|
| Thread: Attack Syria? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:31 AM |
|
|
Agree 100%
Quote:
Ok. There has been much media attention dealing in the speculation that Syria might be secretly supporting terrorist organisations such Al-Qaeda by diverting government money into their bank accounts in Europe.
If this is true, then by attacking Syria, the terrorists will lose a major source of income or maybe even a potential ally. Therefore, striking back at the US and its allies will be their only option.
In addition to your above reasoning, you always have to calculate in the fact that this would be just another measure in which the U.S. would be imposing itself upon the Middle East and thus the Arab world.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted May 16, 2003 04:34 PM |
|
|
Fools logic
By saying that Al-queda would have no option but to strike at the U.S. because we removed their ally is the most foolish logic I have ever heard for an argument against removing a terrorist-backed regime.....it's al-queda's goal to attack the U.S. in the first place, so removing their support would only hinder them.
I do not want to see any military action against Syria, I belive that negotiations will work in this situation.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 05:48 PM |
|
|
Fool's Logic....Maybe, Maybe, Not
Launching a military attack upon a support center of a terrorist organization will weaken the terrorist organization; however, it will also fuel the hatred and strengthen the resolve of its members, not to menion increase the possiblility of innocent civilian casualties as a direct result. I believe that that the best way to stop a terrorist organization is to 'cut off its head', so to speak, meaning systematically take out the leaders and the followers will disburse or scatter. It does not take much monetary funding to be a terrorist, all it takes is a person, an explosive device, and the will to die for a cause. That's it. Yes, large scale terrorist attacks do require much more coordination and support. I believe that these terrorist organizations should be taken out by the use of small special-operations units (military or other government agency), and not by declaring war or launching a massive military attack against an alleged supporter of terrorist organizations. As always, this is just my humble opinion.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 06:02 PM |
|
|
Okay, I'm going to take one more crack at this and then I will forever leave you debaters in peace (yeah, right)
The world's ultimate Hatfield-and-McCoy scenario has finally reared its ugly head on us.
For those of you from other countries let me explain that statement. Here in the U.S. we had a very famous feud that became publicized in the early part of the Twentieth Century. It was between two families of Appallacian sodbusters commonly referred to in this country as "hillbillies" -- the Hatfields, and the McCoys. The patriarchs of these two families got in a fight one day about a pig. A PIG, mind you. This dispute grew into a generations-long war between the two families during which dozens of family members from both sides were murdered in one retaliatory strike after another. They went so far as to slaughter each others' women and children. Every time there was an incident, the family who was the victim in that incident acted to end the feud once and for all by striking back even bigger. Yet the hatred so blinded both these families that they could not see that the hatred was in complete control of them, and that every retaliatory strike not only failed to end the feud but instead led to every next bigger retaliatory strike.
This senseless ongoing massacre was marked by both families believing absolutely that they were in the right, that they were the victim, that they were completely justified in striking back in self-defense.
These two families now gather on a yearly basis and play softball together. I think it is probably safe to say the only reason any of them is still alive is because neither family was in possession of weapons of mass destruction during the feud.
NO I do not mean to imply that the allegory to our situation with the Middle East is pure. Certainly there are differences between the global situation now and that situation then. But there is a fundamental similarity. That is that A PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED FROM WITHIN THE MINDSET WHENCE IT WAS CREATED.
Anyone who does not recognize that anti-American terrorism is not in large part driven by our tendency to exercise military might in response just isn't paying attention to the history of Middle-Eastern vs. Western (primarily American and British of late) relations.
We are now a global community here folks. We are interconnected in ways that are unique to modern history, be they economic, political, or whatnot. Our habit of resolving threatening conflicts through the means of inter-state warfare became consolidated probably most of all in feudal times, when the nation-state system was just forming. During that time, the organic tribal mentality was replaced by an imposed sense of patriotic national allegience, inspired through the use of propaganda and religious pressures to conform to the new nation-state paradigm. If you don't believe me then GO BACK AND STUDY THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF PROPAGANDA. Russel Barsh is a good source on this topic.
In terms of the international structure, practially everything has changed since then. Yet in terms of the human mentality, though, we still allow our decisions and actions to be ruled by the old Machiavelian mentality of my country right or wrong, motivation through patriotism, and any attack on my object of sworn allegiance justifying a defensive assault.
