Under a Obama administration, it seems according to obama himself, he "will continue the war on terror with vigor", and will take troops from Iraq and move them to Afghanistan.
As an antiwar person, this deeply troubles me and suggests what I always pointed out, Obama and mccain werent all that different. Both were going to be starting wars.
How is a Obama war any less illegal or immoral than a Bush one?
If you were a soldier in Iraq, and had come home and gone back to iraq 4 or 5 times, would you be happy or pissed off that obama, wants to bring you back home...and then send you to afghanistan.
I dont wish to demean our troops, and if it comes off this way it isnt meant this way, but lets face it, if the troops are stretched as thin as they are reported to be, and if the multiple reports of my above statements about multiple stop losses are true, are these troops even effective? They have done their duty, but to call them back up, AGAIN seems absurd.
One thing must be made clear to obama the second he takes office. He needs to pull troops from Iraq and afghanistan and not start any war with iran. And I think there will be hell to pay if these demands arent met
All pipe dreams.....I predict we will step up operations in the Horn of Africa and a air strike or two in Iran as well. I don't know what people thought what change he was going to bring? Its not as simple as people want to lable it.
The stand ' "war is never the answer" is absolutist' is absolutist...
I understand what "war is never the answer" means quite well, but I honestly have no idea what you mean here. The stance means that war is NEVER a solution in any situation is by definition absolute, since it maintains that there is no circumstance that could change that situation. And that's fine, but it is absolute.
without a decidely bloody and hard fought war we would be singing hail to the queen.nothing against england mind you.war sucks and to denegrate or criticize our pres-elect BEFORE he's made any decision or taken any action is , in my opinion, wrong.And not all humans HAVE the priveledge.That IS something that can be taken away.
If we have the physical ability to question, we have the privilege of choosing to do so. Always. It stems from life or nature, herself.
If someone comes along and tries to take away that right, they go against natural evolution, and life, and they wield inauthentic power.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If we have the physical ability to question, we have the privilege of choosing to do so. Always. It stems from life or nature, herself.
If someone comes along and tries to take away that right, they go against natural evolution, and life, and they wield inauthentic power.
there are very few animals ,humans included, that are totally autonomous.
we see very REAL power over another in the "animal" kingdom.Given BY nature.
Humans by nature need to be with others of their species.And in being together we give up or have taken from us these"priviledges".sometimes by choice , sometimes not.
Does a slave choose to be a slave?No. It is something forced on them by a power that is naturally given. The strong will always take advantage of the weak.Again , human nature.whether a person acts on this power is the choice.
All this is something that I can see we will have to agree to disagree
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I understand what "war is never the answer" means quite well, but I honestly have no idea what you mean here. The stance means that war is NEVER a solution in any situation is by definition absolute, since it maintains that there is no circumstance that could change that situation. And that's fine, but it is absolute.
You view the stand that "war is never the answer" in one way. Interestingly, it is your interpretation that sees absolute-ness. (and comes off as absolute in your one-minded interpretation)
I view the statement in an entirely different manner.
About 20 years ago, after holding a knife on the father of my child while in a drunken stupor, I decided violence was never the answer and decided to believe wholeheartedly in that principle and mold my life around it.
So...going from being a violent person to one who knows how to solve her problems did not happen overnight. How many times did I use violence after my commitment to the idea that violence was not the answer? Many. And each time I failed my own principles, I owned the consequences. I faced my own inner lack, and endeavored all the more to prevent future violence from myself.
The idea of giving ourselves license to kill people, or judging it "just" to kill innocents" is as egoic as it gets. Not to mention ego-centred. And the costs are BIG. Evolutionarily speaking. Live and Learn. If we want to go agaisnt life, we'll pay the price, no matter how we justify it or judge it in our own best interests.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
there are very few animals ,humans included, that are totally autonomous.
we see very REAL power over another in the "animal" kingdom.Given BY nature.
Humans by nature need to be with others of their species.And in being together we give up or have taken from us these"priviledges".sometimes by choice , sometimes not.
Does a slave choose to be a slave?No. It is something forced on them by a power that is naturally given. The strong will always take advantage of the weak.Again , human nature.whether a person acts on this power is the choice.
All this is something that I can see we will have to agree to disagree
Oh, when I said people always have the privilege of questioning, I didn't say there are not consequences for doing so. Life is about choosing, based on the variables. Choosing not to use your privilege of questioning can be very empowering given some variables before you. It is very different than not having that privilege. We'd have to be very ego-centred and think the world revolved around us to assume the universe and everyone in it did our bidding, or to imagine that we are so special that we are absolved of our life challenges. Such ideas sound like the man-made "laws" we come up with, and that are out of touch with the natural world.
So, ... again... no one grants us our birthright ability to question, except the universe, when it gives us the ability. Although I realize many people have been manipulated with the ideology that someone else has given you that privilege, especially when such an argument is represented in the subject of war......
