Sometimes non-action is more heinous and deplorable then taking action

El_Kabong wrote:

certainly not murdering their civillians, devastating their homeland, poisoning their land....and certainly not support them w/ aid or businesses

oh, and NOT selling the thug/dictators/crazy ppl guns would be a reeeeaaaally good step in the right direction

my2hands wrote:

or perhaops you dont give a shit because they are africans?


if 1 milliom mexicans were being slaughtered in california bases strictly on their ethnicity what do you propose should be done? it would HAVE to be stopped, right? you would want law enforcement to step into to stop it right? the guys wiot hthe guns right? and if they could not stop it or were overwhelmed by force and could not handle the threat, what do you propose then? hold up signs and "pressure" them? of course you do not murder them all in a "killing spree" (why do people on here deal with such absolutes constantly?) but you do what is needed to stop the killing and protect the innocents and the people

yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:

so are you gonna define military intervention? what would be acceptable? what wouldn't?

Drowned Out wrote:

This in an unfair analogy. Are you suggesting that the immediacy of the situation you're describing is akin to any of the atrocities you've mentioned? Do these atrocities happen overnight, with no foreknowledge of rising tensions or conditions that preceed the violence? If the hero in your fable knew the woman was in danger well in advance and failed to do anything to stop the attack peacefully, but showed up just in time to crack some skulls, is he still a hero?

I agree with the thread title, but not the premise that these atrocities were unavoidable, and military action was/is the only answer.

The Bosnian and Rwandan situations were reaching critical mass while the world focused on bombing the shit out of Iraq the first time. Darfur was the Gulf War II equivalent. Imagine if, in the early days leading up to those genocides, the effort and resources being used to wage war had been used toward a diplomatic solution to those situations? The same can be said about almost any war...it's a cycle that won't be broken until we stop being reactive and get proactive. Reaction seems to be the theme with some here.

You've illustrated some key points given the topic of this thread. When people are perpetuating the cycles of war, they are reactive. They don't seem to understand what being proactive is.

They are making their decisions based on the past and based on their conditioning and ideologies rather than being awake to the wealth of possibilities in the situation before them in the now. Due to their preconceptions, they cloud making actual responses to the real situation and instead react based on cycles from the past.

And people don't realize that problem solving and resolution happens long before the situation comes to a head. As a matter of fact, in situations where peace is being created, the situation often doesn't come to a head because solutions and resolution to conflict are found long before the situation reaches a crisis.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

In all fairness to M2H... I suppose the question should be how do you enable another nation of people to stand up for themselves against oppression?

edit:: oops ...Peacefully that is.

This is exactly it. When you are looking to solve the problem, and when you recognize that overt force and power is destructive and perpetuates the problem, you look for ways to RESOLVE the problem. And you've written this in a way that solutions will stem from your question.

my2hands, albeit well intended, was not able to generate healthy solutions due to being reactive, and lacking focus on resolution.

angelica wrote:

Of course there will always be people looking to take control. For example, the US who continues to justify imposing it's ways on others worldwide.

I don't think anyone rules out necessary force in terms of self-defense. At the least, anyone can understand that, even if they would not advocate for it themselves.

The problem comes in when we try to "rescue" others, and claim there are no other solutions. It's an imbalanced action and creates imbalanced consequences. There are a whole bunch of natural laws we violate. And, for example, we show ignorance of nature and principles such as base evolution. We're so out of touch with natural law, and so egotistically sure of our man-made laws that we continue to act out our conditioning, rather than learn to discern information in the present. When we have a vast majority of people coming from this place, the consequences continue to be skewed.

I'm well aware this goes on in the world. To act from a place of high principles with logic in ways that are resolution based, and that do not perpetuate the problem, one is being realistic and coming from a place of awareness and integrity.

following an evolutionary survival of the fittest concept (to the extreme) we shouldn't help people at all b/c that is nature weeding out the weak and eliminating undesirable traits necessary for survival.

angelica wrote:

That's an interpretation of natural law. And a shallow, ignorant one at that (which I'm not attributing to you, but to the going general mindset). Again, our manmade "ideas" of what nature is about is different than nature, herself.

When we can get past our ideas which are based on conditioning, and learn to experience life based directly on our senses (beyond interpretations), then we become aware of what is before us.