The globalization of the world has revealed primarily two things in my book: First, collective pressures of a diplomatic/economic sort CAN be used instead of raw military might. Second, when military might IS used instead, justified or not, it does NOT have the same effect as it used to. Because of multiple mutual alliances where once were isolated nations operating against one another, now conflicts tend to cause opposing forces to consolidate against one another like the Hatfields and the McCoys.
We're not quite there yet. Add into this mix that the Middle East was pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into the nation-state system late in the game as a result of global conflicts during the Twentieth century between more dominant European nations. Combine this with an intense identification of the people in the cultures of that region with a religious tradition that is utterly distinct from the European one whence sprang the nation-state system now dominating the world (we represent the Infidels), and you now have nearly completed a formula for a Hatfield vs. McCoy kind of feud.
Moreover, the Middle Eastern countries bear certain traits of vulnerability. They are a) newer to the nation-state system than the Europen-oriented countries (which includes the U.S. and if you don't think so just ask any American Indian) and b)in possession of much less military leverage due to smaller land bases, mono-commodity economies, and other third-world characteristics, and c) inclined to produce sects with traits of religious fanaticism, and the formula for disaster is complete. Largely because of this, I believe, some numbers of their constituents are more inclined to react to anything even remotely looking like the imposition of European influences like a hive of bees than to play by the Europen war rules. If you are of the fanatical fundamentalist type, the most logical means of gaining leverage in the face of any imposition by the Infidel is to strap explosives to your body and run into a crowd of the enemy.
Of course we haven't even gotten to the act of Europe plopping Israel down right in the middle of this fray yet. I'll just let that speak for itself based on everything else I have said.
I am not making any excuses for anybody on either side and the next person who suggests as much will just about make me puke. My point is that if we are to "win" the "war" on terrorism, then we must take into account all that causes it and NOT DO THAT KIND OF THING ANY MORE. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE ACT OF WAR IS JUSTIFIED. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
No, I don't have all the answers, but thank goodness, I am not a world leader right at the moment. I'll say this much, though. We, as the collective whole of Humanity, are being tested here, folks. And in my book we are failing the test pretty miserably. LET's HAVE SOM VISION. Anybody know what VISION is??? If we (and by "we" I mean the WHOLE world community) do not start GETTING OUR ACT TOGETHER and start using other types of pressures to bring terrorism under control, then we will remain in this Hatfield vs. McCoy cycle until sombody gets their arse nuked into oblivion.
This I believe is one of the reasons Americans got so angry with the French. While I do NOT condone the manner in which my president went about this whole Iraq thing and frankly think he drove them away by being arrogant himself, still, the stakes are too high for ANYBODY to be holding their breath and taking their dollies and dishes home because they are mad at one another. WE NATIONS OF THE WORLD MUST ACT TOGETHER AND ACHIEVE PEACE WITH PEACE if there is to be PEACE. I WILL WAIL THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS UNTIL I MELT INTO A PUDDLE OF BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS.
Thank you all for tolerating my rant. Have mercy on me for getting on my soapbox. As you can probably tell, I feel very, very strongly about this. But then, we all do. And one of the things I love about this place is that we can all sort-of voice our feelings and thoughts without just totally getting shot down by mindless insults from one another.
As Khayman always concludes, "Love, Peace and Happiness!!!"
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted May 16, 2003 07:38 PM |
|
|
Thank you, Peacemaker
Good show....I await to see others use logic and common sense with backing in the defense of their beliefs as you have shown. You were clear and concise, and I admit you make more objections to bring about peace then anyone else....which is all we really want here.
I think we should form a committee here in this thread to solve the Middle-East peace problem.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 10:40 PM |
|
|
World Peace, The Middle East, and Religious Conflicts
Quote:
Good show....I await to see others use logic and common sense with backing in the defense of their beliefs as you have shown. You were clear and concise, and I admit you make more objections to bring about peace then anyone else....which is all we really want here.
I think we should form a committee here in this thread to solve the Middle-East peace problem.
Whoa! This is coming from the same guy who wants to bomb every country on the United States terrorist radar back to the Stone Age? Please, stop kissing Peacemaker's cute behind! It is probably chapped already by now anyways. 
I cannot disagree with much of what PM has to say in her very personal post, especially since I myself am a hopelessly romantic, utopia desiring, world peace seeking individual much like I believe many of us here truly are. However, let's be realistic here for one brief second. We will never see world peace, not even peace in the Middle East for that matter, during our lifetimes, and probably never will. Does that mean we stop striving for it? No, it does not. In this modern world, however, where you can reach out and touch someone who is living on the other side of the world with relative ease, the world has become a much smaller place where everyone is in everyone else's business, much like PM pointed out by covering the globalization issue.
