War and Pissed Off

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Can we ever really agree? Can we compromise? If we can’t, we will fight until we die, surely.

If one group absolutely refuses to have empathy, and so does the other, what will occur?

Are we a civilised society? (By we i mean the Western states)

If we are civilised shouldn’t we apply in a secular way the principle ‘do to others as you would have them do uno you?’

If we see the harm and pain inflicted by violence on our own, how can we claim a right to return greater pain in reply?

If we do the above, how can we claim to be doing what is right?

If we believe in war to impress our own strength, and will, what future do we expect to create? Do we care about the future?

If we know that we hate our enemy, how can we claim to be suitable to choose action?
Could you perform surgery with adrenaline overpowering you (the answer for me is no).

Would we prefer to neglect anything outside our own best interests, or apply the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’?

Is nationalism more important than humanism, and human rights?

Would you die and kill for your native flag, and whatever cause your leaders, inept or astute, chose?

If people talking about political scenarios on the internet can’t even stay civil and talk, do you think we can do better in international diplomacy?

I’ve seen real women crying because their son has been killed at war. I’ve known family and friends to die, suddenly and slowly. My uncle had 3 children die in cot deaths, in sequence.I could never exaggerate the effect of losing family. I don’t want to see any more than neccessary.

I only want to know who thinks life is sacred, and who believes in power instead.

Theres plenty of other threads to discuss specific politcal situations. These are questions to determine morality.

2

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.[/quote]

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

3

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

Are we a civilised society? (By we i mean the Western states)[/quote]

Yes, the most civilized in history.

Yes, and we do.

Absolutely we can. Weakness invites aggression. Asking someone who is harming you to politely desist will never result in them stopping harming you. To think so is the height of naivete.

Because often the only way to end violence is to give the harming party a worthwhile incentive not to harm you anymore. Open mouth kisses and warm, fuzzy hugs are not that incentive.

One that ensures that countries are on no uncertain terms with one another - which is about the best we can hope for in a world that will never arrive at utopia.

[quote]If we know that we hate our enemy, how can we claim to be suitable to choose action?
Could you perform surgery with adrenaline overpowering you (the answer for me is no). [/quote]

War is not surgery, and that is a stupid analogy. Moreover, hatred for an enemy does not have to mean wild, erratic responses hopped up on adrenaline. The response can be cold, calculated, considered, and put to great debate among a society.

We can have a world that strikes a balance between self-interest and broader principles, but nations will most often opt for national interest above all else.

Moreover, the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ - among many of its flaws - fails at the highest level because the world is entirely too diverse to come to any agreement on that notion.

This is a false choice - it doesn’t have to be an either-or.

This, of course, is nothing short of retarded - there isn’t one person here who thinks that is plausible.

Because this is the opposite playing field than international diplomacy. Here, there are no consequences. Here, you can say all kinds of things you would never say to someone in person because you won’t get your lip split in cyberspace. Here, you can act ten times tougher than you really are because no one can take you to task over it. Here, you can hide behind your e-personality because you’ll never have to face consequences. Here, when someone trounces you in argument, you can simply respond with “you didn’t trounce me” and expect that that is good enough even when it isn’t true and you know it it isn’t, because there are no consequences to actually winning and losing these debates.

I think international diplomacy actually is more civil in many ways, because there, words matter.

Nor does anyone else - don’t be ridiculous. End the melodramatics and be serious.

Most of us think life is sacred, and values are too - and we also think both are sacred enough to fight for.

4

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

[/quote]

Like i said, i’m not talking about a specific country or conflict.

We can only control ourselves, restrain ourselves. We can only protect the interests of ourselves too, it seems.

Nothing is inconsistent. Do i come on here calling for the destruction of the USA? (No) Anyone who has heard Jesus’ sayings (not the gospels and stuff, the Gospel of Thomas) is a hypocrite if they cannot believe that a man will only be violent because of a cause.

And i think that we can best control ourselves. The problem i have is that Israel is more or less under the sway of the US (tacit at least). If anyone looked at the history and knew that at the root lay legitimate injustices, would you still approve of so many guns, sent to the side you support (before even thinking of repairing these injustices first)?

If i were in arab lands i’d be doing my best to dissuade suicide bombers, getting militants to stop fighting. I know this is also wrong. I would hate them just the same as i do now. However, luckily i’m detached enough to see that there are issues on both sides. Something needs to change.

It is a problem i see, that we will go to another country, change everything they know, disorient them (think about the meaning of this word) and then 50 years or so later, wonder why they would bite us? I don’t want to get into the ins and outs, i don’t feel you, for one, would care, or listen. But WHY do we assume that we can change the attitude, and actions of another, but can’t consider changing our own? ‘Oh, war hasn’t worked, so i guess more war is next’

Why is it so radical to suggest we restrain ourselves, in the act of war, and don’t give cause for future hatred and war? How does this mean i’m just waiting to be disrespected or whatever?