Since the vast majority in north america has been trained to be "objective", they are detached of the intelligence around us. We've been trained away from acute awareness in our environment, and to instead buy into ideologies. Therefore people don't know how to live each moment fully, aware of the possibilities and of the information we are given. That is the nature and evolution I refer to. Becoming aware of the intelligence we are immersed within and one with, I learned to solve all kinds of problems that people do not in general believe is possible.

i would think that it's impossible to base life on senses beyond interpretations...not to go all ahnimus on you but senses are just that, interpretations of stimuli and the degree of stimulation is subjective. I agree that we have been trained to be objective and not think globally, but that's not always a bad thing. I agree that we need to be in tune with nature and we need to be respectful of it and everyone that makes up nature; however, the question remains...how do you take someone from such an extreme view (i.e. might is right) to a view totally contrary to their present world view? Again, the idea and thoughts are very powerful, but I don't think that we'll ever get to a point where that [the philosophy you present] will be universal. I do have prob a slightly more pessimistic / cynical view of humanity and I dare say people like you will always be the (pleasant) exception to the general rule.

JD Sal wrote:

Did you NOT read what I typed there? So let me get this straight, if someone walks into your local mall and starts shooting, then you're going to go stop them yourself? Or would you call the police for assistance?

When innocent people are being murdered, does that mean everyone should just stand by and let it happen? Do you not understand my analogy? Geesh.

If you had a chance to stop the person from shooting more people would you not take it?

JD Sal wrote:

You, Abook, look outside your window and see a guy in the streets with a machine gun and he is killing innocent people on the street. Do you:

a) Hold up a sign and pressure him to stop the violence?

b) Go outside unarmed and try to stop him yourself

c) Call the police

Please ANSWER the question.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to answer your question with another question.

Do the police officers deliberately kill several innocent bystanders while they try and rescue the innocent bystanders?

If not, then I don't see how this is a good analogy.

JD Sal wrote:

Why do you keep answering questions with a question?

Are you guys really unable to comprehend a very simple analogy.

Let's try this one more time:

You, Abook, look outside your window and see a guy in the streets with a machine gun and he is killing innocent people on the street. Do you:

a) Hold up a sign and pressure him to stop the violence?

b) Go outside unarmed and try to stop him yourself

c) Call the police

Please ANSWER the question.

Because you're using an incorrect analogy to try to make a point.

You guys CAN join up and help fight these wars you believe need to be fought. You think wars can stop what you see as the problem. There is nothing getting in the way of you joining the war effort and helping to achieve the military goals you wish to see.

If I COULD stop the guy, I would. I wouldn't wait for someone else to do it when I could do it myself because he might kill someone in the meantime.

That's the difference.

Now answer my question. If you COULD stop the guy from killing more people, would you take that opportunity or would you sit there and call the police while he continues to kill more?

chopitdown wrote:

i would think that it's impossible to base life on senses beyond interpretations...not to go all ahnimus on you but senses are just that, interpretations of stimuli and the degree of stimulation is subjective. I agree that we have been trained to be objective and not think globally, but that's not always a bad thing. I agree that we need to be in tune with nature and we need to be respectful of it and everyone that makes up nature; however, the question remains...how do you take someone from such an extreme view (i.e. might is right) to a view totally contrary to their present world view? Again, the idea and thoughts are very powerful, but I don't think that we'll ever get to a point where that [the philosophy you present] will be universal. I do have prob a slightly more pessimistic / cynical view of humanity and I dare say people like you will always be the (pleasant) exception to the general rule.

Speaking of Ahnimus, he and I are email friends, and we've recently had some surprising meetings of our minds on our one-time fundamental differences.

If you think your thoughts act independent of your senses, you are inaccurate. Our thoughts are created based on our sensory awareness. It's merely one step further distorting what our senses already distort! The great thinkers, what they advocate is insight and intuitive awareness as the key to getting beyond our subjective awareness. (one great thinker that immediately comes to mind is Einstein on that!)

Human developmental stages studied chart human evolution through varying phases. People are evolving.

Despite the ideals I speak of and to, I also very much realize the reality that exists all around me at all time. It reminds me of the saying "be in the world and not of it". I choose to respond based on ideals and from the potential to create a better way. That is how we truly create what we'd like to see, or create change. Many don't even understand their basic power to do so! And they perpetuate old cycles, again and again.

Ultimately, people from all developmental stages make mistakes, given we're all human, so I'm not talking about evolving into states of perfection. I merely advocate owning and learning from mistakes and not perpetuating them at great cost to ourselves!