Now, the conflicts that exist within the Middle East between those countries (which would exclude the recent U.S. attack of Iraq, so please do not include) can be narrowed down to three simple reasons: territorial disputes, natural resources (i.e. oil), and religion. Yes, you can argue that the thirst for power by their leaders also is a reason, but that is a whole other argument in and of itself. Now, I believe two out of those three reasons for conflict can be resolved, those being the territorial disputes and natural resource issues. The third, religion, is something that goes even deeper than material or economic disagreements. The Middle East is an extremely religious part of the world, and as you know, there are usually two things that you never want to discuss at the dinner table, politics and religion, because you can really get into heated arguments and hurt feelings over just a discussion, even with people whom you really care about and love. Now, just imagine those disgreements with strangers who you could care less if they lived or died. Imagine being so religiously devoted to their beliefs and people despising you solely because of your religious preference. That is very, very scary if you ask me.
For example, IMHO, I do not believe that the conflict(s) between Israel and Palestine will ever be resolved, until one of the two decides to wage war and pound the other into total submission or extinction, which at this point in time would probably be Israel coming out on top. Again however, like PM had pointed out, globalization has taken over the world, and many countries now have developed strong ties to these two (nations/states), that I do not believe a total war will ever come about. If it does, then I believe that may have an even greater effect on the Middle East and the rest of the world than what is going on currently in Iraq. This will become a 'religious war' and even more distinct lines will be drawn as to who is supporting who, and religious wars, as you know, a very bad, bloody, and just plain ugly.
Call me crazy, but I can picture an Israeli-Palestinian war triggering WWIII. What do you all think about that statement?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 16, 2003 11:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For example, IMHO, I do not believe that the conflict(s) between Israel and Palestine will ever be resolved, until one of the two decides to wage war and pound the other into total submission or extinction, which at this point in time would probably be Israel coming out on top.
I actually don't think it's true that Israel will win a prolonged war in their country. Personally from studying the previous 4 main wars Israel has fought, there is clearly two or three ways to defeat Israel, one mostly from outside nations:
1) Use millitary (outside nation) force to smash through their regular defences so fast that their reserves cannot deploy and are ovverun. This so nearly happened in 1973 that the Israelis panicked into preparing their nuclear arsenal.
2) Draw out a conflict against the country to such an extent that the Armed forces are deployed to full stregnth for longer than is possible to maintain them. This also nearly happened in 1973, when the first ceasefire occured the country was all but devoid of tank and artillery ammunition and had america not resupplied them the arab armies would have ovverun them when the ceasefire ended. Also beyond this a prolonged, stalemate war favours the arabs in some ways as the Israeli economy cannot survive such a conflict due to the nature of the country.
3) Attack from all sides in a co-ordinated and concerted manner. This again only really occured in 1973, but the Egyptians delayed and dithered once they crossed the canal, allowing the Israelis precious time to deploy their reserves.
Just some thoughts, if enough of the big hitters of the Arab world such as Egypt and Syria with possible (unlikely though) Jordanian backing combined and planned their attacks to coincide with a period of terrorist attacks then it would seem likely even the might of the Israeli army would be no match for them....
As for the possibilites of global conflict, it already nearly happened. During 1973 (sorry to concentrate on this of the 4, but I read an excellent book on this war) the Americans were heavily involved with the Israelis and Russia with Egypt/Syria (indeed they were must unamused when the egyptians "lost" a number of T62 tanks barely weeks before the war, the Israelis had stolen them! The extent to which a conflict came close may never be known, but alerts were in place in both superpowers and neither had a wish to see their client state battered into submission for the humiliation aspect. Luckily world peace was considered more important than which side won that war.....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 12:53 AM |
|
|
That (WWIII) is exactly what I am afraid of, Khayman, and it is one of the reasons I think we'd better get on the visionary bandwagon here. We may not have "world peace" in our lifetimes, I'll grant you that. But I also agree with your next statement that we cannot and must not quit working in that direction, with everything we have in us. Our very existence may count on it.
Also, Khayman and Tony, boy, you're both a little out of character today. Is this all full-moon talk??? (I say that about you Khayman just because you're always so nice )
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 17, 2003 01:40 AM |
|
|
Nice Guys Finish Last...
Quote:
Also, Khayman and Tony, boy, you're both a little out of character today. Is this all full-moon talk??? (I say that about you Khayman just because you're always so nice )
Can't speak for Tony, but I always try to be a nice person. My biggest fault is that I tend to think logically with my head too much, instead of emotionally with my heart more often. That, however, is not always a bad thing.