You didn’t say much, except for a god point about moral relativism. If you reply, please answer some of the many questions i asked in the OP

5

I am sick of the bullsh!t…its time to drop some nukes and let God sort them out!!!

6

I’ve seen plenty people use the phrase that ‘terrorists are a cancer’, s surgery is how any war to answer that fact should be.

That is an ssumption which is based upon a limited worldview, and romantic notions of ‘evil surrendering to goodness’ and shit. In many cases the proper order has not been followed. We have struck back without even giving proper care to avoiding the problems.

The world where [quote] we are on no uncertain terms with one another[/quote] is another way to say ‘we run shit’, right? At any cost.

[quote] Moreover, the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ - among many of its flaws - fails at the highest level because the world is entirely too diverse to come to any agreement on that notion.[/quote] That is also an assumption, which if exercised by people more powerful than you or i, leaves no room for diplomacy, and invites eternal war. Good idea.

How do you claim that we can be nationalistic and also humanistic, when you claim [quote] nations will most often opt for national interest above all else[/quote] as if it is fine, and not a problem to be addressed?

Your comments about e-personality are irrelevant. There are some who disagree, yet still express themselves in the real world with no problem. I would never fear ‘consequences’ as i’m sure most people speak of war, yet don’t fight. Read the quotes from returning soldiers on another thread. They seem proud to have done their part, but also weary and jaded. I’d go to ‘war’ for myself, but then i operate in a wholly more ethical way than some powerful countries. If i went to war for theft or power i’d be wrong. Only for survival, if pushed.

I agree that international diplomacy can and should be more civil than e-debates (or at least this one).

The point i made about death- you say no-one wants to see more death than neccessary, yet in another thread i’ve quoted rainjack to say ‘no shed should remain in Lebanon, Iran or Syria’. Some do want more death than neccessary. If that’s not you, coool. Good guy.

7

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

[/quote]
Are Archie Bunkers retarded son that we never heard off?

550×506 108 KB

8

Are you seriosu marmadogg? If so, i don’t even need to condemn you. You are as good as dead.

Maybe you should go to the mideast and be a terrorist, as you just expressed an ideology far more practically destructive than terrorism- American terror (with nukes)

9

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

Are Archie Bunkers retarded son that we never heard off?[/quote]

And you must be Hitler’s illegitimate love child.

10

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

Are Archie Bunkers retarded son that we never heard off?

And you must be Hitler’s illegitimate love child. [/quote]

Accurate point mate. wreckless may not be Hitler’s love child, but he sure is Hitler’s ideological spawn.

11

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
These are questions to determine morality.

Or more accurately - questions to determine the degree of moral relativism one has.

Peace loving countries go to war. I don’t think there are very many countries that want war - that need war. All of them are in the middle east - and Africa.

Seems to me that no one gives a shit about war until the U.S., or Israel gets involved. Then it’s all, “let’s hold hands, sing kumbaya, and hope for peace”.

If the U.S. is attacked - we deserved it. If we fight back, we are imperialist pigs. Same with Israel. Where is the outrage and the concern over Africa?

Inconsistency breeds hypocrisy.

[/quote]

Anti-Americanism bears many of the hallmarks traditionally associated with anti-Semitism. To the anti-American, America is sinisterly powerful, destroying and creating governments almost at the drop of a hat, engaged in numerous conspiracies around the world and always using double-speak. For example, consider the popularity of a book in France (and Belgium no doubt ? wreckless must have a copy) shortly after 9/11 arguing that 9/11 was orchestrated and planned by the American government. In addition, a great proportion of hardcore anti-Americans no doubt also harbor anti-Semitic ideas or conspiracy theories.

But we do not speak in terms of “when we are all American”, even as America engages in nation-building around the world and exercises more power than any civilization in the history of the world. We recognize that America, while on the one hand an abstract entity and force for globalization and democratization and many other nations, is also a country with approximately 300 million people and a very proud and particularist sense of “American” traits.

And now we arrive at an apparent conundrum. How can a people be both particularist and universalist? By “particularist”, I mean the idea that rules that apply to others do not apply to the particular group, and by “universalist” I mean the idea that true principles must hold for all people at all times. On closer inspection, there is no contradiction.

Those who see themselves as having a special role in the world, such as Jews or Americans, are inherently particularist and their “special role” is that of spreading universal principles. A people who discovers universal principles, adheres to them, and propagates them is by its very nature unique among peoples who do not share such a commitment. Thus, America was founded as a “city upon a hill” and Israel, a “beacon unto the nations”.

12

Good point about particular and universal morals. It’s months since i wrote my essays now, but i had to bone up on that. If i recall, universality is like ‘tolerance’ and particularism is discrimination due to ideological/whatever criteria.

