To have peace, we must prepare for war.

This is a very true statement. Let's just look at this in a practical matter, if that is possible for some of you. Is Iraq going to suddenly disarm itself just because it wants to? Absolutely not. Europe seems to be on the verge of disarmament, but they have America to protect them, so why shouldn't they? Let's say for all those super doves out there that the US called for unilateral disarmament in a hour. Do you honestly think that every country in the world would disarm?

I guess I should go back to a more personal level, that of guns. And TSB, "If everyone had guns, there would be less gun violence" is a perfectly reasonable statement. If everyone has guns, and everyone knows everyone has guns, there is little point in using a gun, as the main benifit of using a gun is that it provides combat superiority over your opponent. Of course then it's how fast you draw your gun, but I guess we should go back to the old west analogy.

I think we shouldn't think of Clint Eastwood, but rather Back to the Future, part 3. In this movie they have a dance and no guns are allowed into that area. Well the Sheriff takes away some of the guns from the bad gang that is comming in, but they still manage to sneak in some small guns, which gives an opportunity for them to kill the doc, but the Sheriff has a gun, and the main character gets one, so they can defend against themselves. This senario would have played out differently if the police did not have the power to remove weapons with the same force, and be able to provide a deterent if one was let in.

So I guess a real solution would be for ONLY America to have any weapons and force everyone else to deter, but I guess you don't love BB enough for that.

It is sort of like the Jedi not having lightsabers. There might be less lightsaber related accidents at first, but when the Sith come, they would be screwed.

And for the Simpsons, Lisa wishes for this very thing. The moment everyone is all singing Kum-ba-ya, the aliens come down and conquer us with their measly power, then we get sticks with nails in it to fight them off. So what if we create a stick with a nail in it that destroy's the earth later on? So many other good Simpsons examples, cannot... say... them... all...

 

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill

Churchill was drunk most the times he ever spoke. This is one of the most stupid sayings I've ever heard.

I'm 26 and I have never been a liberal, and I don't plan on ever being a liberal. I do believe in a few liberal ideals, but I'm conservative all the way.

I agree with the statement in the original post of this thread. However the statement is nothing more than a 360 degree statement. Why?

We must go to war and vanquish those who threaten our way of life. We do or we don't. Either way one side wins and the other loses. However it maybe 10, 20 or 100 years from now when your enemy or a new enemy will rise to start another war. Therefore in order to have peace we must go to war again.

That is human nature and as long as humans remain power hungry, greedy, and men are the only ones in charge then not only will history repeat itself but mankind will continue to punch out the same old story every few years.

With that since we as humans are not going to be changing anytime soon, it's time to vanquish our enemies and destroy them, and then sit back and wait for the next enemy. The circle never ends. Ain't life grand.

 

Coolguy4522: I concur. You cannot negotiate without power to back it up.

By definition, power is the ability to get someone to do something that they normally wouldn't do.

Can't the same be said for negotiation?

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick."
-Teddy Roosevelt


-ph33r the pooduck

 

E_S, go face to face with actual barbarity before implying the men and women in the armed forces are barbarians. Go walk through the empty streets of some Northern Iraq Kurdish town while the bodies men women and children contorted in death from asphxiation rot in the sun and then try and call our troops barbarians.

Hang on, a second farrday/ Firstly, don't put words in my mouth to suit your agenda, right? Sorted.
Secondly, let's have a look at what I said, because the only person to answer me properly was Jansons_Funny_Twin. I asked why we celebrate war. I did not say soldiers were barbarians. The act of conflict itself is barbaric and a last resort. There is nothing moral about killing, hence why Janson's relating his soldier friends saying is true. Soldiers, real soldiers, don't love war.

Finally, let's look at what you said and play "Spot the flaw in farraday's post."

Go walk through the empty streets of some Northern Iraq Kurdish town while the bodies men women and children contorted in death from asphxiation rot in the sun and then try and call our troops barbarians.

I said war is a barbaric thing that is glorified when dressed in uniforms. Fact. It IS a last resort for states. And your above examples, post in your desperate attempt to hold a moral high ground, are examples of barbarity. Done by people in uniform.

Thank you farraday. You illustrated my point beautifully. Might I suggest you read carefully and not imply anything. It's that whole "shades of grey" think you guys are missing. Take a leaf out of Jansons book.

I guess if I want answers, asking hawkish uber-conservative Americans is not the best place to start.

E_S

 

I guess if I want answers, asking hawkish uber-conservative Americans is not the best place to start.

Hey, I'm hawkinsh.




I'm pro war, and proud of my family and friends who serve. But with that comes the fear of war, because I stand to lose many important people in my life.

However, I see that it is neccisary when all other options have been exhausted. And in the world we live in, it's becoming more and more neccisary, and thus we need to be prepared.


-ph33r the pooduck

 

However, I see that it is neccisary when all other options have been exhausted. And in the world we live in, it's becoming more and more neccisary, and thus we need to be prepared.

Exactly, and I don't knock the military. What I wonder about is why we celibrate it.

E_S

 

Exactly, and I don't knock the military. What I wonder about is why we celibrate it.

Because we've been told by Hollywood that fighting and killing is fun, and that war has no consequences.

Well, some movies, like We Were Soldiers, show war as something of a "mixed blessing."


-ph33r the pooduck

 

What you said E_S was not to dress barbaric behavior up in uniform

People dress in uniforms and with the degree you're so happy to tell people about I'm sure you knew that. People have behaviors, barbaric or otherwise, and I'm sure you knew that too.

Your supposition that force is inherantly bad is faulty. Your use the loss of civilian life to justify any means to avoid war is disgusting.

There is nothing moral about killing?

Oh please. Do you have no concept of self defense? Or do you not define that as killing? Or moral? Perhaps talking it out would fix things?

People don't glorify war, they glorify just war. No one is glorifying Vietnam, no one is glorifying any of hundred of massacres and counter massacres in Africa.

But what you're doing is painting with a very broad brush all war as barbaric and by extension anyone who fights as barbaric.

Or is my command of the English language not up to par?

 

Whether killing is moral or not is a much broader subject than what we could discuss here. If, however, someone wants to discuss the issue, I'd be happy to discuss it in a new topic.

 

But the point remains that the example you gave was a barbaric act perpetrated by men in uniform, was it not? I never once pointed at the US military and said "We dress Americans up in uniform so they can do barbaric stuff", Mr Sensititive. You forget, my country would have fallen to the Japanese were it not for those "barbarians". My opa was liberated from Ambon by those barbarians. But, once again, you presume you've got me all figured out. You have NFI, however.

Jansons_Funny_Twin, methinks you got it. You may be hawkish and conservative, but you're not uber-conservative and you can infuse your posts with intelligence and a shade of grey in your analysis. Hence why I thank you for your reply.

E_S

 

People don't seem to believe that you can have a powerful, ready military and level-headed leaders in the same country. But in fact, most of the countries around the world today are like this. We're living in relatively peaceful times right now. Sure, there is the looming threat of terrorism, but no convential warfare.

It's not always about not being able to trust another country, as in the future, it seems there will be more radical rebels doing the damage than nation-states.

So, yes, to have peace, or rather, to keep war from going too long, we must be ready for anything.

 

Up.