countries with dire consequences if those countries allowed entry to US forces. They claimed that the Afghani populace was prepared to resist US action. They practically dared the US to do something.
"Or do you honestly think that all these bombs blowing up in major cities in Afghanistan only kill terrorists?
I'm not against trying to get our hands on who did this. But, when all they talk about is a "War on Terrorism", and finding those responsible, and then they go and bomb major cities, I think I have a good reason to object."
They are not bombing major cities. They are bombing military targets, some of which are located near cities, some of which are located in the cities themselves. The phrase "bombing major cities" could be properly used to describe the London Blitz in World War II, but not to describe the recent actions in Afghanistan.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
|
tursiops truncatus writes:
"It's the goverments responsibillity to defend the nation, right, but when does defending somthing involve hunting down everyone that might want to steal or destroy what it is that you're defending? Even if they've already destroyed a part of what it is that you're defending why kill them for it? "
So, if a gang of criminals kidnaps one of your daughters and kills her, it is correct for you to say, "Gee, that's sad. But hunting them down and killing them won't bring her back to life. Hunting them down and killing them won't protect the rest of my children, either. I guess I'll just put better locks on my windows and hope these guys can't get past the locks when they return to kidnap another of my children."
"...maybe they do have kill! kill! kill! programed into them but that dosin't mean they're incapable of loving us, It just means that the society they're living in is a cesspool for breeding violence and hatred."
It is irrelevant WHY they choose to kill. It is irrelevant whether they love us or hate us. If I were walking down a street and someone tried to kill me with a knife, for example, I couldn't give a rat's ass WHY he wants to kill me. Maybe he has mistaken me for the guy that is boinking his wife. Maybe he's homophobic and thinks I'm gay. Maybe he's a serial murderer and he gets a thrill out of hacking people to death. Maybe he just wants my money.
WHO CARES? He is trying to kill me. If I do nothing, he will kill me. If I try to psychoanalyze him to figure out WHY he is trying to kill me, he will kill me. My only option is to stop him from killing me. It may be that my efforts result in his death. So be it. Too bad, so sad.
"...it's simple to see that they're just a product of they're enviroment and unless we address why it is the way it is and what we can do to end that cycle, the violence and hatred will continue to fester. War will not end the cycle."
Perhaps they are a product of their environment. Perhaps we can address "the way it is", and somehow reach the young growing up in that environment today and somehow prevent them from becoming religious fanatics with a pathological hatred of Infidels. Perhaps.
But clearly it is too late to use this approach with the terrorists who exist TODAY.
pinky
--------------------
|
Harry_Ballsonia
journeyman
Registered: 04/25/01
Posts: 45
Loc: Florida
|
|
Pacifist = Pussy
It's simple math really!
There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
--------------------
There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
|
~`Tursiops truncatus`~
enthusiast
Registered: 11/01/00
Posts: 105
Loc: CO... UsA
Last seen: 23 years, 2 months
|
|
The war on terrorism is like the war on drugs in the sense that we're only concentrating on getting rid of the product and not the source. I mean it's rediculous to think that we could get rid of all the 'Terrorists' just like it's rediculous to think that we could get rid of all the 'Drugs'. You can't kill a weed by cuting off its limbs, you gotta uproot it all together. And what makes you think that one of my kids could easily be kindnaped and that I would just let it keep happening over and over again?
And who knows maybe I am a weak little sissified pussy... What of it? does calling people names make you feel big and strong Mr 2 foot cock?
|
Harry_Ballsonia
journeyman
Registered: 04/25/01
Posts: 45
Loc: Florida
|
|
"And who knows maybe I am a weak little sissified pussy..."
Yes you are.
What of it? does calling people names make you feel big and strong Mr 2 foot cock?"
2 foot cock? I unfold my cock for noone. But i may make an exception for you.
There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
--------------------
There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
|
alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 10 months
|
|
Nah dude, a pacifist is someone who tries every other means before resorting to force or violence. If nothing else works then the pacifist may kick your lilly ass. A great pacifist was Cain of Kung Fu. He never started shit, tried to avoid it as much as possible, but when he had no other choice he kicked ass, and having learned to control his rage and to employ other techniques and use restraint, his power was that much more formidable when he chose to unleash it.
