Kucinich shows he is only candidate with brain

Drew263

angelica wrote:

See my last post in terms of Kucinich.

Do you pick fights with people who show goodwill and diplomacy towards you?

Let me answer with a question..b/c I'm truly just trying to understand your point of view here...in the case of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, what is the appropriate response?

See, I'm not sure the assumption that showing someone else goodwill and diplomacy can keep people or nations from doing something we don't expect. Not everyone is honest and decent. And many take advantage of situations like that, whether it's individually or at a large scale.

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

Therefore it's much too high a cost to create and breed distortion and catastrophe where it does not exist. I'm commited to creating constructively and beautifully, in honour of God.

But there have been instances in history where said catastrophe really DID exist. Furthermore, it cannot be counted on that there will never again be a time or instance where similar castastrophe exists. Ignoring it, again, is not visionary, it is irreponsible and naive.
i, too, am VERY commited to "creating constructively and beautifully, in honor of God". Not to the point where i suggest sitting on hands while races of men are enslaved and or exterminated.

polaris

cornnifer wrote:

Since ww2?! Are you kidding me with this? That isn't even the point. The point is that there have been instances when it has been necessary, and there may be instances (i truly hope not) where it is necessary again. Where it is indeed foolish to rush or head into wrecklessly and without reason, it would also be foolish to completely rule out in certain instances.

i'm not kidding ... is it not possible that geo-politically speaking we've moved beyond the age of war as a solution?

why get hung up on a hypothetical that doesn't exist today? ... if there is no need for war at this moment - why focus on the need for one on the future?

Drew263

cornnifer wrote:

But there have been instances in history where said catastrophe really DID exist. Furthermore, it cannot be counted on that there will never again be a time or instance where similar castastrophe exists. Ignoring it, again, is not visionary, it is irreponsible and naive.
i, too, am VERY commited to "creating constructively and beautifully, in honor of God". Not to the point where i suggest sitting on hands while races of men are enslaved and or exterminated.

Well said....it disturbs me when people talk of diplomacy in regards to situations such as Hitler wanting to rid the world of Jews.

You cannot negotiate, be diplomatic, and show good will toward every human being and expect a similar response 100% of the time. It's a start, but it's not reality.

cornnifer

polaris wrote:

i'm not kidding ... is it not possible that geo-politically speaking we've moved beyond the age of war as a solution?

why get hung up on a hypothetical that doesn't exist today? ... if there is no need for war at this moment - why focus on the need for one on the future?

i don't know that its possible but i certainly hope so.

i don't focus on the need for war. My only real point is that some here point to Kucinich asd the only "peaceful" candidate and my concern is that he is either dishonest or dangerously naive. It is also ridiculous to point to another candidates preparedness, as war mongering.

angelica

Drew263 wrote:

Let me answer with a question..b/c I'm truly just trying to understand your point of view here...in the case of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, what is the appropriate response?

The appropriate response is obviously what happened, because it happened. No other response would work, because no other response was used. Each variable that went into the creation of that situation was what it was, and created the outcome.

Right now, I am happy to deal with the situation before me. If you are trying to get me to talk about Pearl Harbor in the present, I won't because those exact same variables are not present, nor will they ever again be present exactly as they were, so it's a moot point for me. I don't create catastophe in the now. I am aware of the responsibility for what I think, say and do.

History is a tool that can teach us things. When we let the past dictate what we are doing now, we are not living, and we are not engaged with the variables in the here and now that is reality.

See, I'm not sure the assumption that showing someone else goodwill and diplomacy can keep people or nations from doing something we don't expect. Not everyone is honest and decent. And many take advantage of situations like that, whether it's individually or at a large scale.

That is your own conflict. I'm sure you will deal with it as you feel is necessary.

Drew263

angelica wrote:

The appropriate response is obviously what happened, because it happened. No other response would work, because no other response was used. Each variable that went into the creation of that situation was what it was, and created the outcome.

Right now, I am happy to deal with the situation before me. If you are trying to get me to talk about Pearl Harbor in the present, I won't because those exact same variables are not present, nor will they ever again be present exactly as they were, so it's a moot point for me. I don't create catastophe in the now. I am aware of the responsibility for what I think, say and do.

History is a tool that can teach us things. When we let the past dictate what we are doing now, we are not living, and we are not engaged with the variables in the here and now that is reality.

That is your own conflict. I'm sure you will deal with it as you feel is necessary.

ok fair enough. thanks for answering.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

But there have been instances in history where said catastrophe really DID exist. Furthermore, it cannot be counted on that there will never again be a time or instance where similar castastrophe exists. Ignoring it, again, is not visionary, it is irreponsible and naive.
i, too, am VERY commited to "creating constructively and beautifully, in honor of God". Not to the point where i suggest sitting on hands while races of men are enslaved and or exterminated.

In the past, when the variables existed that created war and chaos, that was due to thoughts, words and deeds at that time that created those variables. At this time, my concern is with the potency of my power in the thoughts words and deeds we are using now to create our experiences. I am all for creating responsibly. I am all for recognizing my personal power right now. I've resolved my own need to create conflict and to project it onto the world right now. I believe a new way is called for.