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You view the stand that "war is never the answer" in one way. Interestingly, it is your interpretation that sees absolute-ness. (and comes off as absolute in your one-minded interpretation)
I view the statement in an entirely different manner.
About 20 years ago, after holding a knife on the father of my child while in a drunken stupor, I decided violence was never the answer and decided to believe wholeheartedly in that principle and mold my life around it.
So...going from being a violent person to one who knows how to solve her problems did not happen overnight. How many times did I use violence after my commitment to the idea that violence was not the answer? Many. And each time I failed my own principles, I owned the consequences. I faced my own inner lack, and endeavored all the more to prevent future violence from myself.
The idea of giving ourselves license to kill people, or judging it "just" to kill innocents" is as egoic as it gets. Not to mention ego-centred. And the costs are BIG. Evolutionarily speaking. Live and Learn. If we want to go agaisnt life, we'll pay the price, no matter how we justify it or judge it in our own best interests.
By your logic, then the statement "the stand that the stand that the stand that war is never the answer is absolutist" is equally correct. We can go on that merry-go-round over and over again, and come back to the same conclusion. The logic of 'war is never the answer' particularly as how radiohead33 explained it in his original post, is that war is never necessary, even though it may be a necessary evil. The circumstances and situations do not matter. It is always wrong to go to war. Always. That is absolute. I don't see what the rest of your explanation has to do with that statement. I appreciate the way you view it, but I think most people view the statement, "war is never the answer", as meaning just that.
I think it's difficult to compare a war to a singular act of violence, but let's do that. Is it 'just' to take one life if it saves a million? I don't know. Is it 'just' to go to war if it saves your country or your world? I think so. And I understand this is the reasoning behind torture, and I am against torture. I'm very contradictory; I'm also a human. At the risk of inflaming more people's opinions, I feel that sometimes the claim of being absolutely anti-war is a blessing bestowed upon those who have never had to be in that situation, who have never had their way of life in jeopardy. I've never been in that situation, and I pray to God I never would be put in the position where I'd have to make that choice. But I can envision situations where I would have to. I can envision myself as an American soldier in 1777 who needs to fight for my country to exist at all. I can envision myself as a British soldier in 1941 who's hometown was destroyed by air raids, and I need to fight to make sure that my country continues to exist. You and I and most others have never had to make such choices. How would you answer those choices? If you answer in the affirmative (that it was necessary to fight), then the blanket statement 'war is never the answer' is harder to maintain.
I would say this, angelica; I would ask you not call me a warmonger, and don't call me an egoist, simply because my worldview differs from yours. My family and circle of friends unfortunately know very well the cost of what it does to people.
By your logic, then the statement "the stand that the stand that the stand that war is never the answer is absolutist" is equally correct. We can go on that merry-go-round over and over again, and come back to the same conclusion. The logic of 'war is never the answer' particularly as how radiohead33 explained it in his original post, is that war is never necessary, even though it may be a necessary evil. The circumstances and situations do not matter. It is always wrong to go to war. Always. That is absolute. I don't see what the rest of your explanation has to do with that statement. I appreciate the way you view it, but I think most people view the statement, "war is never the answer", as meaning just that.
I think it's difficult to compare a war to a singular act of violence, but let's do that. Is it 'just' to take one life if it saves a million? I don't know. Is it 'just' to go to war if it saves your country or your world? I think so. And I understand this is the reasoning behind torture, and I am against torture. I'm very contradictory; I'm also a human. At the risk of inflaming more people's opinions, I feel that sometimes the claim of being absolutely anti-war is a blessing bestowed upon those who have never had to be in that situation, who have never had their way of life in jeopardy. I've never been in that situation, and I pray to God I never would be put in the position where I'd have to make that choice. But I can envision situations where I would have to. I can envision myself as an American soldier in 1777 who needs to fight for my country to exist at all. I can envision myself as a British soldier in 1941 who's hometown was destroyed by air raids, and I need to fight to make sure that my country continues to exist. You and I and most others have never had to make such choices. How would you answer those choices? If you answer in the affirmative (that it was necessary to fight), then the blanket statement 'war is never the answer' is harder to maintain.
I would say this, angelica; I would ask you not call me a warmonger, and don't call me an egoist, simply because my worldview differs from yours. My family and circle of friends unfortunately know very well the cost of what it does to people.
I totally accept that you have a very different view than I do. Many do. Many continue to justify war and killing.