In addition to that, whenever I post something controversial, I am sure to have it dissected bit-by-bit by Hudson, and thus receive a two or three page history lesson, which I honestly do enjoy. I am convinced that guy reads posts and responds line by line, especially judging from his last post, where I specifically mentioned that Israel would defeat Palestine in an isolated conflict without the intervention of other nations, and then his first reason for Israel being defeated was having an outside nation's force strike their regular defenses. Gotta love PH! 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 02:08 AM |
|
|
I didn't realise you meant that, because I didn't clearly see that you meant without intervention, you just said palestine vs israel. But then again, I would imagine that in the event of a war of total extinction that you suggestit would be very unlikely that the outside nations would simply ignore the conflict, when they could use it to seize their best chance of wiping Israel of the map. They have in the past seized any opportunity to humiliate or humble Israel, and this would be a perfect time.
Also I'm not that sure Israel will come out on top in a terror/retaliation war, in raw numbers Palestinians have the edge, and as opposed to the Israeli's, they don't tend to have to worry about their electorate when deciding their actions and reactions. If Israel went for an all out war to wipe out the arabs in palestine she would firstly incur even more wrath from her neighbours (who compartively are friendly now as opposed to the past) and almost certainly intervention. She would also be next to certain to loose what precious little global support she has at present (IE america and the UK). If you look at the violence recently when they occupied the palestinian cities in response to terrorist attacks, the world (minus america, she was pretty lenient in her wording and actions) came down pretty heavy on them, or tried to. Now imagine how it would be if they were openly fighting it out to slaughter their opponents? Israel as a nation relies heavily on external funds and support, supplies and weaponry. Withdraw that (as has been threatened in the past) and she would collapse. Start a slaughter fest and it would be likely to be withdrawn. Also if the Israeli army was busy fighting terrorists as it was some months back, it's readyness to fight external enemies at the same time is reduced, even with it's reserves, giving hope to those leaders in Egypt and Syria of a possible chance to become as Hussain dreamt, the new Saladin.
The hatred for Israel often means that such a conflict would only favour the Palestinian terrorists and politicians politically as their backers often couldn't care less about casualties or slaughterings. Therefore their support may only increase, bar international pressure on people like Arafat from the west and UN.
Israel would win a fight assuming they were simply after temporary moral victories and quick results, but if they were after total submission or extinction then theire chances are a lot less certain than at first view IMO
Edit: Two other points vital to this post:
1) I need english lessons :/
2) I can't be bothered editing my own grammatical and spelling mistakes
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted May 17, 2003 08:15 PM |
|
|
Dude...........
...........I got $50 on Isreal with 5:2 odds. Sorry, but Israel's army is way to advanced (U.S. weapons) and big (4th in the world) to lose to a bunch of people who throw rocks at their tanks.:-)
Anyways, lets hope it doesnt come down to this and we see some peacefull resolve to this issue soon. I belive the U.S., Israel and Palastine has finally found a way to resolve this matter, we only have one way to find out........wait a while.
By the way, I don't believe military use is necessary everytime in a conflict, but the Iraqi people had suffered long enough under economic sanctions while Hussein continued to build himself palaces and defy international law for over a decade. (Just cuz Clinton didnt do anything about it doesnt mean anything, he was a foriegn affairs failiure).
P.S. I think Syria will comply pretty much (at least publicly, unlike Saddam did) with international law at this point considering they have about 200,000 U.S. service men in their backyard!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 08:27 PM |
|
|
You're not reading what I said, I don't think Israel will loose to palestine, I think they political ramifications of wiping out the palestinians or supressing them so far will destroy Israel. I very much doubt even Bush would stand by and watch a holocaust on the palestinians.
And if you throw in the combination of an invasion from say.... Egypt, then the whole "us weapons" is gone because Egypt is using US tanks and helicopters also. Israel's best equipment on the other hand has seen some change into homegrown tanks like the excellent Merkava (rated as on of, if not the best in the world for crew survivability) or their small arms like the Gali rifle. The numbers issue is also debatable. Israel may have a large army, but a combined arab one is larger. Also well over 1/2 of Israel's forces are reservists, well trained, but time is needed to deploy them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 17, 2003 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(Just cuz Clinton didnt do anything about it doesnt mean anything, he was a foriegn affairs failiure).
