Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

El_Kabong

MrSmith wrote:

thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

and MANY more suffer b/c of tyrants we prop up and still do...we give aid to a country that made the ballet illegal!! countries where their military has a lot of murder and rape charges against it (threatening women w/ us made and sold weapons)....i guess that's the capitalist pacifist approach

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..

When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:

Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.

You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.

Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.

El_Kabong

and my2hands and mr smith, you never answered, do you think the gulf war syndrome/ DU poisoning of our troops and the populace was handled excellently???

El_Kabong

angelica wrote:

When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:

Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.

You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.

Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.

and the situation could've been prevented w/o any bloodshed from anybody, but instead....we sat and did nothing....opportunistic

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..

What it sounds like you are saying is that:

1)given Abook's method is about creating peace and resolving conflict
2)she can only prevent suffering through causing suffering.

Considering you are justifying creating suffering for some people in order to "end" suffering for others, it sounds like what you are really saying is that Abook should choose the same ideology of your "group", "side" or what have you, insinuating that the suffering of one is more important than the suffering of another. If you really want to end suffering you will find there is only one way to act against it. Anything else is exchanging the suffering of one, for another, based on who you've decided is more "worthy" to live, or who fits more nicely within your ideology or the ideology of your country.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

she can do what she wants. its a free country and she isnt hurting me. she seems nice enough to me. But i would. i dont know how else one changes one's mind on anything except through taking in new information.

So is it fair that we ask you to take in new information and consider your own ethical foundation? Is it based on firm logic? Does the logic add up? Does the logic of taking a life to end suffering ( or to otherwise contribute to others doing so) in order to serve your own personal ideology or the ideology of your country still make sense to you? If so, please explain how it does.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:

Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.

You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.

Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.

"diplomatic ways" can be exausted! in most cases there is a time limit. when a threat becomes imminent, your options are severely limited and less than perfect. at some point one must act with whatever means he has available, including, in rare cases when it is worth it, violence. In certain situations, and because we are fallable beings who can't always be preventative, war can be the only logical means to solve a problem.

In one way or another every conflict in the history of man could have been averted through peaceful means if we knew exactly what to do to prevent it and had enough time to prevent it. In the real world we dont have that luxury. Hell, sometimes we do have that luxury and we fail to act early anyway, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act once we do realize whats happening just because we fucked up once already, even if the only way we can act isnt the best possible way.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

"diplomatic ways" can be exausted! in most cases there is a time limit. when a threat becomes imminent, your options are severely limited and less than perfect. at some point one must act with whatever means he has available, including, in rare cases when it is worth it, violence.

In one way or another every conflict in the history of man could have been averted through peaceful means if we knew exactly what to do to prevent it and had enough time to prevent it. In the real world we dont have that luxury. Hell, sometimes we do have that luxury and we fail to act early anyway, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act once we do realize whats happening just because we fucked up once already, even if the only way we can act isnt the best possible act.

Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?

Do you understand what creating peace is? Do you understand what resolving problems is?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

El_Kabong wrote:

and MANY more suffer b/c of tyrants we prop up and still do...we give aid to a country that made the ballet illegal!! countries where their military has a lot of murder and rape charges against it (threatening women w/ us made and sold weapons)....i guess that's the capitalist pacifist approach

we shouldnt do that. whats this got to do with the price of tea in CHina? were we propping up Saddam when we demanded Saddam leave Kuwait?

El_Kabong wrote:

and my2hands and mr smith, you never answered, do you think the gulf war syndrome/ DU poisoning of our troops and the populace was handled excellently???

not particularly no.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?

Do you understand what creating peace is? Do you understand what resolving problems is?

you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.

I'll ask again: Do you understand what creating peace and solving problems is? Do you understand how that's the ultimate power in all these situations?

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

angelica wrote:

Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?

you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.

What I see is that when you are violent and killing and creating suffering for your ideology, you are being what you suggest others should act against. Therefore your suggestions hold no power for others, and you undermine your own argument. Plain and simple.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

What I see is that when you are violent and killing and creating suffering for your ideology, you are being what you suggest others should act against. Therefore your suggestions hold no power for others, and you undermine your own argument. Plain and simple.

the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.

my only idealogy is that life and liberty are sacred. Liberty slightly more than life.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

I'll ask again: Do you understand what creating peace and solving problems is? Do you understand how that's the ultimate power in all these situations?

enlighten me.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

eh i'll read your reply later, but if you dont accept that, through, human fallability and time constraints, violence can become the only option to prevent suffering of innocents, we are at an impasse.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.

my only idealogy is that life and liberty are sacred. Liberty slightly more than life.

Again, your logic doesn't add up. You've made it clear that life and liberty are only sacred for some people, and that you give yourself permission to make other people expendable.

Giving yourself the power to make the distinction is purely ego. That's far from sacred.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

enlighten me.

Isn't creating peace and solving problems your supposed goal?

El_Kabong

MrSmith wrote:

we shouldnt do that. whats this got to do with the price of tea in CHina? were we propping up Saddam when we demanded Saddam leave Kuwait?

not particularly no.

you said "the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible", that's what it has to do w/ the price of tea in china

we were helping prop him up until he went into kuwait, while he was putting troops on the kuwait border

the point you 2 seem to be missing is it's not like it was some big secret saddam was gonna invade kuwait, we knew it, congress knew it....and we did nothing. as you said we failed to act to prevent suffering. we could've easily have defused the situation or at least TRIED. but, instead, we sat back and waited for him to invade and THEN acted. it was a win-win situation for us. bigger defense budget compared to what congress passed earlier in the year, it allowed us to put bases in kuwait....

Collin

my2hands wrote:

a neccesary evil in this case... no one likes war, no one embraces it, definitely not me by any stretch... but on occasion a time does arise that some wicked things have to be dealt with, usually with wicked force and the horros of war...

as far as the road of death thing. tragic beyond beleief. however, when you hop into a tank and cross into another country aggressively and without provocation, you understand that you could be killed and are risking your life. you are knowingly commiting an act of war which immediately puts your life at risk. tragic, yes... avoidable, yes... the horros of war, yes... so maybe the human race can learn as a whole from situations liek that over the years and in the coming years to move beyond war and move towards a more peaceful time. but until that happens there will be occasional threats that will have ti be dealt with BY THE WORLD

As long as people like you justify wars and believe that slaughtering people, innocent or not, is necessary there won't be a peaceful time.

Collin

my2hands wrote:

a burlgar comes into my home, he gets shot. i hate guns, i hate violence, but when a bad guy threatens me or my family i will not hesitate to use force. perhaps you would invite him to join you in a yoga session?

Yes, but you don't just kill him. You kill him and his little children, his brother and his parents too. That's the reality of war and you support it and say it's justified and even necessary. And you can hide behind those excuses but we all know that killing innocent people is never right.

I don't know it's seems a bit contradictory to say you hate violence while you support the deliberate slaughter of innocent people.