If you assume the title of, relate to and/or internalize being a warmonger or egoist, there is not much I can do about that. I merely speak to the fact that someone is considered ego-centred when they are centred in their ego view. This is clearly represented when one sees their own position at the expense of another's view. Certainly killing someone for "just" reasons is doing just that. If one was beyond an egoic or ego-centred view, one would uphold themselves to solving problems, and one knows they are successful in problem-solving when they are able to do so before violence becomes necessary. Then we know one has gone beyond ego.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm at a bit of a loss on how to explain my thoughts on this subject. i'm all for chasing down the Taliban and eliminating them but thats not what is taking place. If it was, the coalition force would be up in the mountains away from any kind of densely populated areas chasing these people down in a straight up war for territory. Not the urban warfair that they seemed to be engaged in at the moment. At the same time they'd be buying up all the poppy harvests for phamaceutical purposes and taking away the Taliban income as well. I don't pretend to know the whole story but the tactics the coalition is employing there at this point in time don't seem to have any goals to aim at.
Comments
All pipe dreams.....I predict we will step up operations in the Horn of Africa and a air strike or two in Iran as well. I don't know what people thought what change he was going to bring? Its not as simple as people want to lable it.
To answer your question...I support it.
I understand what "war is never the answer" means quite well, but I honestly have no idea what you mean here. The stance means that war is NEVER a solution in any situation is by definition absolute, since it maintains that there is no circumstance that could change that situation. And that's fine, but it is absolute.
If someone comes along and tries to take away that right, they go against natural evolution, and life, and they wield inauthentic power.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
we see very REAL power over another in the "animal" kingdom.Given BY nature.
Humans by nature need to be with others of their species.And in being together we give up or have taken from us these"priviledges".sometimes by choice , sometimes not.
Does a slave choose to be a slave?No. It is something forced on them by a power that is naturally given. The strong will always take advantage of the weak.Again , human nature.whether a person acts on this power is the choice.
All this is something that I can see we will have to agree to disagree
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I view the statement in an entirely different manner.
About 20 years ago, after holding a knife on the father of my child while in a drunken stupor, I decided violence was never the answer and decided to believe wholeheartedly in that principle and mold my life around it.
So...going from being a violent person to one who knows how to solve her problems did not happen overnight. How many times did I use violence after my commitment to the idea that violence was not the answer? Many. And each time I failed my own principles, I owned the consequences. I faced my own inner lack, and endeavored all the more to prevent future violence from myself.
The idea of giving ourselves license to kill people, or judging it "just" to kill innocents" is as egoic as it gets. Not to mention ego-centred. And the costs are BIG. Evolutionarily speaking. Live and Learn. If we want to go agaisnt life, we'll pay the price, no matter how we justify it or judge it in our own best interests.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, ... again... no one grants us our birthright ability to question, except the universe, when it gives us the ability. Although I realize many people have been manipulated with the ideology that someone else has given you that privilege, especially when such an argument is represented in the subject of war......
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
By your logic, then the statement "the stand that the stand that the stand that war is never the answer is absolutist" is equally correct. We can go on that merry-go-round over and over again, and come back to the same conclusion. The logic of 'war is never the answer' particularly as how radiohead33 explained it in his original post, is that war is never necessary, even though it may be a necessary evil. The circumstances and situations do not matter. It is always wrong to go to war. Always. That is absolute. I don't see what the rest of your explanation has to do with that statement. I appreciate the way you view it, but I think most people view the statement, "war is never the answer", as meaning just that.
I think it's difficult to compare a war to a singular act of violence, but let's do that. Is it 'just' to take one life if it saves a million? I don't know. Is it 'just' to go to war if it saves your country or your world? I think so. And I understand this is the reasoning behind torture, and I am against torture. I'm very contradictory; I'm also a human. At the risk of inflaming more people's opinions, I feel that sometimes the claim of being absolutely anti-war is a blessing bestowed upon those who have never had to be in that situation, who have never had their way of life in jeopardy. I've never been in that situation, and I pray to God I never would be put in the position where I'd have to make that choice. But I can envision situations where I would have to. I can envision myself as an American soldier in 1777 who needs to fight for my country to exist at all. I can envision myself as a British soldier in 1941 who's hometown was destroyed by air raids, and I need to fight to make sure that my country continues to exist. You and I and most others have never had to make such choices. How would you answer those choices? If you answer in the affirmative (that it was necessary to fight), then the blanket statement 'war is never the answer' is harder to maintain.
I would say this, angelica; I would ask you not call me a warmonger, and don't call me an egoist, simply because my worldview differs from yours. My family and circle of friends unfortunately know very well the cost of what it does to people.
If you assume the title of, relate to and/or internalize being a warmonger or egoist, there is not much I can do about that. I merely speak to the fact that someone is considered ego-centred when they are centred in their ego view. This is clearly represented when one sees their own position at the expense of another's view. Certainly killing someone for "just" reasons is doing just that. If one was beyond an egoic or ego-centred view, one would uphold themselves to solving problems, and one knows they are successful in problem-solving when they are able to do so before violence becomes necessary. Then we know one has gone beyond ego.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!