Yeah, having good relations with a healthy portion of the world really sucked. I prefer the whole isolation thing.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 19, 2003 02:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're not reading what I said, I don't think Israel will loose to palestine, I think they political ramifications of wiping out the palestinians or supressing them so far will destroy Israel. I very much doubt even Bush would stand by and watch a holocaust on the palestinians.
True, PH. Israel is obliterating more Palestinians than Palestininans obliterating Israelis. However, peace talks led by the US are back on the agenda for Israel and Palestine.
Quote:
And if you throw in the combination of an invasion from say.... Egypt, then the whole "us weapons" is gone because Egypt is using US tanks and helicopters also. Israel's best equipment on the other hand has seen some change into homegrown tanks like the excellent Merkava (rated as on of, if not the best in the world for crew survivability) or their small arms like the Gali rifle. The numbers issue is also debatable. Israel may have a large army, but a combined arab one is larger. Also well over 1/2 of Israel's forces are reservists, well trained, but time is needed to deploy them.
You're right, PH, but the arab nations are too involved in conflict with one another to stand as one, united army against Israel. Also, the US will never allow such things to happen to Israel.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 19, 2003 07:11 AM |
|
|
Touche' bort. How dare he (Clinton)engage in such treasonous diplomacy????
Damacon --hello! I don't recall if we've spoken directly yet. Regarding your last post on the U.S not allowing an allied attack against Israel, what do you predict would happen if the U.S. stepped in in defense of Israel? How would the European nations react to this development? How about Russia and China?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 21, 2003 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
True, PH. Israel is obliterating more Palestinians than Palestininans obliterating Israelis. However, peace talks led by the US are back on the agenda for Israel and Palestine.
Damn glad to see them. I'm also glad that for once the Israelis aren't rolling tanks back into the west bank at the first terrorist attack and cancelling the talks in response. Terrorism in such a climate will always exist, the only way to move forward is to make a peace deal more attractive to both sides than continuing the conflict. Rolling tanks into palestine won't do that one bit.
Quote:
You're right, PH, but the arab nations are too involved in conflict with one another to stand as one, united army against Israel. Also, the US will never allow such things to happen to Israel.
Usually they are yes, that's what beat them in 1948 and 1967, disjointed attacks that the Israelis drove off one by one. 1973 if used as an example for future conflict did show signs of co-operation between arab nations though which if rebuilt would be a serious threat again. As for America, I would say that there's a certain limit even americans won't stand for in Israeli internal policy. If slaughter was the name of the game, I'd imagine the US would have severe problems justifying such support. Perhaps in that event they would intervene directly themselves to set up some sort of ceasefire and mandate over the country to supervise an enforced treaty. That would though lead to no end of problems like the british faced between 1918 and 1948. What's interesting then is that in creating the state of Israel, the Jews themselves turned to the very terrorism they now denounce so loudly.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 21, 2003 01:05 PM |
|
|
I agree with the solutions Michael Moore suggested to this conflict in 'Stupid White Men.' (The rest of the conflicts he'd gotten wrong, but the Israel vs. Palestine he'd actually managed to do right...)
The palestinians should try to defeat the Israelis 'Gandhi-style.' That is non-violent actions, general strikes (Israel's economy is based on the slave labour of Palestinians), and blocking of major roads by people sitting down.
If the Palestinians managed to do it this way, instead of just blowing themselves up to no use, they would get the sympathy of the global society, which would help them further.
Not every conflict can be solved through wars.
I saw that someone earlier in this thread said something like 'wake up, you Hippie! Everything isn't all flowers and blue sky! We CAN'T have a world without war. World peace will never happen unless someone fights for it. And you peace lovers certainly don't help!'
You are correct about that. We can't have world peace. yet.
not as long as there's people like this out there...
(Sorry 'bout that last part. It didn't get the way I planned. Hope you got my point, though... Bad memory.)
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 21, 2003 01:37 PM |
|
|
Reality Check
Quote:
The palestinians should try to defeat the Israelis 'Gandhi-style.' That is non-violent actions, general strikes (Israel's economy is based on the slave labour of Palestinians), and blocking of major roads by people sitting down.
If the Palestinians managed to do it this way, instead of just blowing themselves up to no use, they would get the sympathy of the global society, which would help them further.
As we have seen numerous times within the last year, Israeli has no qualms about rolling their tanks into the West Bank at will whenever Sharon feels there is just cause. Do you really believe that a bunch of Palestinians lying in the road will have any influene on Israel? Ariel Sharon would probably welcome this, as the Palestinian impedement of his ability to feed his people would be more than enough justificaton for him to roll right over them.Quote:
Not every conflict can be solved through wars.
