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

angelica

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"

(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)

Justifying violence has no end, does it?

angelica

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"

(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)

sorry, but..? That's not sorry anymore than "war creates peace".

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

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"

(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)

come on now. you know she wont answer this question.

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

come on now. you know she wont answer this question.

Because it's stupid question.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Collin wrote:

Because it's stupid question.

why, because its never happened before? the only way its an invalid question is if its an impossible situation or a pacifist can admit violent force is ok in that situation.

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

why, because its never happened before? the only way its an invalid question is if its an impossible situation or a pacifist can admit violent force is ok in that situation.

Why? Good question. In fact, why is a very good question.

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.

Let's start with why someone is holding a gun to my child's head. There is a reason why someone would do such a thing. If we can understand what pushed him to such desparate methods, we might be able to dissuade him from going through with his actions.

But let's just for the sake of the argument assume it's a black and white situation. What I'd do first is try to talk him out of it, or ask him if I can take my child's place. If he doesn't agree and doesn't listen to reason, I would indeed resort to force. I wouldn't kill him, though. At least not deliberately, I'd try to take him down without killing him.

What I wouldn't do, however, is kill him, take his wallet and while slipping his money into my pockets looking for his address so I can go kill his wife and their children.

Because in war it isn't just the enemy that is targeted, but thousands of innocent people are targeted as well. But it's justified because the enemy was killing innocent people. Just like killing this guy's children, his wife and parents and his neighbour is justified because after all, he held a gun to your child's head.

I think it's a stupid question and a very weak analogy.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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"

(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)

Please don't EVER be a hostage negotiator.

Those poor people would all die...

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Collin wrote:

Why? Good question. In fact, why is a very good question.



Let's start with why someone is holding a gun to my child's head. There is a reason why someone would do such a thing. If we can understand what pushed him to such desparate methods, we might be able to dissuade him from going through with his actions.

But let's just for the sake of the argument assume it's a black and white situation. What I'd do first is try to talk him out of it, or ask him if I can take my child's place. If he doesn't agree and doesn't listen to reason, I would indeed resort to force. I wouldn't kill him, though. At least not deliberately, I'd try to take him down without killing him.

What I wouldn't do, however, is kill him, take his wallet and while slipping his money into my pockets looking for his address so I can go kill his wife and their children.

Because in war it isn't just the enemy that is targeted, but thousands of innocent people are targeted as well. But it's justified because the enemy was killing innocent people. Just like killing this guy's children, his wife and parents and his neighbour is justified because after all, he held a gun to your child's head.

I think it's a stupid question and a very weak analogy.

good. i probably wouldnt go out of my may to prevent his death (and probably put the kid in more danger), but other than that i mostly agree.

edited.

Collin

MrSmith wrote:

good. i probably wouldnt go out of my may to prevent his death (and probably put the kid in more danger), but other than that i mostly agree.

edited.

If you have a clear opportunity to stop him, you can probably do it without killing him.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

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"

(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)

come on now. you know she wont answer this question.

nice taunt.

Again, this "rationale" is an illusion. To imagine a nice clean ending, after I shoot the perpetrator...in the seeming "ideal" you or my2hands hold to is a logical fallacy, meant to justify the unjustifiable.

The one thing self-evident about this scenario is that there are numerous possibilities for any individual in such a situation and whatever one chooses in the spur of the moment will be based on all kinds of inner criteria that is unconscious. And that whatever one logically assumes they will do in such a situation is entirely different than what one would actually do in such a situation. Our behaviours are rarely logical. In actuality there are no pat, universal answers to this question. Being self-evident in the way my2hands used it is the opposite to that.


I actively create peace. And I'm a human and I err all the time, creating conflict rather than peace. When I do so, I maladapt rather than adapt. I learn the hard way like everyone else. The difference with you and I is that I am committed to resolving my inner maladaptation and conflicts. So while I don't justify maladaptation, I am not perfect.

Any situation of war, even though people cling to justifications for such, they really are acting based on unconscious issues and justifying their inner motivations. They will act based on unconscious criteria...it's the nature of the beast. And they will accept the consequences of doing so. I don't second guess what happens and how people respond. What I challenge is justifying wrongdoing after the fact when it's based on illusions.

my2hands

Collin wrote:

If you have a clear opportunity to stop him, you can probably do it without killing him.

right... liek setting up military blocks to protect villages and civilain centers...


peopel here always take an inch and make it a mile... i say military intervention and people jumop to the conclusion that i am talking about pre emptive war and mass bombings :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

right... liek setting up military blocks to protect villages and civilain centers...


peopel here always take an inch and make it a mile... i say military intervention and people jumop to the conclusion that i am talking about pre emptive war and mass bombings :rolleyes:

What about war? You've been supporting the first gulf war all throughout this thread and it most certainly contained mass bombings and indiscriminate death among civilians.

