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

Collin

my2hands wrote:

i am willing to stand up for the little guy... i am willing to help protect the defensless... you are not, and thats your choice.

By killing them?

Collin

my2hands wrote:

i can back my shit up with 99% of the historians on the planet.

You can't just make up numbers, you know.

my2hands

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???

no

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

i didn't see anyone answer this question, but if an ally were amassing troops on the border of israel do ya think we'd just sit be and do nothing or do something, like talk to them and tell them we'd have to react if they invaded?

that has happened several times in the past and america has not stepped in... israel has fought many of her own wars... with us picking up the tab, but not boots on the ground

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.

Do you realize that when you kill, even when you tell yourself you are only "transferring it back to the person who created it ... " what you are actually doing is creating killing, yourself?

You create killing that did not exist except for your willful intent to kill. In your effort to "end suffering", you create killing, and in your effort to prevent suffering for those who are innocent you create suffering for others who are innocent.

This is clearly nonsensical, which is why I say such "reasons" and "rationales" are illusions. You are advocating killing based on an illusory mindset for creating peace that is absolutely ineffective because it creates war and death instead. Sure, you might eventually create peace, after you are responsible for killing and creating suffering for innocent people. You can tell yourself you're "transferring" something rather than killing people and creating war. It doesn't make it true, and you are still responsible for the consquences of the death, killing, horror and suffering you perpetuate. I am not talking about some future cycle. I am talking about exactly when you create death, that you are responsible for that death you create. And when you create mindsets that support creating death, you are also responsible for doing so. Not in the future, but now.

You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.

As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.

Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.

You suggest that we consider changing our view when faced with reality. When faced with the reality that to end suffering, you advocate creating suffering, and when faced with the nonsensical nature of this view, do you plan to change it in order to be realistic? Or will you continue to minimize the suffering you stand for to justify your illusory ideology?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

Do you realize that when you kill, even when you tell yourself you are only "transferring it back to the person who created it ... " what you are actually doing is creating killing, yourself?

You create killing that did not exist except for your willful intent to kill. In your effort to "end suffering", you create killing, and in your effort to prevent suffering for those who are innocent you create suffering for others who are innocent.

This is clearly nonsensical, which is why I say such "reasons" and "rationales" are illusions. You are advocating killing based on an illusory mindset for creating peace that is absolutely ineffective because it creates war and death instead. Sure, you might eventually create peace, after you are responsible for killing and creating suffering for innocent people. You can tell yourself you're "transferring" something rather than killing people and creating war. It doesn't make it true, and you are still responsible for the consquences of the death, killing, horror and suffering you perpetuate. I am not talking about some future cycle. I am talking about exactly when you create death, that you are responsible for that death you create. And when you create mindsets that support creating death, you are also responsible for doing so. Not in the future, but now.

You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.

As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.

Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.

You suggest that we consider changing our view when faced with reality. When faced with the reality that to end suffering, you advocate creating suffering, and when faced with the nonsensical nature of this view, do you plan to change it in order to be realistic? Or will you continue to minimize the suffering you stand for to justify your illusory ideology?

you act like your spouting off some divine law. its just your opinion. Where are you getting this? Who says i am creating suffering? I say i'm ending suffering (its simple math, see my second to last post)). what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

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.

you give permission for the aggresor to kill indiscrimiinately through your NON ACTION. We all have to make decisions based on what we think to be true (its not ego). Are you any different? Just because you refuse to make a distinction between good and evil adn REFUSE TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE THAT MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE, that doesnt let you aff the hook. YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE GUY PULLING THE TRIGGER! you make people expendable through your refusal to admit you are part of this big ball of humanity we call Earth.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

you act like your spouting off some divine law. its just your opinion. Where are you getting this? Who says i am creating suffering? I say i'm ending suffering (its simple math). what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic

Your ideology here as you write it, is telling us that killing people (war) is valid in order to achieve the peace you claim you want. Killing creates suffering. You are advocating, right here in this thread, creating that killing/suffering. Therefore exactly that--the killing you justify, and the suffering you justify is on your hands when you back it. The theory you hold that attempts to justify doing so is certainly your own. You have revealed this inner conflict for all to see and you are living the consquences for holding that idea.

It's self-evident.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

El_Kabong wrote:

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....

i believe we knew he MAY invade Kuwait, but even granting what we knew, and granting that we failed to act, what should we have done once he invaded? as i said before, after the invasion we went through all the proper channels of diplomacy to work it out peacefully. the war still could have been averted! We even gave him months to leave. Regardless of our past dealing with him, There was no doubt that we were not his ally after the invasion. You cant say that we didnt try to resolve this peacefully even after the invasion. yet Saddam refused to budge. so what should we do then?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

Your ideology here as you write it, is telling us that killing people (war) is valid in order to achieve the peace you claim you want. Killing creates suffering. You are advocating, right here in this thread, creating that killing/suffering. Therefore exactly that--the killing you justify, and the suffering you justify is on your hands when you back it. The theory you hold that attempts to justify doing so is certainly your own. You have revealed this inner conflict for all to see and you are living the consquences for holding that idea.

It's self-evident.

i accept responsibility for resorting to violence in RARE situations that warrant it. i have no inner conflict. my conscience is clear.

You refuse to admit that passivity can be the same as aiding and abetting violence, and not only that, but by refusing to interfere, you are indeed responsible for continuing death and suffering that results.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

you give permission for the aggresor to kill indiscrimiinately through your NON ACTION.

This is flawed logic. I am never responsible for the actions of another and what they create. I am responsible for my own actions and what I create.