Respect for bringing that up. If intelligent, open minded people start discussing things on here, i’ll find those articles and we can build on that.

13

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Good point about particular and universal morals. It’s months since i wrote my essays now, but i had to bone up on that. If i recall, universality is like ‘tolerance’ and particularism is discrimination due to ideological/whatever criteria.

Respect for bringing that up. If intelligent, open minded people start discussing things on here, i’ll find those articles and we can build on that.[/quote]

I would rather be shot in the back of the head than read your old term papaers.

Spare us. For the love of God - please spare us.

14

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

Asking someone who is harming you to politely desist will never result in them stopping harming you. To think so is the height of naivete.

That is an ssumption which is based upon a limited worldview, and romantic notions of ‘evil surrendering to goodness’ and shit.[/quote]

My experience has been that it’s the hopeless romantics who say that ‘violence is not the only answer’ and virtually 100% of the time they have never been in a situation where it is, nor can they fathom one.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.- George Orwell

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.- John Stuart Mill

15

I don’t doubt that man, careful what you wish for.

Just go to war in the mideast will you man? I’m unemployed and reading Thibaudeau articles all day, how come you have so much spare time, I thought you were a businessman?

File for bankruptcy, buy a wifebeater (won’t need teflon, you’re too MAN) and go out there and start some shit. Please.

I was just suggesting talking about a principle that a historian who probably knows far much more about this than you or i, had chosen to write an article about.

If you prefer fighting to intelligent analysis, i hope to see you on CNN, swamped by the people you irrationally hate so much, or scraped up off a UFC surface soon. Just don’t reply to my posts. You say a lot of nothing

16

That’s not me. I like reading, but live in the real world. I can fight above my weight, do any of you know me? No, just don’t be stupid. Because i’m not a shortsighted yankee patriot i’m a ‘hopeless romantic’? I know adrenaline, and that it is not fear. I know i can walk down the street. This is not related to my historical insight. I’m not 2D. Don’t chat nonsense.

Tell Berardi he’s a ‘romantic’ because he challenges the US state department’s recommended food pyramid.

I hope you will all stop trying to negate my opinions by personal insult and condescension sometime soon. A lot of words from you= nothing said.

Do you know about John Stuart Mill? Inherited Bentham’s ideas. Then had a mental breakdown at the age of 19. Is this a man who went to war? No. Also look at the period he was writing in. That’s like me quoting Marvell.

I agree with the Orwell quote. Why can you not be rough, and intelligent, and ethical? Do all rough men have to be unprincipled and victims of propaganda?

Also, the Orwell i know would not have supported violence for a neocolonial regime. People can find quotes from fiction to twist for any purpose.

People who went into Chinadoll’s ‘i love being american, having soldiers fight and die for our misguided interests’ thread and criticised the intended sentiment were told to leave. If you don’t have a mind that is open, leave. Go to another thread. Don’t criticise me because i have a foundation to my ideas and yours were on a fish and chips wrapper.

17

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
You say a lot of nothing[/quote]

Dude - you have no idea what a lot of nothing means until you read your posts. Your posts are the very definition of “a lot of nothing”.

The sad thing is you are convinced you are making intelligent contributions. IF you only knew…

18

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dude - you have no idea what a lot of nothing means until you read your posts. Your posts are the very definition of “a lot of nothing”.

The sad thing is you are convinced you are making intelligent contributions. IF you only knew…
[/quote]

Unfortunately Rainjack, the guy is so far out there he doesn’t even have the gonads to be a troll.

What a waste of space.

19

dannyrat-

I think it’s unfair that you’re being lumped in with Wreckless as he appears to be almost fanatically hate-filled. While I agree with very little you’ve said on this thread or the various others you’ve been posting on, I do believe you’re trying to be thoughtful about a very complex and upsetting situation. So I have a question I’d like you to try to answer:

If the current Israeli strategy is misguided (which does not seem to me a ridiculous opinion), what alternative stategy should they employ? Your answer should not, I think, include anything about the Balfour Declaration or the illegitimacy of the Zionist movement or about how the Jewish State should have been carved out of postwar Germany since it was the Germans who finally proved to the world that the Jews needed a state of their own.

So, given the current facts – that Israel exists and is not going anywhere, that the Palestinians exist and deserve a better standard of living as well as a government that cares more about improving its own people’s situation than sticking it to the Israelis, that virtually every governmant in the Arab and Muslim world co-opts the Palestinians’ suffering in order to distract their people from rising up against their authoritarian regimes, that Egypt, Syria and Jordan in particular have for decades tried to keep the pressure on Israel by refusing to allow many Palestinians to immigrate or otherwise integrate themselves into those societies, preferring to keep them in refugee camps where their suffering will be more visible and abject – given those things, which shouldn’t really be up for debate, what do you think Israel ought to be doing?

20

Bump for you danny. I hope you’ll answer.