We could have overthrown their govt without needing to bomb the country like we did. And I don't like the sound of overthrowing govts either but it sure sounds a lot better than the death and destruction caused by war.

my2hands

angelica wrote:

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.

while you are "making peace" or working on your "problem solving abilites" they are burning down villages and murdering everything ion sight


sometimes it comes across as though you act like this is a fairy tale in a book or a television show? or that you can respond by "wanting peace" or "creating peace"? these situations are real, and continue to happen

you dont think the tutsi's didnt try to "make peace" in Rwanda? you think the monks are not trying to "make peace" in Burma? that didnt stop their non peaceful murderers from hacking them with machetes and raping their daughter


you talk as if everything is decided by youme and what is inside of you/me... you dont control the next person, you are not them, they are irrational and do not have the same beliefs as you... otherwise they wopuld not be murdering people based strictly on ethnic background

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What about war? You've been supporting the first gulf war all throughout this thread and it most certainly contained mass bombings and indiscriminate death among civilians.

We could have overthrown their govt without needing to bomb the country like we did. And I don't like the sound of overthrowing govts either but it sure sounds a lot better than the death and destruction caused by war.

i think we see the results of overthrowing a govenment... as colin powell said, you break it you own it


and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

i think we see the results of overthrowing a govenment... as colin powell said, you break it you own it


and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...

Well all of those things you claim to be so against are very much what the reality of war is all about. I don't see anything about it that can be described as an 'Excellent job'. To me, this line of thought you're using sounds exactly like the line coming from proponents of this current war when they say how we've accomplished so much such by removing evil Saddam from power, brought Iraq democracy and made the world safer. People will always come up with these same kinds of rationalizations to continue supporting these hideous acts of war.

Abookamongstthemany

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUXG6031oL4

Abookamongstthemany

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vZZcFYBdw-8&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VCGA9p2-jAo&feature=related

angelica

my2hands wrote:

while you are "making peace" or working on your "problem solving abilites" they are burning down villages and murdering everything ion sight


sometimes it comes across as though you act like this is a fairy tale in a book or a television show? or that you can respond by "wanting peace" or "creating peace"? these situations are real, and continue to happen

you dont think the tutsi's didnt try to "make peace" in Rwanda? you think the monks are not trying to "make peace" in Burma? that didnt stop their non peaceful murderers from hacking them with machetes and raping their daughter


you talk as if everything is decided by youme and what is inside of you/me... you dont control the next person, you are not them, they are irrational and do not have the same beliefs as you... otherwise they wopuld not be murdering people based strictly on ethnic background

When people understand how to create peace, they create peace. When people perpetuate war and pain, it's because it's the best they can fathom. They are not saving their best methods for a rainy day...the suffering they perpetuate is the best they know given the circumstances.

Which brings me back to the cycles that people are caught up in, and that are self-perpetuating.

edit: The above post is directed towards you, my2hands, and to those who justify the unjustifiable.

Collin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

my2hands wrote:

and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...

Well all of those things you claim to be so against are very much what the reality of war is all about. I don't see anything about it that can be described as an 'Excellent job'. To me, this line of thought your using sounds exactly like the line coming from proponents of this current war when they say how we've accomplished so much such as removing evil Saddam from power, brought Iraq democracy and made the world safer. People will always come up with these same kinds of rationalizations to continue supporting these hideaous acts of war.

Exactly. The overall big picture? What is that exactly? You take a war and you forget about all the atrocities that were committed? You forget how thousands of innocent people were slaughter, killed and maimed?

The overall big picture or the broader picture is these horrible crimes were committed in the name of bringing peace and people still justify them, forget them and actually call it an excellent job.

What is so excellent about the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Where are the people who committed these crimes? Are they being held accountable?

You can't just ignore the horrible things that happen in war and say you did an excellent job.

El_Kabong

Collin wrote:

Exactly. The overall big picture? What is that exactly? You take a war and you forget about all the atrocities that were committed? You forget how thousands of innocent people were slaughter, killed and maimed?

The overall big picture or the broader picture is these horrible crimes were committed in the name of bringing peace and people still justify them, forget them and actually call it an excellent job.

What is so excellent about the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Where are the people who committed these crimes? Are they being held accountable?

You can't just ignore the horrible things that happen in war and say you did an excellent job.

where are they?? many of the key ones are in this administration