Compare that to being a bully, which is what Bush is. Most bullies are pussies who only pick on someone they know they can trounce (our bombs falling on tents). You don't see bullies picking on people that can kick their ass, and you do see them backing down fast when they are up against someone toughter than they are.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
MrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 23 years, 7 days
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#422487 - 10/11/01 09:03 PM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"Or are you saying that the best way for the US to defend its citizens is to make sure that no dictatorship ever comes into power in any country in the world? This would necessarily mean massive US intervention in the internal politics of dozens of countries. Are you in favor of that? "
Thats sort of like being in favor of killing every terrorist ever, huh? It also seemed like America has no problem intervening with any country that tries to develope an economy independent of america, or attempts to be communist. America is known for its nosiness when money is involved, while turning a blind eye to injustices.
"Bush is not a redneck. He didn't yell. He never used the word towelhead, or ass. "
Heh, sure he isn't. I was exagerating, but he sure said he was gonna kick some ass afghan ass, just stated it in a more eloquent way.
"They are not bombing major cities. They are bombing military targets, some of which are located near cities, some of which are located in the cities themselves. The phrase "bombing major cities" could be properly used to describe the London Blitz in World War II, but not to describe the recent actions in Afghanistan. "
Every major city in Afghan was hit by bombs. I would consider that bombing major cities. Bombs miss, and unless I see with my own eyes they only hit terrorist instillations, I'll believe they hit alot of civilians also.
"There was plenty of talking, both directly and with the Pakistani government acting as go-betweens. Both sides knew going into it that this would accomplish nothing, since everyone knew going into it that: (a) the Taliban would never turn bin Laden over, and (b) even if they wanted to turn him over, they are powerless to capture him. Nonetheless, they were allowed plenty of time to at least admit something like: 'Hey, guys, we'd like to stay out of this. This is between you and bin Laden. Since we can't capture him, why don't you come on in here and see if YOU can. We won't help you get him, but we won't hinder you either.'"
Well, I would agree with you if the Bush didn't hint at, pretty much the next day, that we were going to war. It was obvious the second it happened Bush was gonna make a war out of this cause, of course, it would make him the most popular man in America. They could have done alot of things other then bombing, maybe keep the stepped up security in America, and put an embargo on Afghanistan.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MrKurtz]
#422602 - 10/11/01 10:21 PM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Thats sort of like being in favor of killing every terrorist ever, huh? It also seemed like America has no problem intervening with any country that tries to develope an economy independent of america, or attempts to be communist. America is known for its nosiness when money is involved, while turning a blind eye to injustices."
You dodged the question. Are you in favor of America intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to prevent a dictatorship being formed? Yes or no?
"Every major city in Afghan was hit by bombs. I would consider that bombing major cities."
No, that is bombing targets. Bombing CITIES is what was done to London in the Blitz, or to Hiroshima. In those cases, the idea was not to hit military targets, but to kill as many civilians as possible. The target in those cases was the city itself. That is not what is going on here.
If a SAM missile site is located inside a city, then a bomb (or artillery fire, for that matter) designed to destroy that site necessarily must land within the city limits.
"Well, I would agree with you if the Bush didn't hint at, pretty much the next day, that we were going to war."
Well, DUH! As if that came as a surprise to anyone. Unlike past US presidents who blustered and bluffed and ended up doing nothing (a la Jimmy Carter), Bush wanted to make it very plain that he was putting the Taliban on fair warning. He did not want to be accused of springing any sneak attacks on anyone. He was saying, "Look. Hand these guys over or we will come and get them. And we are not kidding this time."
"They could have done alot of things other then bombing, maybe keep the stepped up security in America, and put an embargo on Afghanistan."
Oh, right... like that would have worked. Osama bin Laden is a freakin' millionaire! Does anyone who takes the time to think about it for more than... oh... ten seconds... really think that he would give two shits about an embargo? Get real!
Besides, it seems like every second post in this forum is about how horrible and inhumane and unworkable the embargo of Iraq is, and how it means diddly to Sadam, but millions of Iraqi babies are dying. You're just grabbing around for something, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting that in this particular case, military action is required to capture the terrorists. That means ground troops being inserted by helicopter, which means anti-aircraft installations must be destroyed first.