We all have to make decisions based on what we think to be true (its not ego). Are you any different? Just because you refuse to make a distinction between good and evil adn REFUSE TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE THAT MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE, that doesnt let you aff the hook. YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE GUY PULLING THE TRIGGER! you make people expendable through your refusal to admit you are part of this big ball of humanity we call Earth.

I see good and evil all over the place. What I refuse to do is justify being evil myself. I make these difficult decisions in each day, including merely posting here!

You are correct, we all make these decisions all the time. And we all must own our accountability for when we choose good or evil, in each moment.

The problem comes in when people accept mindsets for themselves that hide from their own selves their own evil deeds. That's fine by me, because they are accountable, anyway, and will pay largely. They just don't recognize it. America, for example, continues to hide it's eyes of the accountability of rampant ongoing aggression. The natural consequences play out, independent of what you or I think about them.

The blood is not on my hands, nor on the hands of Americans who create peace and problem resolution.

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

you give permission for the aggresor to kill indiscrimiinately through your NON ACTION. We all have to make decisions based on what we think to be true (its not ego). Are you any different? Just because you refuse to make a distinction between good and evil adn REFUSE TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE THAT MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE, that doesnt let you aff the hook. YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE GUY PULLING THE TRIGGER! you make people expendable through your refusal to admit you are part of this big ball of humanity we call Earth.

I can't speak for Angelica, but this is how I feel about it. First of all, no, I'm not giving anyone permission to kill. Secondly, I'm not refusing to make a distinction between good and evil, I think killing people, making people suffer, bombing people... cannot be good no matter what the goal might be. And I'm certainly not as responsible as the guy who pulls the trigger, to quote you: "what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic"

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

i accept responsibility for resorting to violence in RARE situations that warrant it. i have no inner conflict. my conscience is clear.

You refuse to admit that passivity can be the same as aiding and abetting violence, and not only that, but by refusing to interfere, you are indeed responsible for continuing death and suffering that results.

Pacifism is not the same as non-action. It certainly isn't the same as aiding or abetting violence.

Have you ever heard about diplomacy and non-violent resistance?

Also, you accuse people who remain peaceful in their actions of continuing death and suffering. That's a bold statement for someone who supports more direct death and suffering.

The only way your conscience can be clear is if you've got your eyes closed. Or you have a total disregard for human life. It's the main problem with society today and it is this attitude that the anti-war people want to change. Every war has caused the death of thousands of innocent people and people continue justifying these wars in the name of peace, to end suffering and death. Innocent people are knowingly and deliberately slaughtered, murdered, bombed and maimed... this as a way to end suffering. People like you justify these actions, justify murder and somehow twist it so completely that it almost seems a noble cause. If anyone who justifies these wars really took responsibility they'd be in jail right now.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

i accept responsibility for resorting to violence in RARE situations that warrant it. i have no inner conflict. my conscience is clear.

You refuse to admit that passivity can be the same as aiding and abetting violence, and not only that, but by refusing to interfere, you are indeed responsible for continuing death and suffering that results.

dude, I'm a very assertive person. You confuse the potency of creating peace with standing by and doing nothing.

This is the logical hierarchy for dealing with evil:

1)Do what it takes to solve the problem and create peace where "evil" is.

2)If unable to create peace and solve problems, work on one's problem solving abilities, and ability to create peace. This may entail bringing in resources for creating peace. This is working on the underlying dynamics of creating peace and thereby part of the process of creating peace. This is an active and potent process that leads to problems solving solving and the creation of peace. This is how evolution works...by adapting to what is at hand that is challenging.

3)at no time can I justify using violence to create peace. Because it creates violence and not peace. Therefore it's not a valid option for creating peace and not only is it not doing anything to create peace, it is actually doing worse than being neutral...it creates what one opposes.

angelica

Collin wrote:

Have you ever heard about diplomacy and non-violent resistance?

Not only that, but in actual problem resolution, the problems resolve...that means they disappear!!

If the problems are not disappearing, it means resolution has not yet been found!

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Collin wrote:

I can't speak for Angelica, but this is how I feel about it. First of all, no, I'm not giving anyone permission to kill. Secondly, I'm not refusing to make a distinction between good and evil, I think killing people, making people suffer, bombing people... cannot be good no matter what the goal might be. And I'm certainly not as responsible as the guy who pulls the trigger, to quote you: "what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic"

you are indeed responsible if you have the ability to stop it and dont, just as we are all partly responsible for the deaths in Darfur because of our refusal to act (so maybe not AS responsible, but we do share the blame through inaction). as to the above quote, i generally have provided examples of how force can be used to end suffering, she simply says i am creating violence and suffering as if she were quoting scripture.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

pacifism is the same as nonaction in the rare circumstance that violence is the only concievable option left to prevent the suffering of the innocent (when action of the aggressor is imminent .)

one should be pacifist 99.9% of the time (to put a number on it), but the other tiny percent of the time, one should resort to force, and to cling to passifism is IMMORAL in that cirumstance.

my2hands

angelica wrote:

Your ideology here as you write it, is telling us that killing people (war) is valid in order to achieve the peace you claim you want. Killing creates suffering. You are advocating, right here in this thread, creating that killing/suffering. Therefore exactly that--the killing you justify, and the suffering you justify is on your hands when you back it. The theory you hold that attempts to justify doing so is certainly your own. You have revealed this inner conflict for all to see and you are living the consquences for holding that idea.

It's self-evident.

someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.

what do you do? the answer is "self evident"

(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)

Collin

my2hands wrote:

someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.

what do you do? the answer is "self evident"

That is a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

one should be pacifist 99.9% of the time (to put a number on it), but the other tiny percent of the time, one should resort to force, and to cling to passifism is IMMORAL in that cirumstance.

I agree with this, but not with your last statement. It is not immoral, not even then.