It sounds like you are quite attached to upholding ideas that justify war. I accept that.

What I am saying, is that I am with Kucinich, and others who are ready to be consistent in thought, word and deed right here and now, and in every here and now hereafter, and to use that condensed and solid personal power to usher in a new period for us all. I also know there are many others who are doing so. It's not yet the "norm", but when I'm moving with natural evolutionary and pre-ordained principles, I don't have to concern myself with the outcome. I only need to be concerned with what I personally create.

angelica

Drew263 wrote:

ok fair enough. thanks for answering.

You are welcome, Drew.

polaris

cornnifer wrote:

i don't know that its possible but i certainly hope so.

i don't focus on the need for war. My only real point is that some here point to Kucinich asd the only "peaceful" candidate and my concern is that he is either dishonest or dangerously naive. It is also ridiculous to point to another candidates preparedness, as war mongering.

i don't think he is either ...

the reality of peace is that it comes with a high standard of existence ... peace is about how high a value you place on lives - if you are truly a pacifist then you must always believe that there are options other then peace ...

of course reality works a different way but not so much that you can't hold yourself to that level of existence ...

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

edit: or is that what all the civil war, and revolution were. "tangents"?

Historical happenings are very real. And I have great respect for reality and it's purposes.

Hypotheticals right now, based in imagination, and used to justify potential war are irrelevent tangents for me, because I am coming from a position of creating peace.

angelica

I would like to share this here, for those who would like to hear Dennis Kucinich's own words on war and assassination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lcg1xQJnow

"I'm talking about the end of war as an instrument of policy."

Regarding the Iraq war and how it was aggressive rather than defensive: "We have a right to defend ourselves but we have no right to engage in aggressive war."

"I believe peace is inevitable"

"I don't believe in the use of assassination as a policy."

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

I would like to share this here, for those who would like to hear Dennis Kucinich's own words on war and assassination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lcg1xQJnow

"I'm talking about the end of war as an instrument of policy."

Regarding the Iraq war and how it was aggressive rather than defensive: "We have a right to defend ourselves but we have no right to engage in aggressive war."

"I believe peace is inevitable"

"I don't believe in the use of assassination as a policy."

This question comes up often because people just aren't used to operating any other way so they see war as the only option in some cases. I believe there are always other solutions. Dennis sums it up better than I can in the quotes and youtube links I've posted.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This question comes up often because people just aren't used to operating any other way so they see war as the only option in some cases. I believe there are always other solutions. Dennis sums it up better than I can in the quotes and youtube links I've posted.

Yes, if people honestly want to understand Kucinich's stance on creating peace, they need to rely on his words alone. It's an easy and false way out to use the words of his supporters on a message board as reason to not support the man himself, or his views.

Indifference

[quote

"I believe peace is inevitable"

"quote]

Where does this fairy tale exist? At what point in human history has there been peace?

angelica

Indifference wrote:

[quote

"I believe peace is inevitable"

"quote]

Where does this fairy tale exist? At what point in human history has there been peace?

He's not talking about the past.

According to human developmental stages, the higher levels of human evolution are about cooperation and lack of infringement, which equals peace. We are all evolving towards such levels, even though it is a small percentage capable of this at this time.

Abookamongstthemany

Indifference wrote:

[quote

"I believe peace is inevitable"

"quote]

Where does this fairy tale exist? At what point in human history has there been peace?

As Angelica said, you need to focus on the 'is' part of the quote and notice how it would need to be 'was' if it was pretaining to history.

hippiemom

I wish there would have been a follow-up question:

"As it turns out, Osama was holed up in a neighborhood in Lincoln, Nebraska, and the innocent civilians you've just killed were Americans. Is everyone still sticking by their answer?"

It seems to me that we don't value the lives of innocents all that much when they're innocent foreigners, but when an innocent American dies it's the end of the world.

angelica

hippiemom wrote:

I wish there would have been a follow-up question:

"As it turns out, Osama was holed up in a neighborhood in Lincoln, Nebraska, and the innocent civilians you've just killed were Americans. Is everyone still sticking by their answer?"

It seems to me that we don't value the lives of innocents all that much when they're innocent foreigners, but when an innocent American dies it's the end of the world.

I get freaked out by the ease with which people think it's okay to take out innocent civilians. The cold way Hillary addressed that in the debate gave me the creeps--like it's the most natural thing in the world, killing innocent humans. It's just doing what needs to be done.

callen

Pursuing a peaceful strategy will always be more effective than an aggressive offensive one. The Iraq war is a perfect example of this. Assuming (yea I know) we had the sympathy of many Muslims immediately after 9/11 and pursued a policy of diplomatic and global pressure on Sadam there would be a heck of a lot more Muslims that would in some way see us not as murdering capitalists as they do now, but as a peaceful people. This hatred will last generations, furthering the bloodshed on both sides. Imagine how pissed off Osama would have been if we didn't retaliate......we played right into his hands. We recruited more members to his warped ideology than he would have ever been able recruit.