The bombing is not just randomly tossing ordnance here and there to scare the natives, you know.
Or don't you know?
pinky
--------------------
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
****Nah dude, a pacifist is someone who tries every other means before resorting to force or violence****
pacifism - noun [U]
Pacifism is the belief that war is wrong, and therefore that to fight in a war is wrong.
no pacifism is the practice of doing nothing.
****A great pacifist was Cain of Kung Fu****
That's a TV show...you base your stance on a fictional character?..ha ha
****Most bullies are pussies who only pick on someone they know they can trounce ****
either that or they run jets into buildings or sit on the sidelines and do nothing
Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 10 months
|
|
See, you need to believe that pacifism means not defending yourself under any circumstances so that you can create a scenario where there are only 2 choices = kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die. But there are more options. Let go of your self-serving definition of pacifism. Maybe Gandi took pacifism to that exreme.
But, beyond that, one doesn't need to be a pacifist (and especially one by YOUR definition) to oppose starting WWIII. So leave the "pacifist" notion out of it, and let's just talk about whether we are doing the right thing or not, and whether we are going about it the right way or not.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
****Let go of your self-serving definition of pacifism****
It's not my definition, it's the cambrige dictionary's definition...seems to me i'm not the only one who believes it.
****kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die****
Unfortunatly that is our circumstance. You can't negotiate with terrorist. They want us dead no matter what.
****But, beyond that, one doesn't need to be a pacifist (and especially one by YOUR definition) to oppose starting WWIII****
one does if they aren't willing to defend themselves and let those with evil intentions bitch slap them.
****and let's just talk about whether we are doing the right thing or not****
That's the topic of this thread...pacifism is the reason why these kinds of people find it easy to attack us...we need to breed a country of men....not pacifists
Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
|
alienmindscape writes:
"See, you need to believe that pacifism means not defending yourself under any circumstances so that you can create a scenario where there are only 2 choices = kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die."
If you want to use some other word, such as "peacenik" or "dove" or "peace-loving" rather than "pacifist", you may have some chance of convincing people of the validity of your argument.
But "pacifist" and "pacifism" have very specific and limited definitions. All dictionaries agree on the same definition. Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Collier's, Encyclopedia Brittanica... any of them will give you the same definition. Not only do the dictionaries agree, but so do the pacifists. No pacifist would agree to be compared to your Kung Fu character. Some pacifists (certain Buddhist monks, for example) take it to such extremes that they will not even slap a mosquito, or knowingly step on an ant.
Innvertigo is NOT making up some twisted definition of pacifism in order to justify his position. YOU are the one who is distorting the meaning of pacifism. Argue with the dictionary. Or with a pacifist.
To save you the time of scrolling back to one of the first posts on this thread, let me repeat it for you here:
**********************************************************
By definition, a pacifist is one who eschews ALL violence, even retaliatory violence used strictly in self defense.
To a Pacifist, there is NEVER a situation in which the use of violence is morally correct, violence is NEVER allowed. A Pacifist would rather give his own life than betray his deeply held principles. He might try to reason with his opponent, he might try to flee, but he would NEVER retaliate, regardless of the circumstances. A Pacifist mother would allow her child to be tortured and murdered rather than punch the murderer in the nose.
Unrealistic? Others may think so, but to a Pacifist, reality is less important than what he believes is proper moral behavior. If his survival can only be purchased at the cost of betraying his moral code, he will refuse to pay. He values his beliefs more highly than he values his own existence.
It must be noted that there are many people who claim to be Pacifists, but actually are not. They may properly described as "peace-lovers", or "peaceniks", or "Doves", or whatever, but if they admit that in some circumstances -- ANY circumstance -- the use of violence is justifiable, then they are NOT Pacifists.
**********************************************************
To say that a pacifist holds that violence is justifiable in some situations is just as incorrect as saying that an atheist holds that believing in God is justifiable in some situations.
pinky
--------------------
|
MrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 23 years, 7 days
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#423554 - 10/12/01 06:02 PM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"You dodged the question. Are you in favor of America intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to prevent a dictatorship being formed? Yes or no? "
Eh, if you dont get it, i meant yes. I think thats one of the only good reasons to intervene in the affairs of other countries.