I saw that someone earlier in this thread said something like 'wake up, you Hippie! Everything isn't all flowers and blue sky! We CAN'T have a world without war. World peace will never happen unless someone fights for it. And you peace lovers certainly don't help!'
You are correct about that. We can't have world peace. yet.
not as long as there's people like this out there...
Those people are what I like to refer to as 'realists'; however, I disagree with the statement that "peace lovers certainly don't help." Peace lovers are at times unrealistic, but they are a blessing to the selfish world in which we are now living. Unfortunately, in this world, war is a reality. Not everyone has the necessities of life and luxuries that we have; therefore, their only means of attaining this is by attacking another nation or people and taking their resources. IMO, as long as humans exist, along with greed and avarice, the chances of world peace existing are slim to none. Until we can find a way to feed, clothe, and shelter the entire human population, there will always be needs and wants. As long as needs and wants exist, along with selfishness, there will always be the aggressiveness with which humans want to fulfil those needs and wants, thus leading to conflict and war.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2003 04:40 PM |
|
|
i was going to post a reply, however i am not educated enough on the situation to do so... so i will leave you with a quote i head from somewhere
"you can win a war about as much as you can win a earthquake"
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 21, 2003 06:31 PM |
|
|
I believe the "peaceloving hippie" you guys may be referring to might just be me, since my megapost is the closest thing to such a slant as appears in this thread to my recollection. If so, You fail to understand me, utterly.
As my subheadding indicates, "Peacemaker" is a double entendre. What I suggested in the Hatfields v. McCoys post was that STRATEGY be the defining factor in determining whether to go to war or not. I will not belabor my H v. M. post. I believe, if you are paying attention, it speaks for itself. Let me be more specific about what I mean by that and what I think our possible options are.
There are clearly situations in which WAR is not the most effective STRATEGY. Personally I think the most effective STRATEGY at this point is not to wage conventional warfare against any particular NATION since terrorism is MOBILE and not NATION - identified or located, Khayman's suggestion of special strike forces operating against terrorist cells makes the most sense. Once again, we need to be thinking about the appropriate "theatre of war," as it were. This in addition to any other kinds of pressure we can bring to bear on any entities who support terrorism, of course. But as long as we (ALL OF US) do not come together in attempting to bring the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to some sort of resolution, we are putting bandades on cancer my friends.
Why can't humans see that waging war against nations was appropriate/effective when the "enemy" was a locatable, identifiable NATION, but that terrorism arises specifically out of the inability of the terrorists to wage conventional warfare? For pity's sake why does that make me a peacenik? To me it is only a matter of common strategic sense.
One more guy calls me a peacenik and I'll blow his frigging avatar into the internet ocean 
(Just making a joke there sportsfans.)
EDIT:
Alright. Having just gone back and reviewed by own H v. M rant, I just want to say something before somebody comes flying in and flames me to bits for being inconsistent.
Number one: While I did say in the big post above that the nations of the world need to work together to achieve peace using peaceful means, I do not believe necessarily one way or the other that any type of warfare is inclinced to achieve peace or not IN A GIVEN SITUATION. This is determined almost entirely by the PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES of each case. I am not so much of an idealist that I believe there are no circumstances under which self-defense is appropriate. If you are in a room with a guy with a knife and he wants to kill you then you'd bloody well better fight back or else you might be facing your own extinction. However,
Number two. This DOES NOT MEAN that conventional warfare is the most effective tool in every instance. If Conventional Warfare is only going to aggravate matters then we'd better have our game hats on enough to recognize that and strategize accordingly. This is what I meant when I said that the problem cannot be solved from within the mindset whence the problem arose.
Number three, All that having been said, I STILL believe that ultimately, we are stuck in a no-win spiritual loop as long as violence is used as a method for solving any problems. And the bigger the arena of that violence, the truer this is. Unfortunately though, it's like everybody stuck in the loop has to simultaneously cease using violence for any sort of revolution on this level to take place. Either that, or apparently somebody has to risk extinction. It is on this point that we must become truly visionarly -- the long-run goal of winding down out of the cycle of violence; of achieving a global, spontaneous, permanent cease-fire. I am with Khayman and others here that this is a LONG WAY OFF. But the violence is so ingrained into our thinking process that it seems like we cannot envision solutions to many international conflicts without resorting to conventional warfare even when it may not be appropriate and may even be counter-productive.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