"No, that is bombing targets. Bombing CITIES is what was done to London in the Blitz, or to Hiroshima. In those cases, the idea was not to hit military targets, but to kill as many civilians as possible. The target in those cases was the city itself. That is not what is going on here. "
And that therefore causes bombs to blow up in the city, killing people who are walking by or whatever. Is it really that hard to understand what I am trying to say?
"Oh, right... like that would have worked. Osama bin Laden is a freakin' millionaire! Does anyone who takes the time to think about it for more than... oh... ten seconds... really think that he would give two shits about an embargo? Get real! "
Well, if America actually put security into the hands of the government and not the commercial airlines.. this probably never would have happened.
"The bombing is not just randomly tossing ordnance here and there to scare the natives, you know.
Or don't you know? "
I tend to believe that they want to hit targets, but hitting shit with bombs isn't a science. They miss... alot. Therefore, innocents die.
"You're just grabbing around for something, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting that in this particular case, military action is required to capture the terrorists. That means ground troops being inserted by helicopter, which means anti-aircraft installations must be destroyed first. "
Well, I would be more in favor of a ground assualt then bombings. Every country bordering Afghanistan said they would allow troops to be brought in... so they can't bring them in by ground? I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MrKurtz]
#423853 - 10/12/01 06:40 AM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Well, if America actually put security into the hands of the government and not the commercial airlines.. this probably never would have happened."
It also never would have happened if we didn't allow foreign nationals to board American-owned commercial aircraft. It also wouldn't have happened if the World Trade Center had never been built. But it DID happen. We are now discussing what should (or should not) be done about it.
"Well, I would be more in favor of a ground assualt then bombings. Every country bordering Afghanistan said they would allow troops to be brought in... so they can't bring them in by ground? I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people."
Even if they do bring them in by ground rather than by helicopter insertion, air support is required. The Afghanis have (or had) combat aircraft, too, you know. Do you believe they would not have used them against US ground troops? Let's face it, this isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Combat aircraft are a part of armed conflict, and have been for quite some time.
Do you think that an Afghan fighter-bomber would decline to strafe a column of US troops passing through a village on the off chance that some stray Afghani bullets might kill some Afghani civilians?
"I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people."
So all they have to do is to make sure that every military installation is located inside a city in order to keep it safe from harm? Wow... that concept could revolutionize warfare! No need for armor, no need for anti-aircraft batteries... just plop everything within the city limits and anything goes.
pinky
--------------------
|
alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 10 months
|
Re: Kung fu [Re: Phred]
#423872 - 10/12/01 07:18 AM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Well then screw "pacifism." I think most of us who are against the war aren't pacifists, we just think it's stupid.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
ElPrimo
journeyman
Registered: 09/29/01
Posts: 92
Last seen: 22 years, 11 months
|
Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be? [Re: ToTheSummit]
#424492 - 10/13/01 08:33 PM (23 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you think none of the Arab Countries will let us launch attacks from their soil? Why were none of the terrorists Afghanis or had Afghani passports? Why did most have Saudi passports? Do you really think we are going to just wipe them all out by flying B52's over Afghanistan?
Yeah, they commit suicide and think we are devils and evil because we love liberty and freedom, democracy and are Christians... Are you really dumb enough to believe that??? They think they are the Freedom fighters. They think they are blessed by God and are fighting the good fight.
"... even if we stayed completely out of their affairs they would still despise us ..."
Might be getting a little closer to the truth here... who supports and keep these puppet dictatorships in power? who installed the Saudis in power after WWII? Who built oil derricks and helped themselves to the oil. What Nations have gotten rich and which Nations still have millions starving and living in poverty after 60 years?
Do you really think we are working for Democracy abroad??? I know there are a bunch of crazy ass fanatics over there who hate us more than they love life... but I don't kid myself it is because we are a peacefull freedom loving people....
Edited by ElPrimo (10/19/01 10:46 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Madtowntripper
RandalFlagg
Coaster
lonestar2004
Racist Polarbear
vintage_gonzo